Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 86

Thread: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

  1. #61
    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
    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 need to study international politics and IR theory a little more. Our support of Israel is also hugely a consequence of our need for oil. Just like our bases in Germany, Japan and South Korea and our alliances with Britain and France are means of preventing great power war in Europe and Asia, our alliance with Israel and bases on the Persian Gulf are means of preventing war in the Middle East. Just the threat that Israel poses as a nuclear power in the Middle East are enough to keep a certain measure of stability and protect our interest (oil) from being denied or becoming prohibitively expensive. This is why we don't want Iran to get nukes - then Israel's nuclear threat becomes less credible and Iran can credibly get in the way our interests in the Middle East.

    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.
    You continue to prove that you know nothing about American interests and how we secure them. As far as I'm concerned, even though my circumstantial evidence is the weakest of my arguments, it is enough. Before the Iraq War, four of the biggest providers of oil to the U.S. and its allies had minimal access to Saddam Hussein's oil, afterwards, they had all the access they wanted and in turn, one of the U.S. main interests in the Middle East was secured. Oil and democratization are our main interests in the Middle East. Private companies are the ones who get the oil for us.

    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.
    It's not better "safe than sorry". North Korea claims they have WMDs all the time, they even test some of them, but we don't invade their country. Why? Because they don't hold any of our primary interests. Iran denies having WMDs but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that if they don't have them already, they are working towards them. And yet, the United States has not invaded Iran. Why? Iran has not yet become an a huge impediment to getting oil or for any of our actions it the ME (it just yells at Israel) - it may if they get nukes.

    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.

    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.
    You're right, the removal of Saddam was in the U.S. interests because he was a block to US influence and stability. Why does the U.S. want influence and stability? Because without influence and stability, the United States can't get any oil (at least at a decent price).

    As far as Saddam's atrocities - remember Rwanda, Darfur? The U.S. is a government, not a charity. It follows its interests, not its love of humanity. Helping Saddam Hussein's people was a side effect.

    You keep telling me to reevaluate, but everything that you say shows that you have not studied international politics/relations particularly as it relates to U.S. enough to get a grasp on U.S. interests and how it secures them. Nobody who understands either would discount the role of oil as much as you have.

  2. #62
    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
    Helping Saddam Hussein's people was a side effect.
    Absolutely not. We didn't need Iraqi oil, since we get it fine from our good friends, the Saudis. We only import 22% of our oil from the ME, anyways.

    No, the main interest we were serving was that necessity to spread democracy throughout the ME. Remember from Bush's Sept 12, 2002 speech to the UN that the act of invading Iraq, removing the regime and building democracy was to provide an example to the rest of the ME. Looking at events today, who can make a compelling case whether or whether not the democratization of Iraq was of significant influence, even while most Arabs were furious at the US for doing so. That was certainly the motivation for Iraq.

    Oil is what makes the region important. We do not seek to steal it.

  3. #63
    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 reefedjib View Post
    Absolutely not. We didn't need Iraqi oil, since we get it fine from our good friends, the Saudis. We only import 22% of our oil from the ME, anyways.

    No, the main interest we were serving was that necessity to spread democracy throughout the ME. Remember from Bush's Sept 12, 2002 speech to the UN that the act of invading Iraq, removing the regime and building democracy was to provide an example to the rest of the ME. Looking at events today, who can make a compelling case whether or whether not the democratization of Iraq was of significant influence, even while most Arabs were furious at the US for doing so. That was certainly the motivation for Iraq.

    Oil is what makes the region important. We do not seek to steal it.
    I know that we only get 22% of our oil from the Middle East, but my point about our interest in any region of the ME for oil is that our allies get much more of it from the Middle East than we do and we keep their alliance, in part, by defending their interests.

    I agree that democracy was one of our primary interests, but I don't see as for the good will of the people (or else we'd be democratizing a lot more of the word). Democracy is less of a humanitarian interest and more of a strategic interest - i.e. increase stability and we stabilize our influence/other interests. In other words, our interest in helping Iraqis was not a primary interest - it was a side effect of seeking to advance our other interests: oil and democracy. Democracy (I believe at least) helps the Iraqi people get a sense of self-determination, but our mission was certainly not based in goodwill/humanitarian efforts.

  4. #64
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Absolutely not. We didn't need Iraqi oil, since we get it fine from our good friends, the Saudis. We only import 22% of our oil from the ME, anyways.

    No, the main interest we were serving was that necessity to spread democracy throughout the ME. Remember from Bush's Sept 12, 2002 speech to the UN that the act of invading Iraq, removing the regime and building democracy was to provide an example to the rest of the ME. Looking at events today, who can make a compelling case whether or whether not the democratization of Iraq was of significant influence, even while most Arabs were furious at the US for doing so. That was certainly the motivation for Iraq.

    Oil is what makes the region important. We do not seek to steal it.
    To your point I'll comment both on oil and on spreading democracy. First, isn't the protection of these people Gaddafi is threatening to kill trying to mount an uprising to oust Gaddafi? The next logical step for his ousting is for a new government to take the place of the existing oppressive one which is (we hope) a Democracy so we are continuing to spread Democracy and nation build by this action - or rather as a result of this action. Second, Libya is only relevant because of their oil. A decent amount of that oil goes to France and the rest of Europe - so it make sense that the security of that oil is paramount. If the uprising fails, how much of the oil will go to Europe as a consequence of this action? Very little I'm guessing. So the sooner Gaddafi is out, dead or whatever, the easier it is for the U.S. and Europe to secure the country by whatever means and secure the oil. Democracy is a great thing, but not necessary to get the oil.

    Otherwise, does anyone REALLY believe we or any other country for that matter, would give a **** about Libya?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  5. #65
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Democracy (I believe at least) helps the Iraqi people get a sense of self-determination, but our mission was certainly not based in goodwill/humanitarian efforts.
    Neither is this action based on goodwill/humanitarian. It's a nice cover story and excuse, but it's about the oil and about nation building.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  6. #66
    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 Ockham View Post
    Neither is this action based on goodwill/humanitarian. It's a nice cover story and excuse, but it's about the oil and about nation building.
    Yep. Instability and revolution in the Libyan population gives the United States a chance to help build another democracy in the area. If we don't help and they eventually overthrow Gaddafi on their own, then we lose an opportunity to determine/influence the direction of their new government.

  7. #67
    Educator ender1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    08-01-11 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    646

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    I actually think this was handled well. When there were still US citizens in Libya I heard some saying that the President was not making a decision and was weak. Once we confirmed that all citizens were safe he released a statement that condemned what was happening. With the no-fly zone again patients was needed to make sure that we had the support to take action. In the end we will gain, even if its small, support for our patients and actions. If only we did this in Iraqi things may have been different.

    What you dont want to do is rush to a decision before you have support and know your role. This puts the US in a much better position. While I dont always agree with President Obama I think this situation was handled spot on.

  8. #68
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Yep. Instability and revolution in the Libyan population gives the United States a chance to help build another democracy in the area. If we don't help and they eventually overthrow Gaddafi on their own, then we lose an opportunity to determine/influence the direction of their new government.
    Which would absolutely grand to have a country deal with their own issues without the U.S. poking it's nose in it. When are the protests going to start? I've got my "No blood for oil" signs all ready to go.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #69
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by ender1 View Post
    I actually think this was handled well. When there were still US citizens in Libya I heard some saying that the President was not making a decision and was weak. Once we confirmed that all citizens were safe he released a statement that condemned what was happening. With the no-fly zone again patients was needed to make sure that we had the support to take action. In the end we will gain, even if its small, support for our patients and actions. If only we did this in Iraqi things may have been different.

    What you dont want to do is rush to a decision before you have support and know your role. This puts the US in a much better position. While I dont always agree with President Obama I think this situation was handled spot on.
    I hear that constantly now... all delays in decision making are now due to "American's being in the country". Do you have some evidence of this - I'd like to take a look at it, as it relates to Libya and the conflict.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #70
    Educator ender1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    08-01-11 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    646

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I hear that constantly now... all delays in decision making are now due to "American's being in the country". Do you have some evidence of this - I'd like to take a look at it, as it relates to Libya and the conflict.
    Are you asking me to go take pictures?

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 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
  •