The Libya Deception

uprising2

Cartel Mike wrote: »

Plus the US isn't Bush anymore.
Assuming that Obama and Bush are one in the same and reffering to both as 'America' is just assuming everything is exactly the same . Its not. One was a self centerd dangerous redkneck surrounded by paranoid moranic yes men, the other is a measured, self aware, left wing president who although dosn't have much substance behind him is at least aware of the legacy and stigma left behind by the former.

I think alot of people under estimate how exceptional Bush actually was in the dictatorship stakes and just assume that nothing has changed.
I don't think Obama really wants or needs to get too involved or top heavy here.
There are NO troops been sent in . NATO will wait until Ghadafi cuts some sort of flee deal which is inevitable in the next week or two lets face it.
Libya needs a democratic government , who other than NATO can can help achieve this anyway.
The oil will still belong and be distributed by Libya wont it?.
Why are we talking about oil again? Its Libya's oil , ive read here that they can increase output under the rebels .
If they can they can , is the rest of the world (myself included) supposed to resent or object somehow to this? whats the problem here?
This is about a country needing to move into the 21st century and not wanting to wait another 30-40yrs until the idiot in charge snuffs it. To say this is about America and oil is like saying the good friday agreement was about the Belfast bank robbery. Im not sure i get the point of this argument anymore.

The US is the US no matter what puppet gets to live in the white house for four years at a time, obomber is a left wing president?, can you back that up?.
Left Wing, obomber is NOT left wing, it's a lie that a simple bit of research would prove is bollox not true, he is just as keen on war as any american president although he acts in a different manner and almost matches bush in the pinochio department, bush's nose would be longer, but obombers will soon grow just as long, and bush was an openly boastful arrogant bastard, obomber is the same but has a different way of going about it.

An example:
President Obama promised on the campaign trail that he would have the most transparent administration in history. As part of this commitment, he said that the public would have five days to look online and find out what was in the bills that came to his desk before he signed them. It was his first broken promise, and it's the promise that keeps on breaking. He has now signed 11 bills into law and gone, at best, 1 for 11 on his five-day posting promise. The Obama administration should deliver on the Web-enabled transparency he promised and post bills for five days before signing.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11449

Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfjn3Vd7Rgk

Quote:by you
There are NO troops been sent in . NATO will wait until Ghadafi cuts some sort of flee deal which is inevitable in the next week or two lets face it.

The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women.




What most people do not know is that the U.N. and NATO do not have military forces of their own. Instead, the member nations have to assign troops to carry out military actions.
http://dailyuw.com/2011/3/29/us-may-not-send-troops-libya-american-soldiers-cou/

Israel Portal: NATO soldiers are already in Libya
According to the Israelis, already on February 25 “hundreds” of American, British and French “military advisers” was slung to the opposition-dominated Cyrenaica (eastern part of Libya). Western soldiers, among whom are intelligence officers, is to assist the rebels.
http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/israel-portal-nato-soldiers-are-already-in-libya/

NATO Chief Opens The Door to Libya Ground Troops
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/nato-chief-opens-the-door-to-libya-ground-troops/

White House adviser: Regime change would mean taking `ownership’ of post-Gaddafi Libya
http://billionaires.forbes.com/article/09Hz2RGaVhbVl?q=White+House

Cartel Mike

uprising2 wrote: »

The US is the US no matter what puppet gets to live in the white house for four years at a time, obomber is a left wing president?, can you back that up?.
Left Wing, obomber is NOT left wing, it's a lie that a simple bit of research would prove is bollox not true, he is just as keen on war as any american president although he acts in a different manner and almost matches bush in the pinochio department, bush's nose would be longer, but obombers will soon grow just as long, and bush was an openly boastful arrogant bastard, obomber is the same but has a different way of going about it.

An example:
President Obama promised on the campaign trail that he would have the most transparent administration in history. As part of this commitment, he said that the public would have five days to look online and find out what was in the bills that came to his desk before he signed them. It was his first broken promise, and it's the promise that keeps on breaking. He has now signed 11 bills into law and gone, at best, 1 for 11 on his five-day posting promise. The Obama administration should deliver on the Web-enabled transparency he promised and post bills for five days before signing.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11449

Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfjn3Vd7Rgk

Quote:by you
There are NO troops been sent in . NATO will wait until Ghadafi cuts some sort of flee deal which is inevitable in the next week or two lets face it.

The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women.




What most people do not know is that the U.N. and NATO do not have military forces of their own. Instead, the member nations have to assign troops to carry out military actions.
http://dailyuw.com/2011/3/29/us-may-not-send-troops-libya-american-soldiers-cou/

Israel Portal: NATO soldiers are already in Libya
According to the Israelis, already on February 25 “hundreds” of American, British and French “military advisers” was slung to the opposition-dominated Cyrenaica (eastern part of Libya). Western soldiers, among whom are intelligence officers, is to assist the rebels.
http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/israel-portal-nato-soldiers-are-already-in-libya/

NATO Chief Opens The Door to Libya Ground Troops
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/nato-chief-opens-the-door-to-libya-ground-troops/

White House adviser: Regime change would mean taking `ownership’ of post-Gaddafi Libya
http://billionaires.forbes.com/article/09Hz2RGaVhbVl?q=White+House

lets replace left wing with 'democrat' which is what i should have written.
Its hard typing on a phone ,takes forever and unfortunatley ya can't post links.

Anyway i think if he did only pass 1 out of 11 bills correctly (i can't check this) isn't it possible that he literaly 'gave' up the web idea after say...number 5?

To discredit him in this kind of way works if you can find a president or politican who has never broken a promise,hard enough to find one these days whos actually kept one! Somehow America has survived.
You can't seriously talk about the Iraq withdrawl. Surley you can allow and adapt for delays without too much surprise? You're a perfectionist arn't you?
Anyway alot of copying &pasting later and you say Obama is a war monger etc etc . Although i dissagree at least you've given an opinion of your own here.
Its whats missing from all your posts. Theres too much 2nd hand info! even in your reply you've managed to ignore anything thats important.
Whats YOUR opinion mate?
What would YOU do in Obama's shoes?
Its too rich saying America shouldn't do this or that, or that you don't want bloodshed or you don't like Ghadaffi and its all about oil and posting tonnes of links from your laptop. It all means nothing if you can't 'offer an alternative' .
How in God's name can you view this situation without putting yourself in their shoes and telling us what'YOU'd' do differently.
Judging from a laptop its easy to screm 'oil' cause your not imagining 'having' to make decesions. Its the ultimate cop out.

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there can only be good intentions with the UN going into Libya. I'm just saying that Davoxx assumption without any proof that it can only be about oil is too much of a leap of faith.

all you are saying is anything is possible, which it is. good for you.
in your terms of proof, there is none and never will be. in my terms there is proof, so it is not a leap of faith.

humanji wrote: »

Now this is the point I'm getting at. You admit that you can't know for certain. But then you claim to know for certain. You see, you don't. You're assuming what the reason for the war is and refuse to accept that you may be wrong. That's not to say you are wrong, it's simply illogical to assume a gut feeling is the truth.

HUH? nobody can know anything for certain is your argument.
i know for all intent and purposes the certainty.
and i did say of course i can be wrong, but the possibility is very unlikely .. you can't seem to grasp that.

SO ...i'll break it down
i have a cat, i say this is my cat
you say there is a possibility that that is a dog that looks like a cat therefore that might not be a cat.
then you conclude that my cat being a cat is not a fact.

i say technically that is a possibility, but going under real world definition, that is a cat.

then you say this is your dog.
i say how do we know?, it might be a cat that looks like a dog, there is a possibility
you say no that is a fact.

you see what happened there?

humanji wrote: »

So answer me this simple question: Do you know for certain, ie 100% proof positive, that it's all about oil?

does anyone know anything for 100%? the answer to that is no. even that is not 100%.

humanji wrote: »

My point is that none of us do, and that it's too early to refuse to believe any alternative.

exactly, but you are wrong since we can still derive a conclusion.
when is it okay do refuse to believe any alternative??

humanji wrote: »

Now, rather than simply go line by line of your reply, I think it'll be a lot easier for people to read if I summarize. Basically you seem to misunderstand a few simple facts.

these are not facts? are you missing something? there is a possibility that they are wrong? do you have the proof to back these up 100%?

humanji wrote: »

1) Ghaddafi really is a dictator. He's your standard, stereotypical dictator, helped to power by the US and then turned on them like so many others.

there is a possibility that he is not a dictator. this is not fact, this is a theory. try to follow your own logic.

humanji wrote: »

2) People in Libya are dying on Ghaddafi's orders.

are you 100% sure that it was his order for people to die? they might be dying as a result of cancer? someone else in the command might have given the order. therefore this is not a fact

humanji wrote: »

3) There is currently a civil war going on in Libya. That's what this whole thread is about.

is it a civil war or a terrorist war? please state facts not assumptions biased by your own belief.

humanji wrote: »

4) The most humane/moral thing to do would be to help stop the violence.

really? who said that? who knows what the most humane this is? it is your belief that it should be stopped not fact.

humanji wrote: »

These are documented facts. Not assumptions. I've no idea how you can misinterpret them, to be honest.

no they are not facts - proof please.
the fact that you see a difference between these "facts" and mine, shows that you do not have a grasp of this.

humanji wrote: »

From there we have the rebels requesting aid and the UN deciding to help. It could be for oil, it could be to save lives. We don't know for sure. That's where we stand now.

some of us know, some of us don't and some of us never will.
there is a difference, just because you can't solve a problem does not mean it is unsolvable.

humanji wrote: »

From here we move to assumptions. Now using the Iraq/Afghan invasions, it's possible that the US are at it again. Then again, using WW2, it could be to overthrow a dictator. So previous form doesn't really help us.

these are not assumption as such as they actually happened.
ww2 is not a similar situation hence it is irrelevant, by your logic it is about women as was one of the many feudal wars.

humanji wrote: »

Working with the evidence we have at the moment, we're left with too little info to know for sure the full story. That's why I say that it's premature to discount all avenues of investigation.

once again some of us know, some of us don't and some of us never will. you can not state for fact that there is too little info.

your view is biased towards the "we can't tell yet" view and then claiming that since anything is a possibility your view is correct.

davoxx

Cartel Mike wrote: »

lets replace left wing with 'democrat' which is what i should have written.
Its hard typing on a phone ,takes forever and unfortunatley ya can't post links.

Anyway i think if he did only pass 1 out of 11 bills correctly (i can't check this) isn't it possible that he literaly 'gave' up the web idea after say...number 5?

To discredit him in this kind of way works if you can find a president or politican who has never broken a promise,hard enough to find one these days whos actually kept one! Somehow America has survived.
You can't seriously talk about the Iraq withdrawl. Surley you can allow and adapt for delays without too much surprise? You're a perfectionist arn't you?
Anyway alot of copying &pasting later and you say Obama is a war monger etc etc . Although i dissagree at least you've given an opinion of your own here.
Its whats missing from all your posts. Theres too much 2nd hand info! even in your reply you've managed to ignore anything thats important.
Whats YOUR opinion mate?
What would YOU do in Obama's shoes?
Its too rich saying America shouldn't do this or that, or that you don't want bloodshed or you don't like Ghadaffi and its all about oil and posting tonnes of links from your laptop. It all means nothing if you can't 'offer an alternative' .
How in God's name can you view this situation without putting yourself in their shoes and telling us what'YOU'd' do differently.
Judging from a laptop its easy to screm 'oil' cause your not imagining 'having' to make decesions. Its the ultimate cop out.

in their shoes? who asked them to do anything, are they not full of themselves?
if i was in their shoes, i would not lie to the public, i would sort my own country out first ... please the poor president of USA, he had to do something .. won't someone think about his feelings???:eek:


sorry but what has offering an alternative got to do with anything?
and to be fair we do have an alternative, let them solve their problems themselves.

my argument is: put your money where you mouth is and help all the countries including china, or shut and sit down (so to speak, not directed at anyone as such)

What would YOU do in Obama's shoes?

lets see??? not follow corporate interests? punish those that caused the banking crisis? help cuba out? not be a giant douche?
there really are so many other things i'd do ... but then again, i'm not in it for personal gratification ...

humanji

Right, Davoxx, to down on a lot of your bullsh*t, you claimed that it can only be about oil. You also admit that nobody can know for certain. You are contradicting yourself. As you have offered no proof that it must be about oil, we'll leave it that it's your opinion. It's possibly the correct opinion, but none of us here know enough to confirm or deny it.

As for the rest of this truly bizarre conversation:

davoxx wrote: »

there is a possibility that he is not a dictator. this is not fact, this is a theory. try to follow your own logic.

He is a dictator. He fits almost every definition of what a dicatotor is. There is no possibility of him not being a dictator unless you enter into the fantastical.

are you 100% sure that it was his order for people to die? they might be dying as a result of cancer? someone else in the command might have given the order. therefore this is not a fact

He ordered it on state tv. You can see him do it. So yes, this is fact.

is it a civil war or a terrorist war? please state facts not assumptions biased by your own belief.

It's a civil war. That's what it's called when half a country rises up against the other half and they fight for dominance.

really? who said that? who knows what the most humane this is? it is your belief that it should be stopped not fact.

Are you actually arguing the point that it's inhumane to stop suffering?

no they are not facts - proof please.
the fact that you see a difference between these "facts" and mine, shows that you do not have a grasp of this.

Again, you don't seem to understand what a fact is.

I'll skip over the next few bits because they don't make a lick of sense. and come to:

your view is biased towards the "we can't tell yet" view and then claiming that since anything is a possibility your view is correct.

My view is that we don't know for certain yet. And, hey, we don't. So I guess I am correct in that.

By any chance are you a Ghaddafi supporter living in Tripoli?

humanji

=bob50I am looking to see if anyone has found an outlet that is reporting imapartial news from Libya

For the the life of me i cannot belive that the coalition air and sea atttacks are not hitting civillians and causing casualties. I am fed up listening to sky bbc etc reporting when libya media says cilivillans were killed or injured that these reports cant be verefied.

I haven't found any outlets that seem completely impartial. Al Jazeera at least seem to have a reasonably live cast from various news outlets, but a lot of them come across as confused as the people reporting them don't fully know what's going on. For example, there was one about jets flying over head, but it doesn't give any more information on who it was or where they were going.

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

Right, Davoxx, to down on a lot of your bullsh*t, you claimed that it can only be about oil. You also admit that nobody can know for certain. You are contradicting yourself. As you have offered no proof that it must be about oil, we'll leave it that it's your opinion. It's possibly the correct opinion, but none of us here know enough to confirm or deny it.

As for the rest of this truly bizarre conversation:

He is a dictator. He fits almost every definition of what a dicatotor is. There is no possibility of him not being a dictator unless you enter into the fantastical.


He ordered it on state tv. You can see him do it. So yes, this is fact.


It's a civil war. That's what it's called when half a country rises up against the other half and they fight for dominance.



Are you actually arguing the point that it's inhumane to stop suffering?


Again, you don't seem to understand what a fact is.

I'll skip over the next few bits because they don't make a lick of sense. and come to:

My view is that we don't know for certain yet. And, hey, we don't. So I guess I am correct in that.

By any chance are you a Ghaddafi supporter living in Tripoli?

you know, you really don't have a proper argument.
i'm not a Ghaddafi supporter, i'm not a supporter of anyone, i call it like i see it.

and yes you have no grasp on facts by your own definition ... none of your facts were 100% indisputable, hence by your own twisted logic, not facts.

your view is your view does not mean it is correct and does not imply mine is wrong.

i summed it up with my cat and dog analogy, you really just give more weight to your views and then fall back on "anything is possible" to attack others, but when that is used against you, you can't comprehend it.

i feel there is no point in discussing this further to be honest.

there is overwhelming evidence to support the theory that this is for oil.

the conclusion we can draw is that it is for oil.

any nonsense you have about not actually knowing or that there are other possibilities however unlikely, is irrelevant, as we are drawing a conclusion.

K-9

davoxx wrote: »

you know, you really don't have a proper argument.
i'm not a Ghaddafi supporter, i'm not a supporter of anyone, i call it like i see it.

and yes you have no grasp on facts by your own definition ... none of your facts were 100% indisputable, hence by your own twisted logic, not facts.

your view is your view does not mean it is correct and does not imply mine is wrong.

i summed it up with my cat and dog analogy, you really just give more weight to your views and then fall back on "anything is possible" to attack others, but when that is used against you, you can't comprehend it.

i feel there is no point in discussing this further to be honest.

there is overwhelming evidence to support the theory that this is for oil.

the conclusion we can draw is that it is for oil.

any nonsense you have about not actually knowing or that there are other possibilities however unlikely, is irrelevant, as we are drawing a conclusion.

I think is point is that you are convinced it's oil and put extra significance on the facts supporting that.

The big one for me is that, Ghadaffi was regularly meeting with Berlusconi etc. and wasn't the outcast he once was, the extradition from Scotland eg.

The conspiracy theory there was that it was for oil and I'd tend to believe that.

So why oust him now? Makes no sense.

humanji

Look, don't take this the wrong way, but is English your primary language? Because I honestly think we're just talking at cross purposes and getting confused by the words being used.

davoxx wrote: »

you know, you really don't have a proper argument.

My point (not argument) is that there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion. A conclusion means the end. From there you don't go forward, you can only retrace your steps.

You also seem to misunderstand what I mean by facts. The things I've said abotu Ghaddafi are verifiable and provable. These are facts. Can you tell me how they aren't, so I can see your poitn of view?

And where is the overwhelming evidence? If it's there, then please show us and we'll all believe as you do. As it is, I haven't seen anything presented that could allow anyone to come to a conclusion without a leap of faith.

davoxx

K-9 wrote: »

I think is point is that you are convinced it's oil and put extra significance on the facts supporting that.

The big one for me is that, Ghadaffi was regularly meeting with Berlusconi etc. and wasn't the outcast he once was, the extradition from Scotland eg.

The conspiracy theory there was that it was for oil and I'd tend to believe that.

So why oust him now? Makes no sense.

i am convinced it is about oil, all the facts weighed equally point to this. what evidence is there that points against the oil? people dying? other countries have that but do not have oil, yet no intervention.

i am not looking at half facts, i am looking at them all.
if he was a horrible dictator, why would the UN deal with him? for oil, possible.
then why not get rid of him for oil?

like i said all the evidence i have seen, leads to the conclusion that it is about oil.

they saw an opportunity for cheaper oil rather than having to 'put up' with him, and they took it?

it seems like people are arguing for the sake of arguing ...

if tomorrow we get told that the UN had evidence of mass murder that they could not release and could be verified, i'd have to change my position, my conclusion would only be wrong in so far as the information deciding it has changed. but i am open to debate.

i am not open to denying one set of facts, and then claiming another set is 100% fact, rock solid undeniable ....

have to paint all facts with the same brush.

In a separate development, an international conference on Libya in London has agreed to set up a contact group involving Arab governments to co-ordinate help for a post-Gaddafi Libya.

seems like it is not about the people as they have already decided the outcome. what happens if it turns out that there were only 2% against him and the rest just normal civilians? the USA view is he must go! that tell me that it is about something else other than people. checking the resources libya has shows us that they have vast easy oil. hence my conclusion.

Yitzhak Rabin

humanji wrote: »

Look, don't take this the wrong way, but is English your primary language? Because I honestly think we're just talking at cross purposes and getting confused by the words being used.

...

You also seem to misunderstand what I mean by facts. The things I've said abotu Ghaddafi are verifiable and provable. These are facts. Can you tell me how they aren't, so I can see your poitn of view?

:pac:

Cartel Mike

Davoxx your last few posts are like watching an episode of 'The Office' with David Brent in free fall.
Its embarrasing man and difficult to read, and these are moments that i will never get back in my lifetime ,particularly those snippets when you replied to humanii -a mixture of reverse logic ala answering a question with a question...cringe

If you don't believe me go back and read them and ask yourself if even YOU know what your talking about.

Your a ..(i can't find a word fake enough) man and i'd ask the moderater to close , sticky and frame this thread so the whole of boards can read it.

I don't even know where to begin with your reply to my post...where should i begin ?

You see man there just comes a moment when you realise that your talking to someone who just has nothing to say.

Mods please frame this man's replies ..there so bad their brilliant.

Thanks Davoxx.

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

Look, don't take this the wrong way, but is English your primary language? Because I honestly think we're just talking at cross purposes and getting confused by the words being used.

yup it is english, am i am being a bit pendantic, but that is only coz you are as well.

humanji wrote: »

My point (not argument) is that there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion. A conclusion means the end. From there you don't go forward, you can only retrace your steps.

a point is an argument, as i would interpret it.
a conclusion does mean end, and from there it can be re-evaluated.

humanji wrote: »

You also seem to misunderstand what I mean by facts. The things I've said abotu Ghaddafi are verifiable and provable. These are facts. Can you tell me how they aren't, so I can see your poitn of view?

i can, "In popular usage in western nations, "dictatorship" is often associated with brutality and oppression." we do not know for fact whether he had the peoples mandate, whether those rebels were just like the hooligans at the london protest just trying to stir trouble up. we know that the other world leaders were happy to meet and greet him. these throw doubt on the claims that he was a bad person. similarly with the rest of your facts. hence we can not take them as facts.

humanji wrote: »

And where is the overwhelming evidence? If it's there, then please show us and we'll all believe as you do. As it is, I haven't seen anything presented that could allow anyone to come to a conclusion without a leap of faith.

1, libya has a substantial amount of oil, and it easy to get to.
2, until recently everyone was happy to do business
3, usa and uk have forced regime change before for their own benefits.
4, usa and uk have lied to the public regarding information
5, there are other countries that have people being killed but have no natural resources, yet are not seeing any 'help' in terms of bombing
6, the bombing is targeting only one side of the conflict, seems that a stance has been taken


i mean these are facts, only point 3 can really be disputed, you can argue the benefits, but people will draw an opinion about it, which will be treated as fact.

davoxx

Cartel Mike wrote: »

Davoxx your last few posts are like watching an episode of 'The Office' with David Brent in free fall.
Its embarrasing man and difficult to read, and these are moments that i will never get back in my lifetime ,particularly those snippets when you replied to humanii -a mixture of reverse logic ala answering a question with a question...cringe

If you don't believe me go back and read them and ask yourself if even YOU know what your talking about.

Your a ..(i can't find a word fake enough) man and i'd ask the moderater to close , sticky and frame this thread so the whole of boards can read it.

I don't even know where to begin with your reply to my post...where should i begin ?

You see man there just comes a moment when you realise that your talking to someone who just has nothing to say.

Mods please frame this man's replies ..there so bad their brilliant.

Thanks Davoxx.

err okay?? good for you. if you think they are bad, fair enough. i think they make sense.

davoxx

actually Cartel Mike, just for future reference .. i'd like an example please

Cartel Mike

davoxx wrote: »

actually Cartel Mike, just for future reference .. i'd like an example please

lol



you lost me at the cat and dog thing too im afraid!


my post was still out of order though so i expect to get cautioned i try not to insult people as a rule.
Sorry.

Yitzhak Rabin

Cartel Mike, attack the post, not the poster. Please don't post in this thread again, if you're only doing so to have a go at other posters.

davoxx

Cartel Mike wrote: »

lol



you lost me at the cat and dog thing too im afraid!


my post was still out of order though so i expect to get cautioned i try not to insult people as a rule.
Sorry.

apology accepted

humanji

yekahS wrote: »

:pac:

Curse your oily hide!

humanji

davoxx wrote: »

yup it is english, am i am being a bit pendantic, but that is only coz you are as well.

I'm not actually being pedantic. I've simply been confused by your wording.

i can, "In popular usage in western nations, "dictatorship" is often associated with brutality and oppression." we do not know for fact whether he had the peoples mandate, whether those rebels were just like the hooligans at the london protest just trying to stir trouble up. we know that the other world leaders were happy to meet and greet him. these throw doubt on the claims that he was a bad person. similarly with the rest of your facts. hence we can not take them as facts.

He's a dictator. It's a documented fact. Because he was supported by other world leaders doesn't stop him from being a dictator.

1, libya has a substantial amount of oil, and it easy to get to.
2, until recently everyone was happy to do business
3, usa and uk have forced regime change before for their own benefits.
4, usa and uk have lied to the public regarding information
5, there are other countries that have people being killed but have no natural resources, yet are not seeing any 'help' in terms of bombing
6, the bombing is targeting only one side of the conflict, seems that a stance has been taken

1) Many countries have more oil and weaker armies, so this is evidence of nothing.
2) Until recently there hadn't been an uprising in the country.
3) They have also protected regimes before, so that nullifies that argument.
4) They have also told the truth before.
5) How many of them actually asked for help like the Libyan rebels?
6) Again, the rebels asked for help, the UN is helping them.

If you see those points from only one angle, you get only one answer. Just because a country has done something in the past, doesn't necessarily mean they are doomed to repeat it forever.

K-9

davoxx wrote: »

i am convinced it is about oil, all the facts weighed equally point to this. what evidence is there that points against the oil? people dying? other countries have that but do not have oil, yet no intervention.

i am not looking at half facts, i am looking at them all.
if he was a horrible dictator, why would the UN deal with him? for oil, possible.
then why not get rid of him for oil?

like i said all the evidence i have seen, leads to the conclusion that it is about oil.

they saw an opportunity for cheaper oil rather than having to 'put up' with him, and they took it?

it seems like people are arguing for the sake of arguing ...

if tomorrow we get told that the UN had evidence of mass murder that they could not release and could be verified, i'd have to change my position, my conclusion would only be wrong in so far as the information deciding it has changed. but i am open to debate.

i am not open to denying one set of facts, and then claiming another set is 100% fact, rock solid undeniable ....

have to paint all facts with the same brush.



seems like it is not about the people as they have already decided the outcome. what happens if it turns out that there were only 2% against him and the rest just normal civilians? the USA view is he must go! that tell me that it is about something else other than people. checking the resources libya has shows us that they have vast easy oil. hence my conclusion.

The market and OPEC dictate the price of oil, that has been shown over the last couple of years and indeed weeks. Oil was very high 2 years ago, dropped due to the recession and is now back up again. Events also hit it eg. the Japanese earthquake.

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

He's a dictator. It's a documented fact. Because he was supported by other world leaders doesn't stop him from being a dictator.

i have to disagree there. it's opinion that he is a dictator. just because we don't like him does not make him a dictator. he could have had the support of everyone, we are now using the fact that there are rebels to work backwards into saying he is a dictator.

humanji wrote: »

1) Many countries have more oil and weaker armies, so this is evidence of nothing.

incorrect http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71375286&postcount=57

humanji wrote: »

2) Until recently there hadn't been an uprising in the country.

true, but if he was such a bad guy there would have been uprisings before?
and everyone now says that he was always such a bad guy, which brings into dispute their support for him. meaning it was for their gain

humanji wrote: »

3) They have also protected regimes before, so that nullifies that argument.

no it does not, they have protected regimes that benefited themselves, if anything your comments support my argument.

humanji wrote: »

4) They have also told the truth before.

yes but telling a truth does not imply that they always tell the truth.
telling a lie implies that they do not always tell the truth.

humanji wrote: »

5) How many of them actually asked for help like the Libyan rebels?

to be honest i don't know who asked for help who was told they were getting help or if anyone actually asked for help.
besides surely the point is we are giving help, and you don't need to ask.

humanji wrote: »

6) Again, the rebels asked for help, the UN is helping them.

the opposition asked for help? fair enough, but just because someone asks for help does not mean we need to start a war then and there.
also plenty of other countries has asked for help, but did not have oil, and got no help.

humanji wrote: »

If you see those points from only one angle, you get only one answer. Just because a country has done something in the past, doesn't necessarily mean they are doomed to repeat it forever.

no i am looking at all angles, but they still point to one answer, you are only presenting one case and saying that there is no answer.
and true a previous error does not guarantee another error, but it does show that there is a tendency for error.

humanji

This is getting ridiculous now.

davoxx wrote: »

i have to disagree there. it's opinion that he is a dictator. just because we don't like him does not make him a dictator. he could have had the support of everyone, we are now using the fact that there are rebels to work backwards into saying he is a dictator.

Are you aware of who Ghaddafi is? Because your bizarre support of him is...well, bizarre. He's a dictator by almost every definition of the title. He siezed power. Removed his peoples rights. He had public executions of political dissenters. Sent his own men to die to protect Idi Amen. He's funded terrorist groups. He's a f*cking dictator!

incorrect http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71375286&postcount=57

Strange. That post doesn't seem to point out that Libya was an ally. But I guess that would have thrown a spanner in the works...

true, but if he was such a bad guy there would have been uprisings before?
and everyone now says that he was always such a bad guy, which brings into dispute their support for him. meaning it was for their gain

You do realise that there's been a spate of uprising throughout the middle east recently? All started by one man setting fire to himself.

no it does not, they have protected regimes that benefited themselves, if anything your comments support my argument.

You claim that their overthrowing of regimes in the past is evidence that they are doing the same. I've stated that by the same logic, the fact that they've protected regimes in the past means that your piece of eveidence is flawed and can't be taken as anything other than something that happened in the past.

yes but telling a truth does not imply that they always tell the truth.
telling a lie implies that they do not always tell the truth.

But because they've told the truth before means that they don't always lie. So, again, that piece of evidence is nullified.

to be honest i don't know who asked for help who was told they were getting help or if anyone actually asked for help.
besides surely the point is we are giving help, and you don't need to ask.

Well the last time they went intot a country without being asked, there was worldwide condemnation. This time they held off until they were invited.

the opposition asked for help? fair enough, but just because someone asks for help does not mean we need to start a war then and there.
also plenty of other countries has asked for help, but did not have oil, and got no help.

They didn't start the war. There was a civil war happening. And what other countries have asked for help? I honestly don't know.

no i am looking at all angles, but they still point to one answer, you are only presenting one case and saying that there is no answer.
and true a previous error does not guarantee another error, but it does show that there is a tendency for error.

No, a previous act merely shows that it has happened. It doesn't mean that it will or won't happen again. Only that it has happened.

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous now.

i say:

usa and uk have forced regime change before for their own benefits.

you say:

They have also protected regimes before, so that nullifies that argument.

how does: They have also protected regimes before => so that nullifies that argument.

i clarify your statement:

they have protected regimes that benefited themselves, if anything your comments support my argument.

you counter with:

You claim that their overthrowing of regimes in the past is evidence that they are doing the same. I've stated that by the same logic, the fact that they've protected regimes in the past means that your piece of eveidence is flawed and can't be taken as anything other than something that happened in the past.

it is at this point that i give up

Strange. That post doesn't seem to point out that Libya was an ally

why should it? was libya an ally? i thought you said he was a horrible dictator.
what is shows it who has more oil and there relevance as a target .. you really are just twisting data for your own goal.

so i agree

humanji wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous now.

.. i'm out now ...can't use any evidence against your reasoning ....

HavingCrack

I'm honestly worried (even by conspiracy forum standards) that anyone could believe that Gadaffi is not a dictator. He seized power in a military coup, banned all elections, publicy executes political enemies, openly funds terrorist groups etc. For ****s sake if that isn't a dictator what is?

humanji

Davoxx, you've used the fact that in the past the US and UK have overthrown regimes as evidence that they must be doing it in Libya. But I countered this by pointing out that they also supported regimes in the past. As such, we can't assume their past dictates their present because they have done conflicting things which both support and weaken the theory of another oil war. They counteract each other.

And are you now claiming that the UN hasn't supported Ghaddafi? Or that because they support him he can't be a dictator? You do realise that they've supported dictators before?

So basically, I've not seen anything that would lead one to conclude the war is about oil. As I've said before. Several times, in fact. This doesn't mean it's not. It just means that so far, there's nothing to back it up. It's all a gut feeling based upon taking some information and disregarding other bits. That's how I see it.

davoxx

dammit i said i was out ....

humanji wrote: »

Davoxx, you've used the fact that in the past the US and UK have overthrown regimes as evidence that they must be doing it in Libya. But I countered this by pointing out that they also supported regimes in the past. As such, we can't assume their past dictates their present because they have done conflicting things which both support and weaken the theory of another oil war. They counteract each other.

i did not, you are misquoting me. i used the fact that they overthrew for their own gain. there is a huge difference.
you countered by a half truth. the full truth is that they support regimes that benefit themselves and prevented those regimes from being overthrown.

as such we can assume that their motivation has not changed based on past experience.
they are not doing conflicting actions - they support regimes that benefit themselves and overthrow those that do not.

how in all that is sane do they counteract each other? you know what nevermind.
i just hope you are not in any kind of science domain.

Overheal

gizmo wrote: »

So since we're talking about facts, or at least our interpretation of them, would anyone like to comment on the current situation facing Iman al-Obeidi?

It seems after first claiming she had been released back to her sister in Tripoli while suffering from a mental illness, then labelling her as a drunk, a prostitute and a thief, the government have announced she's now being sued for the claims she attempted to make to journalists before being tackled by government "minders".

Despite this nobody has seen her since being allegedly released and the woman's mother has been interviewed saying [I believe - I walked in on it] that security forces tried to bribe her with money and wealth if she lied to the press to discredit her daughter.

uprising2

K-9 wrote: »

I think is point is that you are convinced it's oil and put extra significance on the facts supporting that.

The big one for me is that, Ghadaffi was regularly meeting with Berlusconi etc. and wasn't the outcast he once was, the extradition from Scotland eg.

The conspiracy theory there was that it was for oil and I'd tend to believe that.

So why oust him now? Makes no sense.

K9, it's quite simple, they agreed the contracts, signed them, invited Gaddafi here there and everywhere, freed the supposed bomber, sweetened him up to take the candy (oil) from him when his guard was down thinking he was one of the boys, and could quash the rebellion as he was a legitimate leader and they were mere terrorists, as they would be called in uk/us/france, so he thought he had nothing to worry about from his new friends.

They were buying Libyan oil that is true, but at what price?, I can guarantee the price they pay will be much less than the previous price, a fraction even, they'll destroy the army and then build it back up with western weapons for the new improve friendly regime.

With these contracts still being touted as valid, no "foreign" oil companies will be get a sniff in.

In plain english, why buy something from somebody indefinately that you can own for the price of a hundred or so missiles, then when the new govt are in control they will need re-arming, another thing UK/US/France are good at, selling weapons, they may even donate them (buy them from their buddies in the arms industry, with money that belongs to the people "tax"), and take some oil in return, then pay a fraction for this sweet crude oil which produces less waste product than average crude, yielding better reward, and usable produce.

Then american,uk and french companies will reconstruct what they blew up with Libyan oil money, so libya will get fukkall until all its bills are paid to haliburton and co for rebuilding.
They've done a fabulous job rebuilding Iraq:rolleyes:.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x769015

humanji

davoxx wrote: »

dammit i said i was out ....

i did not, you are misquoting me. i used the fact that they overthrew for their own gain. there is a huge difference.
you countered by a half truth. the full truth is that they support regimes that benefit themselves and prevented those regimes from being overthrown.

In post #224 you gave a list of what you believed to be evidence that showed it was about oil. In this list you said:

3, usa and uk have forced regime change before for their own benefits.

Now, how did I misquote you?

as such we can assume that their motivation has not changed based on past experience.
they are not doing conflicting actions - they support regimes that benefit themselves and overthrow those that do not.

You used overthrowing a regime for oil as evidence that they are now overthrowing a regime for oil. This is what you have said. It's posted above. I don't doubt that that each country have their own interests at heart, but stability in the Middle East is more important that uprisings in the area with the possibility of fantatics getting into power and the possibility of oil becoming more expensive as they try and hold the West to ransom.

It would have been in the West's interest to put a media block on the uprising, support Ghaddafi and keep the oil flowing. Ghaddafi can be bought, but a democracy can't as easily. If oil was the only reason, they've shot themselves in the foot.

how in all that is sane do they counteract each other? you know what nevermind.
i just hope you are not in any kind of science domain.

Yes, insults will definitely help your argument. :rolleyes: