(March 18, 2011 at 12:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(March 18, 2011 at 10:48 am)corndog36 Wrote: If the UN expects us, (America) to provide an leadership, they will be sadly disappointed, out president is a wimp. Hillary has got a pair, but Obama will insist on being able to blame Europe for forcing us into it, before he will turn her loose.

Kindly explain to me why it matters to the US which bunch of towel-heads rules fucking Libya?

Well for one, they're an oil exporter and you guys love your oil. For another, Gadaffi has been persona non grata to the American government for decades, so they'd love to get him out.

I don't think it is really in American interest to take the lead to oust Kadaffi. In fact it is in our interest to give his continued dictatorship a limited degree of indirect assurance. The reason is very simple. To US a Libya that could have gone nuclear but didn't is of more benefit then a Libya that might possess a more cosmetically pleasing form of government. For the survival of himself and his rigime he gave up his nuclear program in a Faustian bargain with US. He could have tried to pull of Kim Jiongil on us. There are time when we need brutal dictators to deal with us rather than oppose us at all junctures because they think we will always be out to get them. So in the long run, we serve our own interests better by making it clear that we do in fact take our side of any international faustian bargain with a certain degree of seriousness, that we will not be the ones to break an international bargain in which we've already benefited just to score points with fickle domestic opinion or demonstrate charming swooning before high minded hot air.

If Kadaffi is going down anyway, we won't prop him up. But if he is surviving by himself, even though brutal repression, we should not take the lead to take him down because he did what we wanted in a faustian bargain with us on a thing we cared a lot about.

As to why Britain and France would be more eager, I think the reason is also simple. They, compared to the US, are relatively more minor and regional players. They have a much more limited international audience to which they must play their foreign policies. No aspiring nuclear power would condescend to give up their nuclear aspiration in any faustian bargain with the UK or France. This is why they can be more loudmouthed in this.

---

(March 18, 2011 at 2:34 pm)Ubermensch Wrote:

(March 18, 2011 at 12:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(March 18, 2011 at 10:48 am)corndog36 Wrote: If the UN expects us, (America) to provide an leadership, they will be sadly disappointed, out president is a wimp. Hillary has got a pair, but Obama will insist on being able to blame Europe for forcing us into it, before he will turn her loose.

Kindly explain to me why it matters to the US which bunch of towel-heads rules fucking Libya?

Well for one, they're an oil exporter and you guys love your oil. For another, Gadaffi has been persona non grata to the American government for decades, so they'd love to get him out.

That does not add up. There is great animosity between the house of Saud and Kadaffi. Kadaffi underwrote more than one effort to overthrow the house of Saud. The house of Saud wants Kadaffi out. The house of Saud will be very happy to make up for any decrease in Libyan oil flow out of the reserve capacity from Saudi fields if that that would lessen qualms about efforts to overthrow Kahaffi.

The policy issues are Hillary's problem, Obama is focused on his re-election. Since he couldn't ignore the situation in Libya, he's trying to navigate it in a way that will do the least damage to his re-election prospects. His political base is against military intervention anywhere, at any time, but he knows that doing nothing while Qaddafi slaughters his own people isn't going to win him any popularity contests. I applaud France for taking the lead.

(March 18, 2011 at 2:55 pm)Chuck Wrote: That does not add up. There is great animosity between the house of Saud and Kadaffi. Kadaffi underwrote more than one effort to overthrow the house of Saud. The house of Saud wants Kadaffi out. The house of Saud will be very happy to make up for any decrease in Libyan oil flow out of the reserve capacity from Saudi fields if that that would lessen qualms about efforts to overthrow Kahaffi.

Well there's another reason the US would help to overthrow him. The Saudi lobby in Washington is huge. bigger than the Israel lobby.

(March 18, 2011 at 4:47 pm)Ubermensch Wrote: Well there's another reason the US would help to overthrow him. The Saudi lobby in Washington is huge. bigger than the Israel lobby.

I have no idea how big the Saudi lobby is. But I see no evidence of it being particular successful arm of Saudi interest that has enhanced Saudi influence in American policy making to a greater degree than could be accounted for by Saudi oil alone.

If you want the oil in Libya (or whatever else is there): kill all/most of the people there, and annex the country. Seriously. This world peace shit has to stop or I start vomiting.

(March 18, 2011 at 6:36 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: If you want the oil in Libya (or whatever else is there): kill all/most of the people there, and annex the country. Seriously. This world peace shit has to stop or I start vomiting.

Obviously, that would be even worse. Better to be subtle at least.

I have no problem with America acquiring oil to fuel itself. The whole world runs on oil. Everyone needs it. But, the way they have been going about achieving this is unfair because they have caused a lot of instability in the Middle East countries. Even the news gives us this very indication; as the gas prices soar because of what is happening in the Middle East, there are talks about finally using American oil reserves.

If you know Muslims you'd know that the first thing they would say is that its ironic that (1) America tried to push for democracy using force, (2) that they did it for the oil and having a stronger presence in the region, and (3) the governments that they propped are illegitimate and corrupt, just like other western propped governments from generations ago. America waged war and conducted an aerial invasion and occupation for lies that cover their true motives.

To say it was done for democracy is silly, and whether you agree with that or not, this is how the rest of the Arab/Muslim world perceives it.

(March 18, 2011 at 7:55 pm)Rayaan Wrote: If you know Muslims you'd know that the first thing they would say is that its ironic that (1) America tried to push for democracy using force, (2) that they did it for the oil and having a stronger presence in the region, and (3) the governments that they propped are illegitimate and corrupt, just like other western propped governments from generations ago. America waged war and conducted an aerial invasion and occupation for lies that cover their true motives.

the governments that america didn't prop up are also corrupt...

Quote:So that they can have a connection which is more favorable to them,

Interesting in theory, Rayaan but the fact is that there are no guarantees that an amorphous resistance movement would be more favorable to the West than Qaddafy was.


I hate to be the one to break it to you but far too many Americans don't care which Arabs we're killing as long as we are killing some of them. In fact, I suspect that the majority of these new "interventionists" couldn't find Libya on a map if they had five guesses.

(March 18, 2011 at 10:48 am)corndog36 Wrote: If the UN expects us, (America) to provide an leadership, they will be sadly disappointed, out president is a wimp. Hillary has got a pair, but Obama will insist on being able to blame Europe for forcing us into it, before he will turn her loose.

Hillary is an evil bitch.