Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 86

Thread: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

  1. #51
    Guru

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,469

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The difference is? Let me guess, one war you agree with, the other you don't agree with?
    Actually, looks to me like it has more to do with the party of the President. I wonder if all those supporting this intervention understand they are in agreement with Paul Wolfowitz.

    .

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    Actually, looks to me like it has more to do with the party of the President. I wonder if all those supporting this intervention understand they are in agreement with Paul Wolfowitz.

    .
    Absolutely right. Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Krystal (and Krauthammer) go a long way in clarifying the right moves to make.

  3. #53
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    The idea that people who opposed the Iraq War can't support intervention in completely different conflicts is the height of stupidity, as every situation is different. With that said, I side with those who argue that intervention in Libya simply is not worth the risks.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #54
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    I guess Republicans John McCain and Alan Greenspan are just as bad:
    Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m | World news | The Observer
    Indeed, they are.

    ...But I thought we were in the Middle East for WMDs and bin Laden? What does oil have to do with that?

    First Read - McCain: Iraq war was for oil?
    Senator McCain was entertaining popular public opinion for votes, nothing more. He was one of the many senators who supported the invasion.

    And then you have the circumstantial evidence:
    How convenient.
    The Iraq War Was About Oil, All Along | World | AlterNet
    So you're telling me the US went to Iraq so the embargo on US oil companies to operate in Iraq could be lifted? It makes sense the transitional government there welcomed US oil companies to maximize Iraqi income opportunities. US oil companies would never say no to a contract given the chance, but these companies are separate from the government and operate purely in the interests of there pockets and unless the Iraqi government was pushed or influenced by the US government to accept these contracts then you cant tell me it was planned, but merely that the Iraqi government was acting in the interests of there economy.

    The Iraqi government should be expected to say no to all US oil company operations in Iraq and turn down profits so that it can look like the invasion wasn't for oil? That's rather stupid. Its no surprise the left impose unrealistic expectations and assume there conspiracies where correct all along when those expectations are not met.

    The US has spent more money and resources there than they will ever make from oil companies operating in Iraq for decades.
    Last edited by kaya'08; 03-20-11 at 11:34 AM.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  5. #55
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Absolutely right. Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Krystal (and Krauthammer) go a long way in clarifying the right moves to make.
    Well, those are three of the most prescient voices in America, aren't they? Not having supported the war in Iraq myself, I can't associate myself with the stunning accuracy of the Wolfowitz/Kristol/Krauthammer predictions about THAT conflict. Given their compelling track record, I'm sure that these are three people who have carefully analyzed the Libya situation before making ridiculous assertions. Wolfowitz's predictions that the Iraq War would cost $60-95 billion were spot on! Bill Kristol's prediction that the Sunni and Shia in Iraq would have no conflict at all, due to Iraq's secularism, was right on target! And let's not forget Charles Krauthammer's amazingly accurate description of the Iraq War as the "Three Week War," ridiculing those who suggested that Iraq could face an insurgency. Surely, these three men are wise sages to whom we should all listen.

    Seriously though, for a national foreign policy, we could do a lot worse than just taking every recommendation from these three men and doing exactly the opposite.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Well, those are three of the most prescient voices in America, aren't they? Not having supported the war in Iraq myself, I can't associate myself with the stunning accuracy of the Wolfowitz/Kristol/Krauthammer predictions about THAT conflict. Given their compelling track record, I'm sure that these are three people who have carefully analyzed the Libya situation before making ridiculous assertions. Wolfowitz's predictions that the Iraq War would cost $60-95 billion were spot on! Bill Kristol's prediction that the Sunni and Shia in Iraq would have no conflict at all, due to Iraq's secularism, was right on target! And let's not forget Charles Krauthammer's amazingly accurate description of the Iraq War as the "Three Week War," ridiculing those who suggested that Iraq could face an insurgency. Surely, these three men are wise sages to whom we should all listen.

    Seriously though, for a national foreign policy, we could do a lot worse than just taking every recommendation from these three men and doing exactly the opposite.
    You got links to those statements?

    Regardless, it really doesn't matter what people predicted going in as we had very little control over the way the enemy would respond. He gets a vote. The initial war did take 3 weeks. The nation building took longer.

    They are absolutely correct that our foreign policy should reflect our values and principles and that we need to be active in the affairs of others.

  7. #57
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    Indeed, they are.



    Senator McCain was entertaining popular public opinion for votes, nothing more. He was one of the many senators who supported the invasion.



    So you're telling me the US went to Iraq so the embargo on US oil companies to operate in Iraq could be lifted? It makes sense the transitional government there welcomed US oil companies to maximize Iraqi income opportunities. US oil companies would never say no to a contract given the chance, but these companies are separate from the government and operate purely in the interests of there pockets and unless the Iraqi government was pushed or influenced by the US government to accept these contracts then you cant tell me it was planned, but merely that the Iraqi government was acting in the interests of there economy.

    The Iraqi government should be expected to say no to all US oil company operations in Iraq and turn down profits so that it can look like the invasion wasn't for oil? That's rather stupid. Its no surprise the left impose unrealistic expectations and assume there conspiracies where correct all along when those expectations are not met.

    The US has spent more money and resources there than they will ever make from oil companies operating in Iraq for decades.
    It's interesting how you focused on my circumstantial evidence more than anything considering that that was my weakest point.

    In any case, I'll repeat the part that you chose to ignore:
    The United States goes where its interests lie. It would be illogical to discount oil as one of its primary interests in the ME.
    Oil is one of the primary interests the United States has in the Middle East. Every intervention is the Middle East that the U.S. participates is by necessity based in part on our interest in protecting oil. Bush had very little evidence that Saddam had WMDs and we know this not only from the people who have come out later saying that the evidence he used was unreliable, but also from the fact that the evidence couldn't have been very good since there weren't any WMDs there anyway.

    Saddam Hussein made himself a barrier to one of the United States's primary interests: oil. It was necessary, for that interest alone, to clear that barrier. The fact that GWB was willing to go into Iraq on such weak evidence suggests that he was more motivated by some of our other interests in the middle east, one of which is oil, another is democratization. I am always dumbfounded by people who don't understand that the U.S. acts on its interests and that one of its primary interests in the ME is oil.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    It's interesting how you focused on my circumstantial evidence more than anything considering that that was my weakest point.

    In any case, I'll repeat the part that you chose to ignore:


    Oil is one of the primary interests the United States has in the Middle East. Every intervention is the Middle East that the U.S. participates is by necessity based in part on our interest in protecting oil. Bush had very little evidence that Saddam had WMDs and we know this not only from the people who have come out later saying that the evidence he used was unreliable, but also from the fact that the evidence couldn't have been very good since there weren't any WMDs there anyway.

    Saddam Hussein made himself a barrier to one of the United States's primary interests: oil. It was necessary, for that interest alone, to clear that barrier. The fact that GWB was willing to go into Iraq on such weak evidence suggests that he was more motivated by some of our other interests in the middle east, one of which is oil, another is democratization. I am always dumbfounded by people who don't understand that the U.S. acts on its interests and that one of its primary interests in the ME is oil.
    Indeed, we would give as much of a **** about the ME as we do sub-Saharan Africa if it had no oil.

  9. #59
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The idea that people who opposed the Iraq War can't support intervention in completely different conflicts is the height of stupidity, as every situation is different. With that said, I side with those who argue that intervention in Libya simply is not worth the risks.
    I agree. I don't think some people understand that one of the main reasons people opposed the Iraq War was because our intervention was based on weak/faulty information and because it had nothing to do with our primary concern at the time - al Qaeda. The motives for Libya are pretty clear this time. That said, I'm not too excited about stretching our military and our money even more than it already is.

  10. #60
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    It's interesting how you focused on my circumstantial evidence more than anything considering that that was my weakest point.
    I didn't bother replying to that argument because it was a fallacy. Your opinion assumes every interest in the ME somehow relates back to oil. Western support of Israel against the Arabs is a case in point. Not exactly the best side to choose if you want to keep the people with the oil happy.

    You have also failed to provide VALID circumstantial evidence that Iraq was ever invaded for oil which automatically renders your argument that all of the underlying Western interests link back to oil as hollow and meaningless.

    Oil is one of the primary interests the United States has in the Middle East. Every intervention is the Middle East that the U.S. participates is by necessity based in part on our interest in protecting oil. Bush had very little evidence that Saddam had WMDs and we know this not only from the people who have come out later saying that the evidence he used was unreliable, but also from the fact that the evidence couldn't have been very good since there weren't any WMDs there anyway.
    Saddam Hussein himself declared that he had WMD's to an undercover operative. He told the media this before he was strung up. He wanted to forment fear in Iran so that they would not attack him. I think actions to act on intel that suggested WMD's was wiser than inaction....we would be saying the same if he really did have them. He didnt, and we got it wrong, but better safe than sorry.

    What Saddam Hussein did to his people was atrocious. His removal was inline with all previous US interventions like in Kosovo and so on. He was a dictator.

    Saddam Hussein made himself a barrier to one of the United States's primary interests: oil. It was necessary, for that interest alone, to clear that barrier. The fact that GWB was willing to go into Iraq on such weak evidence suggests that he was more motivated by some of our other interests in the middle east, one of which is oil, another is democratization. I am always dumbfounded by people who don't understand that the U.S. acts on its interests and that one of its primary interests in the ME is oil.
    The removal of Saddam in itself was in the interests of the US. He was a major counter block to US influence and he did little to improve peace or stability. You have narrowed GWB's reasons considerably and concluded it made sense he would invade Iraq with little intel for oil. Even at the time, it was obvious the war would last for years and cost us more than we would ever get from it. Maybe you should re-evaluate.
    Last edited by kaya'08; 03-20-11 at 12:23 PM.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •