UK, France, and others preparing to attack Libya.

[StefanWolves]

Its alreay been explained to you that Libyan oil is rather rubbish dispite what the media may say, the UK produces more oil than the Libyans do.

So what exactly do they have that we want? Seeing as though we arent allowed to put armed forces on the ground and invade, how are we supposedly going to, as you say, 'get what we want'?

But he didn't change and it wasnt about him changing, hence why he never changed - it was so we could gain another 'friend' in the region and sign oil contracts. Gaddafi continued in his brutal ways before, during and after Mr Blair visited and signed the business deals.

Why is it that we only ever attack anti-western brutal regimes who happen to have something we want? can you answer me that?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Its alreay been explained to you that Libyan oil is rather rubbish dispite what the media may say, the UK produces more oil than the Libyans do.

If Libyan oil is so 'crap', why were western companies so eager to extract that 'crap' oil? for the fun of it?

So what exactly do they have that we want? Seeing as though we arent allowed to put armed forces on the ground and invade, how are we supposedly going to, as you say, 'get what we want'?

Iraq has oil which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.
Afghanistan has vast mineral deposits which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.

..compared to;

Saudi Arabia supplies us oil, it has a brutual pro-western government which we don't want removed.
Bahrain is strategically important, it has a brutal pro-western government which we don't want removed.

See the pattern?

We will get what we want either by eventually going in via ground troops (they say they wont, but look at the quagmires Vietnam and Afghanistan turned into which were originally small scale operations) or by cosying upto the rebels so that they sign deals with us - just like we did with Egypt, Tunisia and now Libya; all too happy to cuddle up and sign deals with the previous brutual regimes, then when the people eventually rose up we said "hey guys, we were on your side all along!".

[StefanWolves]

You still didnt answer my question... What do you want us to do? Just stand back and watch this happen?

And last time I checked Bahrain or Saudi Arabias then president didnt plan and execute the blowing up of a plane over Lockerbie, so theres history. Just saying.

And btw if this were about oil dont you think we would be taking Saudi Arabia by now?

[Chippiewill]

Disprove my points then, instead of continuously posting little snide digs and then withdrawing from the debate.

Oh we do, you just decide that our points are invalid.

I have responded to all of your post, i've explained that the real reason we are not going in for human rights and democracy (and i'll highlight it for you all) is because we have supported Gaddafi for decades and we continue to support Saudi Arabia and Bahrain who are firing on their people as we speak. So it is not about human rights and democracy and how do I know? because of the past and indeed whats happening in the present. We have not cared and continue not to care about human rights or democracy, therefore the idea that 'we are going into Libya championing human rights and democracy' is nothing but war spin. (for a big example of war spin, see below - ring any bells?).

As I have already stated, if you cannot go in and win the fight and also have the public's support (Like they have at the moment) the only logical move is to sit back and try to negotiate to save lives or to get resources like Oil, that how diplomacy works. There's nothing to be gained by sitting there and making noises to indicate that you are disgruntled by them attacking their own civilians, it achieves nothing.

No I wouldn't, just the same for those who live in all dictatorships (when the Red Army 'liberated' Nazi Germany for example) - but we live in the real world, a world where you have blowback and where you have no money or moral authority to enforce these ideals. Why go into Libya now, why not back when Gaddafi was signing the oil contracts with Mr Blair whilst locking, torturing and executing those who opposed him? ahh thats right, its not about saving the people, democracy, human rights and the rest of it - its about oil and saving face, would you be prepared to die for those things? I doubt you would, so do not expect others to do it while our leaders pretend their dirty mission is some kind of heroric adventure for human rights.

Most people in the army aren't in the army to 'protect their queen and country' they're in the army for the money, it pays pretty damn well and you can be pretty close to being identified as ******ed and still be in the army, either that or they're in the army because they get to shoot big guns or big missiles. It's all a balance of: Risk of death Vs Pay.

'to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD'

If someone threatens to attack you and has the resources to attack you and the motive to attack you then... YOU ******* GO IN AND STOP THEM ANYWAY. Sheesh.

If Libyan oil is so 'crap', why were western companies so eager to extract that 'crap' oil? for the fun of it?

To test it, they might eventually find a good vein of oil.

Iraq has oil which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.
Afghanistan has vast mineral deposits which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.

..compared to;

Saudi Arabia supplies us oil, it has a brutual pro-western government which we don't want removed.
Bahrain is strategically important, it has a brutal pro-western government which we don't want removed.

See the pattern?

You have too few points there to prove a correlation, that and I'm too lazy to spend my time looking up examples which counter your suggested logic.

[StefanWolves]

I think you forgot that leader of Afghan was the person behind the 9/11 bombings and 7/7 London bombings and many more and that the leader of Iraq had once bombarded Kuwait and was slaughtering his own people.

See the relation that they have to Libya?

If Libyan oil is so 'crap', why were western companies so eager to extract that 'crap' oil? for the fun of it?



Iraq has oil which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.
Afghanistan has vast mineral deposits which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.

..compared to;

Saudi Arabia supplies us oil, it has a brutual pro-western government which we don't want removed.
Bahrain is strategically important, it has a brutal pro-western government which we don't want removed.

See the pattern?

We will get what we want either by eventually going in via ground troops (they say they wont, but look at the quagmires Vietnam and Afghanistan turned into which were originally small scale operations) or by cosying upto the rebels so that they sign deals with us - just like we did with Egypt, Tunisia and now Libya; all too happy to cuddle up and sign deals with the previous brutual regimes, then when the people eventually rose up we said "hey guys, we were on your side all along!".

[JACKTARD]

My point is that, as we [the west] are the aggressors (and have declared war on Gaddafi, not the other way around) i'm certainly not in support of us 'hitting back harder' as you say because we shouldn't be there in the first place. We had no legit reason to declare war on Libya yet we've gone and done it purely for the reasons I mentioned in my post back on page one of this thread; to save face and of course, the oil is a big factor in this.

I'm afraid Gaddafi would now have legitimacy in attacking our forces, whereas we do not have the legitimacy in attacking his forces.

Surely if they fight back harder than we have hit them in the first place then the people of the country are going to take a dislike to the country and will be willing for us to attack back again (Even though we threw the first punch)

[-:Undertaker:-]

You still didnt answer my question... What do you want us to do? Just stand back and watch this happen?

YES IVE ALREADY SAID THIS - JUST LIKE WE DID IN THE SOVIET UNION, IRAN, UGANDA, THE CONGO, CAMBDODIA & just like we are right now in CUBA, CHINA, BURMA, ZIMBABWE, BAHRAIN, SAUDI ARABIA, YEMEN +countless others.

Clear enough?

And last time I checked Bahrain or Saudi Arabias then president didnt plan and execute the blowing up of a plane over Lockerbie, so theres history. Just saying.

Then why didn't we invade back then? Gaddafi was our friend until a few weeks ago, I don't consider him a friend - I consider him as evil, brutal and I personally have been waiting to see the end of all of these tyrants for many many years because I know that history shows the people always win. The people who considered Gaddafi a friend until a few weeks ago didn't turn their backs on him because he is brutal - they turned their backs on Gaddafi because it looked as though he was finished.

Now its come (as it always does) to bite them (and consquently us) from behind.

And btw if this were about oil dont you think we would be taking Saudi Arabia by now?

Noooo!! because as i've said countless times, Saudi Arabia supplies us with oil and is pro-western so there is no need to because as I keep saying, this is not about human rights or democracy because we do not care about it so its disgusting to pretend that we do. Lord give me strength!

Oh we do, you just decide that our points are invalid.

Because you don't have any points i'm afraid, none of you will admit that this is not about human rights and democracy - which the record, the facts show the west does not care about, both in the past and the present.

Now if you think thats not true, prove my points on the past and the present factually wrong.

As I have already stated, if you cannot go in and win the fight and also have the public's support (Like they have at the moment) the only logical move is to sit back and try to negotiate to save lives or to get resources like Oil, that how diplomacy works. There's nothing to be gained by sitting there and making noises to indicate that you are disgruntled by them attacking their own civilians, it achieves nothing.

So it is about oil you finally admit? right well then thats where we can now agree, now I do not think our people should possibly end up in body bags for the protection of oil - you obiously think that is a risk worth taking. Either way, our politicians should be honest and admit that our troops are getting involved for oil and not human rights/democracy ..and I wonder which side the people would take, mine or yours and the politicians?

I also oppose it on the basis that going in for oil would only anger many in the Middle East and result in blowback.

Most people in the army aren't in the army to 'protect their queen and country' they're in the army for the money, it pays pretty damn well and you can be pretty close to being identified as ******ed and still be in the army, either that or they're in the army because they get to shoot big guns or big missiles. It's all a balance of: Risk of death Vs Pay.

I don't think thats an excuse to send people into a country and possibly to their deaths simply to protect oil interests. Although fair game as I said, lets have our politicians tell the truth (as above) and we'll see how long that government lasts when it openly admits that our men and women are dying overseas for oil contracts.

If the government told the truth concerning these wars, how long do you think they would last? not long, thats for certain.

If someone threatens to attack you and has the resources to attack you and the motive to attack you then... YOU ******* GO IN AND STOP THEM ANYWAY. Sheesh.

Saddam Hussein did not threaten to attack his neighbours nor one single western power.

To test it, they might eventually find a good vein of oil.

So oil interests, as I keep saying.

You have too few points there to prove a correlation, that and I'm too lazy to spend my time looking up examples which counter your suggested logic.

Yeah, maybe what i'm saying is all made up. Maybe those military bases in Bahrain are just a figment of my imagination, maybe these pictures are all just doctored and none of this ever happened, we can dream can't we?

http://toryardvaark.files.wordpress....dafi_blair.jpg
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...12_468x533.jpg
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/....09fd970c-500wi
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/uploads/200...and%20Bush.jpg
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/...bama-peace.jpg

I could go on and include Saudi royalty, Bahrain royalty.. but you should get the picture.

I think you forgot that leader of Afghan was the person behind the 9/11 bombings and 7/7 London bombings and many more and that the leader of Iraq had once bombarded Kuwait and was slaughtering his own people.

I think if you look into the invasion of Kuwait you will see a very different picture; Saddam Hussein warned the Emir of Kuwait to stop all Kuwaiti oil drilling operations (as Kuwait was slant drilling onto sovereign Iraqi soil) - the Emir refused, citing that he had his American friends and refused to stop despite the threat from Saddam.

Saddam then called U.S. representative (I believe it was Mary Albridge) directly to himself, and asked very simply what the reaction/position of the United States would be concerning military action by Iraq - the United States gave him the green light and so he invaded Kuwait.

See the relation that they have to Libya?

Nope, the Taliban refused to cuddle upto the west after those events - unlike Gaddafi who was accepted like an old friend, as though none of his attacks on the west ever happened. In a way I guess they are similar, and that should show to you the fact that we became 'friends' with this man who committed terrorist attacks means that all of this 'but Gaddafi attacked us, remember - so its only right to get him back' is complete and utter war spin.

Surely if they fight back harder than we have hit them in the first place then the people of the country are going to take a dislike to the country and will be willing for us to attack back again (Even though we threw the first punch)

Thats the mess we've had ourselves in for years and it results in blowback. It happens all the time, take Bin Laden and the Taliban for example - we armed these islamic fighters in their war against the Soviet Union and they later turned on us. We are now doing the exact same in Libya with the rebels by supporting them, no doubt with arms and money in due time.

The people of the Arab world will simply look on this as about oil (see my examples), the people of Bahrain and Yemen and so forth will look on Libya recieving help while their own people are slaughtered by pro-western regimes - a breeding ground for al Qaeda is now brewing and its all because we get ourselves into ridiculous positions like we are now.

If we go into Libya, we will see blowback on our own soil.

[StefanWolves]

Haven't you got anything better to do than write 50 paragraph replies? your not in the house of commons you know.

YES IVE ALREADY SAID THIS - JUST LIKE WE DID IN THE SOVIET UNION, IRAN, UGANDA, THE CONGO, CAMBDODIA & just like we are right now in CUBA, CHINA, BURMA, ZIMBABWE, BAHRAIN, SAUDI ARABIA, YEMEN +countless others.

Clear enough?



Then why didn't we invade back then? Gaddafi was our friend until a few weeks ago, I don't consider him a friend - I consider him as evil, brutal and I personally have been waiting to see the end of all of these tyrants for many many years because I know that history shows the people always win. The people who considered Gaddafi a friend until a few weeks ago didn't turn their backs on him because he is brutal - they turned their backs on Gaddafi because it looked as though he was finished.

Now its come (as it always does) to bite them (and consquently us) from behind.



Noooo!! because as i've said countless times, Saudi Arabia supplies us with oil and is pro-western so there is no need to because as I keep saying, this is not about human rights or democracy because we do not care about it so its disgusting to pretend that we do. Lord give me strength!



Because you don't have any points i'm afraid, none of you will admit that this is not about human rights and democracy - which the record, the facts show the west does not care about, both in the past and the present.

Now if you think thats not true, prove my points on the past and the present factually wrong.



So it is about oil you finally admit? right well then thats where we can now agree, now I do not think our people should possibly end up in body bags for the protection of oil - you obiously think that is a risk worth taking. Either way, our politicians should be honest and admit that our troops are getting involved for oil and not human rights/democracy ..and I wonder which side the people would take, mine or yours and the politicians?

I also oppose it on the basis that going in for oil would only anger many in the Middle East and result in blowback.



I don't think thats an excuse to send people into a country and possibly to their deaths simply to protect oil interests. Although fair game as I said, lets have our politicians tell the truth (as above) and we'll see how long that government lasts when it openly admits that our men and women are dying overseas for oil contracts.

If the government told the truth concerning these wars, how long do you think they would last? not long, thats for certain.



Saddam Hussein did not threaten to attack his neighbours nor one single western power.



So oil interests, as I keep saying.



Yeah, maybe what i'm saying is all made up. Maybe those military bases in Bahrain are just a figment of my imagination, maybe these pictures are all just doctored and none of this ever happened, we can dream can't we?

http://toryardvaark.files.wordpress....dafi_blair.jpg
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...12_468x533.jpg
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/....09fd970c-500wi
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/uploads/200...and%20Bush.jpg
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/...bama-peace.jpg

I could go on and include Saudi royalty, Bahrain royalty.. but you should get the picture.



I think if you look into the invasion of Kuwait you will see a very different picture; Saddam Hussein warned the Emir of Kuwait to stop all Kuwaiti oil drilling operations (as Kuwait was slant drilling onto sovereign Iraqi soil) - the Emir refused, citing that he had his American friends and refused to stop despite the threat from Saddam.

Saddam then called U.S. representative (I believe it was Mary Albridge) directly to himself, and asked very simply what the reaction/position of the United States would be concerning military action by Iraq - the United States gave him the green light and so he invaded Kuwait.



Nope, the Taliban refused to cuddle upto the west after those events - unlike Gaddafi who was accepted like an old friend, as though none of his attacks on the west ever happened. In a way I guess they are similar, and that should show to you the fact that we became 'friends' with this man who committed terrorist attacks means that all of this 'but Gaddafi attacked us, remember - so its only right to get him back' is complete and utter war spin.



Thats the mess we've had ourselves in for years and it results in blowback. It happens all the time, take Bin Laden and the Taliban for example - we armed these islamic fighters in their war against the Soviet Union and they later turned on us. We are now doing the exact same in Libya with the rebels by supporting them, no doubt with arms and money in due time.

The people of the Arab world will simply look on this as about oil (see my examples), the people of Bahrain and Yemen and so forth will look on Libya recieving help while their own people are slaughtered by pro-western regimes - a breeding ground for al Qaeda is now brewing and its all because we get ourselves into ridiculous positions like we are now.

If we go into Libya, we will see blowback on our own soil.

Edited by Infectious (Forum Moderator): Please do not make pointless posts that do not contribute to the thread discussion, thanks!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Haven't you got anything better to do than write 50 paragraph replies? your not in the house of commons you know.

Thank you for vertifying my entire argument with that one post.

[StefanWolves]

Thank you for vertifying my entire argument with that one post.

yawn. stop trolling me nw please.

Edited by Infectious (Forum Moderator): Please do not make pointless posts that do not contribute to the thread discussion, thanks!