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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Yet.
    I'm aware that so far they haven't.

    Did America do anything concerning Zimbabwe during Mugabe's rule, just out of interest?
    If not, then why not Zimbabwe then but Libya now? Oil.

    Another war really isn't what we need right now.
    Which angle are you arguing? That we should intervene in every single humanitarian conflict on an idealist basis? Or have you got a realpolitik hat on, and are suggesting that really we shouldn't ever intervene at all, as it isn't ever in our interests...?

    Surely action to save innocent human life, whatever its motives, must be applauded at some level
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by amsie/)
    Yes, but I find it hard to believe that the UN gives a **** about Libyan citizens. If they cared so much, why don't they intervene in Zimbabwe- they've got it a lot worse.
    Don't ask me, I'm not in the UN.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amsie/)
    Right, so the un would only intervene when it was on the brink of becoming a civil war?
    Well sadly that is becoming obvious.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It doesn't need a genius to work this out.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Don't ask me, I'm not in the UN.
    That's nice, but I don't think that we can rule oil out straight away. :dontnow:

    (Original post by IGregg)
    Well sadly that is becoming obvious.
    OK, so how about countries that were on the verge before like Zimbabwe?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by iainthegreat)
    Doesn't need to, the US will have a large input to the new regime after Gaddafi and will make sure whoever is in power will trade more favourably with the US.
    Well seeing a they are about to take a back seat in the coalition I doubt that.

    Plus the US gets no oil or very little oil from Libya anyway.

    Why would they bother doing this when they already have other sources for oil.

    There is no reason for the US to do this for oil. Why bother with Libya when they would be far better off going for Iran. The US did not even support this intervention until a couple of days before it started.

    There is no proof or evidence.The OP is just ranting about oil prices.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    You know, western intervention could split Libya in 2, diesel and unleaded
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amsie/)
    so how about countries that were on the verge before like Zimbabwe?
    Unlike Libya; Zimbabwe is not on Europe's border, fairly wide-spread international support, it's fate does not have huge geo-political ramifications, there is no wide-scale rebel movement to support, and there is no clear opportunity to strike. Zimbabwe is irrelevant regards Libya, the ME turmoil is in the present, and given Libya's proximity to Europe a no-fly zone is not that difficult to enforce. I would dread to imagine what would have happened if Gaddafi had gotten his hands on Benghazi - it would have been a bloodbath.

    Sometimes an intervention makes sense - like Kosovo, other times it does not.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cybergrad)
    Did you see on the news that the UN approved the bombardment of Libya? No, UN approved the creation of a no-fly zone. Yet, I see buildings and tanks blown up by the coalition forces, they must have a flying variety of buildings and tanks in Libya.
    Apparently you weren't paying attention since resolution 1973 allows for all actions deemed necessary to protect Libyan civilians from Gadaffi's forces with the exception of a ground occupation. Regardless, even if all it allowed for was a no fly zone the majority of the strikes would still have been required since they were predominantly aimed at taking out his AAA and radar installations.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by amsie/)
    That's nice, but I don't think that we can rule oil out straight away. :dontnow:
    Why not? America does not import oil from Libya.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cybergrad)
    Did you see on the news that the UN approved the bombardment of Libya? No, UN approved the creation of a no-fly zone. Yet, I see buildings and tanks blown up by the coalition forces, they must have a flying variety of buildings and tanks in Libya.

    Give it time Stenner, the invasion is fast approaching, this will only lead to a civil war, just like in Iraq, still I don't see much peace there.
    READ THE RESOLUTION! :mad:

    "Acting under chapter 7 of the UN Charter: ... 4: Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures....,to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack"

    So that approves any action which either helps the creation of a no-fly zone (you have to destroy anti-air capabilities before you can have a no-fly zone), AND the use of force to target any Gadaffi forces which could taregtt the civilians of Libya.

    Here is the resolution in full:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12783819
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by amsie/)
    That's nice, but I don't think that we can rule oil out straight away. :dontnow:



    OK, so how about countries that were on the verge before like Zimbabwe?
    We are supporting a rebellion in Libya. There is no such rebellion in Zimbabwe.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Well seeing a they are about to take a back seat in the coalition I doubt that.

    Plus the US gets no oil or very little oil from Libya anyway.

    Why would they bother doing this when they already have other sources for oil.

    There is no reason for the US to do this for oil. Why bother with Libya when they would be far better off going for Iran. The US did not even support this intervention until a couple of days before it started.

    There is no proof or evidence.The OP is just ranting about oil prices.
    Invading Iran would be very, very risky. Plus everybody would know they're only invading for one reason, and it wouldn't be legal. At the moment the US gets very little oil from Libya, however once Gaddafi has been removed the US could have quite a big say in the new regime and could make sure this works out very favourably for them.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by iainthegreat)
    Invading Iran would be very, very risky. Plus everybody would know they're only invading for one reason, and it wouldn't be legal. At the moment the US gets very little oil from Libya, however once Gaddafi has been removed the US could have quite a big say in the new regime and could make sure this works out very favourably for them.
    And France and Britain and Spain and Italy and Qatar and Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Canada and Denmark and Belgium.

    All these countries have had something to do with the rebels be it arming them or implementing a no fly zone.

    All these countries going to have a say or is this just about the USA?:rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Someone remind these disillusioned people that the US can't steal oil. Remember about something called capitalism?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    And France and Britain and Spain and Italy and Qatar and Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Canada and Denmark and Belgium.

    All these countries have had something to do with the rebels be it arming them or implementing a no fly zone.

    All these countries going to have a say or is this just about the USA?:rolleyes:
    Why do you think the UN have intervened then?

    And why just Libya? why hasn't this action been seen in the countless other countries which have had civil unrest and dictatorships killing their own people?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by iainthegreat)
    Why do you think the UN have intervened then?

    And why just Libya? why hasn't this action been seen in the countless other countries which have had civil unrest and dictatorships killing their own people?
    Libya is the one country that has a proper rebellion we can support. Plus Gadaffi is slightly different to other dictators. Others may fight the rebels in battle win and that will be the end. Very few will claim they go house to house and kill everyone who has opposed him. Some of the Tribes in Libya turned against him its pretty likely he would wipe out these tribes it would be a massacre.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cybergrad)
    Did you see on the news that the UN approved the bombardment of Libya? No, UN approved the creation of a no-fly zone. Yet, I see buildings and tanks blown up by the coalition forces, they must have a flying variety of buildings and tanks in Libya.

    Give it time Stenner, the invasion is fast approaching, this will only lead to a civil war, just like in Iraq, still I don't see much peace there.
    Uhhhh... actually, yeah, the UN most definetely did approve the bombardment of Libya... read the Resolution.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 10joey10)
    Which angle are you arguing? That we should intervene in every single humanitarian conflict on an idealist basis? Or have you got a realpolitik hat on, and are suggesting that really we shouldn't ever intervene at all, as it isn't ever in our interests...?

    Surely action to save innocent human life, whatever its motives, must be applauded at some level
    No, I was arguing that the reason Britain and America are going into Libya is because of oil, keep up. I even said that. Twice :lol:
    I used the Zimbabwe situation (from the assumption that America never got as involved in Zimbabwe as they are going to Libya) as an argument to explain my conclusion further.

    And no, it shouldn't; you've essentially said (from a slightly twisted viewpoint, admittedly) that we're going to go into Libya purely for oil but use the suffering rebels as an excuse to do so. I find it hard to applaud such motives, personally
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brandmon)
    Someone remind these disillusioned people that the US can't steal oil. Remember about something called capitalism?
    The system doesn't work, don't be so ****ing naive to think that capitalism is the be all and end all.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 22, 2011
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.