Poll: DELETED_74993

Were we right to get involved in Libya?

  • Yes

    Votes: 306 50.9%

  • No

    Votes: 295 49.1%
  • Total voters
    601
Status
Not open for further replies.
dirtydog said:
By 'him' I meant his oil :) He will be proved right, even if he is killed - this military action is about taking Libya's oil. The West may install a puppet government as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it will still be about the oil. The lifeblood of our world.
Click to expand...

I dont know about the puppet goverment and so on, but I'm quite sure the oil does add some kind of strong motivation.

There are other countries where people are being massacred left, right and centre and people dont even bat an eyelid.
 
Obama says "The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya". He has said this more than once.
I would imagine there's going to be more to this than the initial phase of attacking from the skies and afar. Should the need for a ground force arise (which it almost certainly will), it's going to be minus the US then?
 
Robboftw said:
I dont know about the puppet goverment and so on, but I'm quite sure the oil does add some kind of strong motivation.

There are other countries where people are being massacred left, right and centre and people dont even bat an eyelid.
Click to expand...

Our economic stability is just as good a reason to use military force than any other.

Our protection, be it personally, economically or politically is the enduring motivation and justification for the use of armed force against anyone that would threaten one or more of those tenets.

People that think otherwise are not grasping the true nature of how we live our lives or what it takes to maintain the standards to which they are accustomed.

So we went to war in Iraq over Oil, so what. The stability of the region was threatened by Hussein, and in turn the economic and energy stability of the UK and other countries was at risk, reason enough for intervention.
 
Domo said:
Obama says "The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya". He has said this more than once.
I would imagine there's going to be more to this than the initial phase of attacking from the skies and afar. Should the need for a ground force arise (which it almost certainly will), it's going to be minus the US then?
Click to expand...

Translation.

There will be troops on the ground, just no US ones.
 
Castiel said:
Our economic stability is just as good a reason to use military force than any other.

Our protection, be it personally, economically or politically is the enduring motivation and justification for the use of armed force against anyone that would threaten one or more of those tenets.

People that think otherwise are not grasping the true nature of how we live our lives or what it takes to maintain the standards to which they are accustomed.

So we went to war in Iraq over Oil, so what. The stability of the region was threatened by Hussein, and in turn the economic and energy stability of the UK and other countries was at risk, reason enough for intervention.
Click to expand...

No, we went to war with Iraq as pat of the war on terror, we were trying to find WMD's and when we didn't regime change was the order of the day.
 
OldCoals said:
Translation.

There will be troops on the ground, just no US ones.
Click to expand...

I suspect that an international peacekeeping force made up predominantly of Arab League and African Nations would be the obvious step to take.

I would not be surprised if this is what happens, along with NATO observers and consultants of course.

Both you and I have seen this kind of charade before.
 
Castiel said:
Our economic stability is just as good a reason to use military force than any other.

Our protection, be it personally, economically or politically is the enduring motivation and justification for the use of armed force against anyone that would threaten one or more of those tenets.

People that think otherwise are not grasping the true nature of how we live our lives or what it takes to maintain the standards to which they are accustomed.

So we went to war in Iraq over Oil, so what. The stability of the region was threatened by Hussein, and in turn the economic and energy stability of the UK and other countries was at risk, reason enough for intervention.
Click to expand...

I know that, we cant simply go around clearing out all of the bad countries so obviously its a good incentive if there is oil there. :)

Nor do I think we should go around helping everyone with our military forces, I was just saying that it is always more likely we'll do something when they have oil.

Which was quite a pointless thing to say in the end as it should go without saying... for most people anyway. :p
 
OldCoals said:
No, we went to war with Iraq as pat of the war on terror, we were trying to find WMD's and when we didn't regime change was the order of the day.
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree that was part of the motivation (along with Bush Jnr's need for revenge) the fact that Iraq also threatened US hegemony in the dollar-oil market and was increasingly belligerent towards it's neighbours in it's political rhetoric are also factor which led to the invasion.

WMD's and the plight of some of the minority groups notwithstanding.
 
Robboftw said:
I know that, we cant simply go around clearing out all of the bad countries so obviously its a good incentive if there is oil there. :)

Nor do I think we should go around helping everyone with our military forces, I was just saying that it is always more likely we'll do something when they have oil.

Which was quite a pointless thing to say in the end as it should go without saying... for most people anyway. :p
Click to expand...

I agree.

Our armed forces should only be deployed where we have a national interest or it is to our advantage in some way.
 
Castiel said:
So we went to war in Iraq over Oil, so what. The stability of the region was threatened by Hussein, and in turn the economic and energy stability of the UK and other countries was at risk, reason enough for intervention.
Click to expand...

The stability of the region was not threatened by him. His only threat was to sell his oil in euros rather than dollars. If all oil producing nations dropped the dollar it would collapse. The dollar has nothing backing it other than American military power.
 
dirtydog said:
The stability of the region was not threatened by him. His only threat was to sell his oil in euros rather than dollars. If all oil producing nations dropped the dollar it would collapse. The dollar has nothing backing it other than American military power.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that I mentioned the US dollar-Oil hegemony.

And the region was indeed threatened by him, his rhetoric and insinuation of WMD's and weapons programmes, his inflammatory language and rhetoric toward Iran and Israel, and the internal massacres of his own peoples and in particular the actions against Shia factions all contributed to internal and regional instability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom