Um, Are We About To Be In A Third War?

boyo79 · March 2011

The bottom line is the US, UK and France are only interested in Libya because of the oil. They aren't interested in protecting the civilians. They've already started dropping bombs just ONE DAY after getting this No Fly Zone in place. The US, UK & France have engineered this so they could drop bombs. They've probably helped the rebels attack Gaddafi's troops knowing he'd retaliate. And then they get the OK to attack.

Don't get me wrong, Gaddafi shouldn't be in power but the US & the UK have no business in this. What they are doing is nothing short of legalised terrorism. Its Iraq all over again.

lukin2006 · March 2011

LikeAnOcean wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Why not let the Arab's deal with him? And the west keep their nose out of it?

Because we all have something in common. We are humans. What qualifies another Arabian country to handle this above anyone else? Skin color? Religion??

Iraq's are human...people pissed all over Bush for that war (no I'm not a Bush supporter), Hussein massacred his own people, what about Rwanda? How about the Palestinians? The Ivory Coast? And the list goes on and on.

lukin2006 · March 2011

boyo79 wrote:

The bottom line is the US, UK and France are only interested in Libya because of the oil. They aren't interested in protecting the civilians. They've already started dropping bombs just ONE DAY after getting this No Fly Zone in place. The US, UK & France have engineered this so they could drop bombs. They've probably helped the rebels attack Gaddafi's troops knowing he'd retaliate. And then they get the OK to attack.

Don't get me wrong, Gaddafi shouldn't be in power but the US & the UK have no business in this. What they are doing is nothing short of legalised terrorism. Its Iraq all over again.

+1

Flagg · March 2011

Some of you guys see the boogey man everywhere don't you? Never can just take something at face value. Always have to find an ulterior motive or a conspiracy.

They asked for help. They are getting help.

The "indiscriminate death from above" comment made me laugh. Guess it's ok then if Ghadafi does it. Guess it is ok if he shells his own people with tanks and artillery and drops bombs on them. How else are you supposed to stop him?
Sanctions? Harsh language?

Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan is a mess. This isn't the same thing. I am about as anti-war as you can get but that man is slaughtering his own people who are involved in a popular uprising. Hell I figured most of you would be on board with that.

boyo79 · March 2011

Flagg wrote:

Some of you guys see the boogey man everywhere don't you? Never can just take something at face value. Always have to find an ulterior motive or a conspiracy.

They asked for help. They are getting help.

The "indiscriminate death from above" comment made me laugh. Guess it's ok then if Ghadafi does it. Guess it is ok if he shells his own people with tanks and artillery and drops bombs on them. How else are you supposed to stop him?
Sanctions? Harsh language?

Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan is a mess. This isn't the same thing. I am about as anti-war as you can get but that man is slaughtering his own people who are involved in a popular uprising. Hell I figured most of you would be on board with that.

Oil. That's why they are involved. I'm not being funny but the US & UK governments have know what Gaddafi is like for decades. Why all of a sudden the interest in removing him? They aren't interested in the people of Libya.

lukin2006 · March 2011

Flagg wrote:

Some of you guys see the boogey man everywhere don't you? Never can just take something at face value. Always have to find an ulterior motive or a conspiracy.

They asked for help. They are getting help.

The "indiscriminate death from above" comment made me laugh. Guess it's ok then if Ghadafi does it. Guess it is ok if he shells his own people with tanks and artillery and drops bombs on them. How else are you supposed to stop him?
Sanctions? Harsh language?

Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan is a mess. This isn't the same thing. I am about as anti-war as you can get but that man is slaughtering his own people who are involved in a popular uprising. Hell I figured most of you would be on board with that.

What about Iran last year, no one helped those protestors? What about China in 89' or whenever Tiananmen Square? The west only delivered harsh words then.

Flagg · March 2011

lukin2006 wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Some of you guys see the boogey man everywhere don't you? Never can just take something at face value. Always have to find an ulterior motive or a conspiracy.

They asked for help. They are getting help.

The "indiscriminate death from above" comment made me laugh. Guess it's ok then if Ghadafi does it. Guess it is ok if he shells his own people with tanks and artillery and drops bombs on them. How else are you supposed to stop him?
Sanctions? Harsh language?

Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan is a mess. This isn't the same thing. I am about as anti-war as you can get but that man is slaughtering his own people who are involved in a popular uprising. Hell I figured most of you would be on board with that.

What about Iran last year, no one helped those protestors? What about China in 89' or whenever Tiananmen Square? The west only delivered harsh words then.

Well Ghadafi is an easy target. Not sure the US was ready to risk WWIII with China.

Same with Iran. They are a much tougher foe.

Besides, Russia and China would veto any action against Iran. They did not against Libya.

The West this time did exactly what Bush would not/could not do in 2003. They got UN and Arab League blessing.

Flagg · March 2011

boyo79 wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Some of you guys see the boogey man everywhere don't you? Never can just take something at face value. Always have to find an ulterior motive or a conspiracy.

They asked for help. They are getting help.

The "indiscriminate death from above" comment made me laugh. Guess it's ok then if Ghadafi does it. Guess it is ok if he shells his own people with tanks and artillery and drops bombs on them. How else are you supposed to stop him?
Sanctions? Harsh language?

Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan is a mess. This isn't the same thing. I am about as anti-war as you can get but that man is slaughtering his own people who are involved in a popular uprising. Hell I figured most of you would be on board with that.

Oil. That's why they are involved. I'm not being funny but the US & UK governments have know what Gaddafi is like for decades. Why all of a sudden the interest in removing him? They aren't interested in the people of Libya.

Yeah, but the people have only revolted recently.

I am not denying oil is a major if not the major factor here. But I still think destroying his air defenses and grounding his planes are the right things to do. And there is no way US ground troops need to be involved.

lukin2006 · March 2011

Flagg wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Some of you guys see the boogey man everywhere don't you? Never can just take something at face value. Always have to find an ulterior motive or a conspiracy.

They asked for help. They are getting help.

The "indiscriminate death from above" comment made me laugh. Guess it's ok then if Ghadafi does it. Guess it is ok if he shells his own people with tanks and artillery and drops bombs on them. How else are you supposed to stop him?
Sanctions? Harsh language?

Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan is a mess. This isn't the same thing. I am about as anti-war as you can get but that man is slaughtering his own people who are involved in a popular uprising. Hell I figured most of you would be on board with that.

What about Iran last year, no one helped those protestors? What about China in 89' or whenever Tiananmen Square? The west only delivered harsh words then.

Well Ghadafi is an easy target. Not sure the US was ready to risk WWIII with China.

Same with Iran. They are a much tougher foe.

Besides, Russia and China would veto any action against Iran. They did not against Libya.

The West this time did exactly what Bush would not/could not do in 2003. They got UN and Arab League blessing.

Why should the west have to clean up these mess's all the time. Personally I think the west only gets involved when its convenient to them. How about the Palestinians? I doubt anyone would get upset if the west helped them out? This over over oil! I'd be interested to see how much oil the UK and France get from libya.

ONCE DEVIDED · March 2011

keeponrockin wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

People the middle east are rising up to take out the dictators who rule them
I say stand behind people who want freedom
gaddafi needs a 7.62 between the eyes or a rope around his neck
any other dictator as well

What about Saudi Arabia?

any and all who stand up for themselves, for their country
hopefully in the style of egypt with minimal loss of life but if they need our help lets give that

lukin2006 · March 2011

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

People the middle east are rising up to take out the dictators who rule them
I say stand behind people who want freedom
gaddafi needs a 7.62 between the eyes or a rope around his neck
any other dictator as well

What about Saudi Arabia?

any and all who stand up for themselves, for their country
hopefully in the style of egypt with minimal loss of life but if they need our help lets give that

It's noble to think you can help all those that need help, but in reality impossible/won't happen. The west is involved with libya for their own needs.

boyo79 · March 2011

Flagg wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Some of you guys see the boogey man everywhere don't you? Never can just take something at face value. Always have to find an ulterior motive or a conspiracy.

They asked for help. They are getting help.

The "indiscriminate death from above" comment made me laugh. Guess it's ok then if Ghadafi does it. Guess it is ok if he shells his own people with tanks and artillery and drops bombs on them. How else are you supposed to stop him?
Sanctions? Harsh language?

Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan is a mess. This isn't the same thing. I am about as anti-war as you can get but that man is slaughtering his own people who are involved in a popular uprising. Hell I figured most of you would be on board with that.

What about Iran last year, no one helped those protestors? What about China in 89' or whenever Tiananmen Square? The west only delivered harsh words then.

Well Ghadafi is an easy target. Not sure the US was ready to risk WWIII with China.

Same with Iran. They are a much tougher foe.

Besides, Russia and China would veto any action against Iran. They did not against Libya.

The West this time did exactly what Bush would not/could not do in 2003. They got UN and Arab League blessing.

From the BBC, "Russia and China, which abstained from the UN Security Council resolution approving the use of force in Libya, have urged all parties to stop fighting, as has the African Union".

lukin2006 · March 2011

boyo79 wrote:

Flagg wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

What about Iran last year, no one helped those protestors? What about China in 89' or whenever Tiananmen Square? The west only delivered harsh words then.

Well Ghadafi is an easy target. Not sure the US was ready to risk WWIII with China.

Same with Iran. They are a much tougher foe.

Besides, Russia and China would veto any action against Iran. They did not against Libya.

The West this time did exactly what Bush would not/could not do in 2003. They got UN and Arab League blessing.

From the BBC, "Russia and China, which abstained from the UN Security Council resolution approving the use of force in Libya, have urged all parties to stop fighting, as has the African Union".

So not everyone supports this action after all...they must get their oil elsewhere.

boyo79 · March 2011

lukin2006 wrote:

boyo79 wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Besides, Russia and China would veto any action against Iran. They did not against Libya.

The West this time did exactly what Bush would not/could not do in 2003. They got UN and Arab League blessing.

From the BBC, "Russia and China, which abstained from the UN Security Council resolution approving the use of force in Libya, have urged all parties to stop fighting, as has the African Union".

So not everyone supports this action after all...they must get their oil elsewhere.

The Arab League secretary has also just announced his critisicm of the air strikes against Libya.

LikeAnOcean · March 2011

lukin2006 wrote:

boyo79 wrote:

From the BBC, "Russia and China, which abstained from the UN Security Council resolution approving the use of force in Libya, have urged all parties to stop fighting, as has the African Union".

So not everyone supports this action after all...they must get their oil elsewhere.

So I'm reading the U.S. only gets less than 1% of its oil from Libya. Can we really be warring over that little oil?

And I would think us attacking would drag out the civil war, limiting oil supplies even longer. Ghadafi's forces were about to crush the opposition, that would have brought stability back and our business partner, no?

lukin2006 · March 2011

LikeAnOcean wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

boyo79 wrote:

From the BBC, "Russia and China, which abstained from the UN Security Council resolution approving the use of force in Libya, have urged all parties to stop fighting, as has the African Union".

So not everyone supports this action after all...they must get their oil elsewhere.

So I'm reading the U.S. only gets less than 1% of its oil from Libya. Can we really be warring over that little oil?

And I would think us attacking would drag out the civil war, limiting oil supplies even longer. Ghadafi's forces were about to crush the opposition, that would have brought stability back and our business partner, no?

And if The US succeed in removing him and inserting in a US/West puppet leader, the amount of oil they get from libya will rise significantly.

LikeAnOcean · March 2011

lukin2006 wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

So I'm reading the U.S. only gets less than 1% of its oil from Libya. Can we really be warring over that little oil?

And I would think us attacking would drag out the civil war, limiting oil supplies even longer. Ghadafi's forces were about to crush the opposition, that would have brought stability back and our business partner, no?

And if The US succeed in removing him and inserting in a US/West puppet leader, the amount of oil they get from libya will rise significantly.

But they don't have that much oil to begin with..

"Q: Is Libya a big supplier of oil to the U.S. and world?

A: No. Libya supplies just 44,000 barrels of oil a day to the U.S., or less than 1% of its total oil imports. Last year, Libya produced 1.6 million barrels a day, or 1.8%, of the 88 million barrels consumed daily. About 1 million have been shut down. Saudi Arabia churns out about 9% of the world's oil, or 8.4 million barrels, and 9.3% of U.S. imports."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 0_ST_N.htm

lukin2006 · March 2011

LikeAnOcean wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

And if The US succeed in removing him and inserting in a US/West puppet leader, the amount of oil they get from libya will rise significantly.

But they don't have that much oil to begin with..

"Q: Is Libya a big supplier of oil to the U.S. and world?

A: No. Libya supplies just 44,000 barrels of oil a day to the U.S., or less than 1% of its total oil imports. Last year, Libya produced 1.6 million barrels a day, or 1.8%, of the 88 million barrels consumed daily. About 1 million have been shut down. Saudi Arabia churns out about 9% of the world's oil, or 8.4 million barrels, and 9.3% of U.S. imports."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 0_ST_N.htm

Every extra barrels of oil the us and west get goes to feed the appetite for oil, especially the US. Like I've already stated, it's nice to state it's a noble cause, but so would have been Iran, China, The Ivory Coast, The Palestinian cause and all the other hot spots in the world. Why don't the members of the UN/Nato/Politicians be the first into the fight.

lukin2006 · March 2011

India, China, Russia oppose air strikes on Libya

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/india-china-ru ... 2-839.html

West’s strikes on Libya hit Arab League criticism

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/West+s ... z1H9zGj0h3

Flagg · March 2011

Russia and China abstaining is the same thing as approving. Come on guys, you know better than that. Either could have vetoed and killed the whole thing. They didn't. But abstaining lets them be able to bark about not approving it. If they didn't approve they should have vetoed.

Two days ago the Arab League asked for the no fly zone. Now they are critical. Who is worried about image again?

I do believe oil is a factor. But again I firmly believe Libya is an easy, low risk target. You can bring up Iran, China and these other places but doing something there would spark a major conflict. The UN thinks they can do this in days.

Um, Are We About To Be In A Third War?

Comments

Categories