Poll: Rebels rolling into Tripoli

[Stretch]

Libya won't be any better off than it was under Gaddafi, that is the tragedy of all this for the Libyan people.

Only time will tell, but I don't believe this will be the case.

I do, but then Libya has a much smaller population and (populated) land area, and the 'enemy' (ie. the legitimate Libyan government and its forces) have been much easier to locate and destroy than say the Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan.

This comes back to my original point. We got involved in Libya militarily because we can achieve something with "minimal assistance" to a native force. That's minimal from our point of view not theirs.

 

[StriderX]

Libya won't be any better off than it was under Gaddafi, that is the tragedy of all this for the Libyan people.


I do, but then Libya has a much smaller population and (populated) land area, and the 'enemy' (ie. the legitimate Libyan government and its forces) have been much easier to locate and destroy than say the Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Is it better to live in tyranny with average lives, every word being monitored, every peaceful movement for progression being ruined with brutal force...

or

to live in relative freedom with crappy lives (at the moment, no doubt will sort out over time if they do things correctly) being able to do as you like, say as you like and protest when you like peacefully without a regime shooting you in the back of the head?

Even if my life was worse off, id still go with the latter every time.

Though i fear the pretentious and arrogant view that tyranny cannot happen in the west is causing a different kind to occur, so much so that they even have the balls to admit it and still get off with it.

A plutonomy might not be to bad to live with, but its still disgusting.

 

[dirtydog]

Is it better to live in tyranny with average lives, every word being monitored, every peaceful movement for progression being ruined with brutal force...

or

to live in relative freedom with crappy lives (at the moment, no doubt will sort out over time if they do things correctly) being able to do as you like, say as you like and protest when you like peacefully without a regime shooting you in the back of the head?

Even if my life was worse off, id still go with the latter every time.

Of course, who wouldnt - except this is a false choice and doesn't reflect the reality.

 

[Skepticx]

What are we? Hypocrites. Why don't we 'step in' in every such situation then? Why do we only intervene when it is financially or politically expedient to do so.

Our interventions aren't motivated by principle, they are motivated by self interest.

You might think there is nothing wrong with this. I might even agree. But for god's sake, let's be bloody adult and open about our motivations instead of peddling the BS about it being for freedom and democracy and all that garbage.

One of the problems is war costs money... a lot of money. During a recession its not a great idea to be at war when half the country is protesting, rioting or unhappy about cuts and you are casually throwing money at pointless wars that dont effect our country.

We cant simply step in and help every country achiev democracy (also one problem is we are on good terms with oil rich countries.... totally a coincidence)

 

[dirtydog]

One of the problems is war costs money... a lot of money. During a recession its not a great idea to be at war when half the country is protesting, rioting or unhappy about cuts and you are casually throwing money at pointless wars that dont effect our country.

We cant simply step in and help every country achiev democracy (also one problem is we are on good terms with oil rich countries.... totally a coincidence)

So you think we would intervene if we could afford it?

We can't afford to intervene in the countries we are currently embroiled in, yet we do it - with borrowed and printed money. If we want to, we will do it - affordability is not a concern.

 

[StriderX]

Of course, who wouldnt - except this is a false choice and doesn't reflect the reality.

Only if people turn limp and no longer care for the politics after a regime is replaced, which unfortunately happens quite a lot and is even prevalent in the west, though to a more annoying extent.

(I mean people simply think voting is all they should do, when its simply not the case and reckless).

 

[[TW]Fox]

So you think we would intervene if we could afford it?

We can't afford to intervene in the countries we are currently embroiled in, yet we do it - with borrowed and printed money. If we want to, we will do it - affordability is not a concern.

I don't think its affordability as much as ability - we cant insta-build takes and choppers a-la Command and Conquer. It doesnt matter how much money you have, you have only a finite amount of kit and people and more kit and people have a lead time.

 

[arknor]

i see the rebels are asking for billions and pretty much openly saying whoever gives them money now will get oil contracts...

disgusting imo some countries have already gave them hundreds of millions in supplies and hundreds of millions in bombs.....

 

[RoboCod]

What are we? Hypocrites. Why don't we 'step in' in every such situation then? Why do we only intervene when it is financially or politically expedient to do so.

Our interventions aren't motivated by principle, they are motivated by self interest.

You might think there is nothing wrong with this. I might even agree. But for god's sake, let's be bloody adult and open about our motivations instead of peddling the BS about it being for freedom and democracy and all that garbage.

So you really think the government should state: "hey kids, we're invading Libya, and if you hadn't guessed it's all about oil" ? Come on.

 

[RoboCod]

i see the rebels are asking for billions and pretty much openly saying whoever gives them money now will get oil contracts...

disgusting imo some countries have already gave them hundreds of millions in supplies and hundreds of millions in bombs.....

Watch out, he's disgusted, he might type another strongly worded post about this!

 

[trigger-happy]

No idea why we are in another country fighting someone elses battle. We already created enough wars already.

 

[[TW]Fox]

i see the rebels are asking for billions and pretty much openly saying whoever gives them money now will get oil contracts...

The article I read said 'construction' not 'oil'. On the subject of oil they've already said they'd honour previous oil contracts.

So the net gain for the West oil wise is... status quo. Oh, and 6+ months of inflated oil prices.

 

[StriderX]

i see the rebels are asking for billions and pretty much openly saying whoever gives them money now will get oil contracts...

disgusting imo some countries have already gave them hundreds of millions in supplies and hundreds of millions in bombs.....

Well its the truth, plus its no more disgusting than what we've done in the recent past.

The article I read said 'construction' not 'oil'. On the subject of oil they've already said they'd honour previous oil contracts.

So the net gain for the West oil wise is... status quo. Oh, and 6+ months of inflated oil prices.

We all know that the Oil price going lower was more about the economy, Libya only contributes 2-3%?

Hardly going to do anything, in fact if the developing world continues to consume at higher rates year on year, i can see it going up and up, the arctic reserves might make a dent in it, but we are only in the research stage of that.

 

[ubersonic]

I don't think its affordability as much as ability - we cant insta-build takes and choppers a-la Command and Conquer. It doesnt matter how much money you have, you have only a finite amount of kit and people and more kit and people have a lead time.

I think its a bit of both really, when my uncle was in Afghanistan he took a picture he showed me of an old run down football stadium (could have been football, may have been any sport really) that was literally filled with american hardware, mostly humvees, if one got damaged or destroyed another one rolled out form the compound. If our boys lost a landy they had to wait a week or so for another to be sent out.

I think affordability impacts our ability, at the moment we don't even have the kit for the people we send out (I.E going to Iraq w/o enough body armour for everyone) Im not saying the military being underfunded for the task asked of them is the only problem but it does significantly damage our ability.

 

[dirtydog]

The article I read said 'construction' not 'oil'. On the subject of oil they've already said they'd honour previous oil contracts.

So the net gain for the West oil wise is... status quo. Oh, and 6+ months of inflated oil prices.

It still gets sold in dollars though unlike Gaddafi wanted, although yes I'm SURE this is a pure coincidence.

 

[dirtydog]

I don't think its affordability as much as ability - we cant insta-build takes and choppers a-la Command and Conquer. It doesnt matter how much money you have, you have only a finite amount of kit and people and more kit and people have a lead time.

Affordability doesn't come into it. Do you think the West's standard of living is remotely sustainable?

The powers that be in the West don't give a toss about sustainability or long term affordability. They care only about NOW. What can we get our grubby hands on NOW, to pay for expenditure NOW.

Paying the money back? They don't care about that. They will be long gone from office, or from this world.

 

[[TW]Fox]

It still gets sold in dollars though unlike Gaddafi wanted, although yes I'm SURE this is a pure coincidence.

Gaddafi didnt really have any realistic choice whether his oil was sold in dollars - if it was his choice to make and was as simple as that you can bet your bottom dollar Iran would already be selling its oil in anything but dollars.

 

[dirtydog]

Gaddafi didnt really have any realistic choice whether his oil was sold in dollars - if it was his choice to make and was as simple as that you can bet your bottom dollar Iran would already be selling its oil in anything but dollars.

Soon after Saddam said he was going to sell his oil only in euros, he got invaded and murdered. Do you not see that anyone who dares to say he will sell his oil in a currency other than USD is a terrorist or a rogue state?

 

[[TW]Fox]

I wonder if its more that the sort of people who are generally considered to be terrorists/rogue states are more likely to want to annoy the US by announcing they don't want to sell oil in dollars, rather than the way you've put it? None of them have a credible currency themselves that oil would be priced in - so it'd be Euros - and the primary reason to switch would be mostly to annoy the United States. Something that an pre-existing enemy would be far more likely to declare.

In reality though it's not going to happen and the USA know that. You don't need to invade somebody to stop it happening because it's unlikely to have happened anyway - because of the way oil is traded you'd need agreement from almost every oil producing nation!

 

[dirtydog]

I wonder if its more that the sort of people who are generally considered to be terrorists/rogue states are more likely to want to annoy the US by announcing they don't want to sell oil in dollars, rather than the way you've put it? None of them have a credible currency themselves that oil would be priced in - so it'd be Euros - and the primary reason to switch would be mostly to annoy the United States. Something that an pre-existing enemy would be far more likely to declare.

In reality though it's not going to happen and the USA know that. You don't need to invade somebody to stop it happening because it's unlikely to have happened anyway - because of the way oil is traded you'd need agreement from almost every oil producing nation!

Trading in a different currency means you are deliberately annoying another country?

Ask yourself, why should say Iran, or Venezuela, or other countries, trade in a currency of a nation which has publicly insulted and offended you? Why SHOULD Iran or Venezuela et al, use USD?

They are the ones who hold the product of real value. What does the US hold - US paper? USD cash and treasury paper. What is of more value? Oil? Or US paper? Paper from a country who holds you in contempt and insults you and your country regularly. Why would you want to use that currency?