What do people think of the Libya situation?

[James]

What do people on here think of the Libya situation ? Whilst I am very distrustful of politicians and their motives, I am glad that the UN has acted to stop the slaughter of protesters by Gaddafi.

I'm not sure how things will work out now though, I just hope it will mean the lowest possible loss of life. Although things have been terrible (in my view) regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps a popular movement by the Libyan people themselves may bring them a more free and democratic government.

I'm interested to hear what people think.

 

[just me]

I see things very differently, knowing what types of outcomes these things can bring.

 

[acd]

I'm not happy that the US is involved..
As if we don't have enough shit to deal with.

 

[bickelz]

I'm just glad these are not US led attacks and that the EU and UN were in on them before us. Finally, protecting the rights of the rebels.

 

[AUM]

I really don't get involved in these sorts of matters, but everything seems staged to me. Not saying that there aren't real people dying right now and all, but I feel like there is something not right here.

 

[Free Mind]

I really don't get involved in these sorts of matters, but everything seems staged to me. Not saying that there aren't real people dying right now and all, but I feel like there is something not right here.

That's normally always the case.

 

[uuu]

Much as I would love to state my opinion and look smart, I don't understand what's going on at all and honestly don't pay attention to the news.

 

[AUM]

That's normally always the case.

True. But I wonder what the real motivation/intention of this war is really about? I really don't think these nations aiding the rebels is the real cause of them intervening, there must be something else that they will get off of it.

Only time will tell.

 

[Free Mind]

True. But I wonder what the real motivation/intention of this war is really about? I really don't think these nations aiding the rebels is the real cause of them intervening, there must be something that they will get off of it.

Only time will tell.

When the USA and EU get involved it usually does have to do with some type of gain for them...Money, oil etc. And it's all made to seem like they go there for other reasons by the media.

Anyone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Norton]

When the USA and EU get involved it usually does have to do with some type of gain for them...Money, oil etc. And it's all made to seem like they go there for other reasons by the media.

Anyone correct me if I am wrong.

Nations always act in what their governments perceive as their best interests. This is as it has been and will always be.

 

[bickelz]

Nations always act in what their governments perceive as their best interests. This is as it has been and will always be.

Yeah but when "Best Interest" turns into extreme greed and wiping out small populations, you have to wonder.

 

[AUM]

This is as it has been and will always be.

Hopefully not, otherwise I fear for the consequences.

In the words of Einstein, "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

 

[Atticus]

I'm really interested in it.

At first I didn't think the EU or anyone else would intervene because I know world politics is not governed by the sorrow on human casulties but by power motives. And I didn't think the West is interesed in breaking the status quo.

But they did and personally I'm glad that those motives are now in line with the cause, the cause of liberate a nation, protect its citizens from a dictator who relentlessly destroys lives and entire cities just because he is unable to let go of his ultimate power. As for the actual reasons of the war it could be anything we don't know just yet. Oil, past burdens (Kadhafi initiated a sort of terrorist attack on a London-New York line a few years ago), etc. It only affects a few nations though, probably mainly France, the UK and the US. The EU is not even unanimous regarding the issue.

As for the outcome I think a lot depends on the dedication of the opposition. I think Iraq and Afghanistan (and Vietnam in the past) was a failure mainly because the opposition rejected the idea of giving up the fight. No matter how broken they were, tiny groups continued the fight, constantly harassing the US troops and not letting them pulling out of the country victorious. If Kadhafi & Co. can pull of something like this, the EU just got herself in a lengthy conflict like Iraq and Afghanistan for the US. We all know just how much this deteriorates economical performance based on the US example.

Another point - a militaristic one - is that the EU & the US is going to need to land troops sooner or later because they can't expect to win a war in the air or engaging in only naval warfare.

All in all while I think the motives are right in this case and the purpose of the operations are clear - to get rid of Kadhafi and initiate a democratic change in Libya as well - the means of achieving this are more than fuzzy. I don't see them attacking or moving according to a 'Great Plan', I don't see a long-run strategy behind this.

*

And behind these bold opinions of mine lies and trembles the fear that this just might escate into another worldwide conflict....

(There's a lot of interest against the intervention, Russia for example.)

 

[bamf]

I'm pissed about it. We hear all the talk of not having money in this nation for things like public broadcasting and the such, that we all have to tighten our purse-strings, that unionized workers have fucked the treasury, but we have money to launch hundreds of missiles costing half a million a pop? One war wasn't enough, two wars weren't enough, so we had to go and add a third.

I don't for a second believe that this is a humanitarian mission. It was proven in the hasty retreat from Mogadishu in Somalia that the US government doesn't do humanitarian missions any more. Rwandan? Sudan? Just about anywhere else in the world? Fuck 'em. Libya? Oh shit, the citizens are DYING! We need to help (while securing oil!)

This isn't about helping the citizens. This isn't a gesture in the name of democracy. The western world is intervening to protect its interests and/or secure new ones (oil!) The people of Bahrain are getting shot to death, but who cares? The US sure doesn't because 1) we're friends with the ruling class 2) they have nothing to offer us.

I'd be really surprised if the US actually pulls out of Libya entirely once its "peacekeeping" missions are done, because I'm seeing yet again another occupation.

 

[Tamagochi]

Libyan situation is different from Iraq / Afghanistan because there are massive numbers of local folks who want to overthrow the dictatorship. However they are poorly armed and unorganized. The government they're up to has tanks, aircraft and vast economic resources.

Therefore interference by the west will give the rebels more time and will level the grounds by disabling Gadaffi's advantage. If all goes well land invasion would not be necessary.

As to what will be gain by western nation - oil and influence mainly. Also less hideout for terrorists.

 

[muir]

I don't know if the situation is all that different to Iraq. Both countries have large tribal groups that claim large territories. They were united into a nation state under a 'strongman' leader but now they have a chance to exert themselves

If a tribe controls a large territory and that land has oil under it then that group of people have the potential to become very rich

The west have the technology to exploit that oil and have invested billions of pounds/dollars in looking for it and in doing feasability studies

The west doesn't really care about the rebels otherwise they would release the funds of Gaddafi which they have sequestered so that the rebels could arm themselves. In reality the west don't want to see the rebels armed because the west want to move in and control Libya and they know that the rebels would fight them if they did that

Also as bamf said it isn't really about toppling dictators otherwise the US (and they are spearheading this move by the west) would have helped topple the governments in Egypt and Tunisia and would also help topple the leaders of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (where there are current protests), but they won't because those corrupt dictators are allies of the west

Its all about oil

But if you think about the trillions of dollars spent on all these conflicts, that money could be spent on creating renewable energy so that the west is energy independant and would be creating clean sustainable energy

However the people who own the oil corporations and the weapons industry also control the policy makers (the politicians), so they push for the dirty and violent option and they suppress cleaner energy technology.

Also current energy supplies are wasteful (they create more than is needed to make people think it is an infinate supply) and create electrosmog. Research into electrosmog either isn't given funding or isn't published.

If the libyans are smart they will keep the west out of their business and create their own nationalised oil company like Venezuala so that they can keep the proceeds from their natural resource without the west creaming the lions share of profits off the top

 

[muir]

I think the currency crisis in the west is probably a large factor in the wests aggressive foreign policy.

The US and UK keep invading and occupying countries to steal their resources; perhaps its an act of desperation

The US economy has been running on consumption for a long time, which has been allowed by running up debt. This has given people in the US many comforts but a lot of debt.

The economy needs to produce more and consume less

People also need to recognise that the banking sector does not contribute anything to the real economy of production and consumption.....all it does is extract interest off the real economy. It is a parasite.

It creates money out of thin air and then charges people interest on it (see documentary 'the money masters' for an explanation of the process). Here's US economist Peter Schiff explaining how wall street writes the laws of the US:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nFzFiyL9sg"]YouTube - Peter Schiff: "Wall Street writes US law"[/ame]

Peter schiff was one of the people who warned of the coming economic crisis. People laughed at him then...they're not laughing now. Here he is making predictions before the economic crisis:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw"]YouTube - Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007 (2nd Edition)[/ame]

China on the other hand has been exporting a lot and has grown wealthy and had good employment figures.

This has created a massive imbalance as the US is hugely in debt to China. The US has demanded that China revalue its currency but this would be disasterous for the Chinese economy and the Chinese can't see why they should bail out America who has got itself into debt through reckless consumption.

Here's economist Michael Hudson explaining how the US is trying to deal with its deficit by waging economic war on the world (the pressure the dollar is under explains why the US keeps invading countries, in breach of international law, to secure oil supplies):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P1fihT5B7o"]YouTube - US Black Debt Hole: 'We want you all bankrupt!'[/ame]

Here's a piece about the G20's attempt to call truce to the currency wars. Germany and China are two of the worlds biggest exporters so they are against the US's violent theft of other countries oil:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYf5Esb9V7c&feature=relmfu"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYf5Esb9V7c&feature=relmfu[/ame]

It is one of the main laws of the UN that you cannot attack a country unless it has attacked your first, so all these wars are illegal. That's why the US government wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext for war but couldn't actually pin it on any government. The best they could do was wage a media campaign to make the public THINK certain people were responsible when they weren't

The 'BRIC' countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are the emerging global economies. They are also against US aggression because they know that the US is in serious economic trouble. The US has turned to piracy to make ends meet (they have found willing allies in the UK who have been pirates for centuries).

The US has a spending problem. They are like a crack addict who has got into debt to his dealer and now has to start robbing corner stores to pay his debts.

Here's an Irish political activist responding angrily to Irelands bank bailout which has seen billions of pounds of public money handed over to private bankers which has indebted Ireland. He talks about how this situation has been orchestrated by the bankers in order to grab all the wealth. He mentions the solution Abraham Lincoln had tried to do to outmanouvre the banks which was to create a new interest free currency (the green back)...of course he was assassinated after this. President Andrew jackson also fought the bankers and was fortunate to survive several assassination attempts on him. President John F Kennedy also tried to put the 'federal reserve' out of business by signing executive order No. 11110 in 1963, he was assassinated 5 months later. No more silver certificates have been issued and although the order hasn't been repealed, no president since has used it.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85RZ_h6Gys0&feature=relmfu"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85RZ_h6Gys0&feature=relmfu[/ame]


Obama is backed by wall street here's a documentary about it:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw"]YouTube - The Obama Deception HQ Full length version[/ame]

Currency and oil.

War isn't being waged for the Libyan people or the American people, it is being made for the bankers....they are the only people getting rich right now, while the rest of us are seeing rising costs, longer work hours, cuts to public services and increasing unemployment

 

[just me]

When the USA and EU get involved it usually does have to do with some type of gain for them...Money, oil etc. And it's all made to seem like they go there for other reasons by the media.

Anyone correct me if I am wrong.

I will not correct you. I will say, in my opinion, the current US administration is leaning toward the EU idealism that should be replaced with reality. The gain they seek is part of their mindset more than material things. Their goals will not work because people are people; not some type of concentric beings that all think alike.

Quoting an old friend, "You may be right if you think I am wrong."

 

[the]

I want to go just so I can talk shit to any Marine who hasnt actually been to Tripoli, even though it's in their hymn.

 

[Norton]

It's all about realpolitik. Regardless of what the idealists believe and idealogues think, these actions are governed by realpolitik. It always comes to this and it always will.