Reply With QuoteYou realize that 90 percent of Libyan GDP is from oil production?Originally Posted by AlexMartin2
Well unfortunately you have two sides waging a war of attrition against the other, the negotiation table is in the past.
You realize that 90 percent of Libyan GDP is from oil production?
Which organizations are you talking about?
Uhh yeah, no thanks. The US can keep Saudi Arabia and its rotten oil money. Saudi Arabia is like the most corrupt nation in existance, with the most excessive aristocracy, and on top of that their oil money goes... places.. where it really shouldn't.
The most prominent being HRW, I also meant to add individuals such as Senator John Cornyn.
I read what was actually said about the attack helicopters:So claims that the administration was "lying" are based on the false idea that they claimed the attack helos had already been delivered. In fact, they did not claim that at all.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/worl...les-syria.html
On Tuesday, Clinton again launched a verbal broadside at Russia, asserting in Washington that "there are attack helicopters on the way from Russia to Syria, which will escalate the conflict quite dramatically." The State Department declined to provide specifics.
Attempts, without any reasonable chance for success, in my opinion.
Clinton talks about Russian helicopters while covering for the Saudi's and Qatari's pouring arms into the hands of al-Qaeda-linked militants. What I can't figure out is WHY is the the West is trying to topple a secular government only to have it replaced with a new sanctuary for Al-Qaeda? I mean Al-Qaeda is confirmed to be in the fight in Syria and we're backing them up with arms and political cover.
WTF Over?!
Once again I ask why the US is involved. Let them figure it out.
Yup. That is because it would have easily escalated to a major conflict (ie. a full blown war) in a situation where the operational capacity and resources of both the US and international community had already been spread thin. That and the most certainly assured opposition from RU and China. Too big risks to go into a situation that a) could not be controlled and b) would not resolve to a one with clear long term benefits.
The thing I was referring to was the fact that US does not get directly involved without a considerable national interest (be it economic, geopolitical or something else). World policing done by US has the clear aim to shape the world better suit US interests. Nothing happens out of good will, especially boots on the ground. One thing to remember also is the fact that US are influenced by corporate interests in a major way. War is big and lucrative business.
Good post and thanks.^^
Much agreed, but you never know.
This after, how many people sacrificing their lives to defeat these dogs!?!?
I know this is outlandish, but im beginning to wonder, are we actually doing this to create tommorow's boogey man??? This is what it begins to look like to me.
Are we laying the pieces for a regional war that will draw us in at a later date?
The "humanitarian" label is a piece of rubbish i just couldnt swallow, let alone digest.
I think im beginning to hate humans
/tinfoil off
The absence of western powers in places like Rwanda, the DRC and Cambodia is all I need to ignore claims of wishing to intervene on humanitarian grounds, the west sees some sort of benefit in going in there and is using the humanitarian issue as cover, although I'm sure it makes people feel better who are pushing for it. One thing's growing more and more clear though, neither side is the good guys and if anyone puts even a moment's thought behind what that means for intervention it's clear that it's a bad idea.
I'd be nice one day if we managed to get the political will together around the world to consistently and effectively intervene in these sorts of situations but our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to suggest that we're not there yet and pretending that we can continue this policy as is would be foolish.
Posting Permissions
