Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    You do realise this is an initiative launched and spearheaded by Europe?

    And judging by your sig, I'm assuming you want America to act against Israel to protect the Palestinian civilians. What's the difference? Just because it's a different country doing the oppression in one of the cases, it's still the same concept.
    As regards your second paragraph - no, I do not want America to act against Israel to protect the Palestinian civilians. Obviously if that happens I would not complain, but I am of the opinion that the apartheid would not have been feasible in the first place were it not for America's facilitation of Israel becoming established as a US outpost in the Middle East. By the same token, apartheid will almost inevitably crumble within a year if the USA ceases to unquestioningly support Israel.

    Broadly speaking, I wish the US would stop intervening militarily across the world to the detriment of millions of people I judge to have had their lives and livelihoods ruined by needless agression.

    Plenty of others disagree; frankly I don't want to get into this debate. It is just my view.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    2. There are reports that Gadaffi is cutting off telecoms (along with other things like water) and the internet isn't as wide spread in Libya as it is in Egypt. That's all I've got off the top of my head but there is no reason to suggest something sinister.
    Dude, you do realise that Egypt had NO internet, and they still managed to get information to us, shouldn't Libya be able to do the same? I've seen plenty of people on their phones in those BBC videos, so yeah, the Libyans know what a mobile phone is. Yet somehow hardly any first hand information gets through to us. Seems a little strange, don't you think?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    The system doesn't work, don't be so ****ing naive to think that capitalism is the be all and end all.
    Did I say anything regarding the effectiveness of the system? In such an argument I am not interested in the effectiveness but the how. The USA would need private assets to exploit the oil resources in Libya if it were under US control and then it would still need to buy the oil from the private sector. Not to mention that already western companies have a significant claim of Libyan oil already, especially European oil companies.

    So unless the USA turned communist overnight, it can't steal the oil or even have a bargain of the oil by having it under US government control, which is not only illegal by international law but in the long run, costly. So the oil argument would simply melt down to, as I mentioned earlier, disillusionment.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    You seem to be unaware that the West has intervened in conflicts in order to uphold human rights numerous times before, meaning it's not at all surprising the same thing is happening in Libya. In the past 20 years we've seen such actions in areas such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor and Haiti.

    Seriously, you'd have to be downright mentally ill to believe that the West's involvement in Libya is some kind of oil heist conspiracy.
    :lol: That's nothing new, I was aware of that. For Kosovo & Bosnia, I reckon it worked, for Somalia it really didn't. Rwanda- yes. East Timor & Haiti, I'd say it did. I wasn't limiting it to the west, I was talking about the UN, to say that this is purely for oil is a bit ott, but I don't think we fully know the reasons. But I'll presume by 'the west' you mean the UN. I don't really know why africa was left to deal with zimbabwe but the UN was happy to get involved with libya
    You'd have to be downright mentally ill to believe that the UN's involvement in Libya is purely for humanitarian reasons That is what you quoted me for btw.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    As regards your second paragraph - no, I do not want America to act against Israel to protect the Palestinian civilians. Obviously if that happens I would not complain, but I am of the opinion that the apartheid would not have been feasible in the first place were it not for America's facilitation of Israel becoming established as a US outpost in the Middle East. By the same token, apartheid will almost inevitably crumble within a year if the USA ceases to unquestioningly support Israel.

    Broadly speaking, I wish the US would stop intervening militarily across the world to the detriment of millions of people I judge to have had their lives and livelihoods ruined by needless agression.

    Plenty of others disagree; frankly I don't want to get into this debate. It is just my view.
    It wouldn't have been feasible in the first place I agree, but I'm not sure it will crumble without them.

    So it's ok for Europe to "intervene militarily across the world to the detriment of millions of people"? I'm just curious why you single out the US when at least some countries in Europe (mainly the UK) and others around the world do the same. Particularly in this case when Europe came up with the proposal and actively lobbied the US to take part, yet it's the US's fault?

    I have only made a couple of points about it because you said you didn't want to debate! In my defence, you probably shouldn't have posted it if you didn't want to talk about it!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The real reason they're invading:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Op obviously hasnt done their research.

    American and British companies have been in Libya drilling and pumping oil from the country for years. Your complete original post is just riddled with assumptions and theories, look at the facts and youll see that Western countries are already taking Libyas oil
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    America's after everyone's oil.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imzir)
    Read the link below:

    http://bybusiness.net/libya-conflict...html#more-1197

    Libya continues to create turbulence in crude oil prices soared. In recent weeks, oil prices on the world’s two main stock stabilized above U.S. per barrel.

    According to news agency Associated Press, oil prices for the transaction of April in New York trading Monday afternoon local time (Tuesday morning GMT), up U.S. to U.S. per barrel. Price even had time to touch U.S. per barrel – the highest since 26 September 2008.

    On the London stock exchange, oil prices fell 93 percent to U.S. per barrel.

    The high price of crude oil, according to the observer, as investors continue to regard the situation in Libya, one of the major crude oil producer in the world. Earlier this week the fight between pro-regime of Muammar Gaddafi’s forces with the rebel militia near the city’s main oil port in Libya.

    Since February 15 last upheaval occurred in Libya, thus making the country’s oil exports halted. Thus, market participants warned that the global oil supply levels will continue to pressure for months.

    “Oil Prices will continue to move higher until the situation can be controlled,” said Jim Ritterbusch, analyst at Ritterbusch and Associated. The situation in Libya is expected to disrupt the cartel production target of the world leading oil producing countries, OPEC.

    “When the situation worsened in North Africa or the Middle East, production levels could fall and we will continue to experience depletion of inventories,” said Erik Kreil, an observer from the U.S. Energy Information Agency (IEA).

    According to the IEA, OPEC’s production quota has been targeting its members – including Libya – by 4.7 million barrels per day. However, when supplies from Libya continues stalled, OPEC output quota will be reduced 32 percent to about 3.2 million per day.

    8th March



    Libya raised its oil prices early this March. Libya is one of the major crude oil producers in the world. This article was last updated on March 8th. before the invasion

    Oh and for people using this PATHETIC ARGUMENT BELOW: Libya is still a major oil producer as the article states be it 15th on the List or 20th - it is more than worthwhile for America to steal the oil from whilst remaining inconspicious. So please dont use that silly argument. Also another reason why America didnt intervene during the Egypt Crisis - didnt have a lot of oil
    you're confusing over the difference between fact and opinion...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Its pure ignorance claiming this is for oil. You have no proof no evidence and frankly most of you have no clue.
    Why do you think we're bombing a country that is no threat to us?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Why do you think we're bombing a country that is no threat to us?
    Not for oil. There was a perfectly stable supply of oil from Libya before the revolution, and we would have got it back if we'd allowed Gaddafi to massacre his own people. As it is, the oil supply has been thrown into chaos, and will be for a long time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amsie/)
    :lol: That's nothing new, I was aware of that. For Kosovo & Bosnia, I reckon it worked, for Somalia it really didn't. Rwanda- yes. East Timor & Haiti, I'd say it did. I wasn't limiting it to the west, I was talking about the UN, to say that this is purely for oil is a bit ott, but I don't think we fully know the reasons. But I'll presume by 'the west' you mean the UN. I don't really know why africa was left to deal with zimbabwe but the UN was happy to get involved with libya
    You'd have to be downright mentally ill to believe that the UN's involvement in Libya is purely for humanitarian reasons That is what you quoted me for btw.
    Well in this post you have once and for all proved you have no idea what you are talking about. UNAMIR in Rwanda was a notorious failure, whereas UNITAF in Somalia is a classic example of successful humanitarian intervention.

    It's pretty obvious why the West has taken action in Libya. It's in the international media spotlight, and therefore the general public are aware of it. States are subsequently obliged to take action because pretty much any decent human being would be disgusted if they did not. I did not claim the motives are strictly humanitarian, but either way, the actions are humanitarian.

    You seem to think the UN is some kind of biased party in itself which could actually gain from oil, or whatever you think the corrupt motives are. The UN is simply a tool used in order to attempt to resolve global issues.

    I strongly suggest you get to grips with the basics of post-cold war international relations if you are going to debate such a topic on the internet, before you just embarrass yourself.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Why do you think we're bombing a country that is no threat to us?
    Because its a threat to its own people.

    You have no proof its for oil you have no proof Iraq was for oil. All you have is what you THINK
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeoNerd)
    Not for oil. There was a perfectly stable supply of oil from Libya before the revolution, and we would have got it back if we'd allowed Gaddafi to massacre his own people. As it is, the oil supply has been thrown into chaos, and will be for a long time.
    I agree it's not just oil, it's never just about the oil. But I think to deny that there are economic factors is very naive.

    Gadaffi is a very difficult man to deal with, they've wanted to get rid of him for years. Even though they did manage to corrupt him in the past few years (he was obviously scared after what happened to Iraq), they were never going to miss the opportunity for regime change. In a few weeks Gadaffi will be dead or in prison and they can have a sham election and get their own puppet in.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Because its a threat to its own people.

    You have no proof its for oil you have no proof Iraq was for oil. All you have is what you THINK
    Likewise. Except what I think is based on common sense whereas your opinion is more based in hollywood fantasy.

    AMERICAAAA COMING ALONG TO SAVE THE MUVVA F***KING DAY YEEEEAH!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Likewise. Except what I think is based on common sense whereas your opinion is more based in hollywood fantasy.

    AMERICAAAA COMING ALONG TO SAVE THE MUVVA F***KING DAY YEEEEAH!
    Its really not. It makes no sense for America to go for oil.

    They don't get any of their oil from Libya anyway.

    I love that tools like you focus on America.

    Rather than France Britain Denmark Spain Italy Qatar Egypt Saudi Arabia UAE Belgium and Canada. Plus the entire Arab league who are the ones that asked for the no fly zone in the first place. This was not America's idea. It came from Britain France and the Arab League. None of them get much oil from Libya bar France Italy and Spain.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Its really not. It makes no sense for America to go for oil.

    They don't get any of their oil from Libya anyway.

    I love that tools like you focus on America.

    Rather than France Britain Denmark Spain Italy Qatar Egypt Saudi Arabia UAE Belgium and Canada. Plus the entire Arab league who are the ones that asked for the no fly zone in the first place. This was not America's idea. It came from Britain France and the Arab League. None of them get much oil from Libya bar France Italy and Spain.
    How many times do I have to tell you that this whole notion of there being different countries is a charade?

    The people in charge of the countries you listed are in the pockets of the big corporations in the oil and weapons industries. Do you really think multinational companies like BP and shell care whether the planes bombing Libya have French or American pilots? Of course they don't.

    The American government does not serve the American people, they serve international business and look to protect their interests.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by garethDT)
    How many times do I have to tell you that this whole notion of there being different countries is a charade?

    The people in charge of the countries you listed are in the pockets of the big corporations in the oil and weapons industries. Do you really think multinational companies like BP and shell care whether the planes bombing Libya have French or American pilots? Of course they don't.

    The American government does not serve the American people, they serve international business and look to protect their interests.
    This is just getting stupid and you just sound paranoid. I can see this is a waste of time
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IGregg)
    Libya is behind the UK and the Netherlands in oil exports. Surely common sense tells you if they wanted oil they would go into Iran which produces pretty much twice as much?
    Only Iran has a leader that might nuke their forces, that would be a bit of a fail. wouldn't it? You see, the US dosn't attack anyone who can actually fight back in any meaningful way...:rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wangers)
    Only Iran has a leader that might nuke their forces, that would be a bit of a fail. wouldn't it? You see, the US dosn't attack anyone who can actually fight back in any meaningful way...:rolleyes:
    Except Iran don't have nuclear weapons? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
 
 
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
The home of Results and Clearing

2,949

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.