Anyone else tired of US/EU trying to police the whole world and act like heroes

[QUOTE="fidosim"] They are acting under a unanimous UNSC resolution"Ninja-Hippo

War is without exception the most expensive way to attain oil.

EDIT: So the notion that this is done for oil is complete bullocks since it would be far more convenient to deal w/ Gadaffi under the table.

The US, UK and EU try to police the middle east. Not the world. The Middle East is an EXTREMELY unstable and dangerous part of the world and we are living in a much more joined world now where policing is needed.

I feel America should finish solving its own problems before getting involved in other countries'.

Yeh i'm tired of it,

I think you guys should leave to us Aussies,

sonofsmeagle

War is without exception the most expensive way to attain oil.

EDIT: So the notion that this is done for oil is complete bullocks since it would be far more convenient to deal w/ Gadaffi under the table.

coolbeans90

Yeh i'm tired of it,

I think you guys should leave to us Aussies,

sonofsmeagle

I always thought Australia's military was weak...like Canada's.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Not in the U.S. - the JCS Chairman has stated the U.S. will be pulling back from lead role and turning it over to either France, UK, or NATO.

LJS9502_basic

There once was a girl from Nantucket, who's boyfriend was about to up-chuck it.

So she said with a sigh, please pull out- be benign.

But he didin't- that filthy ol' harlet.

It's a metaphor.

Yeah it's getting pretty ridiculous . They'll help out one regime and then later have to fight against it...

War is without exception the most expensive way to attain oil.

EDIT: So the notion that this is done for oil is complete bullocks since it would be far more convenient to deal w/ Gadaffi under the table.

coolbeans90

Except western governments were doing exactly that before the opposition in Lybia started uprising. For example the US waited a considerable amount of time before supporting the opposition since they were probably waiting to see how things turned on. The minute the oposition became big enough they stepped and openly supported it because, in case the opposition ends up ruling Lybia, they wanted to be in good terms with them to keep the oil flowing. But they still waited to see if Ghadafi could quelch the opposition fast. If he would have succeeded there is no doubt the western governments would have kept dealing with him under the table (which is not that under the table since everybody knew about it).

Now the conflict is ongoing so they have no choice but to intervene since then the flow of oil will not go back to normal. Once any kind of "stability" is back they'll go back to their dealings as usual.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

War is without exception the most expensive way to attain oil.

EDIT: So the notion that this is done for oil is complete bullocks since it would be far more convenient to deal w/ Gadaffi under the table.

kuraimen

Except western governments were doing exactly that before the opposition in Lybia started uprising. For example the US waited a considerable amount of time before supporting the opposition since they were probably waiting to see how things turned on. The minute the oposition became big enough they stepped and openly supported it because, in case the opposition ends up ruling Lybia, they wanted to be in good terms with them to keep the oil flowing. But they still waited to see if Ghadafi could quelch the opposition fast. If he would have succeeded there is no doubt the western governments would have kept dealing with him under the table (which is not that under the table since everybody knew about it).

Now the conflict is ongoing so they have no choice but to intervene since then the flow of oil will not go back to normal. Once any kind of "stability" is back they'll go back to their dealings as usual.

Still completely implausible. Gadaffi as of late has been successfully repressing the rebellion. It is only by U.N. (notably distinct from the meager U.S. portion of intervention which lacks even air strikes) that the rebels stand even a chance.

Still completely implausible. Gadaffi as of late has been successfully repressing the rebellion. It is only by U.N. (notably distinct from the meager U.S. portion of intervention which lacks even air strikes) that the rebels stand even a chance.

coolbeans90

Tomahawk strikes, air strikes, same difference.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

War is without exception the most expensive way to attain oil.

EDIT: So the notion that this is done for oil is complete bullocks since it would be far more convenient to deal w/ Gadaffi under the table.

coolbeans90

Except western governments were doing exactly that before the opposition in Lybia started uprising. For example the US waited a considerable amount of time before supporting the opposition since they were probably waiting to see how things turned on. The minute the oposition became big enough they stepped and openly supported it because, in case the opposition ends up ruling Lybia, they wanted to be in good terms with them to keep the oil flowing. But they still waited to see if Ghadafi could quelch the opposition fast. If he would have succeeded there is no doubt the western governments would have kept dealing with him under the table (which is not that under the table since everybody knew about it).

Now the conflict is ongoing so they have no choice but to intervene since then the flow of oil will not go back to normal. Once any kind of "stability" is back they'll go back to their dealings as usual.

Still completely implausible. Gadaffi as of late has been successfully repressing the rebellion. It is only by U.N. (notably distinct from the meager U.S. portion of intervention which lacks even air strikes) that the rebels stand even a chance.

When the US started supporting the rebellion the rebellion was in very good position, only afterwards Ghadafi started regaining ground. And even if Ghadafi managed to keep power by force it is evident that his rule is extremely weak as of now because it has a lot of internal and external opposition (even his embassadors turned against him) which means that it is wise to start preparing for the transition one way or another.

Recently I've been more or less apathetic in issues like these... until I hear all the patronizing speeches and comments.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Except western governments were doing exactly that before the opposition in Lybia started uprising. For example the US waited a considerable amount of time before supporting the opposition since they were probably waiting to see how things turned on. The minute the oposition became big enough they stepped and openly supported it because, in case the opposition ends up ruling Lybia, they wanted to be in good terms with them to keep the oil flowing. But they still waited to see if Ghadafi could quelch the opposition fast. If he would have succeeded there is no doubt the western governments would have kept dealing with him under the table (which is not that under the table since everybody knew about it).

Now the conflict is ongoing so they have no choice but to intervene since then the flow of oil will not go back to normal. Once any kind of "stability" is back they'll go back to their dealings as usual.

kuraimen

Still completely implausible. Gadaffi as of late has been successfully repressing the rebellion. It is only by U.N. (notably distinct from the meager U.S. portion of intervention which lacks even air strikes) that the rebels stand even a chance.

When the US started supporting the rebellion the rebellion was in very good position, only afterwards Ghadafi started regaining ground. And even if Ghadafi managed to keep power by force it is evident that his rule is extremely weak as of now because it has a lot of internal and external opposition (even his embassadors turned against him) which means that it is wise to start preparing for the transition one way or another.

The U.S. never substantively supported the rebellion before a few days ago. Prior "support" was lip service. If the U.S. gov't was solely interested in stability in the region for oil purposes, then they wouldn't have taken action prolonging instability. Gadaffi, had he successfully repressed the rebellion (the course of action which would have taken place in the absence of external involvement) then he consequently would have cemented an iron grip on the country. The oil motive theory doesn't stand to reason.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Still completely implausible. Gadaffi as of late has been successfully repressing the rebellion. It is only by U.N. (notably distinct from the meager U.S. portion of intervention which lacks even air strikes) that the rebels stand even a chance.

airshocker

Tomahawk strikes, air strikes, same difference.

Eh, similar, though I would posit that air strikes are indicative of more direct involvement. Much closer proximity to targets as to affect battlefield conditions, not to mention actually sending U.S. pilots into their air space etc.

I always thought Australia's military was weak...like Canada's.

metroidprime55

FYI, the Canadians have repelled two US invasions in their history, so I wouldn't make such assertions.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Still completely implausible. Gadaffi as of late has been successfully repressing the rebellion. It is only by U.N. (notably distinct from the meager U.S. portion of intervention which lacks even air strikes) that the rebels stand even a chance.

coolbeans90

When the US started supporting the rebellion the rebellion was in very good position, only afterwards Ghadafi started regaining ground. And even if Ghadafi managed to keep power by force it is evident that his rule is extremely weak as of now because it has a lot of internal and external opposition (even his embassadors turned against him) which means that it is wise to start preparing for the transition one way or another.

The U.S. never substantively supported the rebellion before a few days ago. Prior "support" was lip service. If the U.S. gov't was solely interested in stability in the region for oil purposes, then they wouldn't have taken action prolonging instability. Gadaffi, had he successfully repressed the rebellion (the course of action which would have taken place in the absence of external involvement) then he consequently would have cemented an iron grip on the country. The oil motive theory doesn't stand to reason.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

When the US started supporting the rebellion the rebellion was in very good position, only afterwards Ghadafi started regaining ground. And even if Ghadafi managed to keep power by force it is evident that his rule is extremely weak as of now because it has a lot of internal and external opposition (even his embassadors turned against him) which means that it is wise to start preparing for the transition one way or another.

kuraimen

The U.S. never substantively supported the rebellion before a few days ago. Prior "support" was lip service. If the U.S. gov't was solely interested in stability in the region for oil purposes, then they wouldn't have taken action prolonging instability. Gadaffi, had he successfully repressed the rebellion (the course of action which would have taken place in the absence of external involvement) then he consequently would have cemented an iron grip on the country. The oil motive theory doesn't stand to reason.

Had he successfully suppressed the rebellion, he would have had a powerful military backing ensuring that an uprising would not be likely for the near future. Dictatorships with a strong military backing have a tendency to be stable. The U.S. may have showed moral support, but it could subtly have exited the spotlight and quietly dealt w/ Gadaffi. (money) The oil motive makes no freaking sense given the course of action by the U.S., particularly given the significant hesitation to support the U.K. and France and the subsequent meager measures to do so in this whole endeavor.

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

Yeh i'm tired of it,

I think you guys should leave to us Aussies,

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

Yeh i'm tired of it,

I think you guys should leave to us Aussies,

I always thought Australia's military was weak...like Canada's.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The U.S. never substantively supported the rebellion before a few days ago. Prior "support" was lip service. If the U.S. gov't was solely interested in stability in the region for oil purposes, then they wouldn't have taken action prolonging instability. Gadaffi, had he successfully repressed the rebellion (the course of action which would have taken place in the absence of external involvement) then he consequently would have cemented an iron grip on the country. The oil motive theory doesn't stand to reason.

coolbeans90

Had he successfully suppressed the rebellion, he would have had a powerful military backing ensuring that an uprising would not be likely for the near future. Dictatorships with a strong military backing have a tendency to be stable. The U.S. may have showed moral support, but it could subtly have exited the spotlight and quietly dealt w/ Gadaffi. (money) The oil motive makes no freaking sense given the course of action by the U.S., particularly given the significant hesitation to support the U.K. and France and the subsequent meager measures to do so in this whole endeavor.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] If he would have repressed the rebellion he would have to deal with years of internal instability and repression since the opposition was too big and the US already had showed their support to the opposition even if only by moral support which will have made Ghadafi much more hostile towards the US. Of course the oil motive has all the reasons it needs behind it.kuraimen

Had he successfully suppressed the rebellion, he would have had a powerful military backing ensuring that an uprising would not be likely for the near future. Dictatorships with a strong military backing have a tendency to be stable. The U.S. may have showed moral support, but it could subtly have exited the spotlight and quietly dealt w/ Gadaffi. (money) The oil motive makes no freaking sense given the course of action by the U.S., particularly given the significant hesitation to support the U.K. and France and the subsequent meager measures to do so in this whole endeavor.

The U.S. didn't "wait", rather they merely supported a U.N. resolution once it was enacted. They could have used their vast intelligence resources to assess the ability of Gadaffi to withstand a rebellion far before hand. It seems quite clear from the availible evidence that Gadaffi would have been able to tighten his grip on the country. His international "support" isn't particularly relevant aside from the fact that Europe was rather keen on ousting him. His internal grip on the country would have been unshakable had he won, (which he would have) as he, unlike the U.S., was quite willing to brutally suppress opposition of even civillians publicly. And to say that it is the U.S. primarilly intervening seems to be a misnomer to say the least, especially in comparing the situation to Iraq given that the primary onus of this move come from France, which vocally opposed violent action in Iraq. The reason why the oil motive in this case makes positively no sense in any respect is because the course of action prolongs instability far longer than any other possible course of action. (either invasion or inaction) I believe, based upon your posting history, that your preconceived notions made you come to the conclusion that these events must revolve around oil. Further, I would say that historically speaking (in past decades) that the U.S. didn't intervene in the Middle East for reasons concerning oil so much as engaging in a proxy war with the U.S.S.R., primarily with the motive of preventing the growth of Soviet influence. I would grant that the original Gulf War was probably motivated by oil interests. However Iraq, Afghanistan and the current happenings in Libya are not.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Had he successfully suppressed the rebellion, he would have had a powerful military backing ensuring that an uprising would not be likely for the near future. Dictatorships with a strong military backing have a tendency to be stable. The U.S. may have showed moral support, but it could subtly have exited the spotlight and quietly dealt w/ Gadaffi. (money) The oil motive makes no freaking sense given the course of action by the U.S., particularly given the significant hesitation to support the U.K. and France and the subsequent meager measures to do so in this whole endeavor.

coolbeans90

The U.S. didn't "wait", rather they merely supported a U.N. resolution once it was enacted. They could have used their vast intelligence resources to assess the ability of Gadaffi to withstand a rebellion far before hand. It seems quite clear from the availible evidence that Gadaffi would have been able to tighten his grip on the country. His international "support" isn't particularly relevant aside from the fact that Europe was rather keen on ousting him. His internal grip on the country would have been unshakable had he won, (which he would have) as he, unlike the U.S., was quite willing to brutally suppress opposition of even civillians publicly. And to say that it is the U.S. primarilly intervening seems to be a misnomer to say the least, especially in comparing the situation to Iraq given that the primary onus of this move come from France, which vocally opposed violent action in Iraq. The reason why the oil motive in this case makes positively no sense in any respect is because the course of action prolongs instability far longer than any other possible course of action. (either invasion or inaction) I believe, based upon your posting history, that your preconceived notions made you come to the conclusion that these events must revolve around oil. Further, I would say that historically speaking (in past decades) that the U.S. didn't intervene in the Middle East for reasons concerning oil so much as engaging in a proxy war with the U.S.S.R., primarily with the motive of preventing the growth of Soviet influence. I would grant that the original Gulf War was probably motivated by oil interests. However Iraq, Afghanistan and the current happenings in Libya are not.

Your an unsympathetic bastard...........................USA........................Your an imperial bastard

not saving civilians..........................................................................................after oil

(rock)...........................................................................................................(hard place)

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] That's why the US waited a little time before expressing their support because even portions of the military were turning against Ghadafi so they wnated to see if he still had enough power to keep a stable leadership which afterwards became obvious he doesn't. So the US finally put their support behind the opposition hoping the opposition will dethrone him. When ghadafi started winning ground again there's no choice for the US but to intervene, Ghadafi in power is not an option now, his internal power and international support is in shambles so dealing with that man will become a nightmare like it happened with Saddam. That's why the US is intervening now so firmly they realized the only option is for the opposition to be in power and have a good opinion on the west as fast as they can and the fastests way in this case is to help them instead of letting Lybia turn into the next Iraq for decades. Of course the oil reason makes a lot of sense, the only thing that doens't make sense is you saying it doesn't, almost all conflicts with western powers in the Middle East can be traced back to oil supply, oil routes, etc there are almost as many or more ruthless governments in Africa but you don't see so much conflicts with western powers because oil is not such an issue there. I'm pretty sure oil is the main reason or one of the main ones.kuraimen

The U.S. didn't "wait", rather they merely supported a U.N. resolution once it was enacted. They could have used their vast intelligence resources to assess the ability of Gadaffi to withstand a rebellion far before hand. It seems quite clear from the availible evidence that Gadaffi would have been able to tighten his grip on the country. His international "support" isn't particularly relevant aside from the fact that Europe was rather keen on ousting him. His internal grip on the country would have been unshakable had he won, (which he would have) as he, unlike the U.S., was quite willing to brutally suppress opposition of even civillians publicly. And to say that it is the U.S. primarilly intervening seems to be a misnomer to say the least, especially in comparing the situation to Iraq given that the primary onus of this move come from France, which vocally opposed violent action in Iraq. The reason why the oil motive in this case makes positively no sense in any respect is because the course of action prolongs instability far longer than any other possible course of action. (either invasion or inaction) I believe, based upon your posting history, that your preconceived notions made you come to the conclusion that these events must revolve around oil. Further, I would say that historically speaking (in past decades) that the U.S. didn't intervene in the Middle East for reasons concerning oil so much as engaging in a proxy war with the U.S.S.R., primarily with the motive of preventing the growth of Soviet influence. I would grant that the original Gulf War was probably motivated by oil interests. However Iraq, Afghanistan and the current happenings in Libya are not.

And yes France probably is a country with a lot of interests in Lybia that's why they are also acting fast. The US, as far as I know has never acted in the name of freedom and democracy if there's no benefit for them so why would they start now? it is clearly a matter of oil one of the things the US is more dependant on and it is no coincidence that the place where they become more involved in conflicts is also one of the regions with more oil interests in the world. It is so clear that I don't understand how people don't see it. Of course there's going to be military and strategic reasons too but many of them include the variable oil, Russia was also interested in the region because of its resources and strategic position during the cold war days.

Once things started happening in Libya, intelligence resources still could have been greatly utilized to assess the situation. In any situation, the U.S. wouldn't support a rebellion without any hope of winning. That just guarantees innocent deaths and places diplomatic relations with said countries in a less than desirable situation. The U.S. was still effectively neutral until the no-fly zone was implemented.

It is difficult for me to take your posts seriously by making blanket statements such as the idea that the U.S. has never supported freedom or democracy without any ulterior motives. It reaffirms my suspicion that you see the world through a tainted prism. I am not by any means under the delusion that the U.S. is a white knight, but the fact that you jump to oil as the only possible motive leads me to think that you would hold this opinion regardless of the facts presented. If oil was the only factor in play here, supporting Gadaffi would be bar none the cheapest, most effective solution. The U.S. had plenty of oil reserves within its own borders. If oil caused such actions by the leaders of the U.S. to go to war in the most cost-inefficient method possible, (war) then one might be at least remotely inclined to think that the same leaders would be less than disinclined to drill their own resources. And the fact that the Soviets had interest in oil in the region does not negate the fact that the U.S. was motivated by the desire to prevent the spread of Soviet influence throughout the globe. (it pretty much dictated the entirety of U.S. foreign policy in the latter half of the 20th century)

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The U.S. didn't "wait", rather they merely supported a U.N. resolution once it was enacted. They could have used their vast intelligence resources to assess the ability of Gadaffi to withstand a rebellion far before hand. It seems quite clear from the availible evidence that Gadaffi would have been able to tighten his grip on the country. His international "support" isn't particularly relevant aside from the fact that Europe was rather keen on ousting him. His internal grip on the country would have been unshakable had he won, (which he would have) as he, unlike the U.S., was quite willing to brutally suppress opposition of even civillians publicly. And to say that it is the U.S. primarilly intervening seems to be a misnomer to say the least, especially in comparing the situation to Iraq given that the primary onus of this move come from France, which vocally opposed violent action in Iraq. The reason why the oil motive in this case makes positively no sense in any respect is because the course of action prolongs instability far longer than any other possible course of action. (either invasion or inaction) I believe, based upon your posting history, that your preconceived notions made you come to the conclusion that these events must revolve around oil. Further, I would say that historically speaking (in past decades) that the U.S. didn't intervene in the Middle East for reasons concerning oil so much as engaging in a proxy war with the U.S.S.R., primarily with the motive of preventing the growth of Soviet influence. I would grant that the original Gulf War was probably motivated by oil interests. However Iraq, Afghanistan and the current happenings in Libya are not.

coolbeans90

And yes France probably is a country with a lot of interests in Lybia that's why they are also acting fast. The US, as far as I know has never acted in the name of freedom and democracy if there's no benefit for them so why would they start now? it is clearly a matter of oil one of the things the US is more dependant on and it is no coincidence that the place where they become more involved in conflicts is also one of the regions with more oil interests in the world. It is so clear that I don't understand how people don't see it. Of course there's going to be military and strategic reasons too but many of them include the variable oil, Russia was also interested in the region because of its resources and strategic position during the cold war days.

Once things started happening in Libya, intelligence resources still could have been greatly utilized to assess the situation. In any situation, the U.S. wouldn't support a rebellion without any hope of winning. That just guarantees innocent deaths and places diplomatic relations with said countries in a less than desirable situation. The U.S. was still effectively neutral until the no-fly zone was implemented.

It is difficult for me to take your posts seriously by making blanket statements such as the idea that the U.S. has never supported freedom or democracy without any ulterior motives. It reaffirms my suspicion that you see the world through a tainted prism. I am not by any means under the delusion that the U.S. is a white knight, but the fact that you jump to oil as the only possible motive leads me to think that you would hold this opinion regardless of the facts presented. If oil was the only factor in play here, supporting Gadaffi would be bar none the cheapest, most effective solution. The U.S. had plenty of oil reserves within its own borders. If oil caused such actions by the leaders of the U.S. to go to war in the most cost-inefficient method possible, (war) then one might be at least remotely inclined to think that the same leaders would be less than disinclined to drill their own resources. And the fact that the Soviets had interest in oil in the region does not negate the fact that the U.S. was motivated by the desire to prevent the spread of Soviet influence throughout the globe. (it pretty much dictated the entirety of U.S. foreign policy in the latter half of the 20th century)

That you don't take my posts seriously doesn't make them wrong, I have a hard time taking yours seriously too by the way. I will love to hear from people like you who think that the US actually does this for other reasons why hasn't the US been as actively involved in other regions as Africa then? the place is also filled with ruthless dictators yet their treatement to that region is completely different. Oil reserves in the US are not enough to support the US level of consumption and wouldn't last it long, they need the Middle East.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The rebellions in the Middle East cuaght the west by surprise. As with Mubarak, which the US openly supported, the Lybia thing was a chain reaction and the west didn't even expect it could happen to Mubarak much less to Ghadafi. Besides they couldn't predict that Ghadafi was going to lose support form part of his military and his own political team. The US did wait at the start of the conflict to support the rebels, I'm not talking about the actual attack but the moral support for the opposition began when the opposition started winning groung quite sometime ago now, before that the US was keeping itself basically neutral.

And yes France probably is a country with a lot of interests in Lybia that's why they are also acting fast. The US, as far as I know has never acted in the name of freedom and democracy if there's no benefit for them so why would they start now? it is clearly a matter of oil one of the things the US is more dependant on and it is no coincidence that the place where they become more involved in conflicts is also one of the regions with more oil interests in the world. It is so clear that I don't understand how people don't see it. Of course there's going to be military and strategic reasons too but many of them include the variable oil, Russia was also interested in the region because of its resources and strategic position during the cold war days.kuraimen

Once things started happening in Libya, intelligence resources still could have been greatly utilized to assess the situation. In any situation, the U.S. wouldn't support a rebellion without any hope of winning. That just guarantees innocent deaths and places diplomatic relations with said countries in a less than desirable situation. The U.S. was still effectively neutral until the no-fly zone was implemented.

It is difficult for me to take your posts seriously by making blanket statements such as the idea that the U.S. has never supported freedom or democracy without any ulterior motives. It reaffirms my suspicion that you see the world through a tainted prism. I am not by any means under the delusion that the U.S. is a white knight, but the fact that you jump to oil as the only possible motive leads me to think that you would hold this opinion regardless of the facts presented. If oil was the only factor in play here, supporting Gadaffi would be bar none the cheapest, most effective solution. The U.S. had plenty of oil reserves within its own borders. If oil caused such actions by the leaders of the U.S. to go to war in the most cost-inefficient method possible, (war) then one might be at least remotely inclined to think that the same leaders would be less than disinclined to drill their own resources. And the fact that the Soviets had interest in oil in the region does not negate the fact that the U.S. was motivated by the desire to prevent the spread of Soviet influence throughout the globe. (it pretty much dictated the entirety of U.S. foreign policy in the latter half of the 20th century)

That you don't take my posts seriously doesn't make them wrong, I have a hard time taking yours seriously too by the way. I will love to hear from people like you who think that the US actually does this for other reasons why hasn't the US been as actively involved in other regions as Africa then? the place is also filled with ruthless dictators yet their treatement to that region is completely different. Oil reserves in the US are not enough to support the US level of consumption and wouldn't last it long, they need the Middle East.

I can't quite say that have any sort of agenda, being the rather apathetic person I am. Libya is in Africa. :| If I recall correctly, there was U.S. involvement in Somalia as well. Anyway, different wars were fought for different reasons. Afghanistan in my opinion was a clear cut case (even if poorly conducted) to oust the Taliban following 9/11. Iraq was a clusterf***, but it certainly did nothing to help oil production or prices. Saddam was running a very stable regime beforehand. U.S. incursions prior to the 90s were largely to prevent the expansion of Soviet influence. The fact that U.S. oil reserves are not sufficient to support itself for the long run doesn't justify actions by the leaders to not utilize the ones available.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Once things started happening in Libya, intelligence resources still could have been greatly utilized to assess the situation. In any situation, the U.S. wouldn't support a rebellion without any hope of winning. That just guarantees innocent deaths and places diplomatic relations with said countries in a less than desirable situation. The U.S. was still effectively neutral until the no-fly zone was implemented.

It is difficult for me to take your posts seriously by making blanket statements such as the idea that the U.S. has never supported freedom or democracy without any ulterior motives. It reaffirms my suspicion that you see the world through a tainted prism. I am not by any means under the delusion that the U.S. is a white knight, but the fact that you jump to oil as the only possible motive leads me to think that you would hold this opinion regardless of the facts presented. If oil was the only factor in play here, supporting Gadaffi would be bar none the cheapest, most effective solution. The U.S. had plenty of oil reserves within its own borders. If oil caused such actions by the leaders of the U.S. to go to war in the most cost-inefficient method possible, (war) then one might be at least remotely inclined to think that the same leaders would be less than disinclined to drill their own resources. And the fact that the Soviets had interest in oil in the region does not negate the fact that the U.S. was motivated by the desire to prevent the spread of Soviet influence throughout the globe. (it pretty much dictated the entirety of U.S. foreign policy in the latter half of the 20th century)

coolbeans90

That you don't take my posts seriously doesn't make them wrong, I have a hard time taking yours seriously too by the way. I will love to hear from people like you who think that the US actually does this for other reasons why hasn't the US been as actively involved in other regions as Africa then? the place is also filled with ruthless dictators yet their treatement to that region is completely different. Oil reserves in the US are not enough to support the US level of consumption and wouldn't last it long, they need the Middle East.

I can't quite say that have any sort of agenda, being the rather apathetic person I am. Libya is in Africa. :| If I recall correctly, there was U.S. involvement in Somalia as well. Anyway, different wars were fought for different reasons. Afghanistan in my opinion was a clear cut case (even if poorly conducted) to oust the Taliban following 9/11. Iraq was a clusterf***, but it certainly did nothing to help oil production or prices. Saddam was running a very stable regime beforehand. U.S. incursions prior to the 90s were largely to prevent the expansion of Soviet influence. The fact that U.S. oil reserves are not sufficient to support itself for the long run doesn't justify actions by the leaders to not utilize the ones available.

Maybe they are saving those reserves in case of emergency, even then they would still need the Middle East. Saddam had a stable regime but was not sympathetic with the US and shortly before the US came up with the phony excuses to start the war Saddam was planning on changing the oil currency in their country from dollars to euros which would have weakened the dollar quite a bit.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The rebellions in the Middle East cuaght the west by surprise. As with Mubarak, which the US openly supported, the Lybia thing was a chain reaction and the west didn't even expect it could happen to Mubarak much less to Ghadafi. Besides they couldn't predict that Ghadafi was going to lose support form part of his military and his own political team. The US did wait at the start of the conflict to support the rebels, I'm not talking about the actual attack but the moral support for the opposition began when the opposition started winning groung quite sometime ago now, before that the US was keeping itself basically neutral.

And yes France probably is a country with a lot of interests in Lybia that's why they are also acting fast. The US, as far as I know has never acted in the name of freedom and democracy if there's no benefit for them so why would they start now? it is clearly a matter of oil one of the things the US is more dependant on and it is no coincidence that the place where they become more involved in conflicts is also one of the regions with more oil interests in the world. It is so clear that I don't understand how people don't see it. Of course there's going to be military and strategic reasons too but many of them include the variable oil, Russia was also interested in the region because of its resources and strategic position during the cold war days.kuraimen

Once things started happening in Libya, intelligence resources still could have been greatly utilized to assess the situation. In any situation, the U.S. wouldn't support a rebellion without any hope of winning. That just guarantees innocent deaths and places diplomatic relations with said countries in a less than desirable situation. The U.S. was still effectively neutral until the no-fly zone was implemented.

It is difficult for me to take your posts seriously by making blanket statements such as the idea that the U.S. has never supported freedom or democracy without any ulterior motives. It reaffirms my suspicion that you see the world through a tainted prism. I am not by any means under the delusion that the U.S. is a white knight, but the fact that you jump to oil as the only possible motive leads me to think that you would hold this opinion regardless of the facts presented. If oil was the only factor in play here, supporting Gadaffi would be bar none the cheapest, most effective solution. The U.S. had plenty of oil reserves within its own borders. If oil caused such actions by the leaders of the U.S. to go to war in the most cost-inefficient method possible, (war) then one might be at least remotely inclined to think that the same leaders would be less than disinclined to drill their own resources. And the fact that the Soviets had interest in oil in the region does not negate the fact that the U.S. was motivated by the desire to prevent the spread of Soviet influence throughout the globe. (it pretty much dictated the entirety of U.S. foreign policy in the latter half of the 20th century)

That you don't take my posts seriously doesn't make them wrong, I have a hard time taking yours seriously too by the way. I will love to hear from people like you who think that the US actually does this for other reasons why hasn't the US been as actively involved in other regions as Africa then? the place is also filled with ruthless dictators yet their treatement to that region is completely different. Oil reserves in the US are not enough to support the US level of consumption and wouldn't last it long, they need the Middle East.

Quite the opposite actually. I'm tired of them sitting on their asses and doing nothing about a lot of problems the world has. Starvation, lack of potable water, genocides, human rights violations (and allowing Saudi Arabia a seat on the "human rights council") dictatorships, tyranny, religious fundamentalist indoctrination... and plenty of other things.

Libya is located in AFRICA. LOL geography fail.

charlesdarwin55

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Once things started happening in Libya, intelligence resources still could have been greatly utilized to assess the situation. In any situation, the U.S. wouldn't support a rebellion without any hope of winning. That just guarantees innocent deaths and places diplomatic relations with said countries in a less than desirable situation. The U.S. was still effectively neutral until the no-fly zone was implemented.

It is difficult for me to take your posts seriously by making blanket statements such as the idea that the U.S. has never supported freedom or democracy without any ulterior motives. It reaffirms my suspicion that you see the world through a tainted prism. I am not by any means under the delusion that the U.S. is a white knight, but the fact that you jump to oil as the only possible motive leads me to think that you would hold this opinion regardless of the facts presented. If oil was the only factor in play here, supporting Gadaffi would be bar none the cheapest, most effective solution. The U.S. had plenty of oil reserves within its own borders. If oil caused such actions by the leaders of the U.S. to go to war in the most cost-inefficient method possible, (war) then one might be at least remotely inclined to think that the same leaders would be less than disinclined to drill their own resources. And the fact that the Soviets had interest in oil in the region does not negate the fact that the U.S. was motivated by the desire to prevent the spread of Soviet influence throughout the globe. (it pretty much dictated the entirety of U.S. foreign policy in the latter half of the 20th century)

charlesdarwin55

That you don't take my posts seriously doesn't make them wrong, I have a hard time taking yours seriously too by the way. I will love to hear from people like you who think that the US actually does this for other reasons why hasn't the US been as actively involved in other regions as Africa then? the place is also filled with ruthless dictators yet their treatement to that region is completely different. Oil reserves in the US are not enough to support the US level of consumption and wouldn't last it long, they need the Middle East.

Stop blaming the US guys, all this is the UN's fault they haven't been involved in Africa anything either. UN only exist so dictators can divert attention from their regimes to unimportant stuff.

North Africa is considered the middle east

weezyfb

Is it in that chart that was posted?

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

That you don't take my posts seriously doesn't make them wrong, I have a hard time taking yours seriously too by the way. I will love to hear from people like you who think that the US actually does this for other reasons why hasn't the US been as actively involved in other regions as Africa then? the place is also filled with ruthless dictators yet their treatement to that region is completely different. Oil reserves in the US are not enough to support the US level of consumption and wouldn't last it long, they need the Middle East.

weezyfb

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"] Libya is located in AFRICA. LOL geography fail.

charlesdarwin55

The graph I posted counts Lybia as part of the Middle East, failing to read in context is Fail.kuraimen

No it doesn't.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]The graph I posted counts Lybia as part of the Middle East, failing to read in context is Fail.Palantas

No it doesn't.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

Holy s***, is someone on OT politely conceeding an error? It's unthinkable. ::applause::

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]The graph I posted counts Lybia as part of the Middle East, failing to read in context is Fail.Palantas

No it doesn't.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

You do know your splitting hairs right? The entire point of his post was to point out that the United States rarely involves themselves in places where there is no oil.. Argueing whether Libya can be put into the Africa or Middle East catagory is pointless,they have oil.. They are there... The United States like all countries have needs for consumption, rarely will a country go to war with nothing to gain.. The First Iraq War is a great example of this.. Bush Senior's adminstration first claim was to protect the oil fields that were threatened.. This recieved immense unpopularity by the public, so switched it around and said it was about saving the peopel there..

I'm actually rather tired of armchair/wanna be strategists thinking that they know every reason behind every international event.