Where does DU stand on the Libyan Conflict?

14 different ways to spell Gaddafi. Which one do you prefer?

The ignorance on DU about basic world affairs is astounding.

The idea that it is "all about oil" is one of the most ignorant things I've read here.

oil companies. I think the administration knows Gadhafi is going down and they want to make sure that once the revolutionaries have control of the oil fields they won't stop production. There will be millions of dollars in no-bid contracts awarded to KBR, Blackwater, and Halliburton to repair/modernize the oil fields when this thing is all over with. Lost of nation building to insure that the new leadership is sympathetic to the American cause of... cheap oil.

Your argument has no logical flow to it. If your only goal is to secure more oil, you dont intervene in a conflict to help overthrow the guy providing it.

And I seriously doubt the UN would have supported us backing Gadhafi. So regardless of what the DLC is saying, we are there to secure the oil.

The "it's all about oil" people are intellectually lazy.

4: "The ignorance on DU...."

9: "...one of the most ignorant things I've read here."

15: "...no logical flow..."

22: "...intellectually lazy."

It has a comedic irony to it. A smart person wouldn't need to hide behind an insult. You can't manage one post without it.

Your name is apropos. ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZzzzzzzzzzz!

If that upsets you, I'll mail you a box of Kleenex

decide they want BP running their oil business for them?

But not how you think.

We've no money for schools, healthcare, anything....BUT we can always find money to throw at the Military Industrial Complex. Funny how those in power are giving the money to the corporations that put them there or that will offer them jobs when they retire.



http://www.americablog.com/2010/12/washington-revolving-door-and-defense.html

From 2004 through 2008, 80 percent of retiring three- and four-star officers went to work as consultants or defense executives, according to the Globe analysis. That compares with less than 50 percent who followed that path a decade earlier, from 1994 to 1998.

In some years, the move from general staff to industry is a virtual clean sweep. Thirty-four out of 39 three- and four-star generals and admirals who retired in 2007 are now working in defense roles — nearly 90 percent.

And in many cases there is nothing subtle about what the generals have to sell — Martin’s firm is called The Four Star Group, for example. The revolving-door culture of Capitol Hill — where former lawmakers and staffers commonly market their insider knowledge to lobbying firms — is now pervasive at the senior rungs of the military leadership.

We had good dealings with him and he had almost defeated the rebels and taken control over the entire country. If we wanted the oil, we would not be destabilizing Libya any further. We would just let Qaddafi in place and let him reign with an iron fist, like he always did before. With this UN resolution, there will be none of our troops on the ground in Libya and we can't predict the outcome; we don't know if Qaddafi will stay in power or who will replace him. Uncertainty like that is bad for the oil market.

People who are yelling "it's about the oil!" suffer from an oversimplified black-and-white worldview. They need to get over the fact that their last president was a shitty one who lied to his people about the Iraq War. To automatically equate that with Libya is mindless and lazy.

and the usa is being the good nato ally
the usa is not the only manipulator of world events

people saying it's for the good of the people, how many other rebel groups are we supporting right now? Hell, i bet we are helpng some suppress the protesters.

If a repub president were to start firing off expensive cruise missles and killing people, DU would go nuts. Where's the anti-war rhetoric now? Just because Obama's in office, we cant stop trying to bring the troops home.

why weren't they being 'helped' two weeks ago? The UN has been manipulated by NATO to ensure an optimum outcome, the rebels greatly weakened, crushing Libya's conventional forces is a piece of cake, and the 'Arab street' will be chastened. It's all win for the big boys.

It's called 'diplomacy' and two weeks is considered very fast in the diplomatic circuit. Not everything is as black and white as DU makes it out to be. I know, I know, it's much more comforting to simplify the conflict so we can make quick judgements... but that's not the reality.

"Who benefits?"

Therein lies the 'reality'.

Humanitarian considerations my ass, it's always about business, that is the purpose of the US government after all.

Who benefits? The people of Benghazi, who will not get slaughtered now, like the 6,000 Qaddafi already murdered. (That's why they begged us for help.)

Hurray for NATO. Too bad about those 6000, we were deliberating, don't ya know.

The only deliberation of consequence was diving up the oil concessions.

Please explain, because you don't make sense. What conspiracy theory is behind your unsupported remarks?

I've seen several polls suggesting that DU is split about evenly between those who support and oppose military action against Gadaffi/Libya, but very many more posts opposing that supporting it.

My theory is that most DUers (including me) think that most wars are wrong, and so there are whole pages of anti-war rhetoric lined up and ready to be produced automatically whenever needed, but anyone who wants to argue that this is one of the few exceptions when military action may actually be justified has to put together a more detailed and thought-through case, which is harder work.

And there's no borrowing them from previous conflicts.

It's a long and tedious process to really learn the details of each nation and you'll get little help from American media. Whatever is thought-through stands next to something that might not be. It's humbling, or should be, and if the process leads to a strong conclusion for intervention, as I think most of the time it would, it should still be plastered with doubt and caution.

And that's not conducive to a lot of shouting and banner waving. Besides, anyone who's reached that sober conclusion shouldn't feel too thrilled that they felt they needed to.

there are thousands of people with very disparate opinions over a range of topics...thee is no universal consensus on anything (at least anything I can think of)

That would be an interesting idea for a series of polls. Find out if there's any subject where we can all, or most of us, agree...say 80% or better.

I'd prefer we get out of the other wars, not start a new one.

But, we're in it. And we've picked a side to have win. I'd be surprised if we don't start sending in some trainers and advisors. Maybe not U.S. troops, but at least some mercenaries or contractors.

:thumbsdown:

I hope that whoever voted for "Gaddafi is slaughtering his own people and we should help them" was in favor of taking out Saddam as well. Jus sayin.

They made up a bunch of phony evidence like Saddam was gonna get us with UAVs, laughable forgeries for yellowcake (that the UN figured out were fake in 5 minutes w/google) and a bunch of other stupid shit. They said he was responsible for 9/11. They said he was going to get us with a nuke in our backyard.

The Iraqi people begged us to leave them alone. Polls showed they did not want to be attacked.

When we shocked and awed them bombing the country to smithereens to the point where they still have no water or power....they did not appreciate it.






When we established a no fly zone in Libya so that people wouldn't be slaughtered, the protesters were grateful.

just because their country has oil. If your country having oil would allow you and your fellow rebel supporters to be wiped out you might wish your country had no oil.

*ending spoilers ahead*

After a massive civil war between a dictator and various meddling factions against him it's found out that the whole thing is part of a struggle between China, Russia and the US to take over the country for the oil. The dictator launches some nukes at the countries involved, the hero ends up fighting him, gets him caught on one, and then redirects the nukes to the oil fields instead of their targets. The oil fields are blown up along with the dictator, thus ending the possibility of another war in the country by the external players for the oil.

But it's pretty pathetic in this case as people are simply mindlessly chanting "oil" as a reasoning against it ignoring all facts. Gadaffi was pumping plenty of oil and the best way to ensure it to keep flowing would be to keep Gadaffi in power.

Libyans asked for "no fly zone" but even they were worried about it --

think we would have been better to have earlier bombed Gaddafi's air fields, planes

and runways --

In other words, try to balance for the protesters the HUGE advantage that global arms

dealers -- US/UK/France/Russia -- gave to Gaddafi!!

I oppose the aggression against Libya. I do not think it is mainly about oil, and I do not oppose war in all circumstances by any means.

What would your response be that would not fit in to other?

Oil isn't the main thing here by any means. But what is at stake is national sovereignty. It's the same reason I think the invasion of Grenada or Panama was wrong. Reagan didn't invade Grenada to acquire material resources, but he did do it to increase strategic influence for the United States at a higher level. The message: "we're boss."

People in the middle east and parts of Europe and now spreading from Wisconsin throughout the country as breath taking!
It is a good thing . And to give those people in Libya a chance by taking out gaddafi's heavy weapons, kind of levels the playing field.

I think the US should take in refugees from other countries, should boycott companies that profit off of human tragedy.

It leaves tyrants with way too much control over their people.

When did enforcing a No Fly Zone equal an offensive attack on a country? I still voted that the people need help and we should be helping them. I just don't agree with the "how" of it.

leveling the playing field for the rebels.

And I think we must DEMAND NO TROOPS ON THE GROUND (especially US troops) as the protesters have requested.

nt

What is the goal?

Removel of Ghadaffi?

But that is not in UNSC directive.

China, Indian, Russia, Brazil, and Germany abstained so the vote was 10-0.

An extended time of NFZ and Libyan unrest will result in more collateral damage to innocents if Quadaffi maintains control.

But with energy companies operating under “very high” tax terms in Libya, Marathon will only get about 2% of its estimated cash flow of $6.8 billion from Libya, since it pays a 93% tax rate on oil extracted there

93%!

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Newsfeed/Article/127181609/201102231623/Oil-majors-jump-despite-Libya-uncertainty.aspx

looks like Quaddiffi was playing the UNSC vote abstainers (Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Germany against France and Italy plus the USA and UK.

The actions of France in recognizing the rebels accelerated and raised the immediate stakes.

I hope the UN "police action" comes to a rapid conclusion but look like a war to me. The fog is think.