British, French and Canadians, Oh MY!!

[Bruno@MT]

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]

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]

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]

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’s Tripoli. Then President Obama called on Gaddafi to step down and stop the “unacceptable” 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 “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 — 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 “meddle” in Iran, must ignore the Saudis going into Bahrain, should continue “outreach” 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]

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]

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]

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.

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.