Proof America after Libyas oil!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Inzamam99
I completely agree. America would definitely have been wiped out if it hadn't overthrown the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED governments of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Chile, Iran, Grenada, Afghanistan and many others. Oh and allow me to mention how it supported a murderous terrorist organisation to achieve its aims in Nicaragua, supported the Khmer Rouge who massacred most of their own intellectuals and condemned most of their population to starvation, turned Iran from democracy into an autocracy etc. etc.
You clearly don't know anything about the topic so why pretend. You're one of the people who basically go US GOOD, ISLAM BAD
without actually knowing anything.
You clearly don't know anything about the topic so why pretend. You're one of the people who basically go US GOOD, ISLAM BAD
without actually knowing anything.Most of those governments could barely be called democracies or even governments for that matter.
Original post by Brandmon
Shows how much you know about how nations run. 
You are more concerned that the US might be doing something illegal (if it did something illegal at such a scale, all you anti-US guys would have had an orgy by now, but instead you have to settle with the dream being under wraps), rather than the real facts.
First of all the action is not US led but French and British lead with US assistance and UN and Arab League backing. Bush would simply simply fail to comprehend such backing for his actions.
Secondly, it is hard to steal oil with jets. Unless those dastardly imperialists invent some planes to do so.
You are more concerned that the US might be doing something illegal (if it did something illegal at such a scale, all you anti-US guys would have had an orgy by now, but instead you have to settle with the dream being under wraps), rather than the real facts.
First of all the action is not US led but French and British lead with US assistance and UN and Arab League backing. Bush would simply simply fail to comprehend such backing for his actions.
Secondly, it is hard to steal oil with jets. Unless those dastardly imperialists invent some planes to do so.
...you are aware that people can do things that are actually illegal and get away with it, right?
And I'm assuming you are also aware that Bush is no longer in power... right?
What you just said proves nothing. Just because the US are "assisting" now, it doesn't mean that they won't be a main force in the months to come.
With troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and **** knows where else, do you honestly think that our economy can sustain another war, even if it is just a few small scale skirmishes and bombings?
Bombs cost money, money that would be better off doing something else other than blowing **** up.
Original post by Aj12
Well your entire argument rests on fail in a word.
Why are you talking about the USA? The US is now taking a limited role in the coalition. Quite a few people in the US government did not even want to get involved.
And what about every other coalition country. Spain Italy the UK France Canada UAE Qatar Denmark Norway (not part of the coalition but have been arming the rebels)Egypt Saudi Arabia.
All these countries going for the oil to? Despite the fact only 3 of them use Libyan oil. France Italy and Spain.
Why are you talking about the USA? The US is now taking a limited role in the coalition. Quite a few people in the US government did not even want to get involved.
And what about every other coalition country. Spain Italy the UK France Canada UAE Qatar Denmark Norway (not part of the coalition but have been arming the rebels)Egypt Saudi Arabia.
All these countries going for the oil to? Despite the fact only 3 of them use Libyan oil. France Italy and Spain.
Ok ok, suppose that I'm wrong. In fact, **** it; fully acknowledge that I'm wrong and you're right if you'd like because it doesn't matter now.
Just answer me this one question (not for argument sakes, purely because I'm curious); why did petrol and diesel prices start rising considerably in the UK since Gaddafi started ****ing **** up a few months ago?
Original post by amsie/
No, I thought you were going on about the UN trust territory just after wwII for independence (Rwanda) 
I thought that the un did some good with that.
Somalia barely gets anything
They were left to rot. Everyone who could afford to leave left in the 80s.
Zimbabwe was reported on a lot esp 2008 with the elections and Morgan Tsvangirai becoming prime minister.
I was't going on about that civil war, I meant the imminent civil war in 08. Luckily it didn't become a civil war, they were on the brink, a bit like libya.
I thought that the un did some good with that.Somalia barely gets anything
They were left to rot. Everyone who could afford to leave left in the 80s. Zimbabwe was reported on a lot esp 2008 with the elections and Morgan Tsvangirai becoming prime minister.I was't going on about that civil war, I meant the imminent civil war in 08. Luckily it didn't become a civil war, they were on the brink, a bit like libya.
Did you not even read my original post? I said "in the past 20 years". Why then would I've been talking about the years after WWII/1980s? Even if you did not notice that, you've highlighted a lack of knowledge as the 90s crises were the most obvious examples, and it seems you aren't aware of their happening.
Was it headline news for several weeks? The majority of people weren't aware of it, unlike Libya.
Libya are not "on the brink" of civil war, it is a civil war. What makes you think otherwise? Are you still a few weeks behind the rest of us?
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by ash92:)
Ditto. it's blatantly obvious it's all about oil. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. It's all the same thing. Why else would they be so eager to go to war? Also, Gaddafi's been there for aaaaaages. Why would the protests just start now? The protests were obviously another US strategy to invade another country.
Yu missed the point, i said Gaddafi is an excuse for the US to get into Libya that means to get inside and take their oil. US is probably paying Gaddaffi to do all this, just as they bought terrorists in north pakistan.
Original post by Drunk Punx
Ok ok, suppose that I'm wrong. In fact, **** it; fully acknowledge that I'm wrong and you're right if you'd like because it doesn't matter now.
Just answer me this one question (not for argument sakes, purely because I'm curious); why did petrol and diesel prices start rising considerably in the UK since Gaddafi started ****ing **** up a few months ago?
Just answer me this one question (not for argument sakes, purely because I'm curious); why did petrol and diesel prices start rising considerably in the UK since Gaddafi started ****ing **** up a few months ago?
Any chance of interruption of oil flow will cause a spike in oil prices . This was then stabilized by an increase in oil production by Saudi Arabia.
Original post by Aj12
Any chance of interruption of oil flow will cause a spike in oil prices . This was then stabilized by an increase in oil production by Saudi Arabia.
Yet the prices haven't gone down. Although that could be a combination of factors such as the Tories saying that if the cost of oil goes up then they'll reduce the tax on it (which they haven't, surprise surprise).
I've also heard people saying that if the Arabs decided to put oil prices up for ****s and giggles then they can, and we could start paying £4 a litre should that happen. Bad times.
Original post by Drunk Punx
Yet the prices haven't gone down. Although that could be a combination of factors such as the Tories saying that if the cost of oil goes up then they'll reduce the tax on it (which they haven't, surprise surprise).
I've also heard people saying that if the Arabs decided to put oil prices up for ****s and giggles then they can, and we could start paying £4 a litre should that happen. Bad times.
I've also heard people saying that if the Arabs decided to put oil prices up for ****s and giggles then they can, and we could start paying £4 a litre should that happen. Bad times.
Pretty much. If they wanted to they could throw the whole world into recession
Original post by yituool
Did you not even read my original post? I said "in the past 20 years". Why then would I've been talking about the years after WWII/1980s? Even if you did not notice that, you've highlighted a lack of knowledge as the 90s crises were the most obvious examples, and it seems you aren't aware of their happening.
Was it headline news for several weeks? The majority of people weren't aware of it, unlike Libya.
Libya are not "on the brink" of civil war, it is a civil war. What makes you think otherwise? Are you still a few weeks behind the rest of us?
Was it headline news for several weeks? The majority of people weren't aware of it, unlike Libya.
Libya are not "on the brink" of civil war, it is a civil war. What makes you think otherwise? Are you still a few weeks behind the rest of us?
Ah, sorry my bad
All you stated was a bunch of countries The 90s
well obvs they started before, they just intervened a bit later.The vast majority of people were aware of the situation in zimbabwe; it was heavily reported on throughout 2008. I don't think that many people could have missed it.
Libya- before we went in, I would've said it was just on the verge & most likely would have become a civil war.
What ever gave you that impression?Zimbabwe is a very very different situation to what's going on in Libya. I'll do my best to keep this short.
Things have been improving steadily in terms of quality of life since April 2009 when the US dollar was introduced. People want stability, not more unrest. Right now, they have it, of sorts.
There is a coalition government and the leader of the opposition MDC-T (Tsvangirai) is now the prime minister. There is no call from the main opposition party for intervention.
Mugabe won the 2008 election. He may have won it unfairly (Tsangirai actually got more votes, but not by much). Then the MDC pulled out of the run-off. So he's democratically elected, for better or worse. (Much worse, but anyway.)
Because the election was so close - 48% MDC to 43% Mugabe, you can see that there is still quite a lot of support for ZANU-PF. God knows why, but there is. If you go and try to bring about regime change, you are basically disenfranchising half the population. It could get really messy.
Political violence in Zimbabwe goes in cycles, round election time. It hasn't gone away, but it's far reduced from what it was. Mugabe is not massacring his own people, or about to.
The Daily News - the main newspaper rival to the state-owned Herald, is no longer banned and is freely available. It is frequently critical of the government and provides a much needed outlet for political grievances.
Many African leaders feel a sense of solidarity with Mugabe due to his independence-era background. They will never support his removal as too many of them know they could be next. Skeletons in closets etc.
Any international attempt to remove Mugabe by force would play straight into his hands as he has long sought to portray his own failings as a colonial plot by Britain. The entire SADC community would oppose any external attempt to depose him.
Mugabe is a figurehead. Behind him, and running the country unofficially, is the Joint Operations Command - a group of senior army officers whose loyalty was bought by lucrative Congolese diamond mining deals. If Mugabe goes, they will take over.
The JOC have been implicated in war crimes in the Congo and Matabeleland in the 80s. They have seen what happened to Charles Taylor and none of them fancy appearing in the dock at the Hague. In Africa if you lose power you lose everything. They will have no compunction in launching a civil war, probably with an ethnic or tribal dimension. Nobody wants that.
...So really, very different circumstances and not at all feasible. Let's leave Zimbabwe out of this one.
Things have been improving steadily in terms of quality of life since April 2009 when the US dollar was introduced. People want stability, not more unrest. Right now, they have it, of sorts.
There is a coalition government and the leader of the opposition MDC-T (Tsvangirai) is now the prime minister. There is no call from the main opposition party for intervention.
Mugabe won the 2008 election. He may have won it unfairly (Tsangirai actually got more votes, but not by much). Then the MDC pulled out of the run-off. So he's democratically elected, for better or worse. (Much worse, but anyway.)
Because the election was so close - 48% MDC to 43% Mugabe, you can see that there is still quite a lot of support for ZANU-PF. God knows why, but there is. If you go and try to bring about regime change, you are basically disenfranchising half the population. It could get really messy.
Political violence in Zimbabwe goes in cycles, round election time. It hasn't gone away, but it's far reduced from what it was. Mugabe is not massacring his own people, or about to.
The Daily News - the main newspaper rival to the state-owned Herald, is no longer banned and is freely available. It is frequently critical of the government and provides a much needed outlet for political grievances.
Many African leaders feel a sense of solidarity with Mugabe due to his independence-era background. They will never support his removal as too many of them know they could be next. Skeletons in closets etc.
Any international attempt to remove Mugabe by force would play straight into his hands as he has long sought to portray his own failings as a colonial plot by Britain. The entire SADC community would oppose any external attempt to depose him.
Mugabe is a figurehead. Behind him, and running the country unofficially, is the Joint Operations Command - a group of senior army officers whose loyalty was bought by lucrative Congolese diamond mining deals. If Mugabe goes, they will take over.
The JOC have been implicated in war crimes in the Congo and Matabeleland in the 80s. They have seen what happened to Charles Taylor and none of them fancy appearing in the dock at the Hague. In Africa if you lose power you lose everything. They will have no compunction in launching a civil war, probably with an ethnic or tribal dimension. Nobody wants that.
...So really, very different circumstances and not at all feasible. Let's leave Zimbabwe out of this one.
Original post by SkyNinja
Yu missed the point, i said Gaddafi is an excuse for the US to get into Libya that means to get inside and take their oil. US is probably paying Gaddaffi to do all this, just as they bought terrorists in north pakistan.
possibly, but i doubt it. I bet they just have no use for him anymore so want to dispose of him and replace him with a more suitable (to them) person
Original post by amsie/
Ah, sorry my bad All you stated was a bunch of countries
The 90s well obvs they started before, they just intervened a bit later.
The vast majority of people were aware of the situation in zimbabwe; it was heavily reported on throughout 2008. I don't think that many people could have missed it.
Libya- before we went in, I would've said it was just on the verge & most likely would have become a civil war.
What ever gave you that impression?
All you stated was a bunch of countries The 90s
well obvs they started before, they just intervened a bit later.The vast majority of people were aware of the situation in zimbabwe; it was heavily reported on throughout 2008. I don't think that many people could have missed it.
Libya- before we went in, I would've said it was just on the verge & most likely would have become a civil war.
What ever gave you that impression?I said "In the past 20 years we've seen such actions in areas such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor and Haiti." Doesn't get much clearer than that.
I doubt the vast majority of people in this country were aware of events in Zimbabwe, especially seeing as a significant proportion of the population don't even pay attention to current affairs. The situation in Zimbabwe wasn't headline news for almost a month like Libya was. Also, Mugabe wasn't shelling civilians in 2008. You could've picked a better example for comparison.
Definition of civil war: "a war between factions in the same country". If you'd been paying attention to the news you'd know exactly this has been happening in Libya.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Moving to America after year 11
- AQA Spanish IRP Topic Help!!
- Name a country or city with the last letter of the previous one
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- Change engine oil soon message
- Canada vs UK
- what is the full process for riding a motorbike?
- Skincare help
- haircare tips plz
- Epq
- What cooking disasters have you had?
- Guide: Which Language Should I Study?
- Loss of smell from coronavirus
- Acne /skin texture on the face
- issue w/ international student flatmates
- Advice on a few car niggles
- Dry/Irritated Penis Skin
- what degree should I do to become a petroleum engineer
- Gap year travel buddy
- Finding the right University course and University
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
