Jump to content

Following the middle east


Recommended Posts

(continued...)

 Besides, I don't know why you are taking aim at the US' engagement in Libya. This action is led primarily by the French and British. Why are you not criticizing them? You say you are just opposed to US military actions, but your animosity toward the States is clearly more comprehensive. Where is your criticism of the French, British and UN in all of this?

 

And there you go wandering back to the oil business. Why don't you do some research into who actually buys Libya's oil? You will most likely be surprised. 

Oh, and don't forget the potential for massive refugee flows across the Mediterranean and into Europe if Libya falls apart. This mess isn't happening in the US' backyard.

Your brand of anti-Americanism is so tired its laughable...or would be, if I were not yawning.  Yawn.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Zhivvy wrote:


mummy wrote:

security_in_anonymity']
I recall a recent history of a government (rather a coalition of governments) going in to forcefully remove a murderous tyrant--it was a most unpopular undertaking.

Gaddafi used air-strikes on his own people.  I would be fine with someone going in and forcefully displacing him.
I am just not sure it is in anyone's interest to do so (other than the Libyan people's)
.  And, I am fairly certain that if  anyone did go in to forcefully stop Gaddafi,  interest in the Libyan people would be immediately forgotten by much of  the oh-so-concerned outside world.   Instead, I do not doubt, whoever intervened would suddenly be perceived as an even more "evil" force than he. 

Eh, I can see at least one reason why people other than the libyans would be interested in going in and removing Mr. M Gadaffi.  For the same reason the "coalition of governments" removed the other "tyrant". One Word: OIL.
I agree with you Mummy - as i said above - other tyrants haven't been removed by force and strangely they are in countries with no oil!

 

 

Agree with you guys. And I've heard (don't know for certain), in this country a big fount of water has been found. No differences with Iraq, exactly the same situation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I learned a new word today

 

zeitgeist---is "the spirit of the times" or "the spirit of the age." [1]Zeitgeist is the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and/or political climate within a nation or even specific groups, along with the general ambiance, morals, sociocultural direction, and mood associated with an era.

 

 

Hi sweety, some time ago !!!!
Have you seen the movies "Zeitgeist". I've recently seen the last one and I liked. Material for a deep thinking. You can find it in the internet easily. Hope your things are going well ! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me a cynic? lmao. I'm probably the most cynical person you'll ever come across when it comes to the US and it's involvement in the World's affairs. And I have good reason. Since 1775, there has been a total of only 26 years that the U.S. has not been involved in conflict. Since 1990, the US has been continually involved in conflict in Africa and the Middle East, amongst other countries.

 

In many cases, the U.S has been the cause and "solution" (I use this term loosely) of those conflicts. For instance, the Gulf War of 1990-92 happened because the US backed Iraq in the Iran Iraq War so that Iran would not succeed. The result? The war officially ended in 1988 with the signing of a ceasefire between both countries. By this time Iraq was virtually bankrupt and owed a huge debt to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Debts that neither country would forgive. This debt was exacerbated by the reduction in oil prices. Iraq accused Kuwait of exceeding its OPEC quotas, and that it was also slant drilling into Iraqi territory. Furthermore Iraq felt that Kuwait was part of the Iraqi territory but that the UK had created a separate country from that region after WWI, which Iraq felt was created by the British to limit any Iraqi government from threatening Britain's Domination. It was due to the above reasons (full or partially) that Iraq invaded Kuwait.

 

Who was responsible for the cause of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Who was mainly responsible for the solution of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

But you know, this is a similar story to how WWII started... The Treaty of Versaille. I prefer to call it "The Treaty for WWII". Who came up with the treaty? Again, the U.S. and the U.K. were well in the thick of it. It set the stage for a second world war.

 

Who was responsible for this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Who was mainly responsible for the solution of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Now we have the Libyan situation.

 

The U.S. backed Libya's independence from Italy in 1951. It was only when Gadaffi got into power in 1969 that the U.S.' relationship with Libya became strained. And for the most part, this was justified, esp. because of his support for terrorist organisations. He also used oil embargoes to try and force the west to terminate their support for Israel. The U.S. has had a number of hostile confrontations with Libya in the 1980s where there were an exchange of missiles where at least 4 Libyan planes were shot down. Incidently, these skirmishes took place in what Libya considers territorial waters, whereas the U.S. considers it international waters.

 

Gadaffi is responsible for acts of terrorism, including the Berlin Discotheque bombing, the Lockerbie disaster, and UTA Flight 772 bombing. Throughout the 80s Libya's relationship with the West and also with the Soviet Union was becoming more and more strained. Libya had to re-think its objectives and throughout the 90's it worked to improve its international relationships but with UN sanctions imposed upon it in 1992, sanctions which were not challenged by the Arab states, the Libyans relationships with both the Arab and Western countries were severely diminished. So, Gadaffi decided to improve his ties with the African states. This has worked out quite well.

 

In the meantime Libya has paid compensation for those affected by its terrorist acts in the 70s and 80s. This included paying compensation for the killing of a UK policewoman outside their embassy in London in 1984. This act helped to improve their relationship with the UK. Throughout the noughties, Libya has made further steps to improve its relationships with the West. This included dropping its program to create weapons of mass destruction. It's compensation for the aforementioned terrorist acts paved the way for the U.S. to improve ties with Libya in 2008. Gadaffi even got to visit the U.S. for the first time in 2009. The most notable development was Italy's agreement to pay Libya 5 billion dollars for it's military occupation of the country pre-1951. Interestingly, Italy is the biggest exporter of military weapons to Libya.

 

Italy was also one of the countries that signed the Treat of Versaille (The Treaty of WWII).

 

What's my biggest problem with the U.S. taking military action against Libya? The U.S. ties with Libya for the most part have been strained. Maybe in the early days of the state's independence, when it was a monarchy, were it's ties at its strongest. And it's no harm to mention that in those days, the UK was it's biggest supplier of arms.

 

Consider the following:

Do the people of Libya want the West to help them take the Libyan leader out of power?

Who is mainly responsible for leading the rebels?

Will the state of Libya disintegrate with the removal of Gadaffi?

Would Western involvement solve the situation or make it worse?

Would it be better if someone close to Gadaffi end his rule?

If there are many who profit greatly from Gadaffi's rule, it may prove extremely difficult to get to him because if the game is up for gadaffi, the game is up for those individuals also.

There is little reliable information coming out of Libya to know how many exactly support the man.

If the West go in, and to quote Colin Powell: China shop rules: you break it, you own it. Who wants to "own" Libya?

Who, in the Western World, would be foolish enough to rise up against an Arab leader when there is so much Muslim hostility?

 

The Libyan Revolution was initiated by the Libyan people. It is their revolution. It is their war. When they initiated it, they must have expected their leader's reaction. There is no turning back. Either they will usurp their leader or they will fail. In any case, whatever your view of Gadaffi, if any military action is taken by the Western nations could cause far greater problems than he staying in power.

Agree with this. There are big interests, which are not mention in any press media. Here in Argentina, The leader for the arabian association in Argentina ( something like that ) said very much like you are mention here Mummy. For me the key is that question: Do the people of Libya want the West to help them take the Libyan leader out of power? , because, who will decide when the intervention has to be made ? I don't know, maybe, tomorrow they can come for my president, or yours,....who knows ? It's so much beyond our control ...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The weapons industry is huge business, but to be so, someone has to use the weapons.

A good movie about this is "The lord of the war".

 

I think that big corporations and goverments are in the kitchen, that's ok because they own the restaurant. We are the clients of the restaurant, we just seat at the tables and eat what they give us. They make us think we are free to choose, giving us a menu with some options. At the end we will never know what they are cooking, we are not alowed to get inside the kitchen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look! It is the Argentinian girl who thinks the US knocked down its own buildings on 9/11 so that it could go to war in Iraq and steal its oil. LOL!

 

Yay! We have a REAL authority in the house now!

Oh yap ! Probably I'm REAL danger, propose what to do with me, maybe an intervention could help !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look! It is the Argentinian girl who thinks the US knocked down its own buildings on 9/11 so that it could go to war in Iraq and steal its oil. LOL!

 

Yay! We have a REAL authority in the house now!

"It's the Argentinian girl"...Hello, my name is Carolina, very nice to meet you !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look! It is the Argentinian girl who thinks the US knocked down its own buildings on 9/11 so that it could go to war in Iraq and steal its oil. LOL!

 

Yay! We have a REAL authority in the house now!

Thank you very much for recognizing my authority,...I'm very proud of your thoughts !!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

Thank you very much for recognizing my authority,...I'm very proud of your thoughts !!!

 

Hi Naz- queen of the world! tongue.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...