Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Yeah the oil companies paid them to do it. We are going to spend millions on this op so the oil companies can have another field to drill despite already having an oil contract.

    Its all lies for oil you see.
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Yeah lets sit back and watch people being shot bombed and massacred.
    With the neg rep you're getting for these posts, I don't think people get your sarcasm :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Only if we have the chance to. If there was a full armed rebellion that could easily take control with a no fly zone then its likely we would help. However there is a limit its just not possible to help everywhere.

    You have no clue do you? How many times must i repeat this. There is no proper opposition in any other country no armed rebellion just some very angry crowds.
    did saddam have opposition.

    besides the lack of easy access or a strong rebel force is a terrible reason to not help other countries, and what about the congo, we supplied the rebels there, and now there are 200,000 dead. it is a better use of our time to use our military on other countries, to stop murder. We have had the chance for years, we dont need to save every country at once.

    if necessary we need un peacekeepers in.

    what we dont need is more deaths.

    and picking sides is also disgraceful.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick Longjohnson)
    I'm sure it being a country of just 6 million people, with a laughable air force, and the 9th largest proven oil reserves (easily extracted light crude, no less) a stones throw away from Europe has nothing do do with it...

    :rolleyes:
    So enacting a no-fly zone and airstrikes would give us control of the country and their oil how exactly?

    Do you not even read the ****ing news?

    Besides, even in Iraq, which nutjobs regard as the prime example of an oil conspiracy, the amount of oil gained by the West was minimal. The cost of war far outstripped this. The cost of an air to surface missile is around $70,000 dollars, and in Libya we've already fired 110. This means we've already spent $7.7 million on missiles in one day of airstrikes, this isn't counting the significant costs of deploying and running aircraft and navies. If we were going to full on invade and capture the country it will cost exponentially more, and will not be worth the benefits of oil we do not really need (we hardly purchase any oil from Libya compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia). It's actually harder than you think to secretly capture billions of dollars worth of oil without anyone noticing.

    It's pretty ****ing obvious what the motives for these actions are. The crisis in Libya is headline news, and therefore the public our aware of it. If our elected leaders are seen to do nothing in the face of a humanitarian crisis they will disgust a large proportion of voters, as well as lose the confidence of the international community. This is one of the reasons we do not intervene in other crises, because frankly, the majority of people don't give two ****s about it because it's not in the news. It's sad, but that's just the way the world works.
    And then there's obviously, put simply, the egos of politicians. Political executives such as the US president are most often judged by their foreign policy. Preventing a humanitarian crisis in Libya would no doubt make them feel very ****ing good about themselves. Anyone who has any understanding of US history will be aware that this is perhaps the largest motive for humanitarian intervention. And then there's basic human compassion, of course, something which most of the anti-intervention brigade seem to lack.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    There is a massive UN force in the congo.

    Zimbabwe has no rebellion to support. We are just helping the rebels.

    It is not about empire building. Libya is not worth the time and money it would cost. It would also be an impressive empire if we could take over a country with out any troops.

    the killing still goes on in the congo.



    like it or not it is about empire building, thats all its ever been about, read a history book of the 20th century. if you think countries invade others for humanitarian reasons you are deluded.libya is a strategic target and they get to topple gadaffi and stop a civil war too which is a bonus right.

    its now the third country we invaded that didnt support us.

    saudi supports us

    bahrain supports us

    iraq didnt since we bombed it for two years, but it does now.

    so does afghanistan after we invaded it.

    theres not many countries that are not our allies and protectorates left to invade.

    iran is next.

    and then we control the middle east. it is just like the board game Risk.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    So enacting a no-fly zone and airstrikes would give us control of the country and their oil how exactly?

    Do you not even read the ****ing news?

    Besides, even in Iraq, which nutjobs regard as the prime example of an oil conspiracy, the amount of oil gained by the West was minimal. The cost of war far outstripped this. The cost of a air to surface missile is around $70,000 dollars, and in Libya we've already fired 110. This means we've already spent $7.7 million on missiles in one day of airstrikes, this isn't counting the significant costs of deploying and running aircraft and navies. If we were going to full on invade and capture the country it will cost exponentially more, and will not be worth the benefits of oil we do not really need (we hardly purchase any oil from Libya compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia). It's actually harder than you think to secretly capture billions of dollars worth of oil without anyone noticing.

    It's pretty ****ing obvious what the motives for these actions are. The crisis in Libya is headline news, and therefore . If our elected leaders are seen to do nothing in the face of a humanitarian crisis they will disgust a large proportion of voters. And then there's obviously, put simply, the egos of politicians. Political executives such as the US president are most often judged by their foreign policy. Preventing a humanitarian crisis in Libya would no doubt make them feel very ****ing good about themselves. Anyone who has any understanding of US history will be aware that this is perhaps the largest motive for humanitarian intervention. And then there's basic human compassion, of course, something which most of the anti-intervention brigade seem to lack.
    You honestly think this is going to stay as just maintaining a no-fly zone? Are you deluded? I wasn't aware bombing tanks constituted

    And Iraq? Do you think the initial plan was to stay there for 7+ years? **** got real, of course the cost of war outstripped it.

    Yes, i do read the '****ing' news, from a variety of sources no less. If you had any sort of knowledge of what **** is going down, you'd know that the cost of the tomahawks fired (primarily from the Americans) is about $570,000, not $70,000. Pull your head out of your ass. The brits have already started launching Storm Shadows, which are a million euro's each. It's a typical example of western excess: use the most advanced weaponry to ensure minimal losses. 1 billion spend on weapons sounds a lot better on the news than 5 Typhoons and their pilots being shot down (despite being cheaper).

    Mate, the cost of oil extraction in Libya is nothing. NOTHING. It's about a dollar a barrel. Libya currently extracts at a rate of 1.8 million barrels/day, and sold for currently i believe it's ~$100-110 a barrel depending on the market, and it's going up. It's not as unprofitable as you might think. Taking away extraction and processing costs (estimated), thats about $170-180 million day income. Or at least having a secure supply. Yeah, not much is purchased from libya currently, but you can bet your ass that as soon as some fields are taken over oil is going to magically start coming from there.

    Honestly, do you think it's about helping the people? Are you ****ing serious? Where was everyone TWO WEEKS AGO WHEN LIBYANS WERE BEING SLAUGHTERED, or in Sierra Leone with their eon long civil war? Or in Bahrain where the military is outright shooting protesters? Or in the rest of the ****holes on that continent where people are being massacred every day?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    So enacting a no-fly zone and airstrikes would give us control of the country and their oil how exactly?

    Do you not even read the ****ing news?

    Besides, even in Iraq, which nutjobs regard as the prime example of an oil conspiracy, the amount of oil gained by the West was minimal. The cost of war far outstripped this. The cost of an air to surface missile is around $70,000 dollars, and in Libya we've already fired 110. This means we've already spent $7.7 million on missiles in one day of airstrikes, this isn't counting the significant costs of deploying and running aircraft and navies. If we were going to full on invade and capture the country it will cost exponentially more, and will not be worth the benefits of oil we do not really need (we hardly purchase any oil from Libya compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia). It's actually harder than you think to secretly capture billions of dollars worth of oil without anyone noticing.

    It's pretty ****ing obvious what the motives for these actions are. The crisis in Libya is headline news, and therefore the public our aware of it. If our elected leaders are seen to do nothing in the face of a humanitarian crisis they will disgust a large proportion of voters, as well as lose the confidence of the international community. This is one of the reasons we do not intervene in other crises, because frankly, the majority of people don't give two ****s about it because it's not in the news. It's sad, but that's just the way the world works.
    And then there's obviously, put simply, the egos of politicians. Political executives such as the US president are most often judged by their foreign policy. Preventing a humanitarian crisis in Libya would no doubt make them feel very ****ing good about themselves. Anyone who has any understanding of US history will be aware that this is perhaps the largest motive for humanitarian intervention. And then there's basic human compassion, of course, something which most of the anti-intervention brigade seem to lack.
    you speak of human compassion like that 7million worth of weaponry killed no one.

    you still dont get it do you, strategy is a long game they are not looking for a quick gain they are looking for strategic control of a region that should be alot richer than it is, a region with lots of energy reserves and a region that contains their number one enemy, Iran.

    once gadaffi is gone they can establish a puppet government, a protectorate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, for all of the people with 'we're only doing it for the oil' ideas, this should put it into perspective.



    We'd be better off going against Iran if our intentions were for oil.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick Longjohnson)
    You honestly think this is going to stay as just maintaining a no-fly zone? Are you deluded? I wasn't aware bombing tanks constituted

    And Iraq? Do you think the initial plan was to stay there for 7+ years? **** got real, of course the cost of war outstripped it.

    Yes, i do read the '****ing' news, from a variety of sources no less. If you had any sort of knowledge of what **** is going down, you'd know that the cost of the tomahawks fired (primarily from the Americans) is about $570,000, not $70,000. Pull your head out of your ass. The brits have already started launching Storm Shadows, which are a million euro's each. It's a typical example of western excess: use the most advanced weaponry to ensure minimal losses. 1 billion spend on weapons sounds a lot better on the news than 5 Typhoons and their pilots being shot down (despite being cheaper).

    Mate, the cost of oil extraction in Libya is nothing. NOTHING. It's about a dollar a barrel. Libya currently extracts at a rate of 1.8 million barrels/day, and sold for currently i believe it's ~$100-110 a barrel depending on the market, and it's going up. It's not as unprofitable as you might think. Taking away extraction and processing costs (estimated), thats about $170-180 million day income. Or at least having a secure supply. Yeah, not much is purchased from libya currently, but you can bet your ass that as soon as some fields are taken over oil is going to magically start coming from there.

    Honestly, do you think it's about helping the people? Are you ****ing serious? Where was everyone TWO WEEKS AGO WHEN LIBYANS WERE BEING SLAUGHTERED, or in Sierra Leone with their eon long civil war? Or in Bahrain where the military is outright shooting protesters? Or in the rest of the ****holes on that continent where people are being massacred every day?
    i would rate this up if i had any left to give, some people see the big picture, others see something resembling the film Team America: World Police.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously the members of the UN aren't doing this out of "good will", but mainly interest.

    Why should the UN take military action against Gaddafi, when there have been so many dictators just as bad, or even worse than him?

    Why would Britain take military action against the regime in Libya which they sold £40million worth of military equipment to last year? Why would the British government have had the SAS present in Libya for "diplomatic relations"?

    Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167622.html

    This is a lot more complex (and dirty) than it seems. The action being taken is purely for economic interest, with morality playing little or no part.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    Libya another country with oil.

    since when does a no-fly zone involve destroying tanks?

    where is the real evidence of the apparent massacres of unarmed civilians, why did i only find out today than the rebels also have jets,why is the news so biased, why did france recognise basically the libyan version of the ira as a government,where is all the journalistic evidence???.

    And why did the SAS land in a mi6 agents back garden in a helicopter dressed in black with a bag full of explosives and then claim that it was a diplomatic mission when they were captured?


    Also why all the focus on libya, what about all the other countries like bahrain and saudi arabia, the congo and ivory coast.

    This is clearly a plan to take out libya no matter the cost in lives, while they still can.

    put down the guns get some un peacekeepers in, or let libyans fight their own civil war just like you let all the other people in other countries kill each other and do not take sides as you do not know who the bad guys are.
    ITS NOT ABOUT OIL

    Why don't you guys go and look at the actual facts of the matter rather than seeing that Libya has oil and jumping to the immediate conclusion that it's about oil.

    Iraq 1 was about oil. Iraq 2's motives were much more confused, oil played a part in the decision making process, partly because the US believed Iraq could fund it's own reconstruction, a belief that proved wrong.

    But this is not about oil. Gaddafi was already trading and stepping up oil trade. Foreign companies had already invested under his rule. The whole situation was much more stable politically and economically before this started. As far as economic stability and oil flow stability goes, there is a clear incentive to support Gaddafi in quickly putting down the revolution and continuing with a stable oil trade, potentially gaining from his gratitude.

    But people like you can make anything into some international conspiracy for natural resources, in this case apparently planned in a couple of weeks!

    Just get a brain and some eyes, and actually try to gain an understanding of this situation.

    The UN mission has the mandate to do anything it needs to protect civilians. If tanks are engaging a civilian area, that gives the mandate to bomb them. It's not only fully legal, it's morally right.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Man)
    Ok, for all of the people with 'we're only doing it for the oil' ideas, this should put it into perspective.



    We'd be better off going against Iran if our intentions were for oil.
    please see the bigger picture, iran is a longterm goal, we continuously try to kill their scientists and start revolutions in iran, if that doesnt work then we will invade them and bomb them.

    also where did you get the map as canada has waaay more than that, libya is the ninth on the list, usa is only 14th.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Man)
    Ok, for all of the people with 'we're only doing it for the oil' ideas, this should put it into perspective.



    We'd be better off going against Iran if our intentions were for oil.
    I don't think it's about oil but 75% of Libya hasn't been explored yet so its reserves could be a lot more.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    ITS NOT ABOUT OIL
    Not purely about oil, but it is one of the biggest factor.

    Just look at the chaos the revolt there has brought to oil prices:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...t-oil-reserves

    Surprise, surprise, when the libya unrest threatens to affect the economic interests of the international community, military action is taken againt the Gaddafi regime... after 42 years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    you speak of human compassion like that 7million worth of weaponry killed no one.

    you still dont get it do you, strategy is a long game they are not looking for a quick gain they are looking for strategic control of a region that should be alot richer than it is, a region with lots of energy reserves and a region that contains their number one enemy, Iran.

    once gadaffi is gone they can establish a puppet government, a protectorate.

    Yes, they killed people who were trying to kill even more civilians.

    You clearly haven't even read the news, and have no understanding of how international affairs function in the post-cold war world, so I'm not even going to bother continuing this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by planetearth)
    Why would Britain take military action against the regim in Libya which they sold £40million worth of military equipment to last year?
    Well precisely. Why not? There was plenty of economic interest with trade with Gaddafi, both arms and oil.

    Yes we have distanced ourselves from him since the start of the demonstrations. And why is that wrong? Since then he's slaughtered his own people, failed to respond to the legitimate demands of his people, and engaged in agressive rhetoric against the international community.

    The level of human rights abuses has now risen to a far less acceptable level, and a reponse was appropriate, as well as being more practical given the onoing fighting.

    Why would the British government have had the SAS present in Libya for "diplomatic relations"?
    And what is your wonderful little conspiracy theory on this one?
    It's perfectly clear to me why: the UK ancticipated the possibility of the falll of Gaddafi's regime and wanted to establish links with the potential future government of Libya. They sent a diplomat there (they weren't all military). Obviously due to the nature of this mission, it required a military escort. Actually it was the SBS, not the SAS, which provided this escort.

    Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167622.html

    This is a lot more complex (and dirty) than it seems. The action being taken is purely for economic interest, with morality playing little or no part.
    There would have been a greater interest in siding with Gaddafi.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by planetearth)
    Not purely about oil, but it is one of the biggest factor.

    Just look at the chaos the revolt there has brought to oil prices:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...t-oil-reserves

    Surprise, surprise, when the libya unrest threatens to affect the economic interests of the international community, military action is taken againt the Gaddafi regime... after 42 years.
    Why not help Gaddafi crush it in the first weeks? The outcome would be more certain. This way we've got the potential for a long civil war, with an uncertain political outcome. You think that's good for speculators?

    Why not help Gaddafi, and enjoy the benefits of his debt to us?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    please see the bigger picture, iran is a longterm goal, we continuously try to kill their scientists and start revolutions in iran, if that doesnt work then we will invade them and bomb them.

    also where did you get the map as canada has waaay more than that, libya is the ninth on the list, usa is only 14th.
    Oh so Iran is about oil as well now is it?

    The scientists you refer to were nuclear scientists. STUXNET was directed against their nuclear programme (probably both of these missions were executed by Israel)

    I'm struggling to contain my frustration at the simple dogmatism present on all these threads.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick Longjohnson)
    You honestly think this is going to stay as just maintaining a no-fly zone? Are you deluded? I wasn't aware bombing tanks constituted
    You obviously don't read the news. UNSC resolution 1973 authorises "all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force". This includes taking out tanks which are massacring civilians.


    And Iraq? Do you think the initial plan was to stay there for 7+ years? **** got real, of course the cost of war outstripped it.

    Yes, i do read the '****ing' news, from a variety of sources no less. If you had any sort of knowledge of what **** is going down, you'd know that the cost of the tomahawks fired (primarily from the Americans) is about $570,000, not $70,000. Pull your head out of your ass. The brits have already started launching Storm Shadows, which are a million euro's each. It's a typical example of western excess: use the most advanced weaponry to ensure minimal losses. 1 billion spend on weapons sounds a lot better on the news than 5 Typhoons and their pilots being shot down (despite being cheaper).

    Mate, the cost of oil extraction in Libya is nothing. NOTHING. It's about a dollar a barrel. Libya currently extracts at a rate of 1.8 million barrels/day, and sold for currently i believe it's ~$100-110 a barrel depending on the market, and it's going up. It's not as unprofitable as you might think. Taking away extraction and processing costs (estimated), thats about $170-180 million day income. Or at least having a secure supply. Yeah, not much is purchased from libya currently, but you can bet your ass that as soon as some fields are taken over oil is going to magically start coming from there.
    Thanks for actually strengthening my argument. The costs of war would far outstrip the gains of oil. As I said before, 'stealing' billions of dollars of oil without the public finding out is pretty much impossible, hence why such a thing didn't happen in Iraq, who have far more oil than Libya.

    Honestly, do you think it's about helping the people? Are you ****ing serious? Where was everyone TWO WEEKS AGO WHEN LIBYANS WERE BEING SLAUGHTERED, or in Sierra Leone with their eon long civil war? Or in Bahrain where the military is outright shooting protesters? Or in the rest of the ****holes on that continent where people are being massacred every day
    Did you not even read my post? I accounted for all of this.

    Even a brief surveying of international affairs over the last 20 years will show you numerous examples of Western intervention in order to save human lives, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, East Timor, Haiti and Rwanda. It's not as uncommon as most people seem to think.

    Part of the reason it takes so long for international communities to react to such atrocities is because retards like yourself would criticise any action as 'imperialism', "ZOMG OIL CONSPIRACY" or some other bull****.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    Well precisely. Why not? There was plenty of economic interest with trade with Gaddafi, both arms and oil.

    Yes we have distanced ourselves from him since the start of the demonstrations. And why is that wrong? Since then he's slaughtered his own people, failed to respond to the legitimate demands of his people, and engaged in agressive rhetoric against the international community.

    The level of human rights abuses has now risen to a far less acceptable level, and a reponse was appropriate, as well as being more practical given the onoing fighting.



    And what is your wonderful little conspiracy theory on this one?
    It's perfectly clear to me why: the UK ancticipated the possibility of the falll of Gaddafi's regime and wanted to establish links with the potential future government of Libya. They sent a diplomat there (they weren't all military). Obviously due to the nature of this mission, it required a military escort. Actually it was the SBS, not the SAS, which provided this escort.



    There would have been a greater interest in siding with Gaddafi.

    I don't have a conspiracy theory. I support the military action, but I think it is too little too late.

    The British government supplied the corrupt Gaddafi regime with the extensive hordes of weaponry to kill his own people in the first place.

    I am just showing how taking military action against him is hollow and no action of good will, it is just for the interest of the international community's economic interests.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    Why not help Gaddafi crush it in the first weeks? The outcome would be more certain. This way we've got the potential for a long civil war, with an uncertain political outcome. You think that's good for speculators?

    Why not help Gaddafi, and enjoy the benefits of his debt to us?
    Haha, they did help the Gaddafi regime for 42 years, with the British government having done massive arms deals with him only last year for extortionate amounts of money (provided in my previous link).

    Only when Tunisia and Egypt revolt, absoloute chaos reigns in Libya, most of the country has fallen to the rebels and Gaddafi holds no ounce of credibility with anyone anymore, does the International community decide to take a "moral stance" against this idiot whom they have been propping up for so long.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,246

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

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.