weltweit
Well-Known Member
seems a bit far fetched. I just posted the link, I am not endorsing the content !!
Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
seems a bit far fetched. I just posted the link, I am not endorsing the content !!
weltweit
Well-Known Member
That was not my intended meaning at all.
ok ..
Why would international capital want a protracted civil war in Libya?
Been through this before above, but briefly: ensures unrestricted access to oil, prevents emergence of a state sworn to destroy Israel, provides market for weapons.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Sorry Phil but this is really nonsense. A stable, authoritarian, client regime committed to neo liberal free market economics, ensures unrestricted access to oil, A stable authoritarian client regime beholden to US aid acts as a conduit for US strategic interests. A stable client regime provides a market for weapons. Mubarak provided these things for 30 years. Chaos, war, is an unpredictable, uncontrollable situation. Chaos and war are the unpleasant by product of US foreign policy adventures in Iraq and Afganistan etc, not the goal. This argument is really quite absurd and frankly, beneath you Phil.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, I must say that a stable authoritarian client state, such as Mubarak's Egypt, does seem like the desirable situation for 'capital'. However, I can see dwyer's point that a stable state that is not a client state might be less desirable than instability and chaos.
There are also other considerations, which include the necessary creation of bogeymen to justify the military machine and against whom to use that machine. An army the size of the US army cannot be left unoccupied.
There are also other considerations, which include the necessary creation of bogeymen to justify the military machine and against whom to use that machine. An army the size of the US army cannot be left unoccupied.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
That may have something to do with the fact that for a large chunk of the last 20 years (1991 ring any bells?) there was a UN embargo on purchasing oil from Iraq, then limited exports under the Oil for Food programme after 1997.
here's a graph of Iraq's oil production since 1973
note the years when oil production hits the floor.
1981 - war with Iran
1991 - Gulf War I
2003 - Gulf War II
How does this tally with your idea that war 'ensures unrestricted access to oil'?
I once thought that you made sense.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
hmm.. BP made an oil deal with Gaddafi when he seemed stable. I can't see them making deals when the immediate future is unclear. Nope, does not compute on the oil front. Market for weapons, Gaddafi bought plenty of those when he was stable, many it seems from Russia, he is going to find it much harder now to buy with his assets frozen. Finally, Israel? nope does not compute.
I think you have been reading too much extremist literature personally. My take on this situation, Libya, is that often what appears on the surface to be happenning, is actually what is happenning.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Libya: Now we must arm the insurgents so that Gaddafi can be toppled
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nsurgents-so-that-Gaddafi-can-be-toppled.html
The no-fly zone will last indefinitely unless Libya's people can fight effectively, argues Malcolm Rifkind
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nsurgents-so-that-Gaddafi-can-be-toppled.html
The no-fly zone will last indefinitely unless Libya's people can fight effectively, argues Malcolm Rifkind
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Iraq is a bit of a special case. They were mostly using their own industry which was good enough for drilling a pipe a 100 or so meters into the ground but had no real skill base in secondary and tertiary lift capacity and certainly had the square root of fuck all 3D seismography. They also faced severe bans on importing technology. Moreover a key part of the Iraqi oil fields are in Kurdistan which was beyond the control of the state from about 1991-2003.
Also Iraq is the one oil province where people believe there are still significant discoveries to be made.
Libya has had western O&G servicing companies in there for a while so they now have the full range of every gizmo and technique increasing flow rate.
Well you guys may be right, though I think you're underestimating the Israeli influence. Israel certainly has no interest in any democratic state emerging in the region. And I also think we must judge the West's intentions by the results actually achieved. Perhaps the truth is that the West doesn't greatly care either way.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
The coalition is having trouble around Misrata. Gaddafi's tanks are already in the city so coalition aircaft cannot attack them without likely killing civilians. The rebels (should we call them insurgents now?) will have to deal with these tanks on their own, unless they run out of supplies as we are bombing their supply lines.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Since when does a no FLY zone involve attacking tanks.? Is Gaddafi using special flying tanks?
It isn't just a No-Fly Zone.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Well duh, of course it isn't. Doesn't stop every media outlet in the West continuing to call it that though
Resolution 1973 is a transparent attempt at regime change. The language is pure Orwell.No fly zone. Humanitarian intervention. Armed rebels transformed into peaceful protesters. A call for ceasefire that applies to only one side in a civil war. Protecting civilians by bombing a capital city.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
tbf, they are quite open about regime change in Libya, even Ban Ki-moon says that Gadaffi has, through his actions, made himself an illegitimate ruler
The African Union are now calling for a transition period and then elections, in effect, although not declaring it in plain words, this is a call for Gadaffi to go
The African Union are now calling for a transition period and then elections, in effect, although not declaring it in plain words, this is a call for Gadaffi to go
Idaho
blah blah blah
That's a little emotive. They aren't carpet bombing Tripoli.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I didn't say they were. I said "bombing a capital city". And they are bombing a capital city.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Libya reporters see 'proof' of attacks on civilians
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/25/libya-reporters-proof-attacks-civilians
Foreign journalists taken to see 'evidence' of attacks, but coalition claim there have been no civilian casualties
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/25/libya-reporters-proof-attacks-civilians
Foreign journalists taken to see 'evidence' of attacks, but coalition claim there have been no civilian casualties
weltweit
Well-Known Member
indeed.
Specific targets in a capital city.
And Gadaffi is using the human shield technique. Abborant.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The targets may be specific. The actual places that get hit will not be. Surely nobody falls for this 'precision bombing' bullshit after Iraq?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
There is absolutely no justification for bombing a city.
If a man holds up a child in front of him to stop you from shooting him and you shoot anyway, killing that child, who is to blame?
He is culpable for holding up the child, but you are still culpable for shooting that child. What you have done is kill a child.
If a man holds up a child in front of him to stop you from shooting him and you shoot anyway, killing that child, who is to blame?
He is culpable for holding up the child, but you are still culpable for shooting that child. What you have done is kill a child.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
