Is Western Action On Libya Justified? - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

CDSmith · 03-20-2011, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

The rebellion has started to fly fighter jets of its own,

Soon, if they're lucky, one of them will hit a 2 meter-wide vent and the death star will go bye-bye.

May the force be with them.

CDSmith · 03-20-2011, 11:35 AM

"Is Western Action On Libya Justified?"

I don't know, ask the several high-up Libyan officials, ex-pats, and the Libyan ambassador himself that question. All of them have been on CNN and other news networks over the past few weeks asking if not outright begging the world (but particularly the US) to help their country's people, by way of enforcing a no-fly zone and providing military air strikes.

Those of you making it out like the evil west is yet again "sticking it's nose where it's unwanted" simply haven't been watching the news.

dyna mo · 03-20-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendot

Ouch, I guess I pick em up off GFY. In that case, I apologise to Selena.....
On reflection it was totally out of order what I said.

The reason Im so fiercely pissed off right now is that theres zero debate, no chance of a war one week ago and now suddenly we're at war. Why the fuck are we once again meddling in arab affairs?

We we're fine with Mubarak in Egypt for long enough. And even Gaddafi and now Obama/Cameron are using stupid justifications like Gaddafi's threats to Benghazi rebels....

Robbie · 03-20-2011, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

"Is Western Action On Libya Justified?"

I don't know, ask the several high-up Libyan officials, ex-pats, and the Libyan ambassador himself that question. All of them have been on CNN and other news networks over the past few weeks asking if not outright begging the world (but particularly the US) to help their country's people, by way of enforcing a no-fly zone and providing military air strikes.

Those of you making it out like the evil west is yet again "sticking it's nose where it's unwanted" simply haven't been watching the news.

I've been watching.

None of us know the real inside story. But my guess is it's the same old song and dance. The "opposition" wants to get their hands on the billions of dollars that the oil companies pay the Colonel now.

And we have NO business interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign country. Just like we would shit our pants if Russia suddenly decided to do the same to us.

The Demon · 03-20-2011, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I've been watching.

None of us know the real inside story. But my guess is it's the same old song and dance. The "opposition" wants to get their hands on the billions of dollars that the oil companies pay the Colonel now.

And we have NO business interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign country. Just like we would shit our pants if Russia suddenly decided to do the same to us.

You would have made a great isolationist during WWII.

Robbie · 03-20-2011, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

You would have made a great isolationist during WWII.

Damn straight...

We entered WWII because we were attacked. And then FDR asked Congress for a Declaration Of War. You know...the way the law says it's supposed to be done.

Not the way we've been doing it lately.

We haven't been attacked. None of our allies whom we have signed defense treaties were attacked. Congress did not declare war.

Sound familiar? (hint: Iraq)

_Richard_ · 03-20-2011, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Exactly. It's American oil companies living there and getting the oil to begin with. No way in hell the U.S. govt. wants to actually TAKE the oil and make it cheap. lol

Our oil companies WANT it to be expensive. And they also want to make sure that they can keep it flowing...as do the Arab countries. Everybody gets rich...except us and the goat herders on the ground in the Mid East

american oil companies?

history kinda shows that a lot of the people making the most money are europeans..

CDSmith · 03-20-2011, 12:32 PM

If the US/UN/etc does nothing and the Libyan people end up getting massacred (which they would) the US would be criticized and vilified by the world for turning a blind eye.

If they lift a finger to help they are criticized and vilified for butting in where they don't belong.

Always love a good catch 22 story. Don't you Robbie?

Vendot · 03-20-2011, 02:19 PM

Seems the Arab League is having some doubts about this:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...045027,00.html

Ive seen this story covered in UK media also.

The problem is that the whole idea is to stop Gaddafi attacking his people. The principle is supposed to be about no fly zone and NOT regime change. However, its clear that what the west actually wants is regime change because if Gaddafi then stops all actions, what can they do? (that doesnt go outside the limits of their remit).

Its becoming pretty clear if you watch news media now that this whole thing has not been thought out properly. Theyll find a way to get Gaddafi though....

Bryan G · 03-20-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Should the US have not intervened in WWII, or are you happy we routed Hitler?

Please shut the fuck up. You did not route shit. Try the russians more like it.

Robbie · 03-20-2011, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

If the US/UN/etc does nothing and the Libyan people end up getting massacred (which they would) the US would be criticized and vilified by the world for turning a blind eye.

If they lift a finger to help they are criticized and vilified for butting in where they don't belong.

Always love a good catch 22 story. Don't you Robbie?

Yeah, it sucks. I'm already seeing on the news today that the Arab countries are getting pissed because we (as usual) have overreached and instead of just making it a "no fly" zone we are now bombing the hell out of Libya.

I guess the oil companies are gonna get every last dollar of profit while they still can until people FINALLY have enough of this shit...and then they will go to work on a way to make us pay a "rental" fee on the sun next. lol

Robbie · 03-20-2011, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

american oil companies?

history kinda shows that a lot of the people making the most money are europeans..

Yeah American oil companies. Except for BP (British) and Citgo (Venezuela)

Barry-xlovecam · 03-20-2011, 06:10 PM

The National Oil Corporation (NOC) is the national oil company of Libya.

Quote:

[In] the 1970s Libya initiated a socialist style nationalization program under which the government either nationalized oil companies or became a participant in their concessions, production and transportation facilities.[6] As part of this program, NOC signed production-sharing agreements with Occidental Petroleum, Sincat (Italy), and formed a joint drilling company with Saipem (an Eni subsidiary). The was accompanied by nationalization of ConocoPhillips's Umm Farud field in 1970, British Petroleum's Sarir field in 1971 and Amoco's Sahabir field in 1976. After commencement of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and other Arab states proclaimed an embargo on oil exports to countries who supported Israel, primarily the United States. Additionally, the NOC had encountered legal actions by BP over claims of ownership. Although the 1973 oil crisis increased global demand, BP's legal position made some countries wary of importing from Libya. NOC compensated for this weakness by arranging barter deals with France and Argentina. On March 18, 1974, the Arab oil ministers ended the US-embargo, with Libya being the sole exception. During 1974, agreements were reached with Exxon, Mobil, Elf Aquitaine and Agip provided production-sharing on a 85-15 basis onshore, 81-19 offshore. Eventually, all the foreign companies (excluding BP) agreed to partial nationalization, providing Libya with a substantial oil surplus. ...

.

The Demon · 03-20-2011, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Damn straight...

We entered WWII because we were attacked. And then FDR asked Congress for a Declaration Of War. You know...the way the law says it's supposed to be done.

Not the way we've been doing it lately.

We haven't been attacked. None of our allies whom we have signed defense treaties were attacked. Congress did not declare war.

Sound familiar? (hint: Iraq)

What you DIDN'T know was that FDR had plenty of intelligence that stated Pearl Harbor would be attacked but needed a reason to get into the war to appease the isolationist Republicans(lol at the irony of party switches within half a century), and he got what he wanted, legal or not.

Quote:

Please shut the fuck up. You did not route shit. Try the russians more like it.

Hey dumbshit, do you have ANY knowledge of World History? Do you know why the Russians were able to route the Germans freely? Because the US was occupied fighting the Japanese their region and Germany/Italy in Africa.

Robbie · 03-20-2011, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

What you DIDN'T know was that FDR had plenty of intelligence that stated Pearl Harbor would be attacked but needed a reason to get into the war to appease the isolationist Republicans(lol at the irony of party switches within half a century), and he got what he wanted, legal or not.

I've read that many times over the years. And I believe it 100%. I don't put anything past our govt. including back in the 1940's

But now we don't even pretend to follow our constitution and the checks and balances of our laws anymore to restrain the govt's power.

And bottom line is this: Libya didn't invade anybody. They didn't attack us. They didn't attack any or our allies that we signed defense treaties with.

There are more people being slaughtered in an hour in Darfur...yet we just watch that go by...as we SHOULD. But when there is oil involved? Now we're gonna roll with it? And if it isn't the oil, then WHAT is it that makes one shitty god-forsaken country full of people that hate us more "deserving" of us bombing them than another?

I don't want my tax money spent for that. But they didn't ask me for permission. lol

The Demon · 03-20-2011, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I've read that many times over the years. And I believe it 100%. I don't put anything past our govt. including back in the 1940's

But now we don't even pretend to follow our constitution and the checks and balances of our laws anymore to restrain the govt's power.

And bottom line is this: Libya didn't invade anybody. They didn't attack us. They didn't attack any or our allies that we signed defense treaties with.

There are more people being slaughtered in an hour in Darfur...yet we just watch that go by...as we SHOULD. But when there is oil involved? Now we're gonna roll with it? And if it isn't the oil, then WHAT is it that makes one shitty god-forsaken country full of people that hate us more "deserving" of us bombing them than another?

I don't want my tax money spent for that. But they didn't ask me for permission. lol

So let me get this straight. When we attack a country, the quickest idiotic response is "we want their oil lolz". Now, when we genuinely try to help people (Bosnia/Bosnia), the idiotic response is "we have no right to invade a country!!" So tell me oh foolish smut peddlers, when does this country win?

Robbie · 03-20-2011, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

when does this country win?

This country shouldn't be out there doing any of that. The whole Bosnians wiping out the Muslims was a European problem. They didn't seem to give a damn about it and let it happen.

It was none of our business. But we did something and saved all those Muslims. And what did it get us?

I'm kinda surprised that even after the shit we've done since 9-11 that people still seem to think we should go and bomb other countries.

A general was on CNN today and said that we shouldn't worry because they have those missiles tweaked to avoid killing civilians. And that no "significant" loss of civilians is expected.

Well....if I were a Libyan, and a cruise missile accidentally killed MY wife...I would consider that to be very "significant" and I would spend the rest of my days trying to kill Americans.

That's just one of the problems of us going into these countries illegally and bombing them. No matter what happens...we CAN'T "win".

Just like if Libya started bombing a large city in the United States. Every American in that city that survived the bombing would be out for Libyan blood.

We are creating new "terrorists" every time we start killing people over there.

Bring home ALL of our military. And let's spend the money here at home making our lives better instead of killing people in small countries. And then IF anybody EVER attacks the U.S. (hasn't happened since the Japs at Pearl Harbor and before that since the war of 1812) THEN let's unleash holy hell on them.

Sausage · 03-20-2011, 08:48 PM

Why is the US expected to do all the heavy lifting again? Why can't countries in the region take care of their own back yard for a change ?

directfiesta · 03-20-2011, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sausage

Why is the US expected to do all the heavy lifting again? Why can't countries in the region take care of their own back yard for a change ?

US are not "expected "...

They more then happily volunteer to bomb people .. it is in their blood ...

rogueteens · 03-20-2011, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Should the US have not intervened in WWII, or are you happy we routed Hitler?

what, all on your own? Troll or idiot?

rogueteens · 03-20-2011, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

I'm not sure I agree. Aside from some diehard liberals and philosophy majors, current history looks favorably on the US during WWII.

Apart from being rather late, yes. But after WWII .. no.

rogueteens · 03-20-2011, 09:28 PM

what worries me about this is that its an internal affair. where does this outside interferance end? I mean, if there is another riot like the '92 LA riots in the US could the UN fly over a few bombs? If the German chancellor stubs their toe, should the UN throw missles at the pavement?

Robbie · 03-20-2011, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogueteens

what worries me about this is that its an internal affair. where does this outside interferance end? I mean, if there is another riot like the '92 LA riots in the US could the UN fly over a few bombs? If the German chancellor stubs their toe, should the UN throw missles at the pavement?

Can you imagine this kind of thinking during the riots in the 1960's? And the anti-war demonstrations we had in this country with millions of young people demanding the overthrow of our govt.? And then troops shooting and killing those students at the university in Ohio?

With this kind of logic...the world should have put a "Coalition" together and created a "no fly" zone over the United States and then started supplying the college student protestors with weapons and simultaneously bombing all U.S. military installations.

Guys...THAT is what we are doing to Libya. Not saying that crazy bastard shouldn't be taken out...but it's not OUR place to do that. It's none of our business. It's another country.

Brujah · 03-20-2011, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

If the US/UN/etc does nothing and the Libyan people end up getting massacred (which they would) the US would be criticized and vilified by the world for turning a blind eye.

If they lift a finger to help they are criticized and vilified for butting in where they don't belong.

Always love a good catch 22 story. Don't you Robbie?

You mean like with Darfur, Congo, Bahrain?

nico-t · 03-21-2011, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

The irony of calling idea A "brainwashing" while introducing brainwashing idea B.

so world politics isnt based on money and power? I should've known, since we all know governments are filantropists. Silly me..

Vendot · 03-21-2011, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Guys...THAT is what we are doing to Libya. Not saying that crazy bastard shouldn't be taken out...but it's not OUR place to do that. It's none of our business. It's another country.

Well said Robbie........ its a simple principle which should be really obvious to a lot of people but apparently not everyone gets it. I wish we, as in the UK and west generally, would adopt a non-interventionist policy.

PornoMonster · 03-22-2011, 08:34 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/...ex.html?hpt=T2

View Poll Results: Is Western Action On Libya Justified?
No	46	52.27%
Yes	29	32.95%
Not Sure	13	14.77%
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll

03-20-2011, 11:35 AM	#102
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	"Is Western Action On Libya Justified?" I don't know, ask the several high-up Libyan officials, ex-pats, and the Libyan ambassador himself that question. All of them have been on CNN and other news networks over the past few weeks asking if not outright begging the world (but particularly the US) to help their country's people, by way of enforcing a no-fly zone and providing military air strikes. Those of you making it out like the evil west is yet again "sticking it's nose where it's unwanted" simply haven't been watching the news. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

03-20-2011, 12:32 PM	#108
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	If the US/UN/etc does nothing and the Libyan people end up getting massacred (which they would) the US would be criticized and vilified by the world for turning a blind eye. If they lift a finger to help they are criticized and vilified for butting in where they don't belong. Always love a good catch 22 story. Don't you Robbie? __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

03-20-2011, 08:48 PM	#118
Sausage Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 3,012	Why is the US expected to do all the heavy lifting again? Why can't countries in the region take care of their own back yard for a change ? __________________ IW Skype : blance8888 Icq : 15567120

03-20-2011, 09:28 PM	#122
rogueteens So fucking bland Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: England Posts: 8,005	what worries me about this is that its an internal affair. where does this outside interferance end? I mean, if there is another riot like the '92 LA riots in the US could the UN fly over a few bombs? If the German chancellor stubs their toe, should the UN throw missles at the pavement? __________________ Free traffic and backlinks from one of the fastest growing adult pinsites on the net - SAUCY PICTURES! Easily my best performing webcam sponsor - CLICK HERE!!

03-20-2011, 02:19 PM	#109
Vendot Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Malaysia Posts: 3,376	Seems the Arab League is having some doubts about this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...045027,00.html Ive seen this story covered in UK media also. The problem is that the whole idea is to stop Gaddafi attacking his people. The principle is supposed to be about no fly zone and NOT regime change. However, its clear that what the west actually wants is regime change because if Gaddafi then stops all actions, what can they do? (that doesnt go outside the limits of their remit). Its becoming pretty clear if you watch news media now that this whole thing has not been thought out properly. Theyll find a way to get Gaddafi though....

03-22-2011, 08:34 AM	#127
PornoMonster Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 2,257	http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/...ex.html?hpt=T2