The Libya Deception

Overheal

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well lets See, Today in Zimbabwe


OK have a read through that,

but check outthe top line

I will - if i highlight a few are you able to follow me up with links or is that all just google news?

phosphate

Overheal wrote: »

I've already listened to one person today through willful ignorance believe that I personally support XYZ for ABC reason. I don't need to suffer another. I'm just telling you what I think the deal is. Then you fly off the handle and assume I'm a a Pro-War Zionist or something and start spewing the same lines I've heard for a decade now about karma this and world police that. You don't know me, but thank you for trying.

I don't know you personally, no.

But when you pretend to yourself that the actions of your government are understandable and will promote the US, you're wrong in my humble opinion.

Mahatma coat

Overheal wrote: »

I will - if i highlight a few are you able to follow me up with links or is that all just google news?

well, lets try it, that was just a single Google hit, but I think it does merit further discussion, what points interest you???

Overheal

15 hospitalised as ZPF youths & police disrupt MDC-T rally
Zimbabweans demonstrate in London against violence – 21st March 2010
Zimbabweans call for an end to human rights violations
Soldiers deployed in Matabeleland
Zimbabwe's ZANU-PF Denounces Allied Military Intervention in Libya
From the Editor's Desk: When is military intervention in a sovereign state justified?
MDC-T Rally Banned, Supporters Beaten By Police
Zanu PF resorts to terror tactics
ZAPU, MDC demand Gukurahundi exhumations
Discovered 280 remains not victims of Rhodesian war: MLF
Citizens Ready to Risk Lives to Vote in 2011, Says Freedom House Poll

Basically my working theory until someone who is familiar with the situation can help show me otherwise, is the reason we're an Libya and not Zimbabwe is I don't suspect that Zimbabwe is opening fire on it's own people and essentially going to war with them, slaughtering them by the hundred or thousands at the end of a rifle or tank barrel, or air strike (Not only that, but the Libyan government itself appears to be the aggressor, not the protestors-come-rebels).

when you pretend to yourself that the actions of your government are understandable and will promote the US, you're wrong in my humble opinion.

Alright, so in your opinion, what is the Libyan war about? You've spent a hot minute here telling me how wrong I am and hoping my country falls apart: which really isn't a discussion of the topic. Not that I came into the thread to discuss Libya a 3rd time, but rather to keep searching for the justification for military intervention in Zimbabwe as opposed to other measures such as economic sanctions.

phosphate

Amnesty international lists the 10 worst countries for women to live in and Afghanistan comes out top of the list with Iraq in 3rd position and these are countries occupied by the US.

There's also Sudan, Saudi Arabia (a great friend of US), The Congo, Somalia and Nepal..list here.

And what are the most repressive regimes on the planet? there's about 20 of them but you've probably only heard of a few.

Equatorial Guinea, China, Chad, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Burma...list includes Libya. but Burma is one of the worst places on earth for any human being. (however, it just happens to be great place for doing business also)

The Uzbek leader likes to boil his opponents alive and is great friend of Mr Obama, but the media would rather talk about Chavez (democratically elected) from Venezuela, another oil rich nation.

Most likely, some of those repressive regimes are on friendly terms with the US and European states. They're quite useful not only for the so-called "war on terror" but for being in control of natural resources like oil and gas.

Libya just happens to have 47 billion barrels of oil in reserves, the biggest in Africa.

This idea the US are saviours of Libyan people while 45 million americans are on foodstamps; it's really sickening to listen to.

And you may not accept this, but millions of Americans feel the same as I do.

Americans are constantly being told lies by their corrupt politicians.
They are the ones being told to accept austerity, like we seen in Wisconsin and Detroit, in California....all across america, people are suffering their plight.

Meanwhile, bankers are awarding themselves the biggest bonuses in history and the military budget is increasing....for what aims? not to benefit average Americans, that's clear.

Ex-Soldiers agree with me on a lot of the hypocrisy and crimes perpetrated by the rich and powerful, but there's a little clique of soldiers and americans who are just totally braindead zombies (probably on prescription drugs half the time) talking about killing "diaper heads" and "sand XXXXXXX" with immeasurble death and destruction left in their path.

But, believe whatever you want.
I'm not here to convince you, just share my own opinions.

I'm certainly not looking for approval from anyone.

Jeboa Safari

phosphate wrote: »

Libya just happens to have 47 billion barrels of oil in reserves, the biggest in Africa.

But Gadaffi was supplying oil to the west, and happy to do so. If the war was about oil, why would they put this at risk? They could have just let Gadaffi put down the rebellion, and normal service resume.

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

Amnesty international lists the 10 worst countries for women to live in and Afghanistan comes out top of the list with Iraq in 3rd position and these are countries occupied by the US.

There's also Sudan, Saudi Arabia (a great friend of US), The Congo, Somalia and Nepal..list here.

And what are the most repressive regimes on the planet? there's about 20 of them but you've probably only heard of a few.

Equatorial Guinea, China, Chad, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Burma...list includes Libya. but Burma is one of the worst places on earth for any human being. (however, it just happens to be great place for doing business also)

And of those examples which have an opposition in open rebellion who specifically asked for UN intervention?

Leaving little details like that out almost makes it seem like you're trying to over-simplify something...

Also for those who believe that HAARP is an earthquake machine/ weather machine. How come it wasn't used when the US is actually attacking someone?

phosphate

I don't have all the answers but I'm convinced energy is the main motivation for getting rid of Gaddafi.

Only in January this year were Venezuela, Iran and Libya calling for $100 a barrel...

Look at the price of oil right now, it's up over $100 a barrel and it's hurting economies in US and EU.

China are also consuming a lot more oil today than ever before which is contributing to the spike in price and is a concern for US/EU companies.

China is a huge country as you know and they can't get enough energy right now...they burned 1.6 billion metric tonnes of coal in 2010 and that's expected to increase year on year until they've completed their nuclear power stations.

China are constantly expanding into Africa and South America, taking away a lot of energy that was traditionally exported to the US and EU.

You'll notice Russia and China abstained from supporting the no-fly zone resolution but were highly critical when bombing started.

Both countries have many economic interests in that region so they might be worried about their own investments.

If you want to see how China operate in Africa and South America AND the negative impact they're having on american people, watch the BBC documentary, "The Chinese are Coming"

There's 2 episodes which gives you an idea of what EU and US are up against in terms of economic struggle..

Episode 1 (about Africa)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRxuukQ2RdY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnwWXvd99to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYcwX6u8iU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxI-fPhPgZw

Episode 2 (about Brazil and the impact of China on USA)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaL0LRIQr90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIO1fgko0Ok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPJZ2046i4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je89DgXBoJA

I highly recommend anyone here watches the episodes.
Each episode is about 1 hour long.

Jeboa Safari

China and Russias reaction was highly hypocritical I thought, they knew well what the no fly zone entailed, and could have vetoed it if they want. The west does face a significant economic battle with China, and if you think the US is bad, China will be alot worse. But if the main motivation was oil, it would have suited the west to keep Gadaffi in power, rather than risk their investments.

wee truck big driver

so terrorists are trying to overthrow the goverment in libya and the usa and friends are supporting the terrorists. you have to admire their new found concern for the libyian people considering they bambed them back in 86 killing thousands of them funny when there oil involved they are very concerned when the poor africannations are being wiped out by civil war and starvation they dont seem as concerned

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

You'll notice Russia and China abstained from supporting the no-fly zone resolution but were highly critical when bombing started.

Both countries have many economic interests in that region so they might be worried about their own investments.

As Jeboa already stated both Russia and China are on the security council. If either of them objected to the resolution, then the UN would have to reject the No-Fly zone. So if what you are saying is true, why didn't they stop the UN?

HavingCrack

wee truck big driver wrote: »

so terrorists are trying to overthrow the goverment in libya and the usa and friends are supporting the terrorists. you have to admire their new found concern for the libyian people considering they bambed them back in 86 killing thousands of them funny when there oil involved they are very concerned when the poor africannations are being wiped out by civil war and starvation they dont seem as concerned

How are the Libyan rebel's 'terrorists'

I don't know why people keep bringing up oil as the reason. If western states simply wanted oil they would have let Gadaffi put down the rebellion and normal service would resume. Gadaffi has only begun exporting oil to western nations in recent years since sanctions were lifted, why would they move against him? One other thing people are forgetting is that Libya exports very little oil to the United States. The vast majority of Libyan oil goes to European states such as France, the UK, Spain, Italy as well as Ireland (Libya is the source of most of our oil). Hence the French and British were the most gung ho about intervening while the US was extremely hesitant.

There's no conspiracy to gain oil here. Is it a bit of a PR exercise in the Arab and Muslim world? Possibly, I would imagine this is the most likely scenario to be honest, but a war for oil? I doubt it.

phosphate

Yes, Gaddafi was selling but he also refused to increase production to raise crude oil output which was keeping the price high.

"None of the OPEC members find $100 concerning or irrational. Some of the OPEC members see no need for an emergency meeting even with prices at $110 or $120," Mirkazemi, OPEC president for 2011, told a news conference.

Libyan official said in january:

"We think there is enough supply and there should not be any meeting at this point in time," Shokri Ghanem, chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation, told Reuters by phone

Iran has recently stated that $120 is "acceptable"

Oil production in Libya is now falling...which you may argue defeats the purpose of either lowering prices and getting Gaddafi out but perhaps it didn't go according to plan

HavingCrack

phosphate wrote: »

Yes, Gaddafi was selling but he also refused to increase production to raise crude oil output which was keeping the price high.

"None of the OPEC members find $100 concerning or irrational. Some of the OPEC members see no need for an emergency meeting even with prices at $110 or $120," Mirkazemi, OPEC president for 2011, told a news conference.

Libyan official said in january:

"We think there is enough supply and there should not be any meeting at this point in time," Shokri Ghanem, chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation, told Reuters by phone

Iran has recently stated that $120 is "acceptable"

Oil production in Libya is now falling...which you may argue defeats the purpose of either lowering prices and getting Gaddafi out but perhaps it didn't go according to plan

Libya only accounts for 2% (at most) of the world's crude oil reserves. It would only have a very slight impact on oil prices in the long term.

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

Oil production in Libya is now falling...which you may argue defeats the purpose of either lowering prices and getting Gaddafi out but perhaps it didn't go according to plan

Or perhaps your theory is simply biased, over simplistic or just out and out wrong.

And how come the Arab League, many of who's members are in OPEC, are in favour (sort of) of the UN intervention?

phosphate

King Mob wrote: »

As Jeboa already stated both Russia and China are on the security council. If either of them objected to the resolution, then the UN would have to reject the No-Fly zone. So if what you are saying is true, why didn't they stop the UN?

They didn't object to no-fly zone, they objected to military attacks by NATO.

NATO is not part of the UN.

Least that's what i understand.

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

They didn't object to no-fly zone, they objected to military attacks by NATO.

NATO is not part of the UN.

Least that's what i understand.

Yea...
A no fly zone requires military attacks. Particularly on AA sites and planes in the air. Which are sanctioned by both the UN and NATO

So why didn't they block it?

phosphate

King Mob wrote: »

Or perhaps your theory is simply biased, over simplistic or just out and out wrong.

Over simplistic? you must be joking.

I'm trying to find a more rational, plausible explanation based on factual information available on the internet.

I provided plenty of links in preceding posts and you didn't bother looking at any of them.

In fact, you probably have about 1 tenth the knowledge I have on this situation yet believe you know better..that's a laugh.

Good night.

Jeboa Safari

But they knew what the mandate contained and would lead to, they're not that stupid. Also, the UAE and Qatar aren't part of NATO. Medvedev also rebuked Putins comments, which is unusual

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

In fact, you probably have about 1 tenth the knowledge I have on this situation yet believe you know better..that's a laugh.

I'm just pointing out massive holes in your reasoning.
If you know anything and your theories are true you'd be able to answer my questions.
But instead you are replying with silly things like "Why would the US's chief diplomat be interested in foreign countries" and "No fly zones don't involve military action."

HavingCrack

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

But they knew what the mandate contained and would lead to, they're not that stupid. Also, the UAE and Qatar aren't part of NATO. Medvedev also rebuked Putins comments, which is unusual

They're just manouvering for political advantage.A chance to criticise France, UK and USA? They're not going to pass that up even if they did de facto support the UN resolution.

phosphate

King Mob wrote:

I'm just pointing out massive holes in you reasoning.

Nonsense.

You clearly have no intellectual understanding of the situation and instead of contributing something constructive, something worth examining, resort to criticising any ideas I have offered up in an extremely childish manner.

I genuinely feel embarassed for your behaviour.

This is a conspiracy theory forum; theories are acceptable and you've offered none deviating from what you've been fed on TV.

You haven't even bothered to gain a deeper understanding of the geopolitical situation using the links I provided which highlights what an utter waste of time it is conversing with you.

I was gonna give you another chance when I thought we might get somewhere, but it's same rhetoric as last night...some of the lamest responses i've ever had to read.

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

I was gonna give you another chance when I thought we might get somewhere, but it's same rhetoric as last night...some of the lamest responses i've ever had to read.

And yet you can't answer a single question I've asked.
Well I suppose pretending that serious questions are childish is a lot easier than actually addressing them.

Shall I assume that the other posters asking similar questions are likewise being childish and thus not deserving of your time?

Overheal

I may be drinking today. It's a very warm spring evening; the canadian geese are still hanging out my lawn refusing to migrate back north; and there is wine aplenty. Disclaimer!

phosphate wrote: »

But, believe whatever you want.
I'm not here to convince you, just share my own opinions.

I'm certainly not looking for approval from anyone.

Thats cool. Listen, I feel that you're not wrong about a lot of things there. Most of what I do on boards though is just Clarity - getting facts straight. I respect that you have your opinions and so long as they are based on reason and facts I'm not here to sway them so long as they are based on logic and facts.

King Mob wrote:

Also for those who believe that HAARP is an earthquake machine/ weather machine. How come it wasn't used when the US is actually attacking someone?

I will wager candidly that - assuming HAARP is what CTs say it is (that to me, is a bif "If") it would be far too convenient and ask far too many questions. Hell, if you look at Japan, we saw drops in oil demand (and prices) and the future of nuclear energy was called into question. Doesnt that fit well into the White House's current agenda?

Not saying it's at all true, but I'm just humoring a hypothesis based on multiple assumptions in the absence of evidence. But don't get me wrong, I love facts, and thats why I spend almost no time in the CT forum. I think the HAARP theories are more or less laughable.

wee truck big driver wrote: »

so terrorists are trying to overthrow the goverment in libya and the usa and friends are supporting the terrorists. you have to admire their new found concern for the libyian people considering they bambed [sic] them back in 86 killing thousands of them funny [sic] when there [sic] oil involved they are very concerned when the poor africannations are being wiped out by civil war and starvation they dont seem as concerned

Well I tell you what truck driver thats why I posted in the thread: can you establish a good reason for military intervention in other African countries?

Also you're the first person I've heard so far refer to the rebels as Terrorists. Could I ask you to elaborate a little bit on that, please?

King Mob wrote: »

As Jeboa already stated both Russia and China are on the security council. If either of them objected to the resolution, then the UN would have to reject the No-Fly zone. So if what you are saying is true, why didn't they stop the UN?

An excellent point. Where I to shoot from the hip (is that allowed on this channel? Can I do that?) they were of two minds about the intervention. Neither wanting to necessarily see it done, nor be seen blocking it. They could have voted against it and NOT vetoed it though I suppose. So I don't really know.

phosphate wrote: »

Yes, Gaddafi was selling but he also refused to increase production to raise crude oil output which was keeping the price high.

"None of the OPEC members find $100 concerning or irrational. Some of the OPEC members see no need for an emergency meeting even with prices at $110 or $120," Mirkazemi, OPEC president for 2011, told a news conference.

Libyan official said in january:

"We think there is enough supply and there should not be any meeting at this point in time," Shokri Ghanem, chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation, told Reuters by phone

Iran has recently stated that $120 is "acceptable"

Oil production in Libya is now falling...which you may argue defeats the purpose of either lowering prices and getting Gaddafi out but perhaps it didn't go according to plan

Okay. So you think Libya was just chosen as the Weakest OPEC member to target? Not saying I disagree or agree, but, why Libya? And why not for example, intervene in Bahrain to rattle the Saudis?

phosphate

phosphate wrote:

They didn't object to no-fly zone, they objected to military attacks by NATO.

NATO is not part of the UN.

King Mob wrote:

Yea...
A no fly zone requires military attacks. Particularly on AA sites and planes in the air. Which are sanctioned by both the UN and NATO

So why didn't they block it?

King Mob wrote:

I'm just pointing out massive holes in your reasoning.

Fantastic...you are truly the geopolitical guru of the world.
Don't even know the difference between the two, that's how bad some of your posts are.

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

Fantastic...you are truly the geopolitical guru of the world.
Don't even know the difference between the two, that's how bad some of your posts are.

A no fly zone requires military action for it to be enforced.
Russian and Chinese leaders, unlike you, understand this fact.
So if they were so opposed to military action, by NATO or others, then they would also oppose military action by the UN. Especially when they can easily stop it by voting against it.
The NATO actions are supported by the UN.

I do understand the difference between them.
Now would you like to address any of my points or stick to silly stuff like this?

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I will wager candidly that - assuming HAARP is what CTs say it is (that to me, is a bif "If") it would be far too convenient and ask far too many questions. Hell, if you look at Japan, we saw drops in oil demand (and prices) and the future of nuclear energy was called into question. Doesnt that fit well into the White House's current agenda?

But those same CTers claim that any such HAARP attack is convenient to the US and is dead obvious evidence that HAARP is used in such a way, which leads them to ask questions. It doesn't make sense, if the theory is to be consistent, that they would be so coy about using it all of a sudden.
But ignoring this, you've the problem that the US spent all that secret money on a secret weapon and secretly tested it on various innocent cities only to be unable to use it when they actually need it.

Also I don't see how nuclear energy is meant to be a competitor to oil considering how they fill different energy needs.

Overheal wrote: »

An excellent point. Where I to shoot from the hip (is that allowed on this channel? Can I do that?) they were of two minds about the intervention. Neither wanting to necessarily see it done, nor be seen blocking it. They could have voted against it and NOT vetoed it though I suppose. So I don't really know.

But phosphate is arguing that they didn't want it to happen at all because of their interests in the region. This simply doesn't make sense when they could have easily stopped it.

phosphate

King Mob wrote:

Now would you like to address any of my points or stick to silly stuff like this?

When are you going to educate yourself about Russian/Chinese investments in Libya?

Or do you expect everyone else to drip feed you with selected bits and pieces you'll simply ignore in any case?

Answer me this if you're so clued in.

Which company offered to buy ALL of Libyas gas and oil exports further threatening europes security?

Where is this company from?

If you can answer me that, i'll answer your questions.

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

Which company offered to buy ALL of Libyas gas and oil exports further threatening europes security?

Where is this company from?

Is it a company from China or Russia?

phosphate wrote: »

If you can answer me that, i'll answer your questions.

Please. I would love to know how it effects the fact that both China and Russia could have easily stopped the UN from passing the no fly zone and subsequent military action.

phosphate

If you answer my question, you'll know the answer to your own question.