The reason why United States and NATO are after Ghaddafi in his own Country.
Options
Comments
-
Damn b you're just full of conspiracy after conspiracy. It couldn't be that the people legimately did not feel as if Gaddafi was as great as you make him out to be?
And I'm pretty sure they do. I do remember seeing a separate entrance at the Creamery the couple of times I went. But I never took it. Thought you had to be an Ag major to do it.
Zbignew Brisinski stated that it was easy to control people by education back in the days. Now it is much easier to ? 'em.
I guess you didn't see my opening line Huh? Here it is:Because, they were dissatisfied. What government on Earth has 100 percent acceptance from their people?
Why people like to yell "conspiracy" when they getting slayed? Do you know what a conspiracy is? A plan, plain and simple.
The slave trade was a conspiracy. The Tuskegee experiment was a conspiracy. Forced sterilization is a conspiracy. Gerrymandering is a conspiracy. Rather than throw out the conspiracy canard, address the points I made if they are invalid.
So since 43 percent of the people in the US are dissatisfied with the current administration does that mean they are justified in armed rebellion?
The dudes in Bengazi enjoyed almost no support that is why they had to call in NATO. Why doesn't the US go into Saudi Arabia , they have had a feudal monarchy for well over 140 years and there people live like ? , except for the Saud family. Why didnt they go into Egypt when Mubarak was the president and he did nothing for Egypt?
I didn't make Qadaffi out to be anything. I just stated the facts. I guess he is not as bad as they make him out to be , huh? Or that doesn't matter? -
no, we're talking about why the US/NATO got involved now, which was your original statement:unnnnn! Try again. CIA had been formenting rebellion longer than two years. That lawyer thing was just a pretext. Go ask Khalifa Hifter.
"NATO just haphazardly decided to intiate an aggressive campaign, when over the last two years, nearly every European leader and American President were wooing Qadaffi coming to visit him after years of sanctions? "
so whatever was being "formented," if there wasn't the active rebellion going on as in 2011, you wouldn't see the same NATO action. that's the point. further, the CIA being active earlier would undermine your argument that this action was taken for pressing current reasons.
is it? again, let's examine your quote:The issue is not how much they import(less than 1 percent), but how much they expect to gain.
"Also, America and Europe are dependent on the type of oil that is only found in Libya."
so in your words, the US is DEPENDENT on this type of oil ... only for you to say it's not about that. then why was that your argument?
it's always going to be the case that businesses (in this case, oil companies) are going to try and make a dollar if they can make a dollar. this is not a new development.
time to check out some Chivers articles regarding how well-armed these rebels areThe reason why the armed rebels(protestors my ass, when have you ever seen protestors with rocket launchers and machine guns?)
ah, you mean the daughter that might not ever have existed?Do you even know that Reagan initiated an assasination attempt in 1985? That killed his daughter? Get a late pass my dude. -
no, we're talking about why the US/NATO got involved now, which was your original statement:
so whatever was being "formented," if there wasn't the active rebellion going on as in 2011, you wouldn't see the same NATO action. that's the point. further, the CIA being active earlier would undermine your argument that this action was taken for pressing current reasons.so in your words, the US is DEPENDENT on this type of oil ... only for you to say it's not about that. then why was that your argument?
Actually I said Us and Europe. And America was depending on that oil because her reserves are drying up and her other sources were too. They took Libya off their sanctions list for this reason and normalized relations. It has been well documented that US companies were looking to do business with Libya. That is why I posted that List. Don't play little word games, Jank. So I have a conjugation problem. The point is they want oil andit's always going to be the case that businesses (in this case, oil companies) are going to try and make a dollar if they can make a dollar. this is not a new development.
Not when there are sanctions are involved. And the President makes an executive order that forbids any company from doing business with Libya like Reagan did. Well except for the Oil companies that bank rolled him. But that is another story.............time to check out some Chivers articles regarding how well-armed these rebels are
I get the New York Times everyday. I use it for fish wrap.
Doesn't matter, they had weapons and they killed people. These were not peaceful protestors like the media tried to portray. Since when do protestors have tanks? And this was before Nato. Try reading some other African or Asian publication instead of European or American rags. Yeah, the New York Times, they are real objective. SMH. You think just because white people or their ? minions print something that makes it valid? America foreign policy history is so stank they have lost all credibility when it comes to that issue. Obama had to apologize at the beginning of his term for their policies that he continued.ah, you mean the daughter that might not ever have existed?
Might not. What the ? is that? Might not? LOL. White people will say and do anything to justify their evil and wickedness in foreign affairs. Might not? Ha Ha.Ha Who would have thought, Janklow the conspiracy theorist when it suits American wayward foreign policy. LOL. Ok, I'll humor you. Let's say she didn't exist. What right do you have to try to ? the leader of a sovereign nation who has not aggressed upon you? You are sick, my man. -
Zbignew Brisinski stated that it was easy to control people by education back in the days. Now it is much easier to ? 'em.
I guess you didn't see my opening line Huh? Here it is:
Why people like to yell "conspiracy" when they getting slayed? Do you know what a conspiracy is? A plan, plain and simple.
The slave trade was a conspiracy. The Tuskegee experiment was a conspiracy. Forced sterilization is a conspiracy. Gerrymandering is a conspiracy. Rather than throw out the conspiracy canard, address the points I made if they are invalid.
So since 43 percent of the people in the US are dissatisfied with the current administration does that mean they are justified in armed rebellion?
The dudes in Bengazi enjoyed almost no support that is why they had to call in NATO. Why doesn't the US go into Saudi Arabia , they have had a feudal monarchy for well over 140 years and there people live like ? , except for the Saud family. Why didnt they go into Egypt when Mubarak was the president and he did nothing for Egypt?
I didn't make Qadaffi out to be anything. I just stated the facts. I guess he is not as bad as they make him out to be , huh? Or that doesn't matter?
You're schooling a lot of ? in here. Good post, I hate when people say "oh that sounds like a conspiracy theory". There have been plenty of successful conspiracies in history, the slave trade and the Holocaust are just some of them. -
Most of those protestors from Bengazi are affiliated with Al-Qaeda
alright THIS right here is ? . "MOST" of them? ? please. We all know damn well that Al Qaeda is never that popular.
This "all of the Libyan rebels are AQ" talking point was invented BY GHADAFFI to justify using indiscriminate violence against peaceful protesters. He thought if he just called the people he was killing "Al Qaeda", the U.S would just be like "Oh, War On Terror, cool bro" and maybe help him bomb Benghazi lol. It didn't work. And why would BP want to jeopardize their sweet new oil deal with Qadaffi that's barely a year old? Moammar was ALREADY doing good business with them. Why the ? would those oil companies wanna ? that hustle up? For a new government? What if that New Gov't decides "Yeah, ya'll made that old deal with a tyrant, so we dumpin ya'll for PetroChina instead"? Or what if -ahem- there isn't ANY government, just chaos and no-one to buy oil from? What if the oil infrastructure gets destroyed during fighting? If you're an Oil CEO that signed a deal w/ Gadaffi, you sleep better at night if there's no intervention and the rebellion is quickly crushed. This is why the oil thing doesn't hold water w/ regards to Libya; Professor Juan Cole had the CIA on his ass for speaking out against the Iraq War, and he's ripped this argument to shreds. There's nothing behind it but cynicism. The valid argument against the Libya intervention is the Daniel Larison one: "Who gives a ? who dies over there, its not our mess to worry about". Good ol' isolationism. I dunno why that isn't a good enough argument for people. It was the Pentagon's argument...
But hey, who am I to argue with the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan? -
if you'd said Europe, i wouldn't be debating this point because Europe consumes much more Libyan oil. but telling me that US companies will do business with oil markets they have access to is NOT the same thing as saying America's all stirred up because they're dependent on Libyan oil.Actually I said Us and Europe.
adding "America and" is not a conjugation problem. and now you're pretending it's a "little word game" because it's actually a factually inaccurate statement i'm making note of.Don't play little word games, Jank. So I have a conjugation problem.
which sounds like another way of saying, "i'm not REALLY sure to what extent these protestors and/or rebels are armed, so i'm going to blow it off and pretend the specifics don't matter." got it.I get the New York Times everyday. I use it for fish wrap. Doesn't matter, they had weapons and they killed people.
because African and Asian publications are unbiased because they're located in Africa and Asia? AHAHAHAHAHATry reading some other African or Asian publication instead of European or American rags. Yeah, the New York Times, they are real objective.
actually, i think the fact that you IMMEDIATELY have to resort to "? WHITE PEOPLE" as your "argument" means that what you're saying is not valid.SMH. You think just because white people or their ? minions print something that makes it valid?
"what the ? it is" is basically me pointing out that you're not very familiar with the topic. read up about his "adopted daughter" sometimeMight not. What the ? is that? Might not? LOL. -
because African and Asian publications are unbiased because they're located in Africa and Asia? AHAHAHAHAHA
Al Jazeera done more work than anybody publicizing atrocities committed during the Arab Spring. The other Arab networks weren't covering Egypt because they're Saudi owned... -
kingblaze84 wrote: »We didnt go into Libya to free or protect civilians, if we did, why arent we in Syria right now?
lol, now what would Kingblaze84's reaction be if the United States started bombing Syria to protect civilians......hm......I'm pretty sure it would be OMFG IMPERIALISM WAR CRIMES BARACK BUSH.
and of course, if alt-universe Obama votes down the U.N Security Council resolution on Libya, its because Gadaffi has been accommodating to the West recently and signed lots of big oil contracts. Obama's puppetmasters in British Petroleum told him not to intervene! -
Few points.
1 - We don't have to go all the way back to 85 to prove how inhumane U.S can be when it needs to. In the ongoing Libyan invasion, they managed to ? Gaddafi's son, who ofcourse, had little to nothing to do with the situation.
2 - Many of the Rebels in Libya are indeed Al-Qaeda affiliated. This is well documented in various sources, unless of course, Gaddafi has somehow penetrated independent media in the West.
3 - You certainly don't have to be a Gaddafi supporter to realize how fake this entire revolution is. These so called 'pro-democracy' rebels are carrying out extra judicial killings, torturing and looting with impunity. Moreover, their shocking disdain for Black Africans is well known.
4 - Even though Gaddafi was doing business with American and European companies, the issue was the fact that he was opening his markets up for factions like China, thus undermining the hegemony of Western corporations. And before someone says China approved the no-fly zone, know this. I doubt they knew the no-fly zone would escalate into an all out invasion, including assassination attempts on Gaddafi's life, and secondly, they don't yet have the leverage to stand in stark opposition to NATO. Perhaps in due time, but certainly not yet. Libya is perhaps an energy source they can sacrifice, once they apply the cost benefit analysis to their decision making
5 - Al-Jaazera is NOT an objective source on the so called "Arab Spring". They completely failed to report on the Al-Qaeda links of the rebels, moreover, they've glossed over the misdeeds of said group. Also, i don't recall much coverage on the civilians deaths caused by NATO airstrikes. They've been reporting heavily on Libya and Syria, because their masters have a stake in the matter. As And Step said, the Saudis and Gulf Monarchies hate Gaddafi, and similarly dislike Assad as well. You don't think the Saudis, along with the Israelis are funding armed groups in Syria as well? Of course they are. 400+ members of the security forces don't get killed by unarmed protestors. Moreover, their coverage on Bahrain - which is a close ally of the Saudis - has been shameless, up until recently. Al-Jaazera Arabic has been horrendous in that regard.
6 - And Step is owning the ? out of everybody. -
The fact I type half a sentence is because I have facts to back up what I say, I have people all over the Earth, and I have seen first hand the workings of geopolitical ? .
I don't give a ? about what Qadaffi can do. I am talking about what is being done, now. Quit trying to sidetrack the issue.
And no Qadaffi has not been talking the same stupid stuff for fifty years. This talk started before him. Get your head out of CNN's ass and learn what really goes on. The talk started back in Kwame Nkrumah, Seko Toure, and Gamel Nassers days. Reading up on the war? Bwaaaah! Dude this has been going on since the 70's they have been plotting to get him out of there. They have been plotting to overthrow him and have tried. Do you even know that Reagan initiated an assasination attempt in 1985? That killed his daughter? Get a late pass my dude.
The politics in the UN? LOL. I got news for you doggie. Many African nations are considering pulling out of the UN. And many nations are as well because they see it for what it is. A bully pulpit for the developed nations over the weaker ones. SMH, it is sad that you claim to be credentialed and don't even know simple things. You have been trained to bark like a seal but not critically think. Sad. You know nothing about the NATO excursion except what the corporate controlled western media told you. Go research some other sources then get back to me. LOL. The Europeans know it. That is why the formed the EU. They know what is coming. America does too that is why they are scurrying all over the earth trying to gain a foothold. There is no more global currency regime. The dollar is almost done and the Euro is falling fast. The pound is next.
You believe what you read in books, while the rest of us see what is really going on in real time. You are good at spouting elaborate sentences that really amount nothing. You should be a politician.
It was over before it started.
Yea ur right I read books and newspapers and journals and magazines, and based on your post you read nothing apparently? I don't know if you're aware of this, but that's how one learns about stuff is by reading.
But anyway, the global economy is still totally dollarized, the dollar accounts for 65% of global trade, it isn't almost done. Gaddafi is not a threat to dollarization, never has been and never would have been.
Ain't no one seriously considering pulling out of the UN. (EDIT: that is neither here nor there tho as pertains to the politics within the UNSC ahead of resolution 1973)
And if you don't give a ? what Gaddafi can or can't do, why are u insisting that he can form a panAfrican currency zone to upend dollar hegemony? -
zulfiqar ali wrote: »3 - You certainly don't have to be a Gaddafi supporter to realize how fake this entire revolution is. These so called 'pro-democracy' rebels are carrying out extra judicial killings, torturing and looting with impunity. Moreover, their shocking disdain for Black Africans is well known.
4 - Even though Gaddafi was doing business with American and European companies, the issue was the fact that he was opening his markets up for factions like China, thus undermining the hegemony of Western corporations. And before someone says China approved the no-fly zone, know this. I doubt they knew the no-fly zone would escalate into an all out invasion, including assassination attempts on Gaddafi's life, and secondly, they don't yet have the leverage to stand in stark opposition to NATO. Perhaps in due time, but certainly not yet. Libya is perhaps an energy source they can sacrifice, once they apply the cost benefit analysis to their decision making
First point, no-sign about it being "fake", but the rebels obviously do have foreign support and they have been doing lots of dirt too as have Gaddafi supporters and NATO, altho mostly from a distance.
Second point, everyone is diversifying toward China. And China had all the leverage they wanted in the UNSC, they signed off on this ? voluntarily and of course they knew that once NATO got the ball rolling everyone knew they were going to be looking to push Gaddafi out. -
A lot of y'all talkin like Libya is going to snag hegemony from the West apparently think Libya is a way bigger player in African and global politics than it really is.
-
zulfiqar ali wrote: »
6 - And Step is owning the ? out of everybody.
Agreed...Great points from you as well. -
Swiffness! wrote: »alright THIS right here is ? . "MOST" of them? ? please. We all know damn well that Al Qaeda is never that popular.
What does their supposed popularity or non- popularity have to do with anything? This is not about how popular they are. We are talking about the Eastern part of Libya. When Afghanistan had people coming from everywhere, A lot of the supporters came from Eastern Libya. This has been reported on for years, not just recently. Many publications and independent media sources have reported on this.And why would BP want to jeopardize their sweet new oil deal with Qadaffi that's barely a year old? Moammar was ALREADY doing good business with them. Why the ? would those oil companies wanna ? that hustle up? For a new government? What if that New Gov't decides "Yeah, ya'll made that old deal with a tyrant, so we dumpin ya'll for PetroChina instead"?
Well how about this o Swiff One. Because maybe if they can put in a puppet regime via Nato the deal will be even sweeter. Did you see those ? holding up the old Libyan flag? Yeah that was the flag under King Idris who basically was giving the oil away to Italy and the British for nothing. Libya was the poorest nation on Earth at that time. So let's do the math.
Idris + Oil = Oil for nothing to crackers + Poor Libyans. Idris ideologues + Oil = ___________(fill in the blank, ? .)Or what if -ahem- there isn't ANY government, just chaos and no-one to buy oil from? What if the oil infrastructure gets destroyed during fighting? If you're an Oil CEO that signed a deal w/ Gadaffi, you sleep better at night if there's no intervention and the rebellion is quickly crushed.
LOLOLOL. They don't give a ? about that. That means more construction and infrastructure money for Haliburton and Unocal. They do this, man. They did the same ? in Iraq.This is why the oil thing doesn't hold water w/ regards to Libya; Professor Juan Cole had the CIA on his ass for speaking out against the Iraq War, and he's ripped this argument to shreds. There's nothing behind it but cynicism. The valid argument against the Libya intervention is the Daniel Larison one: "Who gives a ? who dies over there, its not our mess to worry about". Good ol' isolationism. I dunno why that isn't a good enough argument for people. It was the Pentagon's argument...
Not sure why you chose to big-up a medieval Middle Easter scholar opinion on with regards to a problem that is obviously motivated by the fear of Libya taking it's sweet crude to other Bigger markets like China and South East Asia.But hey, who am I to argue with the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan?
And many other independent news sources and individuals.
Your argument is not with him. It is with his research team that is global and second to none. It pays to have friends in the streets and the governments of nearly every major nation in Asia and Africa. You notice they don't call him a liar and accept his challenges of public debate on what he says. If he says it you can pretty much bank on it. There is a long list of things he pointed out that has manifested as spot on truth. You just keep getting your mainstream exclusives. LOL. Swiff you are slipping. -
zulfiqar ali wrote: »And Step is owning the ? out of everybody.
u aint never lied..... -
Jonas.dini wrote: »A lot of y'all talkin like Libya is going to snag hegemony from the West apparently think Libya is a way bigger player in African and global politics than it really is.
Nobody said that or even inferred. This is not just about Africa. What is being offered is that Libya could set off a chain reaction that prove to be disastrous for the American economy and by proxy many economies around the world. Think. If Libya moved it's oil to other markets and tied that oil to another currency, this would devastate Europe which is already experiencing crazy inflation and unemployment. What you think OPEC nations would do? More than likely follow suit. Don't forget OPEC nations have broached the idea of taking their oil off the dollar standard several times. Don't you know these people are tired of the West dictating things on their own terms? They would leave in a heartbeat. -
Nobody said that or even inferred. This is not just about Africa. What is being offered is that Libya could set off a chain reaction that prove to be disastrous for the American economy and by proxy many economies around the world. Think. If Libya moved it's oil to other markets and tied that oil to another currency, this would devastate Europe which is already experiencing crazy inflation and unemployment. What you think OPEC nations would do? More than likely follow suit. Don't forget OPEC nations have broached the idea of taking their oil off the dollar standard several times. Don't you know these people are tired of the West dictating things on their own terms? They would leave in a heartbeat.
Well first of all, if the OPEC countries are looking to Libya/Gaddafi for leadership against the imperialist West, why did the Arab League endorse resolution 1973?
But that aside, Opec nations are of course diversifying East to emerging consumer markets, just like every other country in the world. I wouldn't say they're following Libya's lead, they've all been moving in this direction for years, such that Saudi for example sells more oil to China than to the US now. Opec countries have talked about diversifying away from the dollar but has not done so, largely because they're BSing, and also because US/Saudis have a special relationship so they've backed the dollar, and because the dollar is still the major global reserve currency and in some respects the only game in town. If/when Opec does get off the dollar, they aren't going to switch over to a different currency, rather they'll get on a currency basket that would be mostly dollar denominated for the foreseeable future with a gradual integration of various currencies (that's how virtually all the dedollarization proposals that you mentioned read).
Looking back at this thread I think we're talking past eachother insomuch as you're arguing in broad terms that NATO invaded for imperialistic reasons, and I actually somewhat agree with that. I am and have been making an argument about a much more narrow subject, which is the opening post video from RT, which asserts not a potential domino effect like you're suggesting now, but rather that NATO invaded Libya to prevent Gaddafi from launching a panAfrican reserve currency. -
let me be clear: i'm not bashing Al Jazeera. but i wouldn't pretend they're unbiased.Swiffness! wrote: »Al Jazeera done more work than anybody publicizing atrocities committed during the Arab Spring. The other Arab networks weren't covering Egypt because they're Saudi owned...
for some people, it is not possible for the US to do anything for a good reason, no matter whatSwiffness! wrote: »lol, now what would Kingblaze84's reaction be if the United States started bombing Syria to protect civilians......hm......I'm pretty sure it would be OMFG IMPERIALISM WAR CRIMES BARACK BUSH.
let's assume that he was in fact killed - you're talking about a son who was in command of Libyan troops, which would imply that he had more than "little to nothing" to do with the situationzulfiqar ali wrote: »1 - We don't have to go all the way back to 85 to prove how inhumane U.S can be when it needs to. In the ongoing Libyan invasion, they managed to ? Gaddafi's son, who ofcourse, had little to nothing to do with the situation.
however, there is a distinct difference between what Gaddafi says ("Al-Qaida is behind the rebels") and saying that some rebels were/are Al-Qaida affiliated. it also seems that you're playing this up because you do not approve of the NATO actionzulfiqar ali wrote: »2 - Many of the Rebels in Libya are indeed Al-Qaeda affiliated. This is well documented in various sources, unless of course, Gaddafi has somehow penetrated independent media in the West.
rebels behaving badly does not make the revolution "fake"; their disdain for Africans can also be explained (at least in part) by the presence of African mercenarieszulfiqar ali wrote: »3 - You certainly don't have to be a Gaddafi supporter to realize how fake this entire revolution is. These so called 'pro-democracy' rebels are carrying out extra judicial killings, torturing and looting with impunity. Moreover, their shocking disdain for Black Africans is well known.
i'm not sure why this revolution, assuming that it leads to the removal of Gaddafi, could not result in China having access to Libyan oilzulfiqar ali wrote: »4 - Even though Gaddafi was doing business with American and European companies, the issue was the fact that he was opening his markets up for factions like China, thus undermining the hegemony of Western corporations.
and yet Western media, some of which was specifically bashed by And Step (and i mention that because of #6), did report on all these thingszulfiqar ali wrote: »5 - Al-Jaazera is NOT an objective source on the so called "Arab Spring". They completely failed to report on the Al-Qaeda links of the rebels, moreover, they've glossed over the misdeeds of said group. Also, i don't recall much coverage on the civilians deaths caused by NATO airstrikes. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Well first of all, if the OPEC countries are looking to Libya/Gaddafi for leadership against the imperialist West, why did the Arab League endorse resolution 1973?
1. OPEC is not the Arab League
2. They saw the situation getting out of hand, so they wanted to do something but not appear they were directtly involved because as so-called Muslims it is forbidden to attack another Muslim at the behest of an infidel.
3. As I pointed out earlier, Many Arab Gulf state leaders have a problem with Qadaffi because he constantly called them out and he shows them up because he does for his people.
4. Within 48 hours after the No fly zone the Arab League denounced it. Below is the pancake policy of the Arab League:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8378392/Libya-Arab-League-calls-for-United-Nations-no-fly-zone.html
and then....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html
When they called for the no-fly zone they knew what the West was planning to do. They tried to save face in the eyes of their people because most Arab leaders don't enjoy the support of their people. They are the real reppressive ones, not Qadaffi.But that aside, Opec nations are of course diversifying East to emerging consumer markets, just like every other country in the world. I wouldn't say they're following Libya's lead, they've all been moving in this direction for years, such that Saudi for example sells more oil to China than to the US now. Opec countries have talked about diversifying away from the dollar but has not done so, largely because they're BSing, and also because US/Saudis have a special relationship so they've backed the dollar, and because the dollar is still the major global reserve currency and in some respects the only game in town. If/when Opec does get off the dollar, they aren't going to switch over to a different currency, rather they'll get on a currency basket that would be mostly dollar denominated for the foreseeable future with a gradual integration of various currencies (that's how virtually all the dedollarization proposals that you mentioned read).
Well I have heard that argument by BornRaisedCMR, regardless to how they do it, it would be disastrous for the American economy. The dollar would cease to be the standard and would plummet in value which leads to hyper-inflation and I believe an economic collapse.Looking back at this thread I think we're talking past eachother insomuch as you're arguing in broad terms that NATO invaded for imperialistic reasons, and I actually somewhat agree with that. I am and have been making an argument about a much more narrow subject, which is the opening post video from RT, which asserts not a potential domino effect like you're suggesting now, but rather that NATO invaded Libya to prevent Gaddafi from launching a panAfrican reserve currency.
Well, I don't think you really presented a firm stance on why they are doing what they doing. You just didn't believe they were doing it for oil and currency control. But I digress,
What do you think they are doing this for? -
I don't know how to use the multi-quote feature can I get some help when you take some time off from being a snooty mod. Thank you in advance.actually, i think the fact that you IMMEDIATELY have to resort to "? WHITE PEOPLE" as your "argument" means that what you're saying is not valid.
Immediately? Jank, we have been going back and forth on this for several posts. I thought I showed great self restraint. Besides, it wasn't my argument. It was a great underscore though."what the ? it is" is basically me pointing out that you're not very familiar with the topic. read up about his "adopted daughter" sometime
I just assumed it was his adopted daughter because well he has said it was. But that wasn't the issue. The point was a little girl was killed over some ? . And I like how you put adopted in quotes as though her biological familial status should have determined whether she had the right to live or not. SMH. But you never addressed the question, what right do you have to ? a leader of a sovereign nation that has not aggressed upon you, simply because you disagree with him?and yet Western media, some of which was specifically bashed by And Step (and i mention that because of #6), did report on all these things
I did give credit to independent sources outside of the corporate controlled mainstream who tout the agenda of corporate interest over the truth. -
1. OPEC is not the Arab League
2. They saw the situation getting out of hand, so they wanted to do something but not appear they were directtly involved because as so-called Muslims it is forbidden to attack another Muslim at the behest of an infidel.
3. As I pointed out earlier, Many Arab Gulf state leaders have a problem with Qadaffi because he constantly called them out and he shows them up because he does for his people.
4. Within 48 hours after the No fly zone the Arab League denounced it. Below is the pancake policy of the Arab League:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8378392/Libya-Arab-League-calls-for-United-Nations-no-fly-zone.html
and then....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html
When they called for the no-fly zone they knew what the West was planning to do. They tried to save face in the eyes of their people because most Arab leaders don't enjoy the support of their people. They are the real reppressive ones, not Qadaffi.
Well I have heard that argument by BornRaisedCMR, regardless to how they do it, it would be disastrous for the American economy. The dollar would cease to be the standard and would plummet in value which leads to hyper-inflation and I believe an economic collapse.
Well, I don't think you really presented a firm stance on why they are doing what they doing. You just didn't believe they were doing it for oil and currency control. But I digress,
What do you think they are doing this for?
Well first of all Gaddifi is himself a strongman dictator, he has done some good things for Libya but let's not pretend he is some kind of democrat.
Second, it isn't just Arab League, the entire international community signed off on it: the US, European powers, China, Russia, all the nonpermenent members of the security council (Africa of course is largely unrepresented in the int'l community, but that's another matter). Arab league was actively pushing for intervention before the US came around, and none of the top brass in OPEC tried to help or support Gaddafi. You can say they didn't realize that this was going to develop into a regime change, but seems to me that the writing was on the wall for all to see.
Third, I didn't say anything in this entire thread about oil, once again my argument is and has been about the OP and about currency. Oil is surely a factor, as the congressman in that OP video said, we wouldn't be there if their prime export was broccoli.
I think most of the international community including the Arab League countries wanted to sit on the fence and see how things played out in Libya, and the French and British pushed everyone to act in a tense situation, using every trick in the book to insinuate that Gaddafi was on the ropes and that this was critical to stability in markets and in regional politics. Oil/energy contracts are a factor mostly for France, in fact they undermined/undercut some other European countries in the process. It is critical to note that Europe was not united, notice Germany was against the UN resolution up until the very last second when it was clear that the BRICs were going to abstain from the vote (which is the equivalent of a 'yes' vote), and only a handful of countries have managed or even participated in the invasion in a meaningful way. If there is one realist motive that is the biggest factor in all this, it is in terms of French national interests, and that makes it tough to tie this back to the dollarization of oil, let alone to a coordinated effort by NATO to prevent the formation of a panAfrican currency (which is what the opening video contends).
Looking at the US, which was the last of the western permanent UNSC countries to support this, it wasn't the pentagon that supported the incursion, at least not then-Secretary of Defense Gates, who has been loudly opposed before and during the invasion. All the press was that it was the humanitarian hawks, H Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power -- they're the ones who pushed/convinced obama and who represented the US to the UNSC. That's one of the major reasons I oppose the whole thing, because I can't stand the alliance between the military industrial complex and the humanitarian community, that is a deal with the devil for humanitarians.
OPEC talks about getting off the dollar sometimes, especially during periods of purposeful dollar devaluation (quantitative easing, 0% interest rates), but imo it is largely talk because there really is no viable alternative reserve currency that OPEC can hitch its collective wagon to (that's why all they can really threaten is to switch to a dollar dominated basket of currencies), individual opec countries talk about breaking rank sometimes, but generally speaking they're just talking ? , and even when are serious core opec countries don't like that and reign them back in, because opec leadership wants to make coordinated decisions, to maintain leverage and their control over the whole outfit.
Now, does the US put pressure opec and the rest of the int'l community to maintain dollariztion? Of course, and currency does of course play into geopolitics. But it does not follow that currency is the key variable advancing the Libya incursion, and imo when you add up the details it doesn't support that conclusion, unless you want to say that this is just one of the ways Gaddafi has been a thorn in the side of the West and that made them extra eager to give him the boot, but that's not the argument that is being made in this thread, let alone in the opening post video, which makes much more specific contention that the invasion was in response to Gaddafi's plans not only to move away from dollar denomination but to coordinate the establishment of a panAfrican currency to compete with the Dollar and Euro. -
I did give credit to independent sources outside of the corporate controlled mainstream who tout the agenda of corporate interest over the truth.
What do u read doggie?
No diss just wondering -
this is going to be one of those times where i have to say "why is a poster who specializes in having a ? attitude towards me complaining about my attitude"I don't know how to use the multi-quote feature can I get some help when you take some time off from being a snooty mod. Thank you in advance.
"immediately," as in, "in the first post responding to my comment about Chivers." there was no prior discussion of that/the NYT where you did not make it a racial issue.Immediately? Jank, we have been going back and forth on this for several posts. I thought I showed great self restraint. Besides, it wasn't my argument. It was a great underscore though.
part of my point is that you're going on about this topic while saying you hadn't heard about the possibility of it not having been his actual daughter. part of it is that you're taking his word for it in a debate where you're saying certain sources aren't qualified to weigh in.I just assumed it was his adopted daughter because well he has said it was.
actually, i put "adopted daughter" in quotes because it's possibly untrue, but often reported regarding her. but i note you have not failed to leap to an insult.And I like how you put adopted in quotes as though her biological familial status should have determined whether she had the right to live or not. SMH.
that has not "aggressed" upon you? what was the basis for Operation El Dorado Canyon again?But you never addressed the question, what right do you have to ? a leader of a sovereign nation that has not aggressed upon you, simply because you disagree with him?
except that all the stuff zulfiqar talked about that you're now praising "independent sources" for reporting was reported by the mainstream media you were trashingI did give credit to independent sources outside of the corporate controlled mainstream who tout the agenda of corporate interest over the truth. -
Swiffness! wrote: »lol, now what would Kingblaze84's reaction be if the United States started bombing Syria to protect civilians......hm......I'm pretty sure it would be OMFG IMPERIALISM WAR CRIMES BARACK BUSH.
and of course, if alt-universe Obama votes down the U.N Security Council resolution on Libya, its because Gadaffi has been accommodating to the West recently and signed lots of big oil contracts. Obama's puppetmasters in British Petroleum told him not to intervene!
LOL I'm not a one dimensional person, I just observe the evidence in front of me, do some research (from different sources, outside the US and inside) and come to a solid conclusion. Just like one would do with any math or science problem. Some American and western wars have been to settle defensive and moral disputes(WW2, Civil war etc) . Some have been for economic reasons (Vietnam comes to mind). But there are some when imperialism and stealing resources is the main goal.
Do some research on these things and you will see for yourself. I have no reason to say things if I don't have the evidence to back me up. Don't be too trusting of the govt, especially when you see us CLEARLY spending tons of money building institutions, oil fields, bases, embassies, and jobs near our neverending Middle East wars. Meanwhile, the corporations who benefit from these wars are getting hella rich and the US economy is cutting infrastructure projects and the jobs of American workers. I have no reason to bash Obama, unless I see him clearly imitating Bush, and sadly he's doing that. I never said he had puppet masters though, he could truly believe the Middle East needs endless wars. Maybe the wars are keeping our gas lines and oil supplies very good??? If that's the case, be real about it and say the wars are for oil and future gas line reserves. Lets stop pretending the wars are to create peace when killing civilians for 10 years has only brought us more hatred, along with Bush's foreign policy. -
hi people, havent read any of this thread but just wanted to give my opinion on the whole situation. basically this ? is a tragedy. i don't think there is much to argue beyond that. in one side there is ghadaffi and his murderous state, and in the other side there is the rebels, which is a mess and a lot of it is parcelled around islamist and tribalist lines. of course workers and youth are paying with their blood, in the same way we all pay when there are civil wars. i don't think there is much we can do about this except sit tight. of course you can try to go off the idea that "we must take a side" and try to look for the good guys but in my opinion this ? is just a bunch of folks getting walked to the slaughterhouse and there is nothing good about it from any side. also anybody who supports the american state or nato or even the idea of 'humanitarian (lol)" intervention is a ? .
