Invasion of Libya (War for Oil)

Euroland

According to the US former Special Forces officers and according to other intelligent sources US, French and British Special Forces already on the ground and, in breach of the UN resolution, fighting on the side of Islamist rebels, preparing for full scale ground invasion:


Are American Soldiers Already on the Ground in Libya?


http://video.foxnews.com/v/4606866


UN resolution from “no-fly zone” was effectively converted into “no-drive zone” and “no-walk zone”.


With extensive help from Western Special Forces and aerial attacks on Libyan army, Islamist rebels re-gained control over the city of Ajdabiya, moving closer to the oil terminals and oil fields. Very soon Libyan Oil might be under American control.

nacho libre

Euroland wrote: »

According to the US former Special Forces officers and according to other intelligent sources US, French and British Special Forces already on the ground and, in breach of the UN resolution, fighting on the side of Islamist rebels, preparing for full scale ground invasion:


Are American Soldiers Already on the Ground in Libya?


http://video.foxnews.com/v/4606866


UN resolution from “no-fly zone” was effectively converted into “no-drive zone” and “no-walk zone”.


With extensive help from Western Special Forces and aerial attacks on Libyan army, Islamist rebels re-gained control over the city of Ajdabiya, moving closer to the oil terminals and oil fields. Very soon Libyan Oil might be under American control.

Don't be so cynical Euroland. We're going to see a UN resolution pass, which sanction force to be used against the Ivory Coast dictator any day now:rolleyes::

PeakOutput

Euroland wrote: »

UN resolution from “no-fly zone” was effectively converted into “no-drive zone” and “no-walk zone”.

what a suprise, more misinformation from the its all about oil crowd,

the resolution was not a no fly zone it was to force an immediate ceasefire, part of that is to enforce a no fly zone

mike65

Euroland stop banging your drum! We have an on-going thread, this is needless.

Euroland

nacho libre wrote: »

Don't be so cynical Euroland. We're going to see a UN resolution pass, which sanction force to be used against the Ivory Coast dictator any day now:rolleyes::

Yeees, very soon, maybe in 8765?

Euroland

mike65 wrote: »

Euroland stop banging your drum! We have an on-going thread, this is needless.

That thread is already outdated, it was about mythological “uprising”, and here we discuss invasion of Libya and stealing of its Oil.

Euroland

PeakOutput wrote: »

what a suprise, more misinformation from the its all about oil crowd,

the resolution was not a no fly zone it was to force an immediate ceasefire, part of that is to enforce a no fly zone

So, why when Libyan army announced ceasefire and effectively stopped fighting, it still was attacked by Western crusaders and Islamist separatists?

Inverse to the power of one!

If we can bring oil security and assist the people of Libya in their aspirations for Democracy bringing the price of oil down in process assisting every nation in the world that can't afford high oil prices.....then what's the problem?

You do know that the rise in Oil prices has negated progress in the fight against global poverty over the last 20 years?

Would you rather we just ignore them because assisting them is hypocritical in light of not assisting nations such as the Ivory coast? Do you think the world could afford to fix all conflicts simultaneously.......who will pay for it?

The world ain't a binary state and the outcome is an unknown, but more power to the Libyans if assisting them now means a better future for them, and maybe, just maybe the surrounding nations will gain from their trade and freedom.

And yeah, what Mike said!

mike65

Eurolands greatest dissapointment would be a free democratic Libya.

Euroland

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

If we can bring oil security and assist the people of Libya in their aspirations for Democracy bringing the price of oil down in process assisting every nation in the world that can't afford high oil prices.....then what's the problem?

So, are you ready to sacrifice 70-75% of Libyan people who back Kaddafi in the interests of bringing western “democracy” to Libya, while supporting revolt of Islamic/Al Qaeda separatists?

Euroland

mike65 wrote: »

Eurolands greatest dissapointment would be a free democratic Libya.

The same way "free and democratic" as are Iraq, Bahrain, Jordan, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia?

mike65

Euroland

I'm going to put a serious point to you and I'd like a reply. If the rebels suceeded and Gadaffi was overthrown/removed elections held (under UN watch I'd suggest as they have effectively declared an interest) and a government formed which then got on with the business of running the state peacefully, would you regard that as a success for the UN, the coalition and the people of Libya? Would you regard it a good thing in itself?

Euroland

mike65 wrote: »

Euroland

I'm going to put a serious point to you and I'd like a reply. If the rebels suceeded and Gadaffi was overthrown/removed elections held (under UN watch I'd suggest as they have effectively declared an interest) and a government formed which then got on with the business of running the state peacefully, would you regard that as a success for the UN, the coalition and the people of Libya?

First of all, it is just your dream, which would never come to the reality.


Second, I’m against any illegal move into internal affairs of any state and against any external coup d’etat to replace existing political system in any state.

mike65

Okay. I know where you are coming from now. No to any intervention under any cirucumstances in any state.

Whats you defintion of legal/illegal bearing in mind the UN security council voted by 10-0 to intervene??

Inverse to the power of one!

Euroland wrote: »

So, are you ready to sacrifice 70-75% of Libyan people who back Kaddafi in the interests of bringing western “democracy” to Libya, while supporting revolt of Islamic/Al Qaeda separatists?

Thank you

You've just invoked my favorite misnomer......the use of the word "western" for what is in fact modernity and the progress of societies across the world.

Believe it or not, the revolutions across the middle east have been invoked by the people of the middle east themselves through the modern technology of the internet. Their's is a call not for "Western" ideals, but a call to move on from the dictatorships that have choked them for the last 50 years, the west doesn't hold a monopoly on the desire for freedom, it is a human trait invoked across the world held dear by all and I assure you any resulting democracy in Libya will have a very Libyan flavor

Don't be so bloody condescending to the will and intelligence of the people of Libya who are against Kadaffi, they have been silent until now and have every right to take their stand having been so bloodly repressed for so many years, I find it disturbing that you endorse their suffering at the hands of Kadaffi while insulting them that their freedom must of foreign "western" origin.

As for the Al-quida involvement, it will be a matter for post-Kadaffi Libya to reconcile their ideology against their input in to the revolution and given that they are such a tiny majority will probably amount to nothing in the future of Libya, in fact let us hope that the actions of the developed nations during the Arab spring do more to marginalise these extremists then the last ten years of the war on terror....that my friend would be progress!

Second, I’m against any illegal move into internal affairs of any state and against any external coup d’etat to replace existing political system in any state.

If this is your outlook then fair enough, now we can discuss things a bit better and move beyond the rhetoric. I guess that's the duality of the Modern world, history has worked hard to establish the integrity of the Sovereign nation, yet history has also taught us that if we stand by even events in nations as remote as Afghanistan will come back and bite us in the ass. In this regard we can quote successes such as Kosovo and failures such as Iraq, we can point to cynical actions and points where self-interest of nations has come together for positive intervention.

If you want to be absolutist about it, then thats for you, but I'd rather go with the model the post-ww2 institutions(UN, EU, Etc) have given us........put it this way, we've had the ability to destroy this earth completely for over 60 years now and somehow we haven't descended in to the depths of such mindless destruction.....we must be doing something right and hopefully we can continue to move forward with greater unity on this small earth in the future.

phosphate

mike65, there are countless UN resolutions which america violate regularly.
who enforces a no fly zone in iraq or afghanistan when they "accidently" kill 100 civilians? 2 of the worst countries to live in thanks to US invading them.

protesters are being murdered in yemen and ivory coast but theres no bombing campaign to support them.

seriously ask yourself why else would western countries bomb gaddafi?

they already sold him $1 billion of weapons between 2005/2009 and knew he was involved with terrorism for decades.

this is a war for energy and nothing else.

Offy

I love to say something like 'open your eyes people and stop been sheep' but whats the point? SAS solders were already caught by Libya trying to enter the country with guns and bombs, do you all think they were there to visit tourist attractions? The troops have already been sent in for covert operations, did the UN sanction this? They are the ones starting all the trouble over there and it is for oil. With only 40 years oil left it makes very little difference who controls it. A better discussion might lead to a way of finding an alternative fuel source. In Ireland we have an abundance of wind and wave power, depending on oil when we could be looking at alternatives seems a tad silly. What does it matter who controls it, we don’t control it and that’s a fact.

Euroland

mike65 wrote: »

Whats you defintion of legal/illegal bearing in mind the UN security council voted by 10-0 to intervene??

Since a long time ago UN became the legal arm of American military, effectively legalizing any war crimes they commit.

Euroland

mike65 wrote: »

Okay. I know where you are coming from now. No to any intervention under any cirucumstances in any state.

I don’t support interventions neither support revolutions, they bring 100 steps back and a lot of blood. I favor evolution, step-by-step, always forward.

Euroland

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Thank you

You've just invoked my favorite misnomer......the use of the word "western" for what is in fact modernity and the progress of societies across the world.

Believe it or not, the revolutions across the middle east have been invoked by the people of the middle east themselves through the modern technology of the internet. Their's is a call not for "Western" ideals, but a call to move on from the dictatorships that have choked them for the last 50 years, the west doesn't hold a monopoly on the desire for freedom, it is a human trait invoked across the world held dear by all and I assure you any resulting democracy in Libya will have a very Libyan flavor

They all were planned in the US and inspired on the ground by the CIA operatives.

Euroland

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

As for the Al-quida involvement, it will be a matter for post-Kadaffi Libya to reconcile their ideology against their input in to the revolution and given that they are such a tiny majority will probably amount to nothing in the future of Libya, in fact let us hope that the actions of the developed nations during the Arab spring do more to marginalise these extremists then the last ten years of the war on terror....that my friend would be progress!

They are not tiny; they are the major driving and fighting force among Islamist separatists fighting against Libyan army.

Inverse to the power of one!

Euroland wrote: »

Since a long time ago UN became the legal arm of American military, effectively legalizing any war crimes they commit.

America's been the most powerful state of the last 50 years, and yes, they have acted the Sh!t's during that time, but this will always be the cruel reality of power and humanity, the Chinese are now in the ascendancy and will follow the same pattern playing on the same patterns of propaganda and spin the Americans have played in the past.

And yet the power of the UN and International law have also been in the ascendancy, the effectiveness of raw power has been reduced in the face of this and is our only real hope for any future at all. The realities of world politics and power do not nullify the UN and it could be very well argued that the UN has done incredibly well in the face of such intractable historical traits.

I don't know, don't you think the blame America thing has been done to death by now? Aren't their other malevolent world powers out there, the Russians and the Chinese ain't a bunch of puppies either........at least the Americans have to be somewhat accountable to their own population and it's expectation that it's ideals of freedom be met, that's far more then can be said for the others, the Chechyens and Tibetians can at least vouch for this much where the practice of power has been far more brutal then that of the Americans.

They all were planned in the US and inspired on the ground by the CIA operatives.

And facebook and the power of social media was all powered by the CIA.......
And again, the millions of Arab voices on the internet who brought this around.......sheep to the US I suppose.
Come on, please, again give these people the respect they deserve!

They are not tiny; they are the major driving and fighting force among Islamist separatists fighting against Libyan army.

Your claim, so if you back it up and prove it, then I'll have major cause for concern.
But lets consider things another way, the Libyans are a Muslim nation and unfortunately there is the presence of a small group of extremists in every group , but yet they are a minority none the less, were what you were saying true, we would have at least one journalist beheaded by now, instead we have the entire east of Libya cheering on the UN intervention.......hardly the MO of a majority of Al-quida extremists.
So please.....bring some proof to the table and we can discuss further.

Also, I've just noticed something, You spell Kadaffi with the Libyan spelling not that often used in the English media.....Are you by any chance Libyan, and if so, don't you think it would be of more interest as to why you support Kadaffi then all these base generalizations against his opponents.....your opposing point of view would be of much more value to this discussion.

Euroland

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

In this regard we can quote successes such as Kosovo

What a success? Kosovo is run by Albanian mafia, involved in muss murder of Serbs, drug trafficking, and body parts trafficking.

Offy

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

America's been the most powerful state of the last 50 years, and yes, they have acted the Sh!t's during that time, but this will always be the cruel reality of power and humanity, the Chinese are now in the ascendancy and will follow the same pattern playing on the same patterns of propaganda and spin the Americans have played in the past.

And yet the power of the UN and International law have also been in the ascendancy, the effectiveness of raw power has been reduced in the face of this and is our only real hope for any future at all. The realities of world politics and power do not nullify the UN and it could be very well argued that the UN has done incredibly well in the face of such intractable historical traits.

I don't know, don't you think the blame America thing has been done to death by now? Aren't their other malevolent world powers out there, the Russians and the Chinese ain't a bunch of puppies either........at least the Americans have to be somewhat accountable to their own population and it's expectation that it's ideals of freedom be met, that's far more then can be said for the others, the Chechyens and Tibetians can at least vouch for this much where the practice of power has been far more brutal then that of the Americans.

Why did America do nothing when China shoot down its spy plane? Are you sure America has been more powerful than China for the last 50 years? I disagree, China would walk over America and not bat an eyelid.

Euroland

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

the Chechyens and Tibetians can at least vouch for this much where the practice of power has been far more brutal then that of the Americans.

Chechens and Tibetans were inspired and financed by CIA. Once the Chechens realized that they were manipulated by CIA, they stopped fighting.

Inverse to the power of one!

Offy wrote: »

Why did America do nothing when China shoot down its spy plane? Are you sure America has been more powerful than China for the last 50 years? I disagree, China would walk over America and not bat an eyelid.

I said China is in the ascendancy, and no China would not walk over the US, the human race would be extinct were such conflict to happen, no eyelid's would be around to be batted.

Anyway is China to be anymore a philanthropic power then the US in this century?

I doubt it!

What a success? Kosovo is run by Albanian mafia, involved in muss murder of Serbs, drug trafficking, and body parts trafficking.

What? The war didn't end and the countries are not now somewhat stable? Musta been the CIA doping my coffee with the best acid they have to offer.....

Chechens and Tibetans were inspired and financed by CIA. Once the Chechens realized that they were manipulated by CIA, they stopped fighting.

Proof or did Stan Smith's CIA uberdog eat it?

Nodin

Euroland wrote: »

According to the US former Special Forces officers and according to other intelligent sources US, French and British Special Forces already on the ground and, in breach of the UN resolution, fighting on the side of Islamist rebels, preparing for full scale ground invasion:

............

Do you have any evidence that the Rebels in Libya are, as you put it, "Islamist"?

Sponge Bob

Nodin wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that the Rebels in Libya are, as you put it, "Islamist"?

I do, in fact they are known British Agent Islamists with strong Al Quaida ties to make it even worse

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/nov/10/uk.davidshayler

The Brits had given the head of the LIFG asylum and funded an assasination attempt on Ghadaffi in 1996.

Astonishingly, despite suspicions that he was a high-level al-Qaeda operative, al-Liby was given political asylum in Britain and lived in Manchester until May of 2000 when he eluded a police raid on his house and fled abroad. The raid discovered a 180-page al-Qaeda 'manual for jihad' containing instructions for terrorist attacks.

The LIFG has not gone away you know Roll on to today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG members made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.
Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.

I would point out that Islamist fighters fought very bravely in Bosnia and have no operational presence there since the peace deal 15 years ago. The LIFG is rather small within Libya itself but just wait till Abu Yahya gets home

Nodin

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I do, in fact they are known British Agent Islamists with strong Al Quaida ties to make it even worse

..............but just wait till Abu Yahya gets home

Thats Islamist involvment, but it doesn't cover the OP's rather sweeping "Islamist Rebels" that referred to all and sundry.

Overheal

I don't know why there is the need for an umpteenth thread about this. There are

2 in After Hours

2 in Conspiracy Theories

1 in Military

another here in Politics

that I am aware of.

If you want to discuss the "It's for OIL" BS, I suggest in the friendliest terms you go discuss it in Conspiracy Theories forum. Don't know why people have a hangup about conspiracy theories: I believe in aliens too and sometimes its interesting to listen to branstorming and speculation. But it's not really appropriate discussion for here, is it?

phosphate

Overheal, you'll show bias against the argument it's for oil because you're half Irish/American.
I don't know why you feel personally offended just because there's criticism of your government.
The problem isn't with American people in general but you take it personally.

Naturally you're going to say BS to the theory it's for oil but there really is no other reasonable explanation.

It's a real slap in the face to see politicians talking about cutting critical health services "because we can't afford it" while at the same time spending billions of money bombing some poor people in the middle east...who just happen to be in possession of large reserves of oil.

Give people some credit for disbelieving this notion of spreading "freedom and democracy" across the middle east....ffs
Are we that ignorant to believe the official line here? ...

RandomName2

Euroland wrote: »

So, are you ready to sacrifice 70-75% of Libyan people who back Kaddafi in the interests of bringing western “democracy” to Libya, while supporting revolt of Islamic/Al Qaeda separatists?

Clearly biased Gadaffi supporter. The probability of no rational discussion can be assumed.

Ironic how earlier in thread Euroland supports the idea of a Taliban-Al Qaeda Afghanistan over the current government which was the product of 'illegal intervention' (and presumably designed to give the US the control of Afghanistan's vast oil fields)?

RandomName2

Euroland wrote: »

Since a long time ago UN became the legal arm of American military, effectively legalizing any war crimes they commit.

Such as?

Korea
Iraq (Desert Storm)

That is all.

phosphate

RandomName2, I suppose you believe selling Gaddafi $1 billion of weapons was to help the libyan people too? :rolleyes:

Overheal

phosphate wrote: »

Overheal, you'll show bias against the argument it's for oil because you're half Irish/American.
I don't know why you feel personally offended just because there's criticism of your government.
The problem isn't with American people in general but you take it personally.

Naturally you're going to say BS to the theory it's for oil but there really is no other reasonable explanation.

It's a real slap in the face to see politicians talking about cutting critical health services "because we can't afford it" while at the same time spending billions of money bombing some poor people in the middle east...who just happen to be in possession of large reserves of oil.

Give people some credit for disbelieving this notion of spreading "freedom and democracy" across the middle east....ffs
Are we that ignorant to believe the official line here? ...

It's simply a theory, and a sweeping statement, about an oil conspiracy. I don't have a problem with people theorizing. I have a problem with them going around everywhere stating it matter of factly when its not. We're almost 40 posts in here without one source to even vaguely attempt to back that theory up, either. They're doing a much better job of it in this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056213719

phosphate

Overheal wrote:

It's simply a theory, and a sweeping statement, about an oil conspiracy. I don't have a problem with people theorizing. I have a problem with them going around everywhere stating it matter of factly when its not. We're almost 40 posts in here without one source to even vaguely attempt to back that theory up, either.

There was plenty of information posted in the CT forum which you and a few others conveniently ignored.

It's a case of cognitive dissonance, you know what it's for but you'd rather pretend it's simply not possible. I know it's discomforting to learn your government are no better than somalian pirates, perhaps more advanced weaponry, but pirates none the less.

Is it not a fact we depend on cheap energy from the middle east? so what other reason should we be over there for? spreading freedom and democracy? you really believe that crap when people are being told "we have no money" for health services...

i'm dumbfounded by people who accept this attack on Gaddafi is to support Libyan people....

RandomName2

phosphate wrote: »

RandomName2, I suppose you believe selling Gaddafi $1 billion of weapons was to help the libyan people too? :rolleyes:

So they sell him weapons so that he will have weapons that will have the means to resist rebel forces and be much harder to root out?

He will be aided by oil companies who will attempt to topple him because it is more stable if the country collapses (not to mention increasing the price of oil)?

The libyan rebels are not libyan?

Anybody else feel free to point out any other inconsistencies.
---

The 'no fly zone' is a disingenuous attempt by the West to try and take out the mad dog. However, silly conspiracy theories (the twin towers were blown up by pre-planted charges in order for America to do... something!!!) as usual do their best to make a mockery of the pursuit of knowledge. :pac:

phosphate

RandomName2 wrote: »

So they sell him weapons so that he will have weapons that will have the means to resist rebel forces and be much harder to root out?

He will be aided by oil companies who will attempt to topple him because it is more stable if the country collapses (not to mention increasing the price of oil)?

The libyan rebels are not libyan?

Anybody else feel free to point out any other inconsistencies.
---

The 'no fly zone' is a disingenuous attempt by the West to try and take out the mad dog. However, silly conspiracy theories (the twin towers were blown up by pre-planted charges in order for America to do... something!!!) as usual do their best to make a mockery of the pursuit of knowledge. :pac:

Nobody here is talking about the twin towers.
Are you capable of countering an argument without name calling?

It is rather childish behaviour.

There's certainly inconsistencies with the official line that somehow NATO are bombing Gaddafi and his forces to help the Libyan people.

Are you living under a rock? Do you see the protests in UK against austerity? Did you witness them in Wisconsin?

"we don't have the money" ... "but we do have money to bomb people in Libya" ...I can see why you'd believe that.

Especially when you have oppression in about 20 other countries around the world which don't happen to have any oil or gas in them.

Overheal

phosphate wrote: »

There was plenty of information posted in the CT forum which you and a few others conveniently ignored.

It's a case of cognitive dissonance, you know what it's for but you'd rather pretend it's simply not possible. I know it's discomforting to learn your government are no better than somalian pirates, perhaps more advanced weaponry, but pirates none the less.

Is it not a fact we depend on cheap energy from the middle east? so what other reason should we be over there for? spreading freedom and democracy? you really believe that crap when people are being told "we have no money" for health services...

i'm dumbfounded by people who accept this attack on Gaddafi is to support Libyan people....

I don't know why you keep citing US domestic concerns. I'm perfectly aware of our $14,256,714,000,000+ deficit. I'm also perfectly aware that I objected to the possibility of another long, drawn out occupation or engagement, and continue to oppose the idea. But even as boots start questionably hitting ground, it's too early to say how long they will be there for.

Further I don't ignore the information being cited in the CT thread about the oil. And you've provided a lot of that yourself, thank you. I think it's grand to discuss it there, it doesn't need to obfuscate each and every thread on the Libya discussion though. I'm plenty-more interested in sticking with What we know and not confusing it with What We Think We Know.

I've given you a line in the CT thread to discuss your oil argument. I'm only going to discuss the Theory there: I reserve the right to blatantly ridicule or ignore the idea elsewhere.

RandomName2 wrote:

However, silly conspiracy theories (the twin towers were blown up by pre-planted charges in order for America to do... something!!!) as usual do their best to make a mockery of the pursuit of knowledge.

That's not really fair though, either. Trying to ridicule a theory by likening it to another theory, that is.

Offy

Overheal wrote: »

I don't know why you keep citing US domestic concerns. I'm perfectly aware of our $14,256,714,000,000+ deficit. I'm also perfectly aware that I objected to the possibility of another long, drawn out occupation or engagement, and continue to oppose the idea. But even as boots start questionably hitting ground, it's too early to say how long they will be there for.

Further I don't ignore the information being cited in the CT thread about the oil. And you've provided a lot of that yourself, thank you. I think it's grand to discuss it there, it doesn't need to obfuscate each and every thread on the Libya discussion though. I'm plenty-more interested in sticking with What we know and not confusing it with What We Think We Know.

I've given you a line in the CT thread to discuss your oil argument. I'm only going to discuss the Theory there: I reserve the right to blatantly ridicule or ignore the idea elsewhere.

That's not really fair though, either. Trying to ridicule a theory by likening it to another theory, that is.

In saying all that I bet in time you will learn (whether or not you admit it) that this is about oil! What we know is there were no weapons of mass distruction, we also know SAS troop were caught trying to enter the country with guns and bombs. No ground troops? Ya? I think those SAS troops should have been shot in the head.

Overheal

Offy wrote: »

In saying all that I bet in time you will learn (whether or not you admit it) that this is about oil! What we know is there were no weapons of mass distruction, we also know SAS troop were caught trying to enter the country with guns and bombs. No ground troops? Ya? I think those SAS troops should have been shot in the head.

In Time. When there is evidence to support Theory. When Theory becomes reality. Until it's reality though, it's speculation.

Still though can you tell me with a straight face the UN passed the resolution because it was for Oil? Did Colin Power go to the Security Council with a phial of crude to scare people into voting in favor?

Offy

Overheal wrote: »

In Time. When there is evidence to support Theory. When Theory becomes reality. Until it's reality though, it's speculation.

Still though can you tell me with a straight face the UN passed the resolution because it was for Oil? Did Colin Power go to the Security Council with a phial of crude to scare people into voting in favor?

Did anyone go there with weapons of mass destruction? History repeating itself. I really dont know why so many people are so bothered by it, so what if innocent people are getting killed? Thats been going on since the start of time. Does it really matter what its over? Oil, freedom, whatever, murder is murder and its ok if a government commit murder, Bush is ok with torture so why not murder too? Or do you think Obama is all innocent? He's done nothing about Bush breaking the Geneva convention now has he?

Overheal

Offy wrote: »

Did anyone go there with weapons of mass destruction?

Colin Powell went there with a mock-up phial of anthrax.

History repeating itself. I really dont know why so many people are so bothered by it, so what if innocent people are getting killed? Thats been going on since the start of time. Does it really matter what its over? Oil, freedom, whatever, murder is murder and its ok if a government commit murder, Bush is ok with torture so why not murder too?

It's kind of a different story here. It's not every day regimes use the full force of the military to bomb and shell dissidents, or bring in mercenaries for the same goal. Or declare a campaign for systematic killing of the opposition.

Or do you think Obama is all innocent? He's done nothing about Bush breaking the Geneva convention now has he?

I really don't see what that has to do with anything here.

Offy

Overheal wrote: »

Colin Powell went there with a mock-up phial of anthrax.
It's kind of a different story here. It's not every day regimes use the full force of the military to bomb and shell dissidents, or bring in mercenaries for the same goal. Or declare a campaign for systematic killing of the opposition. I really don't see what that has to do with anything here.

A mock-up phial of anthrax does not justify the war on weapons of mass destruction imo.
I do agree with you on point two. I agree that Gadaffi needs to be removed but I refuse to support and action there the SAS troops are sent in with guns and bombs to make it look like the dissidents are the ones planting the bombs. Everyone knows Gadaffi is a nutcase. Just remove him and stop feeding us full of BS.
What is has do to with this debate: there are lots of nutcases killing innocent people, this was is motivated by oil. The SAS were sent in to make it look like its the dissidents, similar to the CIA training and equipping Bin Laden years ago. Those tactics dont work as Bin Laden proved. Equally as WW2 proved violence on that scale does not work.

RandomName2

Offy wrote: »

A mock-up phial of anthrax does not justify the war on weapons of mass destruction imo.
I do agree with you on point two. I agree that Gadaffi needs to be removed but I refuse to support and action there the SAS troops are sent in with guns and bombs to make it look like the dissidents are the ones planting the bombs. Everyone knows Gadaffi is a nutcase. Just remove him and stop feeding us full of BS.
What is has do to with this debate: there are lots of nutcases killing innocent people, this was is motivated by oil. The SAS were sent in to make it look like its the dissidents, similar to the CIA training and equipping Bin Laden years ago. Those tactics dont work as Bin Laden proved. Equally as WW2 proved violence on that scale does not work.

Mostly right (although you do go off the rails just a little) O.o

Agree with you about the BS - the countries enforcing the no-fly-zone and bombing Gadaffi's forces should just cleanly say

'There is this nut-case here who is a liabiltity, who hates us, we hate him, and most of his people hate him. What's more he's in charge of a whole chunk of oil. This is an opportunity for us to get rid of him. If we do nothing the rebellion will be crushed. If we drop some bombs - with minimal cost to our own forces we perhaps can have him toppled. It's a no-brainer win-win.'

There are only two problems with this philosophy:
1. Who are the rebels and what sort of government will they bring about if they win?
2. What if Gadaffi wins?

RandomName2

phosphate wrote: »

Nobody here is talking about the twin towers.
Are you capable of countering an argument without name calling?

It is rather childish behaviour.

Fair enough. :pac:

phosphate wrote: »

"we don't have the money" ... "but we do have money to bomb people in Libya" ...I can see why you'd believe that.

Especially when you have oppression in about 20 other countries around the world which don't happen to have any oil or gas in them.

The military equipment and personnel are already paid for. They get paid for on an annual basis.

Apart from that military equipment that gets decommissioned. HMS Ark Royal anyone?

If you want to make an argument, explain why you don't have intervention where you have oppression in about 20 other countries around the world that do have oil or gas in them. If the US was only looking for a soft oil target, for god sake why wouldn't they have just annexed Bahrain?

Inverse to the power of one!

RandomName2 wrote: »

If the US was only looking for a soft oil target, for god sake why wouldn't they have just annexed Bahrain?

Because Saudi would sh1t bricks, and they own enough hardware to light up the American conventional hardware, they're already overstretched in Iraq or Afghanistan as it is without taking on an adversary that can actually attack and defend with modern military weapons and tactics.

But you are right, there are easier oil targets out there.

davoxx

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

But you are right, there are easier oil targets out there.

what are the easier targets?

oil reserves in billion barrels (2005)

• Saudi Arabia (262) - allies
• Canada (179) - allies
• Iran (126) - may have nukes - but still looking for a reason
• Iraq (115) - done
• Kuwait (102) - done
• United Arab Emirates (98) - allies
• Venezuela (77) - failed already
• Russia (60) - hell no!!
• Libya (39) - check
• Nigeria (35) - allies?

Euroland

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

What? The war didn't end and the countries are not now somewhat stable? Musta been the CIA doping my coffee with the best acid they have to offer.....

Yep, Kosovo now is “stable”, ruled by the leader of Kosovar Albanian mafia:

Hashim Thaçi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashim_Tha%C3%A7i

Offy

davoxx wrote: »

what are the easier targets?

oil reserves in billion barrels (2005)

• Saudi Arabia (262) - allies
• Canada (179) - allies
• Iran (126) - may have nukes - but still looking for a reason
• Iraq (115) - done
• Kuwait (102) - done
• United Arab Emirates (98) - allies
• Venezuela (77) - allies
• Russia (60) - hell no!!
• Libya (39) - check
• Nigeria (35) - allies?

Best post in this thread.

Euroland

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Proof or did Stan Smith's CIA uberdog eat it?

There was a lot written about it, but mainly not in English. However, the main prove is that Chechens, after realizing that they were simply manipulated by CIA in American interests, just stopped fighting and begun re-building Chechnya. Look at the capital of Chechnya (Grozny) now; its central part is a completely different city from what it was just 10-15 years ago: