Protests in Libya Watch

Hamesh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#341
Report 8 years ago
#341
(Original post by Stalin)
BP has access to a number of oil fields in Libya, as do ConoccoPhillips, Hess and another major U.S. oil company.
Hi, BBC reports that fighting is going on over a oil facility at the town of Brega between protesters for and against the Gaddafi regime. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12618367
Perhaps, for security measures, the West is looking out for their companies so no oil supply could be shut amongst fighting.

So no, the West isn't looking out for its own interests. Although, that isn't to say that it's not looking out for its longterm interest, because by being at the forefront of the Arab uprisings we - the West - might finally have a genuine relationship with the region.
I hope for this too. :yy:
0
reply
silent ninja
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#342
Report 8 years ago
#342
(Original post by Stalin)
The U.S. put an end to the butchery in Bosnia and Kosovo when Europe stood by idly. It should've been done earlier, but that's the fault of our incompetent leadership in the EU and the UN.

We face a similar problem in Libya, and having experienced Bosnia and Kosovo a mere 10-15 years ago, it appears that we still haven't opened a seconday school textbook and learned from history.

What is it with people and the oil argument? If we support Gadaffi, our oil companies receive fat contracts and we receive oil at a discount price; if we support the people, we face higher, but fairer, oil prices. By your logic, our government seems hell-bent on receiving the best deal, thus why are we not supporting the tyrant?


Regime change? Where's our regime change in Tunisia and Egypt?
No, if a puppet government is in place, these companies will receive more generous contracts. It's simple really. Plus there will be a strategic advantage. Currently, we aren't in control of the oil. And it's a foot hold in to the middle east-- a perfect place for an American base. The people will not decide anything so long as America forces interfere-- the Libyans dont want help. They can sort their own mess out. It's fairly clear: many of these middle eastern dictators are propped up by the West and it will happen again. Just recently, under Western 'liberation' the corrupt Hamid Karzai came in to charge in Afghanistan :rolleyes: He didn't fall out the sky, but he was carefully picked.

Tunisia and Egypt are still out there, but Libya is a better prospect for us to interfere. There's no chance the Islamic Brotherhood will be allowed to govern in Egypt anyway, because the West wont approve it. If that isn't interfering what is it.

You are deluded if you think USA/UK are interfering for humanitarian purposes, because they are concerned about Libyan civilians. I don't buy that for one second and too much history supports the contrary.
0
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#343
Report 8 years ago
#343
(Original post by silent ninja)
No, if a puppet government is in place, these companies will receive more generous contracts. It's simple really.
That's what I just said, ergo your argument makes little sense. Our government wants Gadaffi to be replaced by a viable democracy, so our companies may lose their contracts if the people decide to nationalise the oil in order to rebuild their country.

Again, your argument is completely groundless and wrong.

Plus there will be a strategic advantage. Currently, we aren't in control of the oil. And it's a foot hold in to the middle east-- a perfect place for an American base. The people will not decide anything so long as America forces interfere-- the Libyans dont want help. They can sort their own mess out. It's fairly clear: many of these middle eastern dictators are propped up by the West and it will happen again. Just recently, under Western 'liberation' the corrupt Hamid Karzai came in to charge in Afghanistan :rolleyes: He didn't fall out the sky, but he was carefully picked.
The U.S. has countless bases in the Middle East; one more in Libya is hardly Washington's top priority at the minute, not to mention the fact that with looming cuts in the defence department it isn't needed.

I hope you're right with regards to the Libyans sorting it out for themselves, but unfortunately, this isn't a game whereby if it goes tits up you can simply try again; lives are at stake. Gadaffi's air force decimated Brega, and you sincerely believe that the rebels are a match against a regime which has shown no mercy whatsoever?

As for your silly puppet argument, we could've replaced Saddam with a pro-West dictator, but we didn't, did we? And Karzai is hardly a pro-Western puppet.

Tunisia and Egypt are still out there, but Libya is a better prospect for us to interfere. There's no chance the Islamic Brotherhood will be allowed to govern in Egypt anyway, because the West wont approve it. If that isn't interfering what is it.
To interfere for what? We had great deals prior to the uprising, surely if it was a better prospect we'd have propped up Gadaffi.

The West won't have a say in Egypt's elections. And I sure as hell hope that a European-style democracy is enforced, so that the Brotherhood's influence can be contained by some sort of secular coalition.

You are deluded if you think USA/UK are interfering for humanitarian purposes, because they are concerned about Libyan civilians. I don't buy that for one second and too much history supports the contrary.
I suggest you read my posts thoroughly before responding. I never said the U.K. or U.S. were interfering on behalf of humanity; I said it should be our number one priority.
0
reply
Lessthanzero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#344
Report 8 years ago
#344
(Original post by Stalin)


The U.S. put an end to the butchery in Bosnia and Kosovo when Europe stood by idly. It should've been done earlier, but that's the fault of our incompetent leadership in the EU and the UN.
That’s exactly why I don’t think intervention in Libya has ever been an option. Kosovo, on top of the Iraq War and the Afghanistan, has acted as a deterrent for the western countries that usually intervene in these situations. Entrenching themselves in Libya and having to commit to nation building once again has never been a viable option. It’s like the west is finally learning lessons from history that foreign intervention means a longer commitment that just an invasion and a toppling of an unpopular government. American commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and a highly problematic situation in Korea insures that intervention will never be a possibility in Libya.
0
reply
faype02
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#345
Report 8 years ago
#345
Libya is far more complicated than most realize - tribes, regions, ethnic disputes - I just wrote an article on it - please read and tell me if you agree with my view on it being mostly a tribal conflict:

Libya’s Tangled Opposition – Youth, Tribes, Monarchists, Regime Castoffs and Oil

"A thousand years of history weigh on Libya today. One-hundred forty tribes stretch across three formerly separate kingdoms of what is now Libya. King Idris instituted the Kingdom of Libya in the 1950s, to the advantage of Cyrenaican tribes – the Zuwayya and others, which are today revolting..."

[more at http://theclearview.wordpress.com/20...ed-opposition/ ]

-P
0
reply
Democracy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#346
Report 8 years ago
#346
(Original post by faype02)
This really is not so insane as one might think. It is tribal rivalries that have been burning for a thousand years, mixed in with flammable oil wells. I just wrote an article about what is really going on - let me know what you think about 'the rest of the story' behind the headlines -

Libya’s Tangled Opposition – Youth, Tribes, Monarchists, Regime Castoffs and Oil

"A thousand years of history weigh on Libya today. One-hundred forty tribes stretch across three formerly separate kingdoms of what is now Libya. King Idris instituted the Kingdom of Libya in the 1950s, to the advantage of Cyrenaican tribes – the Zuwayya and others, which are today revolting..."

[more at http://theclearview.wordpress.com/20...ed-opposition/ ]
Please don't make duplicate copies of the same post
0
reply
2ndClass
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#347
Report 8 years ago
#347
(Original post by Stalin)
It's a mere shame an intervention wouldn't resemble Iraq in the slightest, or you'd have had a credible argument, you buffoon.
Ah the retard cometh, you have no argument, don't stick you nose in other people's business, they don't want you.
0
reply
bj_945
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#348
Report 8 years ago
#348
(Original post by jakemittle)
What kinda argument is that?..You wanna look at the US's human rights record? (of course its better than Chinas, but they are not exactly angels).
Have you ever thought that China believes that if something is not gonna affect them, then they should have nothing to do with it..?
But I agree with you, the UN is rather slow to do anything tbh...

Noooo Britain just follows whatever America does, but im sure you know that already and its not ideological/moral rather strategic, otherwise they would have gone into countries with no resources and in poor geo-political locations.
No-one thinks Britain and America do everything for ideological reasons, but that doesn't mean ideology doesn't play a part. It does, and in my view Blair's primary reason for joining in on Iraq was based in ideological international liberalism.

To talk Iraq.

The first Gulf War was almost entirely strategic. The cause is obvious: the invasion of a oil-producing state by another oil-producing state, producing a situation in which a dangerously high proportion of the world's oil would be controlled by an enemy of the US, who might not necessarily stop at Kuwait

The second war is far less obvious. l think it was driven significantly by ideology, from a number of parties. Even where oil was involved, often it was for ideologial reasons-Neo-conservatives wanted to privatise Iraqi oil to break up OPEC's control, and bring about a free market. There were, of course, big billionaires also pushing for this for completely selfish reasons, and the administration did consider Saddam to be destabilising oil flows. However, Iraq's oil production had actually been increasing since 1996, so it is not clear, as with Gulf 1, that there was any reason to feel threatened about oil flow sufficiently to suddenly go to war. That's why I'm suspicious of that claim-oil was obviously a part, how couldn't it be, but that is NOT the end of the story.

In my view, it was largely ideological. It was a war of choice, a non-essential war. Saddam didn't pose an immediate military threat, and there was strong evidence for that. Saddam certainly didn't pose any kind of immediate military threat to the US or US interests. Oil flows hadn't decreased substantially, and the US managed to get on just fine for 12 years without invading Iraq, during which time production increased.

Where did the real drive come from? From neo-conservatives. The majority of the admin were neo-conservatives, and they wanted to protect Israel, for ideological or even religious reasons. Neo-conservatives wanted to promote the spread of democracy and free markets, and they hoped that Iraq would start a domino effect in the region (something we're now seeing almost 10 years later). They hoped to transform the political systems of the region starting with Iraq.

The ball only got rolling after 9/11. That was the catalyst. And I think that shows how ideologically motivated it was.

And Blair was the most ideologically driven of the lot. He was genuinely appalled by the Saddam regime, and genuinely wanted to foster political change there. Listen to any interview with him and it's the first thing he mentions. No doubt you'll think "of course that's what is in his interest for you to think he cares about". Actually, he cannot state that the Iraq war was motivated by Saddam's oppression of his people, and by neo-liberal principles, because if it were, it would be illegal. Those are not legal reasons for going to war. Thus the continued "we really thought he had WMDs" line. Recently he said that if he had known Saddam hadn't had WMDs, he would still have gone to war. He then back-peddalled immediately. IMO that shows much of his real motivation for it, but he cannot say it out loud. Therefore you get a very mixed, confused message from him, where he uses it as a rhetorical justification, but cannot say that it is why he went to war.

As to why Iraq? It takes a huge amount of political capital to get the ball rolling on these things. On Iraq, enough people agreed, albeit for a wide spread of reasons, whether it was to support Israel for Religious, Strategic or Ideological reasons, whether it was for oil, whether it was to encourage the spread of democracy and free-market capitalism, whether it was at genuine disgust at the Saddam regime. 9.11 galvanised the resolve of many American neo-conservatives that the Arab world needed change. Afghanistan was certainly an ideological war. Iraq was less so, but it was still influenced by the neo-conservative idea that you can foster regime change through military might, and that you should spread democracy etc.

And, moving on.

What about Kosovo, Sierra Leone?

What has the UK gained from the war in Sierra Leone? Nothing from what I can see. Yet the people of Sierra Leone gained hugely, and they still love Tony Blair for what he did to this day.

I should mention at this point that I personally think Iraq was a mistake, poorly thought through, launched on false principles, and poorly run. But I don't think it was simply a case of self-serving cynicism through and through.
0
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#349
Report 8 years ago
#349
(Original post by 2ndClass)
Ah the retard cometh, you have no argument, don't stick you nose in other people's business, they don't want you.
:toofunny:

I have plenty of arguments, but please, continue hating. :rolleyes:
0
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#350
Report 8 years ago
#350
(Original post by Lessthanzero)
That’s exactly why I don’t think intervention in Libya has ever been an option. Kosovo, on top of the Iraq War and the Afghanistan, has acted as a deterrent for the western countries that usually intervene in these situations. Entrenching themselves in Libya and having to commit to nation building once again has never been a viable option. It’s like the west is finally learning lessons from history that foreign intervention means a longer commitment that just an invasion and a toppling of an unpopular government. American commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and a highly problematic situation in Korea insures that intervention will never be a possibility in Libya.
I didn't say nation-build; I said intervention. We could easily stop Gadaffi and free the Libyans from his jackboot without staying à la Afghanistan.
0
reply
bj_945
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#351
Report 8 years ago
#351
(Original post by silent ninja)
That's nonsense. The same thing was said in the case of Iraq. 2 million killed their by Western forces, many children (over half million killed in Afghanistan btw).

No thanks. The Libyans can take care of themselves. You must be having a LAUGH if you think Western forces are intervening for humanitarian reasons (Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda? where were they? oh sorry, no oil).

This is about oil and regime change. Plain and simple imperialism.
2 million?

I'm, sorry, but the absolutely highest credible number of excess deaths in Iraq since the invasion is 1,000,000.

A tiny minority of those would have "been killed by Western forces"

So, you're chatting ****.
0
reply
bj_945
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#352
Report 8 years ago
#352
(Original post by 2ndClass)
Ah the retard cometh, you have no argument, don't stick you nose in other people's business, they don't want you.
It's nothing like Iraq.

You bring up Iraq as a parallel despite the fact it blatently doesn't translate across, and then ignore successful humanitarian interventions-e.g kosovo; sierra leone.

Humanitarian interventions can work.

If the rebuilding of Libya is going to be scrappy and bloody (and I suspect it may be) then it will be whether or not the US manages to stop Gadaffi killing his own people now.

I personally would advocate full blown UN intervention now-the UN can stop the immediate bloodshed, and aid in the creation of a proper working administration with elections.
0
reply
lukejoshjedi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#353
Report 8 years ago
#353
People are being far too cynical about it, yes often wars of interest for states have happened in recent years (iraq perhaps) but this is SO different

are you honestly that cold to just say the Libyans should sort themselves out but killing each other en masse until one side just gives up and Gaddafi won't... he has mercenaries and the majority of his own military as well as a lot of weapons, he just won't stop so who knows how many anti-Gaddafi protesters could die

Saying they should just sort it out is basically saying you don't care if hundreds, if not thousands more Libyans die as long as we don't get involved because we'll obviously JUST be going in for Oil or to remove Gaddafi and nothing more, sorry but that's ridiculous, you can't cry Foul intentions every single time or at every chance of western intervention

Just getting involved in a country with inter-ethnic disputes and mass violence doesn't = Iraq, that's nonsense
0
reply
silent ninja
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#354
Report 8 years ago
#354
(Original post by bj_945)
2 million?

I'm, sorry, but the absolutely highest credible number of excess deaths in Iraq since the invasion is 1,000,000.

A tiny minority of those would have "been killed by Western forces"

So, you're chatting ****.
You are talking **** sorry. 2 million have been killed directly/indirectly by the West during Saddam year. I didn't says since the invasion. That's since the West began attacking Iraq, isolating it, incidentally after they got fed up of their puppet. If they'd kept their dirty mits out of the situation in the first place...notice a pattern here?

100k (very conservative, closer to a million from some sources) or whatever was quoted above, since the invasion, isn't that huge enough number? How many 9/11's is that? It doesn't look like ending any time soon. So no, Libya can do better off without Western 'aid'. Opportunistic scum; that's what these Western governments are. They do a great job of convincing the public, evidenced by people like you.

Why can't Brits and Americans understand, these foreigner don't want your ****ing help.
3
reply
silent ninja
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#355
Report 8 years ago
#355
(Original post by Stalin)
That's what I just said, ergo your argument makes little sense. Our government wants Gadaffi to be replaced by a viable democracy, so our companies may lose their contracts if the people decide to nationalise the oil in order to rebuild their country.
No, our governments want to influence the outcome so that we have friendly (read: corrupt puppets) allies in government-- those that will look out for our interests ahead of Libyans. Then they will not only get cheap oil contracts but have strategic control, maybe build bases too. It would make life so much easier.

I hope you're right with regards to the Libyans sorting it out for themselves, but unfortunately, this isn't a game whereby if it goes tits up you can simply try again; lives are at stake. Gadaffi's air force decimated Brega, and you sincerely believe that the rebels are a match against a regime which has shown no mercy whatsoever?
Don't make me spill my coffee. There is nothing noble about Britain and America's motives. Where was that nobility a few weeks ago in condemning Egypt? Mubarak was busy having people killed and women raped by his secret police, but the American's tipped toed around the situation. Look at their press conferences and how the cleverly dodged condemning this filthy dictator. There is your nobility! Mubarak has had billions paid out to him over the years whilst he oppressed Egyptians.

As for your silly puppet argument, we could've replaced Saddam with a pro-West dictator, but we didn't, did we? And Karzai is hardly a pro-Western puppet.
Saddam didn't fall out the sky. He WAS a Western puppet, he cut his string off and went awol. That's what happens when you mess with foreign affairs. Why do you not understand our government cannot control a foreign situation, yet insist on doing it at every turn. It's complicated and volatile. You have more faith in government than me. Karzai won a corrupt election but he's still in power and does get general Western support (nobody is demanding he be thrown, that's for sure). What happened to freeing the Afghanis?

To interfere for what? We had great deals prior to the uprising, surely if it was a better prospect we'd have propped up Gadaffi.
I'm sorry if this is offensive, but Westerners have such an amazing talent for short memory. Gaddafi and the West had good relations... come again? It's been turbulent to say the least! He was never a good partner.

The West won't have a say in Egypt's elections. And I sure as hell hope that a European-style democracy is enforced, so that the Brotherhood's influence can be contained by some sort of secular coalition.
Not your call. European democracy doesn't fit everyone. They should choose for themselves. I very much expect the Americans to be influencing things on the ground right now.

Anyway, I can't be bothered arguing further as certain posters on here would justify any action of Western governments. Their unconditional support worries me more than anything.
0
reply
JollyJelly
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#356
Report 8 years ago
#356
Everytime I see gaddafi on TV, no matter how naive it may sound, I always think in my head: "Why has he not been slotted yet?" Is there no one who can get close enough just to end his life and stop the madness. It would be so easy.... it makes me wish life was more simple.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#357
Report 8 years ago
#357
(Original post by silent ninja)
You are talking **** sorry. 2 million have been killed directly/indirectly by the West during Saddam year. I didn't says since the invasion. That's since the West began attacking Iraq, isolating it, incidentally after they got fed up of their puppet. If they'd kept their dirty mits out of the situation in the first place...notice a pattern here?

100k (very conservative, closer to a million from some sources) or whatever was quoted above, since the invasion, isn't that huge enough number? How many 9/11's is that? It doesn't look like ending any time soon. So no, Libya can do better off without Western 'aid'. Opportunistic scum; that's what these Western governments are. They do a great job of convincing the public, evidenced by people like you.

Why can't Brits and Americans understand, these foreigner don't want your ****ing help.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
0
reply
amsie/
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#358
Report 8 years ago
#358

IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.

Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when.

Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
IBC records solely violent deaths.
IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised.
IBC builds on innovative uses of new technologies without which this citizens’ initiative would be impossible. The project was founded in January 2003 by volunteers from the UK and USA who felt a responsibility to ensure that the human consequences of military intervention in Iraq were not neglected.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#359
Report 8 years ago
#359
(Original post by amsie/)
That seems to strengthen the use of the IBC?
0
reply
amsie/
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#360
Report 8 years ago
#360
(Original post by Aj12)
That seems to strengthen the use of the IBC?
No, wouldn't trust it one bit.
It's run by the UK/America. & it has the lowest count out of all of them.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (189)
39.54%
No - but I will (28)
5.86%
No - I don't want to (33)
6.9%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (228)
47.7%

Watched Threads

View All