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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amsie/)
    So you reckon they went in for humanitarian reasons?
    NATO (including the US) went into Bosnia and launches air strikes on Serbia for purely humanitarian reasons in the 1990s - no oil in Bosnia. At the moment this situation is exactly the same.

    History will judge these actions, but it's too early for anyone here to speculate on the outcome.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EssexDan86)
    NATO (including the US) went into Bosnia and launches air strikes on Serbia for purely humanitarian reasons in the 1990s - no oil in Bosnia. At the moment this situation is exactly the same.

    History will judge these actions, but it's too early for anyone here to speculate on the outcome.
    Wars are never fought for humanitarian reasons. They are always about power and money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Libya would be stable and pumping oil again far quicker under Gadaffi than if we go in and try to set up a democracy. It could result in all the facilities, which cost billions, being destroyed in a civil war, and us not getting any oil from that country for decades. People have listed numerous other conflicts that have been intervened in by the West, which have no link to oil. This has been the policy of the West, and America in particular, all the way back to WWII. All we gain is another democracy, and a democracy very rarely if every wars with a democracy - which means even greater peace and stability in the world.

    What you are essentially suggesting is that almost every country in the UN has had large chunks of its politicians bought off by oil companies, and that not one of them has spoken out about how the oil companies are urging them to go to war.

    The fact you think you are thinking logically about this and seeing patterns everything is what makes your posts so funny.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Wars are never fought for humanitarian reasons. They are always about power and money.
    Yeah we got proper wealthy and powerful from Serbia didn't we :rolleyes:.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Libya would be stable and pumping oil again far quicker under Gadaffi than if we go in and try to set up a democracy. It could result in all the facilities, which cost billions, being destroyed in a civil war, and us not getting any oil from that country for decades. People have listed numerous other conflicts that have been intervened in by the West, which have no link to oil. This has been the policy of the West, and America in particular, all the way back to WWII. All we gain is another democracy, and a democracy very rarely if every wars with a democracy - which means even greater peace and stability in the world.

    What you are essentially suggesting is that almost every country in the UN has had large chunks of its politicians bought off by oil companies, and that not one of them has spoken out about how the oil companies are urging them to go to war.

    The fact you think you are thinking logically about this and seeing patterns everything is what makes your posts so funny.
    I have said in numerous posts that I don't think oil is the only reason for the war.

    It really is laughable that you think the west are the champions of democracy. Did they care about democracy when they funded the murder of democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile and replaced him with the murderous dictator Pinochet? Did they care about democracy when they funded the attempted coup against democratically elected Hugo Chavez? Of course not.

    And yes I am saying that Western leaders are in the pockets of oil companies. For example did you know that the business secretary Vince Cable used to work for Shell?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Yeah we got proper wealthy and powerful from Serbia didn't we :rolleyes:.
    Powerful certainly, it's a shadow of the country it used to be.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I fail to see how dropping bombs results in peace
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    I have said in numerous posts that I don't think oil is the only reason for the war.

    It really is laughable that you think the west are the champions of democracy. Did they care about democracy when they funded the murder of democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile and replaced him with the murderous dictator Pinochet? Did they care about democracy when they funded the attempted coup against democratically elected Hugo Chavez? Of course not.

    And yes I am saying that Western leaders are in the pockets of oil companies. For example did you know that the business secretary Vince Cable used to work for Shell?
    O yes, because in order to have values you must adhere to said values rigidly for time immemorial. America's international policies cater for whichever area they are in, it's called realpolitik. In case you hadn't noticed over half the world lives under some sort of authoritarian regime, they can't exactly go running about fixing every country, especially when China is more than happy to deal with anyone. Where it can the West generally does try and champion democracy, where it can't it tries to make sure the citizens are treated at least vaguely decently - which of course they also can't do perfectly.

    The whole reason of war is to compel your enemy to carry out your wishes. It is an extension of the political. What, in this case, aside from humanitarian reasons and greater stability could we be doing this for?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Powerful certainly, it's a shadow of the country it used to be.
    Don't make me laugh. Once they entered the wider world they looked verging on 3rd world. If they had wanted to go to war with us we would have squashed them like an insect. We certainly pissed all over their military once we decided to step in. It has got to be one of the shortest wars in recent history.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Where it can the West generally does try and champion democracy
    If by democracy you mean sham elections to get their puppets in power to allow big corporations to exploit their countries resources with little regulation or taxes then yes I agree with you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Don't make me laugh. Once they entered the wider world they looked verging on 3rd world. If they had wanted to go to war with us we would have squashed them like an insect. We certainly pissed all over their military once we decided to step in. It has got to be one of the shortest wars in recent history.
    Ermm doesn't that back up what I just said? They are now a political irrelevance, thanks to us bombing the crap out of them and destroying their military.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Duh, America is always after oil :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Proof isn't really needed. Whenever a country (usually America) invades or acts hostility towards a country that has large oil reserves then the Army obviously isn't going there for a jolly boys outing.
    Well, that's reassuring.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Ermm doesn't that back up what I just said? They are now a political irrelevance, thanks to us bombing the crap out of them and destroying their military.
    No it doesn't. They were a political irrelevance then. They had the smallest amount of political clout world wide, just because they have ever so slightly less now does not back up your point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Yeah we got proper wealthy and powerful from Serbia didn't we :rolleyes:.
    That genocide is the only major one the West (half) successfully intervened in after all that charade of "Never again" after the Holocaust. Did you see the West helping during the Rwandan genocide? No, but you sure did see the French supplying the Interhamwhe and the US and the UK pulling out the UN peacekeepers. Where was the apparent civilised world during Saddam's genocide against the Kurds- oh wait it was supplying him. Where was it during the genocide in Bangladesh, in Darfur, during the massacres in the Congo? Nowhere to be seen, that's where. The intervention is Libya is only because the Western nations have realised they can't possibly do legitimate business with Gadaffi anymore and maintain their humanistic facade after all these horrendous crimes he's done that have been reported in the media.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    That genocide is the only major one the West (half) successfully intervened in after all that charade of "Never again" after the Holocaust. Did you see the West helping during the Rwandan genocide? No, but you sure did see the French supplying the Interhamwhe and the US and the UK pulling out the UN peacekeepers. Where was the apparent civilised world during Saddam's genocide against the Kurds- oh wait it was supplying him. Where was it during the genocide in Bangladesh, in Darfur, during the massacres in the Congo? Nowhere to be seen, that's where. The intervention is Libya is only because the Western nations have realised they can't possibly do legitimate business with Gadaffi anymore and maintain their humanistic facade after all these horrendous crimes he's done that have been reported in the media.
    They did business with Gadaffi when it suited them. When the opportunity came to oust him, they took it.

    Though I don't agree that the media forced the Western nations' hand. Since day one the western leaders have been leading the way in anti-Gadaffi propaganda, they used the media as a means of justifying military action.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Where it can the West generally does try and champion democracy, where it can't it tries to make sure the citizens are treated at least vaguely decently
    Yes, I completely agree, allow me to point you to the examples of where the Western companies imported blood diamonds from the clearly liberal and humanist RUF rebels. Perhaps the modern day dealings with boisterous democracies such as Saudi Arabia can also be pointed to. Oh yeah and don't forget the support of the US for the inspirational Khmer Rouge and Saddam Hussein.

    Educated as you are, I'am sure you have full and indisuptable knowledge of Iran 1953, the planting of mines to sink civilian shipping and the supporting of terrorists to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicuragua, arming the contras whose "form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping". Oh yeah don't forget their support of Ferdinand Marcos. But clearly you know all this- genius that you are.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    They did business with Gadaffi when it suited them. When the opportunity came to oust him, they took it.

    Though I don't agree that the media forced the Western nations' hand. Since day one the western leaders have been leading the way in anti-Gadaffi propaganda, they used the media as a means of justifying military action.
    Yeah I actually agree with this. And as I said there is no way the West can claim to be a bastion of democracy and back countries like Saudi Arabia and Kyrgyzstan.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustMee)
    I agree that we DO need oil to pretty much have any of our current luxuries. But to say that it's a good reason to go to war and automatically assume that everyone will agree? Frankly, I disagree.

    It would be fair enough if it was put to a vote (and I mean a real vote, where the PEOPLE vote and where the media doesn't feed us biased bull**** while we're at it) and the majority decided to go to war so that we can continue having a comfortable life. It would still be horrendously wrong, but at least we would have a choice.

    But the truth is, we don't even get to know what's really happening, let alone decide, and that's what bothers me.

    How do we preach democracy if we don't even get to democratically decide if we want to preach said democracy?
    Come on... all the people you know, all the people you see in the street... do you really think they know what´s best for the country?

    I include myself: I refuse to vote either here or in Spain because I don´t believe I should be allowed to have a say in something as important as the future of the country. And I don´t believe they should either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Yes, I completely agree, allow me to point you to the examples of where the Western companies imported blood diamonds from the clearly liberal and humanist RUF rebels. Perhaps the modern day dealings with boisterous democracies such as Saudi Arabia can also be pointed to. Oh yeah and don't forget the support of the US for the inspirational Khmer Rouge and Saddam Hussein.

    Educated as you are, I'am sure you have full and indisuptable knowledge of Iran 1953, the planting of mines to sink civilian shipping and the supporting of terrorists to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicuragua, arming the contras whose "form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping". Oh yeah don't forget their support of Ferdinand Marcos. But clearly you know all this- genius that you are.
    Yeah, lets just not do business with the majority of the world. Let's just leave all those resources untapped, and use the wealth that we have from thin air to go to those countries and sort them out. Get real. I have never said the West was perfect or that it can be perfect. I have even said in previous threads we should just leave Libya to it, so the Arabs actually appreciate the next time we help them out. Your criticism of people in an age with poor media coverage, poor knowledge of the general population of what its country is doing, and of people who are long dead or in retirement homes is comical.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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
  • 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.