Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teadrinker)
    Those who want oil favour stability. Up until the present conflict in Lybia British and other international oil companies were happily doing business with Qaddafi. The LAST thing oil companies want is turmoil brought about by prolonged unrest or civil war.

    It is makes much more economic sense to tolerate a strong man leader or a repressive dictator than to bomb your way to cheap oil: how much oil has been exported in the last two weeks? Only 1ship load apparently. Any suggestion, therefore, that this is some sort of conspiracy to steal Lybia's oil is just a tired old cliche.
    yep.

    I don't think OP knows how much it costs a company to invest in oil. It takes countless millions of pounds before they see a return. The return will arrive 10+ years after the investment. Even things like a small change in government can effect a countries policy (suddenly tax more for example). This means oil companies wont invest in a country that is in any kind of unrest! They like dictators, because they stay in power for things like 30+ years, so there isn't going to be a change in political party suddenly and things like that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    IRA bombs civilians. In general it specifically places bombs in places where it can cause the most civilian deaths.
    or so the british say, just like iraqs wmd
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zohaib93)
    or so the british say, just like iraqs wmd
    ????

    Just. What?

    Area you reading the posts you quote? I'm tempted to write a program the simulates you, whatever you type it picks from a random selection of stock answers.

    What in hells name has it got to do with Iraq and wmd??

    In fact, don't even bother to reply T_T
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teadrinker)
    Those who want oil favour stability. Up until the present conflict in Lybia British and other international oil companies were happily doing business with Qaddafi. The LAST thing oil companies want is turmoil brought about by prolonged unrest or civil war.

    It is makes much more economic sense to tolerate a strong man leader or a repressive dictator than to bomb your way to cheap oil: how much oil has been exported in the last two weeks? Only 1ship load apparently. Any suggestion, therefore, that this is some sort of conspiracy to steal Lybia's oil is just a tired old cliche.
    well lets look at what happened in iraq the americans siezed control of all iraqi oil fields, isn't it remotely funny that the only countries america and british attack are rich in oil?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    UN FORCES KILL ANOTHER LOAD OF REBELS AND BLOW UP THEIR TANKS

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181

    As I said in an earlier post, they will need to get used to being *****ed by our brave flyboys. Still, at least they will be sure to duck next time they see a plane.

    Giving them radios won't work either because they don't speak English.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    dont expect any sympathy if terrorists bomb you as a result of your iraq like antics in libya, then you can wave all the cards you want, its of your own doing, and you would fully well deserve it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CODKING)
    [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="2"]UN FORCES KILL ANOTHER LOAD OF REBELS AND BLOW UP THEIR TANKS[/SIZE][/COLOR]

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181

    As I said in an earlier post, they will need to get used to being *****ed by our brave flyboys. Still, at least they will be sure to duck next time they see a plane.

    Giving them radios won't work either because they don't speak English.
    UN staff do speak Arabic though. They were telling Gaddafi's troops to surrender over the airwaves a few weeks back.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think it is good Britain stands up for revolutionaries.

    But if it happens in Ireland, Kenya or India, we can just slaughter innocent people and we have a right to because WE are decent well bred white folk aren't we!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    UN staff do speak Arabic though. They were telling Gaddafi's troops to surrender over the airwaves a few weeks back.
    Americans speak English (well sort of) but have an impressive record of killing us and themselves!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrislpp)
    I think it is good Britain stands up for revolutionaries.

    But if it happens in Ireland, Kenya or India, we can just slaughter innocent people and we have a right to because WE are decent well bred white folk aren't we!
    Good point. We are not as white as we used be though.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CODKING)
    Good point. We are not as white as we used be though.
    Ok, so then it can't be racism....just plain old genocide.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrislpp)
    Ok, so then it can't be racism....just plain old genocide.
    course not, becuase when its britain, america or the jewish state involved, its always 'self defence' 'accidental, 'in error' or 'by mistake', what it really is about is the oil, thats why action is only ever taken against oil rich nations.

    The jewish state hit port sudan, all that was said in justification is that the jewish state suspects those killed, of terrorism, well i think the fogels were terrorists in that case, the jewish state can get away with anything claiming they are hamas or whatever, well the fogels were part of the irgun then
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    Britain is still Britain... Sooo, it persecutes gay people and denies women rights!


    I think it may be a bit hypercritical (is that how you spell it?) but in my opinion it helps the people of Libya, therefore I'm not hugely fused how hypocritical it is.

    does it really.

    and who are you to speak for the people of libya, british tax money is being used for killing people, im sure those mothers whose sons have been blown apart appreciate your opinions.

    but its okay because you used the precautionary principle to validate the murder of foreigners.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Some 40,000 civilians died during the Bosnian War a decade ago - another conflict with was tinged with race and religion. Libya's Berber population's divided into a number of tribal groups; some tribes (like the Warfalla) overwhelmingly support Gaddafi, while others overwhelmingly oppose him. There are religious divides too; Gaddafi, a secular ruler, has consistently claimed that the rebels are being manipulated by Islamists. It's not unreasonable to expect that we'd see similar numbers in this war, scaled down slightly because Libya's a smaller country than Yugoslavia was.

    Gaddafi's a ruler who is famous for his brutality - and has been for decades. Do you really think that the West would save lives by not stopping Qaddafi from suppressing a rebellion with extreme violence? If saving lives and stopping people from dying is all that's really important, it was almost certainly a good idea for the West to assault Libya.

    It's a simple arithmetic - more lives are likely to have been saved by military intervention than are being lost through warfare.

    Now, there's something to be said for the fact that there are a lot of other humanitarian crises in the world where lives could be saved by military intervention. Rwanda stands out as perhaps the most powerful example of this in recent history; Sudan may well prove to be another such example. But while Western forces are acting selectively and only intervening in certain conflicts, does that somehow devalue the fact that lives are almost certainly being saved in the process?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a.posteriori)
    Some 40,000 civilians died during the Bosnian War a decade ago - another conflict with was tinged with race and religion. Libya's Berber population's divided into a number of tribal groups; some tribes (like the Warfalla) overwhelmingly support Gaddafi, while others overwhelmingly oppose him. There are religious divides too; Gaddafi, a secular ruler, has consistently claimed that the rebels are being manipulated by Islamists. It's not unreasonable to expect that we'd see similar numbers in this war, scaled down slightly because Libya's a smaller country than Yugoslavia was.

    Gaddafi's a ruler who is famous for his brutality - and has been for decades. Do you really think that the West would save lives by not stopping Qaddafi from suppressing a rebellion with extreme violence? If saving lives and stopping people from dying is all that's really important, it was almost certainly a good idea for the West to assault Libya.

    It's a simple arithmetic - more lives are likely to have been saved by military intervention than are being lost through warfare.

    Now, there's something to be said for the fact that there are a lot of other humanitarian crises in the world where lives could be saved by military intervention. Rwanda stands out as perhaps the most powerful example of this in recent history; Sudan may well prove to be another such example. But while Western forces are acting selectively and only intervening in certain conflicts, does that somehow devalue the fact that lives are almost certainly being saved in the process?
    I agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a.posteriori)
    Some 40,000 civilians died during the Bosnian War a decade ago - another conflict with was tinged with race and religion. Libya's Berber population's divided into a number of tribal groups; some tribes (like the Warfalla) overwhelmingly support Gaddafi, while others overwhelmingly oppose him. There are religious divides too; Gaddafi, a secular ruler, has consistently claimed that the rebels are being manipulated by Islamists. It's not unreasonable to expect that we'd see similar numbers in this war, scaled down slightly because Libya's a smaller country than Yugoslavia was.

    Gaddafi's a ruler who is famous for his brutality - and has been for decades. Do you really think that the West would save lives by not stopping Qaddafi from suppressing a rebellion with extreme violence? If saving lives and stopping people from dying is all that's really important, it was almost certainly a good idea for the West to assault Libya.

    It's a simple arithmetic - more lives are likely to have been saved by military intervention than are being lost through warfare.

    Now, there's something to be said for the fact that there are a lot of other humanitarian crises in the world where lives could be saved by military intervention. Rwanda stands out as perhaps the most powerful example of this in recent history; Sudan may well prove to be another such example. But while Western forces are acting selectively and only intervening in certain conflicts, does that somehow devalue the fact that lives are almost certainly being saved in the process?
    yes it does, it devalues infact it totally invalidates it becuase the intention is not to save lives but is to secure strategic interests, saving lives is a seocndary objective.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    does it really.

    and who are you to speak for the people of libya, british tax money is being used for killing people, im sure those mothers whose sons have been blown apart appreciate your opinions.

    but its okay because you used the precautionary principle to validate the murder of foreigners.
    So the USA lending a helping hand during WW2 was wrong?

    I'm sure the mothers of anybody who has the balls to oppose Gaddafi (and all the people who just happen to be living in an eastern city) whose sons haven't been blown apart appreciate the UN's actions (not my opinion).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by don'tyouremember?)
    not another iraq... but we shouldn't be getting involved.
    britain trying to police the world again. it won't work. we'll end up with unnecessary deaths. great.
    Because the life of a British person is more important than that of a foreigner, right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrislpp)
    Ok, so then it can't be racism....just plain old genocide.
    ...well we did invent concentration camps. Makes you proud doesn't it?

    Who the hell negged you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zohaib93)
    well lets look at what happened in iraq the americans siezed control of all iraqi oil fields, isn't it remotely funny that the only countries america and british attack are rich in oil?
    As far as I am aware oil production is somewhat minimal in Kosovo, Bosnia and Sierra Leone. No matter what your views are on the successes of each of these interventions, you can not get away with spouting the sort of untruths as you do in your above quote.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.