If anyone here thinks the UN move is a humanitarian gesture then I have a bridge to sell you.

[sellitman]

It's all about oil and energy. I am against the US becoming involved and I don't believe we should be the worlds Police.

IMHO

[EFerrari]

1. That whole police thing is just cover, anyway. nt

[DutchLiberal]

2. You forgot the sarcasm-tag.

Please tell me you forgot the sarcasm-tag. If not, I have a tinfoil hat you may lend from me.

[EFerrari]

5. You don't think George Bush kisses the Saudi king because he's cute, do you?

:)

[DutchLiberal]

15. What does that have to do with Qaddafi murdering his own people...?

Are we defending Qaddafi now? Just because he is "against" the US? Do we really have that much self-hatred?

What makes you think the OP's conspiracy theory is any more reliable than... oh, say... everything we've seen from Libya the last two weeks? Wait, don't tell me... Al Jazeera and CNN are in on the conspiracy as well. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

16. The US strategic interest in oil and energy is not a theory, it is policy. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

20. Again: what does any of that have to do with the fact that Qaddafi is murdering his own people...?

These people have ASKED us for a no-fly zone.

Wait, don't tell me... Those rebels were financed by the US and trained by the CIA!

No, no, wait... they're actors and were trained in Hollywood?

[EFerrari]

24. So, did you read the OP before you responded to it?

And the rebels are not united in their request for military intervention, for that matter.

[DutchLiberal]

26. Why won't you answer my question? It's a very simple question.

The rebels' representative body has called for a no-fly zone for weeks.

So, again: why are you against helping the people of Libya freeing themselves of a ruthless dictator, who's been known for supporting terrorism all over the world?

[EFerrari]

34. Your question isn't as simple as you seem to believe it is,

and clearly not supporting military action is not equal to supporting Gaddafi or against helping the people of Libya. That's just bull.

First, I do not support military action in Libya. Second, it looks like the threat of military action has made Gadaffi pull back. Now the UN has to follow through and send observers.

[DutchLiberal]

41. If you don't support action against Qaddafi, you are in favor of letting the people die...

It's either one or the other. But you can't have both.

And today we saw on CNN how Qaddafi was not telling the truth about the ceasefire, as his thugs were still attacking the rebels. How does that fit into your anti-American conspiracy theory?

[EFerrari]

49. No, that's a false dilemma. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

61. It's the consequence of inaction. Own up to it.

[EFerrari]

63. As I said, a false dilemma. Military action is not the only kind of action.

[DutchLiberal]

69. That's right, there's also.... er.... and then there is.... uhm... well, you have....

Somehow, I don't think you have followed Qaddafi through the years. He's not the kind of person that can be reasoned with. Qaddafi is not Ben Ali or Mubarak.

[EFerrari]

71. Somehow, you would be wrong. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

73. I love it how you always explain yourself so thoroughly.

:sarcasm:

[Aerows]

83. They have anti-aircraft artillery and their own planes

That sounds like civil war, not "peaceful protesters". We know that because they shot down their own plane the other day, but it was covered up.

Is it murder when both sides are armed and fighting, or do you call that a civil war? I'm not saying they shouldn't oust Qaddafi, but skepticism about the motives for this operation is MORE than warranted.

The oil contracts have been voided. Naturally, they want a more peaceful, and biddable puppet.

That's not conspiracy theory, that is fact.

[WinkyDink]

60. Well, actually,......

[EFerrari]

76. LOL. George Bush is barely aware that other people exist

let alone what they look like. :)

[jp11]

3. How much oil and energy can we expect to get out of this?

Like how does it compare to Iraq, more/less the same? It only seems we'd go nuts with a 3rd war/occupation for at least the same or more oi/energy.

[yurbud]

6. ''we''? nothing. Big oil? as much as they want at the price they dictate

[yurbud]

8. since we are at or past peak oil, there are no oil reserves too small to kill for

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. Anything Libya pumps...

...goes straight to Europe, 85% of its oil production goes to Europe, much of its gas goes there by undersea pipeline.

Only to the extent that Libyan oil satisfies part of European demand, in turn releasing somebody else's production for consumption somewhere else, is this a US play for oil.

We import more oil from Argentina than Libya.

[midnight]

4. This is a mess.... I was just listening to Dennis Kucinich warning about this

response to war....

[DutchLiberal]

17. I lost my respect for Kucinich when he refused to stand with the Libyan people...

Not everything a foreign dictator does is swell, *just* because he's against the US. (Though that DOES seem to be the consensus on DU.)

[meow mix]

22. same here, sorry i voted for him now 2004

what a piece of crap isolationist, try joining civilization dennis

[Bonhomme Richard]

7. If it helps the little guy then I am for it. n/t

[habitual]

10. I'm with you.

It is possible, that this is humanitarian in it's doing whether or not it is 'intended' to be.

jeeez.

[tabatha]

9. Unrec.

The US does not use much Libyan oil and did not want another fight.

The Arab League and the world requested a no-fly zone.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a HUMANITARIAN ISSUE. Another Rwanda is not needed

Here is the link to the Avaaz site:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_no_fly_zone_3?fp

And not included in the screen dump is the following text:

Libyans are asking if the world has abandoned them. The Avaaz community is deeply committed to non-violence, but enforcing a no-fly zone to ground Qaddafi's gunships is one case where UN-backed military action seems necessary. Polls of our community show 86% of us support a no-fly zone. Now, as the decisive UN vote nears, it's time for the biggest outcry we can raise to break the international deadlock.

We cheered when Libya's people rose up, and we cannot, we must not, ignore their plea for help now, in their darkest hour. Even if you've sent one before, click to send a message to the UN Security Council now.

[CJCRANE]

11. How about Europe and the Arab League?

Do they have the right to intervene in their backyard to prevent potentially hundreds of thousands of refugees?

[meow mix]

12. if that was true we would be supporting gadaffi. this thread is not supportive of obama

alerted.

[EFerrari]

21. Legitimate criticism of the president's policy is not a violation

of DU rules.

[meow mix]

27. i guess making up wild conspiracys that dont even make sense, is legit

on DU now a days

[EFerrari]

32. So, do you disagree that the US has a strategic interest in Libya?

How is pointing that out "wild conspiracy"? I'm missing the wild part.

[meow mix]

33. we already had our deals, dissolving the govt voids them and status quo is gone.

if we wanted the oil we sould support ghadafi. the opposite of what the OP is saying

[EFerrari]

37. No, if we are interested in the oil, we back the winner.

And Gaddafi has already lost everything but the leaving.

[meow mix]

42. he was winning handily, untill we stop him. nice logic there.

[EFerrari]

50. Yes, he was winning which is why the Western powers delayed

this long.

[CJCRANE]

44. If the rebels were winning they wouldn't need any help. nt

[EFerrari]

51. Militarily but he has lost all legitimacy both at home and in the world.

His exit and how long, what form it will take and how many people will die between now and then are the open questions. Even if he wins militarily, he has no future and he knows that.

Meanwhile, the Saudis are occupying Bahrain and there was just a massacre in Yeman.

It's going to be a long year.

[DutchLiberal]

64. "Because there's injustice somewhere else, we shouldn't help the Libyans"?

Huh?

[EFerrari]

68. I obviously didn't say that.

:)

[DutchLiberal]

70. You at least implied it.

[backwoodsbob]

14. you're right..fuck those revolutionaries

we should let them be massacred.

who gives a fuck if they asked for this..they are all part of the plot I guess.

oh..btw..unrec and :sarcasm:

[meow mix]

18. we got our freedom from having our limbs hacked off, fuck everyone else.

pretty sad attitudes on DU kinda sick too

[tabatha]

19. That is a very good succinct point.

The Libyan revolutionaries are all part of the plot for other countries to come steal their oil. (NOT)

[DutchLiberal]

23. Yes, the revolutionaries are not against the US, so DU thinks we should let them die.

[Forkboy]

28. "so DU thinks we should let them die."

You're right, all of DU thinks that. :eyes:

[DutchLiberal]

29. Well, a lot of them. But I'm on your side, so what are you trolling me for?

[Forkboy]

35. I'm not "trolling" you, the statement was silly, that's all.

It's not a matter of "wanting" people to die, and you should know that. That's a really disingenuous way to frame the debate.

And to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about all of this, so I really don't have a side yet. I can't help but wonder why Libya and not Rwanda, for example? Why do we only care about certain humanitarian crises, and why do we choose to help the ones we do while turning a blind eye to others who need help equally as bad, if not more so?

[DutchLiberal]

43. You rather see us not acting on *any* humanitarian crisis?

[meow mix]

47. only those who are worth helping, this is "to expensive" and they are not worth the expense

do they even realize just how hoorific thier postion is?

[EFerrari]

55. No one in this thread has expressed that position. n/t

[Forkboy]

54. I'd rather we be consistent, and not cherry pick who to save based on geopolitical factors...

...instead of just helping those who need it. There's 20 million Pakistanis, for example, that have been flooded for months and months now, many in danger of starvation as all crops are ruined. Why aren't we getting into debates over whether we should help them or not? I've posted a handful of links about it and few even notice their suffering. Why do we then, suddenly, focus laser like on another group's suffering? I don't ask this to imply that we shouldn't help anyone, I think it's a pretty interesting question. Why are we able to get so emotionally invested in helping some groups, but for others barely a chord is stirred? The question can apply to us on a personal level and to us on a national level.

[DutchLiberal]

59. Natural disaster =/= war criminal murdering his own people...

Can't you see the difference or are you pretending?

I'm not saying I always believe the 'noble' intentions of our leaders (getting rid of Saddam Hussein, for example), but... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and no conspiracy theories are needed.

[Forkboy]

74. People are dead either way, when they don't have to be, correct?

We can make a difference in each instance, but we don't. Dead is dead. What difference am I missing? If this is your criteria, why did we ignore 800,000 Rwandans being killed? That wasn't due to a natural disaster. Do you truly think it's a conspiracy that these decisions are based on what's considered best for America as much as who it helps? Really? :shrug:

I think the OP, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is touching on a larger issue than just Libya, an issue I've always been fascinated by, and that's why do we decide to help the ones we do while ignoring others. I think it speaks to both a geopolitical standpoint and a personal standpoint. It's hard for us, as a nation or an individual, to say we have a line in the sand while ignoring others who are crossing it. I think this is what the OP is really getting at, and I'm glad someone brought it up. I've been pondering it for years.

[DutchLiberal]

77. If you don't understand the difference between natural disasters and war crimes...

... then this will be a long night. Surely you must know disasters can't be prevented, like genocide? Surely you know it's a thousand times more complex to rebuild a country like a disaster of that scale in Pakistan, than it is to removed Qaddafi?

Your arguments make no sense. You keep pointing to crises in the past where we didn't do anything, and you are basically arguing that was better. Just because we can't do *everything* doesn't mean we can't do *anything*.

Okay, tell ya what? You go tell the families of the murdered rebels in Libya that we couldn't help them, even though they specifically ASKED us, because it didn't sit well with the principles of DU-members.

[Forkboy]

81. Don't worry, it won't be a long night.

Because I'm not spending my time speaking past you on this topic any more.

For the record, I'm not against what we're doing, I was asking a larger question, and the OP is as well. You've made a lot of assumptions in this thread because some ask a larger question than one you're prepared to think about right now. Maybe we can have a better discussion another day, but your last line confirms that it won't be tonight.

[meow mix]

31. telling us to turn our backs = letting them die. sorry it doesnt work any other way

if they want to take that postion they better damn well own up to it, rather than playing thier stupid avoidance games.

[Forkboy]

38. Try the decaf.

[joshcryer]

62. A generalization, which is somewhat unfair, but has truth to it.

[EFerrari]

30. This isn't a zero sum situation.

In fact, many in that region, including Libyan revolutionaries, do not want the West to interfere in this situation or intrude their own agendas. Here's an opinion piece from an AJ analyst.


West overzealous on Libya

Now that the United Nations Security Council resolution for a no-fly zone has been passed, how will it be implemented?

The UNSC Resolution 1973 has made it legal for the international community to protect the Libyan people from Muammar Gaddafi's lethal and excessive force - by, among other things, imposing a no-fly zone and carrying out military strikes and other military action short of occupation.

However, the overzealousness of certain Western powers like Britain, France and, as of late, the US, to interpret the resolution as an open-ended use of force, is worrisome. With their long history of interference and hegemony in the region, their political and strategic motivation remains dubious at best. Likewise, their rush to use air force individually or collectively could prove morally reprehensible - even if legally justified - if they further complicate the situation on the ground.

This sounds like 'damned if they do, damned if they don't'?

Well, the onus is on these Western powers to prove that their next move and actions are based on a strictly humanitarian basis and are not meant as a down payment for longer-term interference in Libyan and regional affairs.

They need to demonstrate how their 'change of heart' from supporting the Gaddafi dictatorship over several years to condemning him as a war criminal and acting to topple him, is not motivated by more of the same narrow national and Western strategic interest.

more: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011318132217965513.html#

[CJCRANE]

39. Gaddafi is destroying the rebel towns one by one.

The world either steps in or steps aside. It's that simple.

[EFerrari]

40. His government has said it has stopped all operations. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

45. CNN has proven otherwise. You trust that murderous dictator?

Then why am I even taking the trouble to respond to you?

[EFerrari]

53. You don't seem to need me in this conversation you're having.

:)

[DutchLiberal]

57. Talking to a brick wall *is* more effective; you're right about that...

I just can't believe anybody could look at what's happening in Libya, see the people getting slaughtered and then conclude it's all a set-up by the US government to steal their oil. I mean, there's healthy skepticism and then there's flat-out paranoia.

[EFerrari]

65. Another binarism. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

72. Own the consequences of your inaction, or else stop playing childish games.

[EFerrari]

75. Or what, you'll call me a name?

LOL

Have a good night.

[DutchLiberal]

79. I hope the Libyan people will have a better night, now that we help them, like they asked.

[CJCRANE]

46. That was after the UN resolution.

Without the resolution Gaddafi's mercenaries would be in Benghazi by now.

[EFerrari]

52. That's probably true. n/t

[joshcryer]

66. LOL

[bluestate10]

85. How blind. The Libyan dictator is a verified lier, a long term one at that.

And you believe what he says?

[meow mix]

25. edit

oops wrong place damn

[Bluerthanblue]

36. I'm not naive enough to think it's solely about the people- but

not jaded enough to think the only reason is oil and energy.

I'm strongly opposed to war and violence, yet I stood behind Pres. Clinton's decision for us to participate in the UN intervention in Kosovo.

I'm not certain, but this action- with the understanding that it is being undertaken to stop the violence against the Libyan people, will involve the minimal possible force, the promise there'll be no troops on the ground, and that the US isn't spear-heading this, doesn't seem to be beyond what I'd expect from the US.

I don't believe we should be the worlds police either, but our voice and the threat of our involvement might be enough- It would be really good if it turns out to be.

[EFerrari]

48. I have zero trust that any of the main players

are capable of carrying out a humanitarian mission without becoming involved in disaster capitalism. Maybe at some other point, they could have. Imo, not at this moment. There's a wave of corruption in the highest places that has washed over the world.

I hope that this ceasefire is real, for that reason.

[Bluerthanblue]

56. well I

join you in hope that the ceasefire becomes reality.

:hi:

[oberliner]

80. Gaddafi forces shell Misrata hours after ceasefire

Rebels said the attack on the city, located 200 km (130 miles) east of Tripoli, started at 7 a.m. (0500 GMT), hours after the U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing a no-fly zone and attacks on Gaddafi's forces to protect civilians.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/libya-misrata-bombard-idUSLDE72H2A220110318?pageNumber=2

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. It is... BUT you knew that was comming

it is at the bottom of the reasons, though that is the one that sells.

I'd watch Sarkozy like a hawk, they are dusting the maps they used in the past at the foreign legion in the same area... the brits are dusting off WW II maps

[bluestate10]

86. I am resisting laughter. 60+ year old maps useful today? nt

[Bluebear]

67. "I don't believe we should be the worlds Police" - even though scores are being killed.

OK.

[malaise]

78. 100% correct

Rec despite the unrecs.

[sellitman]

82. It amazes me how the left is for this entanglement now that Obama is in charge.

If it was Bush I suspect otherwise.

[bluestate10]

84. Air strikes are about stopping a madman from slaughtering out gunned

civilians and rebels. Any assertion that defends a madman that sets snipers on his own people, even when the asserter uses the remote claim that the West's entry is about oil, is un-credible on it's face. I don't need a bridge.