# British, French and Canadians, Oh MY!!



## billc (Mar 19, 2011)

I just heard on the radio that French fighter aircraft were making recon flights over Libya.  Obviously, the war mongers in the British, French, and Canadian governments are about to engage in an illegal, military intervention in the independent nation of Libya.  With a thin cover of legality from the United Nations, these war mongers, bowing to their masters at Haliburton are showing their complete willingness to spill innocent blood for Libyan Oil.  In nothing less than an excercise in raw power these three nations are demonstrating the excesses of Eurocentric thinking when it comes to the third world. :angel:


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 19, 2011)

Better late than never, but I often wonder if this whole mess could have been averted, had a no-fly zone simply been erected three weeks ago?


----------



## billc (Mar 19, 2011)

The illegal, and imoral aggression has begun.  Obviously under orders from their masters at Haliburton, a french fighter jet fired on a Libyan vehicle.  This naked act of aggression against the property of a legitimate, independent nation's vehicle is just the opening move.  Have we not learned the lesson of no blood for oil.  The world cries out for Britain, Canada and France, Historical war mongers (well, except for maybe canada) and colonial powers to desist this unlawful action.  Who knows what the death toll for this illegal and imoral action may be.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 19, 2011)

Hyperbole aside, the statistics are interesting in that it could have a huge effect on some EU nations.

Ireland imports 23% of it's oil from Libya, and Italy imports 22%, Austria 21.2%, the U.K. 8.5%, Spain 13%, France 16%.  In fact, Europe receives about 85% of Libya's oil exports.


----------



## K-man (Mar 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I just heard on the radio that French fighter aircraft were making recon flights over Libya. Obviously, the war mongers in the British, French, and Canadian governments are about to engage in an illegal, military intervention in the independent nation of Libya. With a thin cover of legality from the United Nations, these war mongers, bowing to their masters at Haliburton are showing their complete willingness to spill* innocent blood* for Libyan Oil. In nothing less than an excercise in raw power these three nations are demonstrating the excesses of Eurocentric thinking when it comes to the third world. :angel:


Now forgive me if I am wrong but I thought you guys defend you right to bear arms as protection against a tyranical government taking away the rights of the people.

I mean there is obviously no connection here between that and a benevolent dictator like Gadaffi defending his family's rights to do whatever against these ungrateful demonstrators who would dare challenge his generousity towards his people.

Yep, I reckon he should be left alone to kill anyone who seeks to oppose him. It's probably the fault of those damned Egyptians who were demanding their right to be heard. BTW, Gaddafi and his cronies have never had any qualms over spilling innocent blood. Just look at Pan Am flight 103. 

I'm not quite sure how the Canadians were singled out for supporting the UN resolution because I'm sure that, in the small print, you will find the support of most nations, including the USA and Australia.

PS. US warships off Libya just launched some Cruise missiles, target unknown! Any bets that they weren't targeting the pyramids.? :asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 19, 2011)

Uhhh you can't see the sarcasm K-Man??

[hint] Hes making a sarcastic comparison to how the US would be treated if we were the primary actors in this. [/hint]


----------



## Big Don (Mar 19, 2011)

Well, there is some CHANGE for you Obama fans, the President of the United States, is no longer the LEADER of the free world.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Well, there is some CHANGE for you Obama fans, the President of the United States, is no longer the LEADER of the free world.


How is that?


----------



## Big Don (Mar 19, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> How is that?


Not only was he worrying about college basketball when there are actual problems going on in the world, 
his Secretary of State's statements made it abundantly clear the US was not going to take the lead in this. If you're not leading, you aren't a leader.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 19, 2011)

Actually....I agree.  Obama did it right.  It's not the US's fight to interfere in the matters of an internal disagreement in another sovereign nation.
Libya's civil war isn't a US matter.


----------



## billc (Mar 19, 2011)

112 tomahawk missles is hardly not interfering in a civil war.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 19, 2011)

He "changed" his mind.

I meant his original response.  Sorry, meant to write more, got sidetracked.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 19, 2011)

The difference is that it's not a unilateral use of force. Like it or not, and I don't care all that much for the UN, the action against Lybia is sanctioned by the only body that has any kind of legitimacy to act, as the decision was taken by a majority of the nations voting.

We supported Gulf War I. We're still in Afgahnistan. You may not realize this but Canada has supplied troops in every action and conflict authorized by an international body.

If the US had just decided to bomb the crap out of Lybia one day, we would not be there. 

You're just pissed because we don't blindly follow you into whatever war you get into.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 19, 2011)

*MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: *


> 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the  calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the  United States and the world'...


*
MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: *


> 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military  operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world  from grave danger'...


His teleprompter can't even come up with an original line.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 19, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> The difference is that it's not a unilateral use of force.


Neither was the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 19, 2011)

Obama handled it well I thought, considering how the usa has rushed into things in the past and 'warmongering'

That and nice sarcasm Bill. So he speaks fluent sarcasm after all!


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Neither was the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


 

Other than the US saying "we're going in, who's with us?' What international body sactioned the invasion?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Not only was he worrying about college basketball when there are actual problems going on in the world,
> his Secretary of State's statements made it abundantly clear the US was not going to take the lead in this. If you're not leading, you aren't a leader.


Its not our place to invade every country we don't like. We are part of a coalition.
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 19, 2011)

The US should back off, let the rest of the world deal with things for a decade or 3.
Stick to humanitarian aid.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 19, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> Other than the US saying "we're going in, who's with us?' What international body sactioned the invasion?



There is no need for an international body to sanction any invasion.  So it really doesn't matter.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 19, 2011)

Repost


----------



## K-man (Mar 19, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Uhhh you can't see the sarcasm K-Man??
> 
> [hint] Hes making a sarcastic comparison to how the US would be treated if we were the primary actors in this. [/hint]


Oh me, oh my!   My face is on the reddish side of pink.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   He said it with such a straight face.   :asian:


----------



## Scott T (Mar 19, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> There is no need for an international body to sanction any invasion.  So it really doesn't matter.


For justification, yes there is, as demonstrated after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

The US led invasion of Iraq a decade later was no different.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 19, 2011)

Saddam violated the terms of the GWI so frequently that saying GWII was "warmongering" is a bit of truth restructuring IMO.


----------



## Scott T (Mar 19, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Saddam violated the terms of the GWI so frequently that saying GWII was "warmongering" is a bit of truth restructuring IMO.


Those terms were UN-imposed, not US. It wasn't Bush's place to unilaterally decide to to go in for that reason.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 20, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Those terms were UN-imposed, not US. It wasn't Bush's place to unilaterally decide to to go in for that reason.


What part of coalition do you not understand?


----------



## billc (Mar 20, 2011)

History is so easily forgotten especially when people want to change it.  Yes, the U.N. that was the place in star wars that Obi Wan described as a retched hive of scum and villainy?  Oil for food, rape and sex scandals in third world countries, putting known human rights abusers on the U.N. committee for human rights...yes, we really should look to them for approval and sanctioning of our actions.


----------



## billc (Mar 20, 2011)

Remember, Obama the peacemaker?  Do you think he is going to send back his nobel peace prize?  I am curious, not being a student of Indian history, which countries did Ghandi attack?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 20, 2011)

Britain?  Only he did it without the use of military power - he used our own drive towards unpicking the weave of the Empire to hasten the process along.  It's still the use of 'force' even if it doesn't involve bullets.

He went a bit too fast in my view but his only real mistake was getting assassinated too early with the problem of Partition unresolved.


----------



## Scott T (Mar 20, 2011)

Big Don said:


> What part of coalition do you not understand?


Oh, I understand coalition, but did the UN authorize the coalition to go into Iraq on it's behalf? No. It was purely an American operation with whatever suckers it could gather with distortion of facts and outright lies.

Colin Powell's UN demonstration, anyone?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 20, 2011)

Meantime:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 20, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The illegal, and imoral aggression has begun.  Obviously under orders from their masters at Haliburton, a french fighter jet fired on a Libyan vehicle.  This naked act of aggression against the property of a legitimate, independent nation's vehicle is just the opening move.  Have we not learned the lesson of no blood for oil.  The world cries out for Britain, Canada and France, Historical war mongers (well, except for maybe canada) and colonial powers to desist this unlawful action.  Who knows what the death toll for this illegal and imoral action may be.



Oh, stuff it already. 

There is a mandate from the UN security council, which makes these actions entirely legit. Things like this is why there is a UN. This is not about political or economical interests, but stopping a genocide which will flood neighboring countries with refugees. Perhaps that is why it feels so weird to you. It's a new experience for you to actually have a good reason to let the military bomb the **** out of someone. 

Besides, every US president needs to have a war.


----------



## teekin (Mar 20, 2011)

Hot Damn, I really missed this place. :uhyeah:

Lori


----------



## Scott T (Mar 20, 2011)

grendel308 said:


> hot damn, i really missed this place. :uhyeah:
> 
> Lori


lmao!!!


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 21, 2011)

Grendel308 said:


> Hot Damn, I really missed this place. :uhyeah:
> 
> Lori


 
"It smells like teachers in here?????????????"
 I resemble that remark....


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 21, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Oh, stuff it already.
> 
> There is a mandate from the UN security council, which makes these actions entirely legit. Things like this is why there is a UN. *This is not about political or economical interests, but stopping a genocide which will flood neighboring countries with refugees.* Perhaps that is why it feels so weird to you. It's a new experience for you to actually have a good reason to let the military bomb the **** out of someone.
> 
> Besides, every US president needs to have a war.


 
Is it really?

Because when I look at Darfur, I see genocide (though the U.N. refuses to recognize such, and I question how it's genocide (as defined by the U.N.) in Libya when he is killing the rebels for political and not cultural reasons), and it took the U.N. four years to mount a response.  This while an estimated 330,000 civilians were killed, a U.N. estimate of 2.85 million displaced (refugees).

It took nine years for the U.N. to get involved in the Sierre Leone Civil War, despite the massive attrocities occurring there.  And the U.N. didn't intervene until after the majority of the fighting was over.

And let's not forget about Rwanda, where there were already U.N. troops stationed, were informed about the upcoming attempt at genocide, and yet did nothing to prevent it.  Add to that the fact that the U.N. ultimately had nothing to do with ending the situation.


So, sorry, I don't buy this idea that with several major countries in Europe dependant upon oil from Libya, that the reason they are intervening is entirely altruistic.  Not only that, but the U.N. Resolution only establishes a no-fly zone, so the government can still rape pillage and murder all it wants.

This is nothing short of intervening in the internal politics of a soverign, U.N. recognized nation for political reasons.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 21, 2011)

You are right. Darfur is a tragedy. Sierra Leona as well.
One of the main differences is that noone in the security council vetoed the intervention or tried to stall.

I feel areas like Sierra Leone are intentionally left to their own devices because way too many governments are making a killing. Sierra Leone is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of raw ores, diamonds, etc. Yet for reason they can't pull themselves out of the misery. Too many people are profiting from the misery.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 21, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> You are right. Darfur is a tragedy. Sierra Leona as well.
> One of the main differences is that noone in the security council vetoed the intervention or tried to stall.
> 
> I feel areas like Sierra Leone are intentionally left to their own devices because way too many governments are making a killing. Sierra Leone is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of raw ores, diamonds, etc. Yet for reason they can't pull themselves out of the misery. Too many people are profiting from the misery.


 
But yet, for some reason, you make the statement that for Libya, the case is different.  That this time, the reason for going is alturistic.

I tell you, it is easy to use cheap (slave) labor to shift for diamonds, etc.  It needs no great skill.  But to get oil out of the ground is a whole other thing.  Hence the ability to allow devastation to occur in African countries and still get what they want, but the need to have some measure of stability and infrastructure in order to get oil.  

Hence the fact that the primary backers in the play are the one's who stand to lose the most economically, the countries of the E.U.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Remember, Obama the peacemaker?  Do you think he is going to send back his nobel peace prize?  I am curious, not being a student of Indian history, which countries did Ghandi attack?



when i first heard about him gettin that my first reaction was 'for what?'


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Remember, Obama the peacemaker? Do you think he is going to send back his nobel peace prize? I am curious, not being a student of Indian history, which countries did Ghandi attack?


 
Your not much of a student of history at all, I'd gather, since Teddy Roosevelt-a warmonger iof ever there was one, even if he didn't "attack" any countries as President-won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906, while Gandhi *never* did.....


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 21, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> But yet, for some reason, you make the statement that for Libya, the case is different.  That this time, the reason for going is alturistic.
> 
> I tell you, it is easy to use cheap (slave) labor to shift for diamonds, etc.  It needs no great skill.  But to get oil out of the ground is a whole other thing.  Hence the ability to allow devastation to occur in African countries and still get what they want, but the need to have some measure of stability and infrastructure in order to get oil.
> 
> Hence the fact that the primary backers in the play are the one's who stand to lose the most economically, the countries of the E.U.



Lybia IS different, in a rather cynical way.

None of the big players who could veto the UN actions is raping libya or profiting hugely from the instability. So none of the big players has anything to win by keeping kadhaffi in power.
At the same time, the refugee stream is going to be a huge pain in the butt for the surrounding nations, one of which is France.

Countries like Sierra Leone otoh are sucked dry by countries like china for example.
Allowing the people of sierra leone to be free from warring overlords means they get a stable society and economical development. Next thing will be demanding actual market value for their ores and that will not do. So getting an approved military action in Africa, other than strict peace keeping, is hard because China is a permanent security council member.

Libya meanwhile is an oil producing country. Protracted civil war and unrest is not going to do the oil market any good.

So I still say there is a significant difference: the situation is libya is bad for all players.
The situation in Africa is making many corporations and countries immeasurable quantities of money. That is why kadhaffi is getting a ruthless kick in the nads while the warlords in Africa are mostly left alone.


----------



## billc (Mar 21, 2011)

Yeah, I know Ghandi never one the peace prize but he didn't attack any country either.  Obama, won the peace prize, conducts drone attacks, killing civillians, does everything he condemned Bush for, and now launches missles into an independent country.  I think if Ghandi had invaded a country or two he might have actually won the peace prize.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Obama, won the peace prize, conducts drone attacks, killing civillians, does everything he condemned Bush for, and now launches missles into an independent country.



But I thought Obama is a weakling who only wants to surrender to our enemies and agree with their hatred of America?


----------



## billc (Mar 21, 2011)

An interesting article by victor davis hanson on the situation around the world, especially libya and the other middle eastern countries.

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/america-through-the-looking-glass/

From the article:

For two weeks, the administration was largely quiet about the unrest in Libya until the insurgents began taking entire cities and seemed on the verge of closing in on Gaddafi&#8217;s Tripoli. Then President Obama called on Gaddafi to step down and stop the &#8220;unacceptable&#8221; level of violence. But things then got worse, not better, once Gaddafi began to employ a level of violence that his ilk counts on to stay in power (cf. Assad in Syria or Ahmadinejad in Iran). So at last we announced a funny sort of no-fly-zone, inasmuch as Gaddafi can put down the rebellion without use of his planes and gunships. We vowed to have an international commander soon; we promised to restrict our activity to patrolling the air only (after sending missiles into quite a lot of initial targets on the ground). We are not going after Gaddafi himself (although the tyrant has nowhere to go, must be taken out for the rebels to succeed, and seems to be already targeted by the Europeans, without our &#8220;knowledge&#8221. In the new Middle East multilateralism, America supplies the firepower, Europeans the policy and high profile, Arabs the public cover, and the international community the legitimacy &#8212; as long as the campaigning is brief, the losses small, and the rebels supposedly somewhat Western in outlook. But no one yet has told us why we must not &#8220;meddle&#8221; in Iran, must ignore the Saudis going into Bahrain, should continue &#8220;outreach&#8221; with Assad, must support the ouster of Mubarak and Ben Ali, but are so far mum about further challenges to pro-American authoritarians in the Gulf and Jordan.


----------



## billc (Mar 21, 2011)

For a pretty accurate look at why Obama does what he does, check out Dinesh D' Souza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage."  Although I personally wouldn't qualify the way he does things as coming from rage, I think the book, as explained by D'Souza does cover the things that Obama has done, and why.  It would explain the impersonal and non-decisive drone attacks, the anti-Americanism, and much of the rest of Obama's actions.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> For a pretty accurate look at why Obama does what he does, check out Dinesh D' Souza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage." Although I personally wouldn't qualify the way he does things as coming from rage, I think the book, as explained by D'Souza does cover the things that Obama has done, and why. It would explain the impersonal and non-decisive drone attacks, the anti-Americanism, and much of the rest of Obama's actions.


 
I read this book; the theory-that Obama acts from an "anti-colonial ideology" inherited from his father-is absurd, and the book is a baseless mishmash of lies and misinterpretation. 

D'Souza twice says that Obama initiated the TARP and auto-industry buyouts-a popular meme-when, in fact, both programs were begun under Bush.

HE also claims that Obama's push for a world free of nuclear weapons is "anti-colonial," which would, of course, make Ronald Reagan, our most successful "anti-weapons" President, "anti-colonial."

I could really go on, but I haven't the time. The basic lesson here is, that if you fill your head with ****, that's pretty much what comes out of your piehole, or, in this case, your keyboard....:barf: :lfao:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 23, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Lybia IS different, in a rather cynical way.
> 
> None of the big players who could veto the UN actions is raping libya or profiting hugely from the instability. So none of the big players has anything to win by keeping kadhaffi in power.
> At the same time, the refugee stream is going to be a huge pain in the butt for the surrounding nations, one of which is France.
> ...


 
To a certain extent, you are right.  They are not profiting off of the instability.  But they suffer negative consequences *economically* because of the instability.    My point is that this is not an action based solely on humanitarian reasons to alleviate the suffering and death of Libya's citizens, as you previously suggested.  This is a war in order to stabalize the oil market for those nations which are negatively affected, namely European nations, which are spearheading this effort.

You did also notice that the big players not affected by this did not vote for this either, though they did abstain.  (Though this does not include the U.S., which still has a chip in the game due to our relationship with Europe.)

Basically, what you are saying is that it is perfectly ok to condone military intervention in a country because we don't like what is occuring there because it affects us economically.  Fine, but then don't argue that it's for humanitarian purposes.

How is that different then what people said about the Iraq invasion, "Blood for Oil"?  Why is it ok in this context, but not that one?

BTW, there is no evidence that the refugee crisis is an issue for France.  To the extent that they are helping with refugee evacuation, they are removing Egyptians and returning them to Egypt. 

And as another BTW, I looked up China's involvement regarding Sierre Leone and couldn't find anything showing that they vetoed or condemed U.N. involvement during their civil war.


----------

