The Libya Deception

HavingCrack

Overheal wrote: »

I thought so too but when you're assuming Gazprom is behind it why would PR matter? You already assume the US is doing it for Oil. Thats not good for PR. So why shouldnt Russia block it, knowing full well its for Oil and **** the PR?

I didn't assume the US was doing it for oil . I don't think I said that did I? I assume the US did it for the same reason, mostly PR purposes (and the fact they still were never fans of Gadaffi and wouldn't hesitate to oust him if they got the chance). Possibly the Russian camp is a bit divided as Menvedev has publicly rebuked Putin's statements against the coalition which would account for the mixed signals?

whiterebel wrote: »

As far as they were concerned it was to stop the Libyan Airforce bombing civillians. When it became obvious it turned into a "bomb the sh*te out of the Gadaffis" mission, they weren't long objecting.

While I get this argument I honestly cannot believe the Russians were that naive. I just cannot belive Russia couldn't foresee it turning into an offensive against Gadaffi. Now they might not have agreed with bombing Gadaffi but they also could not really oppose helping civilians so they went along iniatially and the moment it moved beyond its mandate (as they must have foreseen) their objections began.

digme

uprising2 wrote: »

No thats the truth, just shows the type of humans that control the majority, megalomaniacs, deluded evil bastards.

I know it's the truth,that's why it's scary.Imagine seeing this interview on rte news?This just goes to show everything is a lie,everything.

HavingCrack

digme wrote: »

I know it's the truth,that's why it's scary.Imagine seeing this interview on rte news?This just goes to show everything is a lie,everything.

It's a bit like the Matrix, would you prefer to live in blissful ignorance or see the world as it really is?

digme

Good analogy.Seeing the world as it really is of course, it's all very sad though.

Overheal

HavingCrack wrote: »

I didn't assume the US was doing it for oil .

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to imply you did or direct that at you, that was just a general comment. Ive been following multiple threads in multiple fora and discussed this with multiple people.

digme wrote: »

I know it's the truth,that's why it's scary.Imagine seeing this interview on rte news?This just goes to show everything is a lie,everything.

I still say he got wind of a contingency plan, thats all.

uprising2

HavingCrack wrote: »

It's a bit like the Matrix this forum, would you prefer to live in blissful ignorance or see the world as it really is?

Fixed that for you, the matrix (which I have never seen) is hollywood, this is real life and if you read a few threads you will see both groups you mention, and some I don't understand myself.

But to be honest I don't think the "real" truth is ever revealed, even this piece by Wesley Clark could have an ulterior motive, he is essentially one of them, I'm not saying what he says is not true, but why he says it is something that I'd like to know, is it just being truthful and honest, is it being truthful for financial gain, is it a personal grievance he has with one of the chickenhawks, is it to fool american people into believing he is a man of truth and would make a great president some day.

uprising2

Reports in the last 10 minutes say Gaddafi's home town has fallen to the rebel forces.

davoxx

Overheal wrote: »

Furthermore even when you dont consider the humanitarian issue and focusing purely on financials, when you have to consider the billions this is already costing us, and that we're already more than $14 trillion in debt, I can understand why we would need to pick and choose your battles to situations that have the potential to not significantly impact the debt. If the United States took it upon itself to overthrow every wrongdoing in the world (even with the full backing of the UN and the US), I have no doubt - ironically - that our debt would soar into the tens of trillions of dollars. at 60 trillion dollars in debt we would actually owe the world more than the world's annual GDP, more money in the world, rather than the world owing the United States for playing any version of World Police. Stick that in your collective pipes for a few minutes..

So what makes USA any different from mercenaries .. they only fight if the 'reward' is worth it ... does sound like the American police though ... copyright infringement, send swat lads ... drugs ah sucks we sells it ourselves, can't be all serious on that now can we?

and why would the world owe USA anything? nobody asked them to be the world police and secondly if they really are, they should still not be 'owed' anything ....

thank god they responded well for their own people when Hurricane Katrina hit ... oh wait they didn't ... still it's not their fault that there is no oil there.


anyone who says oil is not the reason just won't face the facts ... denial and stupidity are the American allies.

HavingCrack

davoxx wrote: »

anyone who says oil is not the reason just won't face the facts ... denial and stupidity are the American allies.

Why won't people realise that oil is not the reason in this case (not for the US anyway). If your argument was that Britain and France startedthe for war for oil then yes, you'd be on more solid ground as they both import large amounts of their oil needs from Libya. However the US only accounts for around 2-3% max of Libyan exports and has been declining steadily for several years now. The US has very little oil interests in Libya and certainly not enough to launch a war for.

Furthermore if it was about oil why didn't they just let Gadaffi win and let the oil flow resume. They've had a steady supply of oil from Libya for several years now, why bother achieving a rapproachment with Gadaffi at all if you just wanted to start a war with him?

To sum up, possibly the UK and France are fighting for oil but not the US.

davoxx

HavingCrack wrote: »

Why won't people realise that oil is not the reason in this case (not for the US anyway). If your argument was that Britain and France startedthe for war for oil then yes, you'd be on more solid ground as they both import large amounts of their oil needs from Libya. However the US only accounts for around 2-3% max of Libyan exports and has been declining steadily for several years now. The US has very little oil interests in Libya and certainly not enough to launch a war for.

Sure it is not .. the USA are looking for terrorists weapons of mass destruction nuclear well they were going to attack USA first unicorns .. that's it, the Lybians have the last unicorn. That's the reason of course not oil ...

HavingCrack wrote: »

However the US only accounts for around 2-3% max of Libyan exports and has been declining steadily for several years now. The US has very little oil interests in Libya and certainly not enough to launch a war for.

the reason they are not buying more oil from them is because it's too expensive for the americans .. so they need a puppet government.

but after the war they'll have 33% and at half the price ... i mean they'll be forced to buy it at a reduced price to help rebuild the bombed Lybia ... because america does not want oil .. they have tonnes of their coast floating ..

HavingCrack wrote: »

Furthermore if it was about oil why didn't they just let Gadaffi win and let the oil flow resume. They've had a steady supply of oil from Libya for several years now, why bother achieving a rapproachment with Gadaffi at all if you just wanted to start a war with him?

Errr coz they still have to pay for it? why invade Iraq?

HavingCrack wrote: »

To sum up, possibly the UK and France are fighting for oil but not the US.

FACT!!

Overheal

davoxx wrote: »

Sure it is not .. the USA are looking for terrorists weapons of mass destruction nuclear well they were going to attack USA first unicorns .. that's it, the Lybians have the last unicorn. That's the reason of course not oil ...

Why does it have to be for ribbons and unicorns? Whats wrong with just supporting your NATO allies with something they already want to do, which happens to be taking out a guy rigged up for some slaughter.

You think we landed in Normandy for the Truffles or something? Not everything the US does is motivated through puritanical greed.

davoxx

Overheal wrote: »

Why does it have to be for ribbons and unicorns? Whats wrong with just supporting your NATO allies with something they already want to do, which happens to be taking out a guy rigged up for some slaughter.

that's a valid argument ... i mean if your buddy's are all out pissed starting fights, what's wrong with you jumping for a few kicks? and hey then lot of you can split the guys wallet?

i think the above clearly shows what is wrong will still be wrong, even if your buddies are doing it.

Normandy?? what has that got to do with anything?

Overheal

davoxx wrote: »

that's a valid argument ... i mean if your buddy's are all out pissed starting fights, what's wrong with you jumping for a few kicks? and hey then lot of you can split the guys wallet?

i think the above clearly shows what is wrong will still be wrong, even if your buddies are doing it.

Normandy?? what has that got to do with anything?

All I am saying is there are plenty of other reasons military actions occur which do not revolve around landgrabs or resources.

davoxx

Overheal wrote: »

All I am saying is there are plenty of other reasons military actions occur which do not revolve around landgrabs or resources.

i'm not saying they do not exist either ... but this is one of those wars for oil.

if they want to help people, palestine?

gizmo

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not saying they do not exist either ... but this is one of those wars for oil.

if they want to help people, palestine?

So their entry into hostilities had nothing to do with Gadaffi's forces surrounding Benghazi, telling the people not to betray him and telling them that if they stood with the rebels they would be slaughtered?

davoxx

gizmo wrote: »

So their entry into hostilities had nothing to do with Gadaffi's forces surrounding Benghazi, ...

exactly, usa could care less about people and freedom ... there happens to be oil there ... and the USA and oil have a history together (and a future)

gizmo wrote: »

telling the people not to betray him and telling them that if they stood with the rebels they would be slaughtered?

oh if that was the reason, we should invade england .. betraying the queen is punishable by .... ?
or china? we all know how bad china is .. lets go team america?

gizmo

davoxx wrote: »

exactly, usa could care less about people and freedom ... there happens to be oil there ... and the USA and oil have a history together (and a future)

As a matter of interest, would you have preferred the coalition forces NOT to go into Libya and for Gadaffi to have gone into Bengazhi and then further East, slaughtering whoever stood in his way?

davoxx wrote: »

oh if that was the reason, we should invade england .. betraying the queen is punishable by .... ?
or china? we all know how bad china is .. lets go team america?

Way to completely miss the point. I highlighted "him" specifically to point out the borderline cult of personality he's trying to foster within the country, a situation which doesn't exist in either the UK or China.

davoxx

gizmo wrote: »

As a matter of interest, would you have preferred the coalition forces NOT to go into Libya and for Gadaffi to have gone into Bengazhi and then further East, slaughtering whoever stood in his way?

no, but that is not the only other opition of them not going in to steal the oil. it's a nice way to justify it to yourself, like with iraq and their weapons of mass destruction, but it is still about the oil.

gizmo wrote: »

Way to completely miss the point. I highlighted "him" specifically to point out the borderline cult of personality he's trying to foster within the country, a situation which doesn't exist in either the UK or China.

i did not miss any point, i think you did. 'him' is just as borderline as the queen and the rest of the royals. cult? cult to whom? the god fearing oil hungry people of america/uk?

gizmo

davoxx wrote: »

no, but that is not the only other opition of them not going in to steal the oil. it's a nice way to justify it to yourself, like with iraq and their weapons of mass destruction, but it is still about the oil.

But they're not going in. In fact, the UN resolution specifically disallows the use of ground troops. As has been pointed out on this thread ad nauseum, the oil was flowing perfectly fine before the trouble, specifically to European nations so they had no reason to go in for this purpose.

davoxx wrote: »

i did not miss any point, i think you did. 'him' is just as borderline as the queen and the rest of the royals. cult? cult to whom? the god fearing oil hungry people of america/uk?

And from that I'm assuming you don't know what a cult of personality is and how it has been used in the past by men similar to Gadaffi.

Overheal

davoxx wrote: »

or china? we all know how bad china is .. lets go team america?

After you. Except China is a UN Security Council permanent, has the world's 2nd most powerful military, and Mutually Assured Destruction going for it.

So you go challenge China.

Theres a certain absurdity to picking avoidable battles that the United States has - quite honestly - no chance of winning.

if they want to help people, palestine?

lol

davoxx

gizmo wrote: »

But they're not going in. In fact, the UN resolution specifically disallows the use of ground troops. As has been pointed out on this thread ad nauseum, the oil was flowing perfectly fine before the trouble, specifically to European nations so they had no reason to go in for this purpose.


And from that I'm assuming you don't know what a cult of personality is and how it has been used in the past by men similar to Gadaffi.

sorry but when i said cult i meant "cult of personality" as effectively they are the same thing. are you saying media is not used in the british royal family? and was used historically by them? hell even obama suffers from this media frenzy ....

and since when was that a reason for invading a country?
only when there is oil there.

and please usa following the un? only when it suits them, and now it seems like the un is trying to remove gadaffi instead of just protecting civilians.

and has been pointed out so many times oil flowing is not the same as cheap oil.

iraq had oil flowing, now it is cheaper for the americans.

davoxx

Overheal wrote: »

After you. Except China is a UN Security Council permanent, has the world's 2nd most powerful military, and Mutually Assured Destruction going for it.

So you go challenge China.

Theres a certain absurdity to picking avoidable battles that the United States has - quite honestly - no chance of winning. lol

so now you admit that it's not the humanity that dictates this war ... we've made progress.

and hell no i won't challenge china, not even if i was the usa president ... why? coz i'm not a hipocrite.

gizmo

davoxx wrote: »

sorry but when i said cult i meant "cult of personality" as effectively they are the same thing. are you saying media is not used in the british royal family? and was used historically by them? hell even obama suffers from this media frenzy ....

No, I'm saying the British Royal Family do not cultivate a cult of personality, which they don't. Neither does Obama actually which leads me to believe you simply don't know what one is.

davoxx wrote: »

and since when was that a reason for invading a country?
only when there is oil there.

Since when was what a reason for invading a country? I pointed to Gadaffi's use of "him" as an example of a leader who does not have the best interests of his people at heart which, after over 42 years in power is now blindingly obvious.

davoxx wrote: »

and please usa following the un? only when it suits them, and now it seems like the un is trying to remove gadaffi instead of just protecting civilians.

But that is what they are doing, right now in fact as NATO take the lead in the current campaign. And why does the removal of Gadaffi have to be mutually exclusive to protecting civilians? He's already shown he presents a clear and present danger to anyone who opposes him, civilian or otherwise, and I'd imagine that's why there is such a strong push to get rid of him once and for all.

davoxx wrote: »

and has been pointed out so many times oil flowing is not the same as cheap oil.

Do you know what OPEC is? You realise Libya is a member and this organisation and that they, as an organisation, set the price of oil?

davoxx wrote: »

iraq had oil flowing, now it is cheaper for the americans.

It is? Proof please?

Overheal

davoxx wrote: »

so now you admit that it's not the humanity that dictates this war ... we've made progress.

Don't twist my words around like that again, please. You are basically implying that the only reason there is military action in Libya is because they are weak; and has nothing to do at all with there being a humanitarian precedent, which is BS. You're arguing the sandwich came before the bread.

Brown Bomber

Humanitarian...?








OPEN LETTER
President of the Russian Federation Medvedev DA
Prime Minister of Russian Federation VV Putin
from citizens of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, working and living in Libya
March 24, 2011, Tripoli, Libya

Today, 24 March 2011, ... the target of bombing is a barracks of the Libyan army, around which are densely populated residential areas, and next to it – the largest of Libya’s Heart Centers.

Bombs and rockets struck residential houses....

In the maternity ward ... a wall collapsed and part of the roof.

This resulted in ten miscarriages whereby babies died; the women are in intensive care; doctors are fighting for the women's lives...

We and our colleagues are working seven days a week, to save people.

This is a direct consequence of bombs and missiles falling in residential buildings resulting in dozens of deaths and injuries...

The large number of wounded and killed, as happened today, is very much greater than anything that happened during the riots in Libya...

The United States and its allies are thus carrying out genocide against the Libyan people – as was the case in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

After an abortive coup attempt in late February, the situation calmed down in Libya and the government had successfully restored order.

To everyone in Libya, it was clear that without American intervention the country would soon return to normal life.

Libyans ... are entitled to free treatment, and their hospitals provide the best medical equipment in the world.

Education in Libya is free...

When marrying, young couples receive about 50,000 U.S. dollars...

Cars ... are affordable for every family. ...

In February, the peaceful life of the people was violated by gangs of criminals and insane drugged youth – whom the Western media for some reason called “peaceful demonstrators”...

We understand that when all the foreigners leave and no one will tell the truth (the small staff of diplomatic missions have long been silenced), the Americans will arrange here a bloodbath.

SOURCE: http://en.m4.cn/archives/6734.html

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Humanitarian...?
...

SOURCE: http://en.m4.cn/archives/6734.html

That's a load of nonsense, do you really think it amounts to a genocide?
And what do you think should have been done regarding Libya?

Overheal

With genocide there's a wide and obvious chasm between civilian casualties, and the direct targetting of civilians. If that man thinks afghanistan and iraq were genocides then he doesnt understand the holocaust or rwanda.

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

That's a load of nonsense, do you really think it amounts to a genocide?

I personally wouldn't describe it as genocide but technically it could be considered genocide.

Speaking of genocide here is former Mossad asset Sarkozy this year with the murderous bastard Paul Kagame. The Hutus were allied to the French when they committed genocide.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And what do you think should have been done regarding Libya?

War of course.

Arm Al-Qaeda affiliated groups and mercs and then Bomb the **** out of Libya; all of them men, women and children. Kill Gaddafi, slit his throat Privatise the natural resources, **** it, privatise everything. No more free education and schools, we need ignorant Moslems to bow before us. and then build some nice big military bases. Organise some death squads and eliminate all loyal to Gadaffi. Join AFRICOM of course and get get a ROTHSCHILD central bank.

Then will have to cause some tribal friction withing Libya. It should be balkanized - easier to control and less of a threat to Israel that way.

Brown Bomber

On November 2, 2010 France and Great Britain signed a mutual defence treaty , which included joint participation in "Southern Mistral" (www.southern-mistral.cdaoa.fr), a series of war games outlined in the bilateral agreement. Southern Mistral involved a long-range conventional air attack, called Southern Storm, against a dictatorship in a fictitious southern country called Southland. The joint military air strike was authorised by a pretend United Nations Security Council Resolution. The "Composite Air Operations" were planned for the period of 21-25 March, 2011. On 20 March, 2011, the United States joined France and Great Britain in an air attack against Gaddafi's Libya, pursuant to UN Security Council resolution 1973.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/27/observer-debate-intervention-libya-yes-no

Overheal

Now thats theorizing I can admire.