Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Libya, another Iraq another lie watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Congratulations to the people saying we are going in for the oil, bearing in mind we are doing it with airborne machinery.

    You just made yourselves look dumber than the average american. Bravo.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by planetearth)
    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.
    So to be clear about your position-you would have engaged in an Iraq style enforced regime change far earlier?

    Or you would have placed serious economic sanctions on Libya over the last few decades?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    Or you would have placed serious economic sanctions on Libya over the last few decades?
    Of course impose serious economic sanctions, but maybe don't do massive arms deal with him in the first place so that he can continue to be a ruthless dictator!!!

    I thought that was fairly obvious... :dry:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What I am quite scared about is they have already invaded iraq on the verge with libya in a another few years it will be another middle eastern country and before you know it the west will have invaded half the middle east. This is beginning to look more and more relaistic!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by planetearth)
    Of course impose serious economic sanctions, but maybe don't do massive arms deal with him in the first place so that he can continue to be a ruthless dictator!!!

    I thought that was fairly obvious... :dry:
    Take a look at Iraq through the 1990s and I think you'll see what economic sanctions can do to a state and society.

    Obviously I don't support any arms deals with people like Gaddafi, but from where we are now, we are doing absolutely the right thing, and I don't see this as a cynical interest-driven mission at all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by tripleeagle)
    With the neg rep you're getting for these posts, I don't think people get your sarcasm :confused:
    Meh. Most of the people in these Libya threads are complete morons who think everything the West does must be for oil despite having no proof other than what they "think".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    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.

    Why do you keep mentioning the term " invaded"????????? Since when is Libya being invaded? You need to check out what that word actually means.

    You also keep bringing up Iraq as a comparison yet conveniently fail to accept that Iraq NEVER had a UN mandate. It was the US who started it with Blair and some others as their lap dogs. It was NOT the international community or the West, it was not a UN mission and it was nothing like Libya now is. The majority of European countries in fact were against Iraq, so just stop pretending as if the Iraq war bears any relevance here.

    You also contradict yourself a lot, at times you complain that the West "invades" only some countries but ignores others, then in another post you complain about the West wanting to be in every single country with problems. Which one is it, make up your mind. You flip flop a lot

    You also keep on saying " our" the entire time, this is not a British mission which again you seem to get mixed up.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Every naive wannabe political activist: "No we're so going there and invading for oil and it's Iraq all over againnn, but in an african country and with a completely different situation"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    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.
    Whilst I agree with most of these points, I think it's difficult to argue even the first gulf war was purely about oil. I won't deny oil being a major factor though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The cake is a lie
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    Whilst I agree with most of these points, I think it's difficult to argue even the first gulf war was purely about oil. I won't deny oil being a major factor though.
    What do you think it was about-about keeping an even balance of power in the Middle East?

    It's true partly, although actually those two points are difficult to seperate out-by taking Kuwait, Saddam had control over a greatly significant part of the oil in the Middle East. As well as being a monopolistic threat to oil flows (the oil factor) this gave him increased economic power etc in the region, potentially a threat to Middle East stability.

    Or are you talking about Israel?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    What do you think it was about-about keeping an even balance of power in the Middle East?

    It's true partly, although actually those two points are difficult to seperate out-by taking Kuwait, Saddam had control over a greatly significant part of the oil in the Middle East. As well as being a monopolistic threat to oil flows (the oil factor) this gave him increased economic power etc in the region, potentially a threat to Middle East stability.

    Or are you talking about Israel?
    I also think the idea of a post-cold war "new world order" with a freed UN also motivated the Western powers to intervene, particularly the US. Bush Snr would've wanted to demonstrate to the world the strength of a world order led by the United States, and of course massage his own ego by freeing Kuwait from tyranny.

    And there's obviously the influence of the Saudis, who felt threatened by the proximity of Saddam's forces.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    I also think the idea of a post-cold war "new world order" with a freed UN also motivated the Western powers to intervene, particularly the US. Bush Snr would've wanted to demonstrate to the world the strength of a world order led by the United States, and of course massage his own ego by freeing Kuwait from tyranny.

    I don't know about Kuwait though-realistically no-one cared about the sovereignty of a few royal princes over a tiny patch of land. What was relevent was what was under that land.

    New-world order idealism maybe a subsidiary factor

    And there's obviously the influence of the Saudis, who felt threatened by the proximity of Saddam's forces.
    True, but why do they listen to the Saudis? And why were they concerned for Saudi security?

    I think on the whole, we can say that war was largely motivated by oil production, access and control.

    But what I have never been able to understand is why everyone says Gulf 2 was about oil. No-one has ever properly explained to me the mechanism by which the Americans hoped to recoup the money they expected to spend in Iraq via oil revenues. Oil revenues were spent on reconstruction-they helped to fund the war effort in that sense, but they didn't go straight to line the US's pocket at all. And meanwhile, Bush was asking congress for almost $90 billion to pay for Iraqi reconstruction in 2003, whlist Iraq's oil production amounted to around $8 bn that year.

    There was of course a massive gap between what had been predicted and what happened in Iraq. But nonetheless, I can't see it.

    There was also the misplaced hope that oil production would rapidly increase. But nonetheless...in the end there was no way they could could have paid for the simply massive expenditures in Iraq by stealing oil, and in reality the US ended up IMPORTING oil into Iraq for several years after the invasion, to supply the country since Iraqi production could not keep up with demand.

    SO, to everyone complaring Iraq with Libya and saying they were both about oil. Libya fundamentally different in motive, execitution, and internal situation. And Iraq wasn't about oil either.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with you that with every news channel you read you must take it with a pinch of salt, and to just agree with what you see in a paper at face value is perhaps not the best idea. But isn't it equally as foolish to automatically just reject it?

    Every country has to guard its own interests in these kinda things, that much is obvious. It may be a sad fact but its true, a country may need certain 'perks' in a resolution to give them an incentive to support it. But that doesn't mean that they disagree with/ see no importance in the core matter. France may be intervening to some extent because they don't want an influx of refugees, but that doesn't mean they would otherwise just agree that Gudaffi's massacre is aye ok. Its unfortunately how global politics works. :/

    Also, I kinda want something explained in more detail to me. Everyone who claims "we're only in there for the Oil"- Can you expand on this? Obviously the oil trade is important to the west, and I understand is helpful to have regimes that support them as it will be more likely to lead to a good trade position, but the kinda simplistic way some people are talking about it makes it sound as if they think the UN's vehicles etc are attached with Bendy Straws or something to suck the country dry. :P
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by s_libra)
    What I am quite scared about is they have already invaded iraq on the verge with libya in a another few years it will be another middle eastern country and before you know it the west will have invaded half the middle east. This is beginning to look more and more relaistic!
    Libya is not being invaded
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ...,
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Libya's not even in the top ten country's with the most oil.
    /end thread.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    you are a moron clearly, you have never met me and your impression of me is from my writings on tsr forums.

    by saying im a truther i am trying to give the clearest possible message without speaking to you face to face that i am looking for the truth in all things, that is why i am a scientist, i enjoy it.

    you will find that conspiracies do exist and im sure if you look up the definition of that word you will see that nato implementing its strategic aims is a conspiracy.

    if you honestly think nato would go to this trouble just for saving libyans you are seriously deluded.
    NATO got a log of stick for not intervening in Bosnia ealier than it did. Do you think they should have just let that massacre go on?

    Where do you stop this disregard of whats going on in other countries? Would you have let Germany go on unheeded (whether it invaded any other countries or not)? What if your next door neighbor was murdering their kids - would you just say it was none of your buisness (extreme example)?

    A lot of people are saying "NATO doesnt intervene in other places". This is hardly an argument to why it should not intervene here - maybe it means it should intervene in those places too?
    Offline

    14
    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.
    Surely if we were going to invade any country for Oil, it would be Saudi Arabia and not Libya.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheCount.)
    Surely if we were going to invade any country for Oil, it would be Saudi Arabia and not Libya.
    That was Sarcasm
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.