The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

Just read. Don't change the subject, just read the piece.

Change the subject? Have you even been following the thread? shows how much attention you pay to the other users on the forum... :rolleyes:

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

the mainstream media? as opposed to what? an opinion piece from a "activist".
cop on, are you 15 or something?

Oooooohh!!!

It doesn't matter who the piece is written by as long as it is sourced and factual.

If a bullsh!t artist like Glenn Beck or Tom Friedman wrote "Dublin is the capital of Ireland" I wouldn't dismiss this outright because it was written by an habitual liar. I would check it and concede that yes they are correct. You, au contraire, spew out gibberish with zero sources and you refuse to read sourced articles provided to you on the basis of who you "think" might have written them, namely some "activist" in your words. And you accuse others of being "15".

You're the one who's acting like a pre-pubescent upstart who mouths off, gets set straight, but doesn't have the strength of character to acknowledge it and so you stamp your feet, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "I can't hear you".

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

First fairly sensible post I've seen on here in awhile.

huh?
i know you are having a sly dig at the rest of us, but that is cool.
even after the whole lizzie fiasco, where you never admitted you were wrong in your assumptions ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

They seem like a fairly respectable organisation, its a decent article but the author is making a fundamental mistake, he bases a lot of this piece on what he calls "The myth of black mercenaries leads to lynchings", however I see it was written in July, less was known then.

what no pointing out their misreporting, their actual lies, their lack of objectivity, their bias, their connections to the Gaddafi regime, their past activism?
ah wait sec, the excuse is "it was in July", ah since it was in the past less must be known about it ... yes a fundamental mistake indeed, write about things in the past is a fundamental mistake ...

maybe this post is as sensible as the others, just your reply is still nonsense ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

Gaddafi used many black mercenaries
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/02/libya-gaddafi-army-mercenaries-backlash?INTCMP=SRCH

no comment on the guardian being anti usa?

Jonny7 wrote: »

My only hope on that is that it is at least transparent, news crews are getting to talk to the prisoners, etc.

like which news crews? i'm seriously interested in what you deem as transparent media organisations ...

davoxx

studiorat wrote: »

the mainstream media? as opposed to what? an opinion piece from a "activist".
cop on, are you 15 or something?

studiorat wrote: »

Change the subject? Have you even been following the thread? shows how much attention you pay to the other users on the forum...

you seemed to have missed this, so here it is again, for the 4th time?

davoxx wrote: »

facts/links or GTFO :rolleyes:

Penn

jackiebaron banned for personal abuse.

To everyone else, knock it off. Take a step back, read through your own posts and see if that's really the way you think a discussion happens. Calm it down, or infractions & bans will follow.

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

what has that got to do with my post ...


from wiki:


it would be nice if some basic research was done on a topic before people jumped ... would same me time and further the discussion quicker ...

So a few attempts, some not linked with the west and others half-hearted or not approved. Now, you claim the current intervention is illegal, so why not a full scale invasion or attack, back 40 years ago, if oil was so important? It would presumably have been easier than waiting nearly half a century, while Gadafi backed groups carry out terrorist attacks, actually doing deals with Gadafi, and hoping some assassination attempt might work. Surely a proper, committed attack would have been easier, and would have secured this precious oil ages ago, especially during the oil crisis.

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

<stuff>

bah i'm bored now, you had plenty of time to reply, now i can't be bothered ...

Daithi 1

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So a few attempts, some not linked with the west and others half-hearted or not approved. Now, you claim the current intervention is illegal, so why not a full scale invasion or attack, back 40 years ago, if oil was so important? It would presumably have been easier than waiting nearly half a century, while Gadafi backed groups carry out terrorist attacks, actually doing deals with Gadafi, and hoping some assassination attempt might work. Surely a proper, committed attack would have been easier, and would have secured this precious oil ages ago, especially during the oil crisis.

Isn't oil more valuable and scarce now, than ever before ?

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Isn't oil more valuable and scarce now, than ever before ?

True, but I'm not convinced the US invades a country "for oil".. I haven't seen a working functional example of it yet.

Perhaps long-term stability so that country can upgrade and maximise it's oil production to low market prices somewhat.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

True, but I'm not convinced the US invades a country "for oil".. I haven't seen a working functional example of it yet.

i doubt you will ever see a working functional example of it ....

Jonny7 wrote: »

Perhaps long-term stability so that country can upgrade and maximise it's oil production to low market prices somewhat.

is that not for oil?

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

True, but I'm not convinced the US invades a country "for oil".. I haven't seen a working functional example of it yet.

Perhaps long-term stability so that country can upgrade and maximise it's oil production to low market prices somewhat.

Well, we know the reason wasn't to help the Libyan people. If you don't think it was for oil, and if I recall correctly, you didn't buy the Gold Dinar excuse... what would you suggest the real reason is ?

studiorat

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Well, we know the reason wasn't to help the Libyan people. If you don't think it was for oil, and if I recall correctly, you didn't buy the Gold Dinar excuse... what would you suggest the real reason is ?

why wasn't an attempt to help the Libyan people? The question isn't was it the right or wrong thing to do, or if they helped or not. But the motivation behind it, why discount an attempt to help?

Daithi 1

studiorat wrote: »

why wasn't an attempt to help the Libyan people? The question isn't was it the right or wrong thing to do, or if they helped or not. But the motivation behind it, why discount an attempt to help?

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So a few attempts, some not linked with the west and others half-hearted or not approved. Now, you claim the current intervention is illegal, so why not a full scale invasion or attack, back 40 years ago, if Humans was so important? It would presumably have been easier than waiting nearly half a century, while Gadafi backed groups carry out terrorist attacks, actually doing deals with Gadafi, and hoping some assassination attempt might work. Surely a proper, committed attack would have been easier, and would have secured this precious Humans ages ago, especially during the Humanitarian crisis.

So... everything Jeb said about oil, but regarding a Humanitarian effort.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Well, we know the reason wasn't to help the Libyan people. If you don't think it was for oil, and if I recall correctly, you didn't buy the Gold Dinar excuse... what would you suggest the real reason is ?

Why did NATO go into Yugoslavia?
Why did the US go into Somalia?
Why did France and the UN go into Ivory Coast?
(note I am not including Iraq or Afghanistan which were very different)

If the main reason wasn't on the grounds of humanitarian intervention then why did they go into those god awful places?

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why did NATO go into Yugoslavia?
Why did the US go into Somalia?
Why did France and the UN go into Ivory Coast?
(note I am not including Iraq or Afghanistan which were very different)

If the main reason wasn't on the grounds of humanitarian intervention then why did they go into those god awful places?

I didn't say those were not humanitarian missions.


Isn't that slightly off topic ? :P

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I didn't say those were not humanitarian missions.


Isn't that slightly off topic ? :P

Woah I wasn't expecting you to admit they were humanitarian missions

Folks here are softening up.

Anyway, what makes it so impossible to comprehend that the main reason to go into Libya wasn't humanitarian?

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Woah I wasn't expecting you to admit they were humanitarian missions

Folks here are softening up.

Anyway, what makes it so impossible to comprehend that the main reason to go into Libya wasn't humanitarian?

Same answer as I gave to Studiorat...

See Jebs reply...

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So a few attempts, some not linked with the west and others half-hearted or not approved. Now, you claim the current intervention is illegal, so why not a full scale invasion or attack, back 40 years ago, if humans was so important? It would presumably have been easier than waiting nearly half a century, while Gadafi backed groups carry out terrorist attacks, actually doing deals with Gadafi, and hoping some assassination attempt might work. Surely a proper, committed attack would have been easier, and would have secured this precious Humans ages ago, especially during the humanitarian crisis.

Everything he mentions regarding oil, can be said for Humanitarian.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Same answer as I gave to Studiorat...

See Jebs reply...



Everything he mentions regarding oil, can be said for Humanitarian.

Why do you think NATO implemented a no-fly zone over Libya? what reasons?

Just a straight normal response please nothing "cryptic".

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why do you think NATO implemented a no-fly zone over Libya? what reasons?

Just a straight normal response please nothing "cryptic".

You say "no fly zone", but that's not actually what was implemented, in a conventional sense. Outright attack is what happened.

You're gonna have to rephrase the question...

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You say "no fly zone", but that's not actually what was implemented, in a conventional sense. Outright attack is what happened.

You're gonna have to rephrase the question...

Hmmm, gotta say these look like politician answers to me
Why did the UN get involved in Libya? what was their true goal?

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Well, we know the reason wasn't to help the Libyan people. If you don't think it was for oil, and if I recall correctly, you didn't buy the Gold Dinar excuse... what would you suggest the real reason is ?

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why did NATO go into Yugoslavia?
Why did the US go into Somalia?
Why did France and the UN go into Ivory Coast?
(note I am not including Iraq or Afghanistan which were very different)

If the main reason wasn't on the grounds of humanitarian intervention then why did they go into those god awful places?

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hmmm, gotta say these look like politician answers to me
Why did the UN get involved in Libya? what was their true goal?

:pac:

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why did the UN get involved in Libya? what was their true goal?

to obey their american puppet masters?

i don't see the un imposing sanctions on israel for nuclear weapons, though iran seems to be getting sanctioned ...

but you have not answered the question, unless you really believe it was for humanitarian intervention?

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

:pac:

Like getting blood from a stone

Libya was largely a humanitarian mission. If you disagree with that, please try to back it up.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Like getting blood from a stone

Libya was largely a humanitarian mission. If you disagree with that, please try to back it up.

why largely? what was the other non largely aspect of it?

and how much largely? are we talking 90% or 51%?
or are we talking about 10% humanitarian with 90 other 1% aspects?

just trying to clarify what you mean by largely in this context.

Daithi 1

Funny that thy decided to use the humanitarian excuse at a time when Gaddafi's reputation was at it's best in 40 years. (Going by the UN)

40 years of terror attacks, slaughtering his own people and all the other boogy man stuff.

Why allow all these atrocities be carried out over 40 years ?

It's not like they thought.. "enough is enough", because we know the U.N were to bestow an award on Gaddafi for his improvements, don't we ?

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Funny that thy decided to use the humanitarian excuse at a time when Gaddafi's reputation was at it's best in 40 years. (Going by the UN)

He was attacking and killing his own people for protesting. There was 200-300 deaths reported in just 2 days alone.

Folks here don't like mainstream media, so here is antiwar.com reporting the situation in Libya (Feb 23rd)
http://antiwar.com/past/20110223.html

40 years of terror attacks, slaughtering his own people and all the other boogy man stuff.

Why allow all these atrocities be carried out over 40 years ?

Attack Libya before the protests took place? that doesn't work, that's like Iraq. You need a reason to intervene somewhere, a very strong reason. There are also so many other factors, location, geopolitics, timing, risk, etc, etc.

It's not like they thought.. "enough is enough", because we know the U.N were to bestow an award on Gaddafi for his improvements, don't we ?

Here's the report
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf

I can't find any mention in this document of any award.

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

bah i'm bored now, you had plenty of time to reply, now i can't be bothered ...

or just can't

davoxx wrote: »

to obey their american puppet masters?

i don't see the un imposing sanctions on israel for nuclear weapons, though iran seems to be getting sanctioned ...

but you have not answered the question, unless you really believe it was for humanitarian intervention?

if the UN is an American puppet, how come they didn't back the Iraq war?

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

bah i'm bored now, you had plenty of time to reply, now i can't be bothered ...

or just can't

nope, it's definitely that i can't be bothered ...
i've explained where you were mistaken, and rather than address that point you change it ...

but sure, we'll try again.

your point is: the americans did not try to throw over gaddaffi earlier, therefore they did not do it this time for oil. that then change to that they only made half assed attempts and not a proper attempt war ...
my answer is: they did, but the technology for war and the influence of other countries may have prevented an all out war like this 'no fly zone'. libya had downscaled it's weapons, with promises from america (of course america reneged on these and stole billions of assets which they claim were frozen for the libyians).

so the fact that they tried before, are know liars and can not be trusted (evident from history) means that your point is null and void and their motive remains the same: oil ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

Financial support for the Albanian and Libyan stockpile destruction programmes was provided by the United States.

so in summary, when you can start a war under false pretences and that you know that the opponent is weaker than you, and the price of resources is at an all time high, that is when you start the war ...

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

to obey their american puppet masters?

i don't see the un imposing sanctions on israel for nuclear weapons, though iran seems to be getting sanctioned ...

but you have not answered the question, unless you really believe it was for humanitarian intervention?

if the UN is an American puppet, how come they didn't back the Iraq war?

it's hard to control the strings, maybe they got tangled?
but this time they sorted it advance ...

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

nope, it's definitely that i can't be bothered ...
i've explained where you were mistaken, and rather than address that point you change it ...

but sure, we'll try again.

your point is: the americans did not try to throw over gaddaffi earlier, therefore they did not do it this time for oil. that then change to that they only made half assed attempts and not a proper attempt war ...
my answer is: they did, but the technology for war and the influence of other countries may have prevented an all out war like this 'no fly zone'. libya had downscaled it's weapons, with promises from america (of course america reneged on these and stole billions of assets which they claim were frozen for the libyians).

so the fact that they tried before, are know liars and can not be trusted (evident from history) means that your point is null and void and their motive remains the same: oil ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention


so in summary, when you can start a war under false pretences and that you know that the opponent is weaker than you, and the price of resources is at an all time high, that is when you start the war ...


it's hard to control the strings, maybe they got tangled?
but this time they sorted it advance ...

They had legitimate reasons to attack several times after Libyan supported bombings, and the US was always stronger than Libya, doesn't seem to make sense to have a 'war' under false pretenses like you suggest. Any sources for the Libyan assets being stolen?

Strings getting tangled is the weakest argument I've heard yet.

Jonny7

Britain and Libya had a rather "cosy" relationship right up until the protests.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/19/britain-alliance-libya-gaddafi-crackdown