• 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!

WikiLeaks documents shed light on US-backed intervention in Libya

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks expose some of the real reasons and diplomatic tensions behind NATO’s ongoing bombardment of Libya. Far from initiating a “humanitarian” intervention to protect civilians against Muammar Gaddafi’s government, Washington backed the NATO intervention for one reason only—the installation of a regime that better serves the strategic interests of the US, as well as the operations of the giant oil and gas companies.

The cables date back to 2007, some three years after the Bush administration had lifted sanctions and formally re-established relations with the Gaddafi regime in a bid to secure access to Libya’s highly prized resources. Until the outbreak of revolutionary uprisings across the Middle East this year, Gaddafi was welcomed with open arms in Washington and internationally.

As the cables show, as recently as August 2009, US Senator John McCain led a high-profile bipartisan congressional delegation to meet with Gaddafi. McCain characterised the “overall pace of the bilateral relationship as excellent”. Senator Joe Lieberman said “we never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi,” before calling Libya an “important ally in the war on terrorism.”

Read more at: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/wiki-j27.shtml

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
 
1Perry said:
I seem to recall socialist and communist countries doing the exact same thing. Once again, if it's wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it.
Click to expand...

I agree. We should not be in the business of regime change. Period.
 
Boo Radley said:
I agree. We should not be in the business of regime change. Period.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far but it would be far more limited. I had no problem with removing Saddam. He had tried to assassinate our president. That alone should be reason enough to take him out. We did that long ago though.

Qaddafi should have been taken out after his handywork in Lockerbie. (but that isn't why we are doing what we are doing)

We have no business with a full out war in Afghanistan. I'd have no problem with random targeted strikes aimed at those who had a hand in 9-11 though.
 
1Perry said:
I wouldn't go that far but it would be far more limited. I had no problem with removing Saddam. He had tried to assassinate our president. That alone should be reason enough to take him out. We did that long ago though.

Qaddafi should have been taken out after his handywork in Lockerbie. (but that isn't why we are doing what we are doing)

We have no business with a full out war in Afghanistan. I'd have no problem with random targeted strikes aimed at those who had a hand in 9-11 though.
Click to expand...

I might have had no problem (or less problem) with removing Saddam had we done so when he did those things. Same with Qaddafi (Lockerbie). We agree there. And I agree with Afghanistan, though I think nearly any US president would have went in after OBL. I would hope anyone other than Bush, regardless of party, would have done so more competently and with less nation building.
 
Boo Radley said:
I might have had no problem (or less problem) with removing Saddam had we done so when he did those things.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's far less controversial.

Same with Qaddafi (Lockerbie). We agree there. And I agree with Afghanistan, though I think nearly any US president would have went in after OBL. I would hope anyone other than Bush, regardless of party, would have done so more competently and with less nation building.
Click to expand...

I understand going in. I don't understand a full out war 10 years later.
 
1Perry said:
Yes, it's far less controversial.



I understand going in. I don't understand a full out war 10 years later.
Click to expand...
Once you start something, and present a premise that too many accept, and all that we have to win business, it is hard to back up. But I'm with ya.
 
1Perry said:
I understand going in. I don't understand a full out war 10 years later.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have came to this had GWB not taken his eye off the prize. We had a change to take out OBL in the hills of Tora Bora long ago but looked the other way.
 
Wikileaks is stating the perfectly obvious... but at least now there is undeniable proof.

Why else would we be meddling with such backward governments? This is ALL about our energy economy.
 
Objective Voice said:
It wouldn't have came to this had GWB not taken his eye off the prize. We had a change to take out OBL in the hills of Tora Bora long ago but looked the other way.
Click to expand...

I can understand this arguement and I realize that there are errors made in all wars. We could have taken out OBL and Saddam if that alone had been the goal.
 
Temporal said:
Wikileaks is stating the perfectly obvious... but at least now there is undeniable proof.

Why else would we be meddling with such backward governments? This is ALL about our energy economy.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it would be front page if Bush was still president. That it's not is why we have so many problems.
 
Oil, oil and more oil. That's what it always seems to come down to. I don't think even I can support this measure any longer even if placed under the heading of "unfair business practises at the hands of Muammar Gaddafi strong-arming oil companies of the world," even if the coup...er, um...uprising was orchestrated by Gaddafi's own people.

:(
 
Objective Voice said:
It wouldn't have came to this had GWB not taken his eye off the prize. We had a change to take out OBL in the hills of Tora Bora long ago but looked the other way.
Click to expand...

True, the snipe hunt in Iraq was a needless diverion, and it did allow things to deteriorate. Howwever, I never saw any signs of us getting inn and getting out. You'd have to have a mission designed that way for that to have any chance of happening.
 
I don't know what to say, other than not surprising..
 
1Perry said:
I seem to recall socialist and communist countries doing the exact same thing. Once again, if it's wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it.
Click to expand...

That's just Capitalist lies sir.
 
Objective Voice said:
Oil, oil and more oil. That's what it always seems to come down to. I don't think even I can support this measure any longer even if placed under the heading of "unfair business practises at the hands of Muammar Gaddafi strong-arming oil companies of the world," even if the coup...er, um...uprising was orchestrated by Gaddafi's own people.
Click to expand...

Read the article more closely. This was not about oil. Saudi Arabia nationalized its oil industry long ago and yet the United States still happily backs that government in suppressing its people's liberties.

Controlling Libya's oil is just a way to control Libya. Consider the revelations Wikileaks provided concerning Shell's shadow government in Nigeria. This is no different from how it was with the United Fruit Company in Central America. It is not that the U.S. desires the resource so it overthrows the government, but that the United States wants to have control of the resource, and thus all benefits and influence that come with such control.

With countries like Saudi Arabia we have no need for control of the oil resources because we have instituted a far more effective system of control. However, that same method cannot be used in Libya where most of its business and defense needs are met by the East. It is indeed Gaddafhi's alignment with Russia and China that made him a target.
 
Honestly, when has a country ever engaged in foreign policy that its government did not deem to be in its own self-interest?
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Honestly, when has a country ever engaged in foreign policy that its government did not deem to be in its own self-interest?
Click to expand...

Never... it's almost incoherent to think otherwise IMO.
 
Ockham said:
Never... it's almost incoherent to think otherwise IMO.
Click to expand...

However, what they think, doesn't equal that it was in their best interest. Some use rather controted logic to make the argument.
 
Boo Radley said:
However, what they think, doesn't equal that it was in their best interest. Some use rather controted logic to make the argument.
Click to expand...

What they think is irrelevant - countries are judged on their action and all countries regardless of their politics act in their self interest.
 
Ockham said:
What they think is irrelevant - countries are judged on their action and all countries regardless of their politics act in their self interest.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. They convince themselves it is in their self interest, but largely they are wrong. It was not in Iraq's best self interest to invade Kuwait, and history shows it was contrary to their self interests. The same can be said concerning our invasion of iraq.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, they don't.
Click to expand...
Please prove this with evidence. You're opinion on the matter is also irrelevant.
Boo Radley said:
They convince themselves it is in their self interest, but largely they are wrong.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if psychologically they have convinced themselves or not, countries still act in their self interest.
Boo Radley said:
It was not in Iraq's best self interest to invade Kuwait, and history shows it was contrary to their self interests. The same can be said concerning our invasion of iraq.
Click to expand...

The reasons for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait:

a.) part of Iraq and therefore it was not an invasion (self interest)
b.) Kuwaits oil production was high and Iraq wanted that oil (self interes)
c.) It was later identified that Iraq's debts were tantamount and they needed cash from oil sales due to the long Iraq-Iran war which tapped Iraq's coffers (self interest)

Iraq did not invade Kuwait on behalf of someone else, and your claim or is it subtle hint(?) that Iraq had some other selfless motive is not supported by fact.
 
Ockham said:
Please prove this with evidence. You're opinion on the matter is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter if psychologically they have convinced themselves or not, countries still act in their self interest.

The reasons for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait:

a.) part of Iraq and therefore it was not an invasion (self interest)
b.) Kuwaits oil production was high and Iraq wanted that oil (self interes)
c.) It was later identified that Iraq's debts were tantamount and they needed cash from oil sales due to the long Iraq-Iran war which tapped Iraq's coffers (self interest)

Iraq did not invade Kuwait on behalf of someone else, and your claim or is it subtle hint(?) that Iraq had some other selfless motive is not supported by fact.
Click to expand...

You have to have the ability to reason to understand that logic is support. No one said Iraq invaded on behalf of anyone else. What was stated was that Saddam convinced himself it was in iraqis best interest, but we can factually see it wasn't. Iraq was much worse off having invaded. Same can be said concerning the US invading Iraq. It cost a lot, not in best interest. It hurt our reputation, not in our best interest. Help our enemies recruit, not in our best interest. All for very little to nothing to show as gain, which too is not in or best interest. Best interest is not what something things, but what can be shown to better the country. It is in my best interest not eat poorly, go to work, and take care of myself and things because I will be better off for doing so. I might think it is my best interest to rob a gas station, but if I did and spent a few years in prison, I think we could easily conclude it wasn't.
 
Boo Radley said:
You have to have the ability to reason to understand that logic is support. No one said Iraq invaded on behalf of anyone else. What was stated was that Saddam convinced himself it was in iraqis best interest, but we can factually see it wasn't.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to get it yet. What the leaders psychological state of mind is, is irrelevant. Whether he convinced him self or not... he acted in what he considered Iraq's best interest. End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom