Poll: Rebels rolling into Tripoli

Were we right to get involved in Libya?

  • Yes

    Votes: 291 49.7%

  • No

    Votes: 294 50.3%
  • Total voters
    585
dirtydog said:
Trading in a different currency means you are deliberately annoying another country?
Click to expand...

You miss my point. It's something thats easy to state an intention to do, knowing that:

a) It probably can't happen easily so you don't even need to do it

but;

b) It'll really wind up your enemy by saying it

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?
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that - but in reality, it's far more difficult to acheive and suggesting that these states were 'invaded' because of this intention is a bit tin-foil-hat - nobody has suggested invading Venezuela for example!

Why would you want to use that currency?
Click to expand...

Because the rest of the world does and the rest of the oil market does. I know, it's a bit of a catch 22 situation.

I'm not even saying my personal beleif is that the Dollar should be the oil currency, either. But barring a fullscale collapse of the dollar or a concencous from all oil producing nations and OPEC (And therefore, Saudi) it's inevitable it will remain so.
 
Watch this space. The US dollar is basically backed up by the power of the US military, nothing else. And this won't last forever. Long term, USD is toilet paper.
 
I don't disagree. And neither will the leadership of the USA. They are not stupid - why go to war simply to stop something that won't happen unless there is no choice for it to happen anyway?

I don't doubt that energy security plays a part in foreign policy - why wouldnt it - its one of the most basic instincts to fight over resources - but it's hardly as simple as 'Lets get rid of this guy, he's tempted to trade in Euro'.
 
[TW]Fox;19920448 said:
I don't disagree. And neither will the leadership of the USA. They are not stupid - why go to war simply to stop something that won't happen unless there is no choice for it to happen anyway?
Click to expand...
Well, for example, because the president is put there by the military industrial complex (google it) - one doesn't become the president of the United States nowadays without massive financial and political backing.

I don't doubt that energy security plays a part in foreign policy - why wouldnt it - its one of the most basic instincts to fight over resources - but it's hardly as simple as 'Lets get rid of this guy, he's tempted to trade in Euro'.
Click to expand...
Putting an apostrophe at the end of a word doesn't pluralise it, that's my top tip for today.
 
[TW]Fox;19920510 said:
It's the closing quotation mark. Probably the wrong choice of character, but still :p
Click to expand...

Nah you used the right character, just so happens that a closing single quotation mark and an apostrophe are the same character in windows.
 
I have come to realise over the past few days, that i really don't care about whats going in in Libya. Its been fronted on the news every day for an age and I just don't care. It feels to me more like its being pushed on the general public as 'news' to make them care and justify the cause more than it actually being news.
 
OldCoals said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14677754

Why are NATO forces targeting Gaddafi bunkers?
Click to expand...

I wondered this myself.

"It's not a question of finding Gaddafi, it's ensuring the regime does not have the capability to continue waging war against its own people," Defence Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC.
Click to expand...

I suppose if you believe that load of old rubbish, you'll believe anything.

From start to finish the NATO campaign has been all about regime change and trying to MURDER the legitimate leader of Libya, Colonel Gaddafi.
 
Moses said:
To take our command and control capability :confused:. They're not specifically targeting Gaddafi, to assassinate (they're not allowed to), they're limiting the old regime's ability to fight, which coincidentally may hit Gaddafi.
Click to expand...
No offence but you appear to be a little gullible.

A country's leadership loses legitimacy once it starts committing crimes against humanity against its own population :|.
Click to expand...
Oh yes these crimes against humanity for which there is no evidence and which our leaders said he did - and of course our leaders never lie. It isn't as if our leaders have a long and undistinguished record of lying repeatedly.
 
Skepticx said:
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)
Click to expand...

Don't worry Libya has 100 to 140 tonnes of gold!!

Also,it seems European firms will be doing most of the rebuilding:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-European-rivals-win-lucrative-contracts.html

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Libya-Britain-France-jostle-tele-1994014010.html?x=0

With the Libyan military in shambles, it would not surprise me if European companies end up winning most of the new weapons procurement tenders.

It means that during the recession the war will end up pumping billions of dollars into European companies. If anything it really seems that this war is for economic reasons.
 
Last edited:
dirtydog said:
Trouble is they know how stupid and gullible much of the population are, so their laughable lies will be believed by millions of people.
Click to expand...

What I find disturbing is that on a forum like OCUK 55% of people support the intervention, i mean war.

I thought people on this forum were suppose to be smart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom