Proof America after Libyas oil!

Well it's funny how the "oil" argument is used both to criticise the west for 1) being friends with Gaddafi, and 2) bombing Gaddafi.

Make up your mind, people.

Look at the first three letters of 'Operation Iraqi Liberation'...

The total value of Iraq's yearly oil production is some 91 billion dollars (2.5m barrels a day at $100/barrel).

The total cost of the Iraq war is estimated above 3 trillion.

So at current prices it'd take 32 years to break even on the Iraq War assuming there was 100% profit on the oil and all of this profit went to the US (both of which are unrealistic assumptions).

The intervention is Libya is only because the Western nations have realised they can't possibly do legitimate business with Gadaffi anymore and maintain their humanistic facade after all these horrendous crimes he's done that have been reported in the media.

Did I say anything regarding the effectiveness of the system? In such an argument I am not interested in the effectiveness but the how. The USA would need private assets to exploit the oil resources in Libya if it were under US control and then it would still need to buy the oil from the private sector. Not to mention that already western companies have a significant claim of Libyan oil already, especially European oil companies.

So unless the USA turned communist overnight, it can't steal the oil or even have a bargain of the oil by having it under US government control, which is not only illegal by international law but in the long run, costly. So the oil argument would simply melt down to, as I mentioned earlier, disillusionment.

Well, that's reassuring.

"Steal" is such a dirty word. "Exploit" is a much much better word. "Diplomacy" goes a long way during these conflicts. You honestly think that the US aren't going to turn to the rebels after Gaddafi's defeat (supposing he gets defeated) and say "You know we helped you guys here, right? Wink wink nudge nudge".

Simply saying "I has a capitalism" isn't an argument
You honestly think that the US have never done anything illegal?
I'm pretty sure most countries have, it's just kept under wraps.

Look at the first three letters of 'Operation Iraqi Liberation'...

Well in this post you have once and for all proved you have no idea what you are talking about. UNAMIR in Rwanda was a notorious failure, whereas UNITAF in Somalia is a classic example of successful humanitarian intervention.

It's pretty obvious why the West has taken action in Libya. It's in the international media spotlight, and therefore the general public are aware of it. States are subsequently obliged to take action because pretty much any decent human being would be disgusted if they did not. I did not claim the motives are strictly humanitarian, but either way, the actions are humanitarian.

You seem to think the UN is some kind of biased party in itself which could actually gain from oil, or whatever you think the corrupt motives are. The UN is simply a tool used in order to attempt to resolve global issues.

I strongly suggest you get to grips with the basics of post-cold war international relations if you are going to debate such a topic on the internet, before you just embarrass yourself.

Powerful certainly, it's a shadow of the country it used to be.

Ghaddafi is an excuse for the US to get into Libya.

"Steal" is such a dirty word. "Exploit" is a much much better word. "Diplomacy" goes a long way during these conflicts. You honestly think that the US aren't going to turn to the rebels after Gaddafi's defeat (supposing he gets defeated) and say "You know we helped you guys here, right? Wink wink nudge nudge".

Simply saying "I has a capitalism" isn't an argument
You honestly think that the US have never done anything illegal?
I'm pretty sure most countries have, it's just kept under wraps.

Serbia wasn't 'powerful' in an international threat sense - it was just the neighbourhood bully.

Would you have opposed international forces going in to prevent the massacre of Bosnian Muslims? The toppling of Milosevic in a popular movement that resulted following the Bosnian war has led to the entire Balkan region being a far more peaceful place, with countries moving towards joining the EU and becoming more prosperous.

I think the only people that have raised any form of opposition to this are the old hardline supporters of the Serb regime andVladimir Putin's Russia, which has seen its influence in the region decline.

Yeah, lets just not do business with the majority of the world. Let's just leave all those resources untapped, and use the wealth that we have from thin air to go to those countries and sort them out. Get real. I have never said the West was perfect or that it can be perfect. I have even said in previous threads we should just leave Libya to it, so the Arabs actually appreciate the next time we help them out. Your criticism of people in an age with poor media coverage, poor knowledge of the general population of what its country is doing, and of people who are long dead or in retirement homes is comical.

Everything I said is well documented and true- now admitted by parties and ****s on your assumption that the West promotes "democracy and freedom" worldwide- in itself an extremely comical and ignorant view of someone who sees the world in black and white.

I have no idea what you are on about- it absolutely did not work in somalia. Why do you think somalia is still such a mess? You'll have to be more specific, I'll now presume you were referring to the civil war/genocide in rwanda- you're right about that. Zimbabwe was in the spotlight before. I really don't think about that when it comes to the UN, you assume far too much from my posts. I'm going to have to repeat myself, why were Zimbabwe's affairs left to the AU & SADC?
Why was Zimbabwe not a un issue?