Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 86 of 86

Thread: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

  1. #81
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Please be frank American.

    Say what you mean please.
    I thought we finally got rid of that silly war on terror when we finally got rid of Bush.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #82
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,296
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I thought we finally got rid of that silly war on terror when we finally got rid of Bush.
    Why is it ALWAYS Bush with you Libs

  3. #83
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Badfish420 View Post
    there is no way the west is mounting up for war because there is any real benefit, besides putting our money where our mouth is and standing up for the people of Libya. the world economy is in the gutter and going into Libya now will only hurt us and europe. But i think, and the free world realizes, that Khaddafi needs to be put in his place. as long as the US isnt spearheading this i support it.
    1 Our arrogance has made us believe we are some sort of almighty power with all the answers to the ills of the world. I would suggest we focus on taking care of our own before we loose it all. This nation doesn't have the stomach to play world cop and our self-righteousness hinders our establishment of realistic foriegn policy objectives and..

    2 We are not that "great" generation by any stretch of the imagination. We do not have the mindset that they had at the time (years ago) they did what they did. Just ask the average American what he's willing to sacrifice. I'm not pessimistic, I'm realistic.

  4. #84
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

    Re: UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

    I do hope we are getting oil for this stupid invasion otherwise why are we there?

    I will laugh for days non stop if the current regime falls and then it opens the field to Extremists and terrorists in Africa.


  5. #85
    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
    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.
    No. If the US's only interest in the ME was oil, they wouldn't support Israel and would instead spend more resources bolstering the Arab regimes instead of giving billions to the enemy of those regimes. It's why there always has been an inherent distrust in Arab society of the Americans and in Arab leadership. There support for Israel highlights a humanitarian cause not one for oil. An alliance with the ARABS would have been just as effective as preventing a war, even more so. Had this have happened from day one the Israeli's wouldn't even have nuclear weaponry. Even if that wasn't the case they would remain a deterrent for any war especially if the US made it clear that they would support no such hostility even if Israel wasn't an ally.


    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.
    Your making a statement that the primary reason for the invasion was oil with very little evidence. As i said, bringing into account fluctuating oil prices, huge US funded rebuilding schemes, aid programmes and not to mention the money and resources required to sustain the war effort, your argument comes across as pretty flawed. The US will not get much return from this for years. It will take decades to make a net gain from oil imports from Iraq, or to remake the $720 million that is being spent there each day, by which time governments will be under huge pressure to actively employ alternate energy sources. Your basing your argument on what makes sense to you. In reality, invading Iraq for some sort of economical gain makes little sense, and i believe it was obvious at the time too.

    I'm not saying the US doesnt base some of its policies or actions in the ME for reasons other than humanitarian in nature, i just dont believe the sole motivation for this war was oil.

    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.
    Now your just being naive. The chances that Iraq had WMD's far outweighed that of NK, since it is well known they could not possibly obtain the money, scientific knowledge or resources to do so. There just big bluffers. They cant even afford to feed there own people, there army sucks up most of the budget.

    There is also huge geopolitical differences between NK and Libya. First of all, any invasion of NK would need international consensus. China would very likely veto any UN resolution permitting an intervention and would probably seek to play a role in the war that wasnt on our side. There is far too much at stake in NK. The geopolitical situation in Libya is far easier for the US.

    Iran hasn't been invaded because there hasn't been a case of country-wide and systematic extermination to the degree we see in Libya, because Iran is a much bigger country, because a war in Iran would destabilize everything the US has worked to build in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the military force needed to invade Iran would be huge.

    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).
    No relevance whatsoever. The US enjoyed cheaper oil prices during Saddams regime if anything.

    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.
    Kosovo, Korea?
    Last edited by kaya'08; 03-21-11 at 02:39 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. <

  6. #86
    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
    No. If the US's only interest in the ME was oil, they wouldn't support Israel and would instead spend more resources bolstering the Arab regimes instead of giving billions to the enemy of those regimes. It's why there always has been an inherent distrust in Arab society of the Americans and in Arab leadership. There support for Israel highlights a humanitarian cause not one for oil. An alliance with the ARABS would have been just as effective as preventing a war, even more so. Had this have happened from day one the Israeli's wouldn't even have nuclear weaponry. Even if that wasn't the case they would remain a deterrent for any war especially if the US made it clear that they would support no such hostility even if Israel wasn't an ally.
    Never said it was - democratization, prevention of nuclear proliferation and stability of the region are other interests. Israel helps the U.S. maintain stability and accomplish its goal of keep oil accessible and at low prices. It also helps the US deter other states from taking other damaging actions since Israel's nukes act as a deterrent. Israel is a strategic priority first and foremost.


    Your making a statement that the primary reason for the invasion was oil with very little evidence. As i said, bringing into account fluctuating oil prices, huge US funded rebuilding schemes, aid programmes and not to mention the money and resources required to sustain the war effort, your argument comes across as pretty flawed. The US will not get much return from this for years. It will take decades to make a net gain from oil imports from Iraq, or to remake the $720 million that is being spent there each day, by which time governments will be under huge pressure to actively employ alternate energy sources. Your basing your argument on what makes sense to you. In reality, invading Iraq for some sort of economical gain makes little sense, and i believe it was obvious at the time too.
    All you have to do is understand American interests to understand why oil is a primary interest. Wherever the U.S. goes, there an interest is. Why is the U.S. interested in the ME? A primary reason is oil. The US only gets 22% of its oil from the ME, but we care about oil there so much we protect it in exchange for loyalty from our allies - this why so many Americans have a problem with European freeriding.


    Now your just being naive. The chances that Iraq had WMD's far outweighed that of NK, since it is well known they could not possibly obtain the money, scientific knowledge or resources to do so. There just big bluffers. They cant even afford to feed there own people, there army sucks up most of the budget.
    North Korea has actually tested nuclear weapons...so obvious they have them. Also, North Korea is known to have a destructive amount of chemical weapons. They have the money, knowledge and resources to test nuclear weapons and hold thousands of chemical weapons. This point is just false.

    There is also huge geopolitical differences between NK and Libya. First of all, any invasion of NK would need international consensus. China would very likely veto any UN resolution permitting an intervention and would probably seek to play a role in the war that wasnt on our side. There is far too much at stake in NK. The geopolitical situation in Libya is far easier for the US.
    If the US wanted to go in/had reason to go in, it would. We do what we want, that's why everybody hates us.

    Iran hasn't been invaded because there hasn't been a case of country-wide and systematic extermination to the degree we see in Libya, because Iran is a much bigger country, because a war in Iran would destabilize everything the US has worked to build in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the military force needed to invade Iran would be huge.
    1. If it was about extermination, then Darfur would have been invaded and many other countries would have been as well. We see an opportunity to install democracy because of what is turning out to be a civil war pretty much. (Interests > Humanitarian concerns)
    2. These are reasons not to enter Iran - another reason: oil.

    No relevance whatsoever. The US enjoyed cheaper oil prices during Saddams regime if anything.
    Yes and with more influence over Iraqi oil, its companies get more influence on prices and bigger profits.

    Kosovo, Korea?
    1. There's a reason we stopped after Kosovo and a reason why Clinton was criticized by Republicans and Democrats for that one.
    2. If you're talking about South Korea, then our reason for being there is the same as it is for being in Japan, Germany, etc. - to prevent another great power war. Our interests in every region are different.
    Last edited by ThePlayDrive; 03-21-11 at 03:14 PM.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

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