• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

apdst said:
The difference is? Let me guess, one war you agree with, the other you don't agree with?
Click to expand...
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. :doh

.
 
TOJ said:
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. :doh

.
Click to expand...

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

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?
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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

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. :roll:

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.
 
Kandahar said:
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. :roll:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kaya'08 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed, we would give as much of a **** about the ME as we do sub-Saharan Africa if it had no oil.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
theplaydrive said:
It's interesting how you focused on my circumstantial evidence more than anything considering that that was my weakest point.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
kaya'08 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
theplaydrive said:
Helping Saddam Hussein's people was a side effect.
Click to expand...

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.
 
reefedjib said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
reefedjib said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ender1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you asking me to go take pictures?
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ockham said:
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?
Click to expand...

I wish I had more time to comment, but I gotta go have a weekend activity and get the hell away from the computer for a little while!

theplaydrive - I think you are really splitting hairs here.

to both of you -

  1. We are the global security guarantor for the rest of the world. Part of that is oil and part of that is shipping lanes.
  2. If Libya and Iraq weren't in the major oil region of the world, we probably wouldn't care.
  3. It is in our strategic interest to spread democracy, in order to attempt to reduce radicalization and also to focus it inwards rather than outwards.
  4. It is also in our expression of values, to spread democracy to other countries...to be humanitarian.

The 3rd and 4th point are separate points, I will agree. However, seeing as how we have been violating the 4th point for decades, it is in our interest diplomatically to the people of the ME to correct the hypocrisy. It just so happens that points 3 and 4 are harmoniously aligned with respect to Iraq and Libya.
 
reefedjib said:
  1. We are the global security guarantor for the rest of the world. Part of that is oil and part of that is shipping lanes.
  2. If Libya and Iraq weren't in the major oil region of the world, we probably wouldn't care.
  3. It is in our strategic interest to spread democracy, in order to attempt to reduce radicalization and also to focus it inwards rather than outwards.
  4. It is also in our expression of values, to spread democracy to other countries...to be humanitarian.

The 3rd and 4th point are separate points, I will agree. However, seeing as how we have been violating the 4th point for decades, it is in our interest diplomatically to the people of the ME to correct the hypocrisy. It just so happens that points 3 and 4 are harmoniously aligned with respect to Iraq and Libya.
Click to expand...
I agree we are (whether we like it or not) the guarantor - the question is "should we be"? I certainly agree with point 2, which completely negates the whole "we're there for humanitarian reasons", same as the WMD issue and humanitarian issues in Iraq were debunked. Agree with point 3 as well, but again, the question is should we be doing this at end of a gun and have we learned nothing from Iraq OR, is this a lesson of Iraq and Iraq was a total success. Point 4 is bunk, sorry to say. Much worse humanitarian needs have occurred all over the world which did not involve emergency UN resolutions and a quick move of military no-fly zones. "Humanitarian needs" is a red herring - and a smelly one at that.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thats where **** gets messy quick and difficult to move forward on.

Nation building - when and where it is reasonable, to our advantage and those being helped are helping themselves. Most Arab countries do NOT fit that criteria. We shouldn't insist.
 
ric27 said:
Thats where **** gets messy quick and difficult to move forward on.

Nation building - when and where it is reasonable, to our advantage and those being helped are helping themselves. Most Arab countries do NOT fit that criteria. We shouldn't insist.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm definitely in favor of a more conservative (in the literal sense of the word) foreign policy. I think we need to let nations determine their own fates and have their own civil without our intervention. I understand that we want influence but nation-building takes a long, expensive time (when it even works) and we have other domestic problems to spend even the smallest amount of money on. The problem is, both parties are fairly similar with regards to foreign policy in this aspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom