Jump to content

A thirty year war


nightrider

Recommended Posts

Whatever paper do you read Malcolm?

It doesn't say that in my paper -- the only one that is worth reading ( the Guardian of course!)

It must be the Daily Wail!

If it turns into a civil war, who knows how long it might last? Look at Northern Ireland. :'(

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

knight of the road - 2011-03-23 8:19 PM

 

It said in this mornings paper that this war in libya could go on for 30 years, how come? World war 2 lasted for 6 years and I would say that the German armed forces were far superior to the libyan army, something is going wrong somewhere?

 

 

I would assume that if your newspaper told you that, it also explained the reasons for saying it.

 

( I hope you're not just reading the headlines )

 

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2011-03-23 8:41 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-03-23 8:19 PM

 

It said in this mornings paper that this war in libya could go on for 30 years, how come? World war 2 lasted for 6 years and I would say that the German armed forces were far superior to the libyan army, something is going wrong somewhere?

 

 

I would assume that if your newspaper told you that, it also explained the reasons for saying it.

 

( I hope you're not just reading the headlines )

 

 

;-)

 

My Daily Mail features Garfield the cat and any newspaper that features Garfield has to be tops for me, ner ner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

knight of the road - 2011-03-23 11:10 PM

 

malc d - 2011-03-23 8:41 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-03-23 8:19 PM

 

It said in this mornings paper that this war in libya could go on for 30 years, how come? World war 2 lasted for 6 years and I would say that the German armed forces were far superior to the libyan army, something is going wrong somewhere?

 

 

I would assume that if your newspaper told you that, it also explained the reasons for saying it.

 

( I hope you're not just reading the headlines )

 

 

;-)

 

My Daily Mail features Garfield the cat and any newspaper that features Garfield has to be tops for me, ner ner.

 

 

 

Glad you enjoy it.

 

I don't read it myself, but I've heard that there's funny stuff in it.

 

 

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no difference between us going into Libya to assist the rebels wishing to depose their government and if another country had waded into Ireland in the 70s to assist the rebels who wished to depose their government!  Both governments were using their army to stop the wishes of the people weren't they?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 1970st the majority of the population in Norther Ireland were Protestant and therefore wished to remain part of Britain . As the Protestant population in Northern Ireland has declined in recent years it maybe that soon the Catholic wishes to cease been part of Britian becomes reality . I dont really see anything similar to the Libya situation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People; please wake up, and think.

 

Oil.

 

The answer is oil.

 

Countries that have it, and who are perceived as pissy by nuclear powers that don't, get invaded and occupied in the name of "democracy", so the Nuke boys citizens (that's you and me) can still have their cars and boats and planes.

 

Regardless of how horrid your human rights record is, if you don't have the oil thingy in your land mass, you can go on torturing, murdering, and repressing with impunity.

 

Invade North Korea anyone?

The most repressive, disgusting, inhuman regime on the entire planet.

But no oil. And they have nukes. So we'll look the other way.

 

Libya.

Doing no harm to anyone. Almost all subjects happy with food, water, shelter, jobs, education, etc.

Large swathes of the domestic population think the leader is a God.

But USA worried that oil supplies might dry up. "Regime Change" thus needed......and ordered.

(This actually means: interfere with the affairs of an independent sovereign State by force of arms simply 'cos you think your style of Government is better than theirs, so because of this military superiority you feel some God-given right to impose your system on all of them).

 

Same as Iraq.

 

 

 

Shame on the warmongers, the invaders, and the armed occupiers, of other countries.....just like Germany 70 years ago.

Oh s**t, that's now in fact the USA and the USA's poodle..............the UK.

 

 

 

 

Hundreds of young British men and women are now dying, being blown to bits, to prosecute the USA's foreign interference policy, which is driven by their dependence on oil imports, to fuel their planet-ruining consumption of non-renewable natural resources.

 

The UK has NO interest in Afghanistan.

NO interest in Iraq.

But because Bush said invade, we helped.

Illegally.

We invaded and occupied other sovereign countries for no reason other than our desire to suck up the the USA.

 

And don't give me any crap about "protecting human rights".

We did buggeralll in Rwanda.

We do nothing about China.

We do nothing about North Korea.

The UK does what the USA tells it to. Nothing more, nothing less. And that is to help to keep the supply of oil flowing in to the USA.

 

 

 

 

 

One final thought.

The USA has something under 4% of the global population.

Yet it sucks in and consumes over 27% of all the natural resources and raw materials in the world.

 

 

 

And our soldiers are dying to maintain that greed.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always said that there is no real difference between Hitler, Bush and Blair.

Now it would appear that Obama and Cameron/Clegg are no more than 21 century wannabe world dictators.

 

And yet we laugh at those old Bond films where some lunatic vies for world domination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 years Libya has been a stable country, albeit under a brutal dictatorship, from which the oil has flowed without problems. Until the recent uprising, which was encouraged by similar events in Egypt, Tunisia and other Arab dictatorships, there was no indication of any possible interruption to oil production.

 

So how does the West profit from fermenting revolution in Libya? And if oil was the only reason for our intervention in Libya then why didn't we simply aid Gadaffi and help him to squash the rebels as quickly as possible?

 

By refusing to help him and actually aiding the rebels we can guarantee that, should he overcome them, he will hate the West even more than he ever has in the past and our oil supplies will be in great jeopardy. He'll do his utmost to sell his oil to those countries that did not aid the rebels and make sure that the Nato countries are refused Libyan oil.

 

If the rebels succeed, which is looking unlikely, we have no idea what sort of government will be installed and what its aims will be. What if there is a large Islamist faction in the anti-Gadaffi forces?

 

It is beyond me why any Western country would have desired regime change in Libya if oil was the only cynical reason for this. Surely it would have been better to simply let Gadaffi continue in office and to let the oil flow as it has done for the last forty years?

 

And as for the West only being interested in those countries with oil, this simply doesn't make any sense.

 

In 1950 Clement Atlee made the brave decision to support the United Nations and to send our troops to South Korea to stop communist North Korea from over-running that country. The USA and other countries made huge sacrifices and ensured the future of South Korea, which is now a prosperous and free democracy. At the time there were those, who like some on this forum, would have condemned that decision but, when one sees the horrors that communism has inflicted on those countries where it was allowed to take hold, who can now say that we were wrong to support South Korea?

 

Where was the oil in Korea?

 

In 1955 the USA and other countries took a similar stance in Vietnam. Ultimately, this wasn't as successful as in Korea, but the aim was the same, to stop the spread of communism. Fortunately, even the Vietnamese have now seen the truth about communism and are pursuing a totally different path based on free enterprise.

 

Where was the oil in Vietnam?

 

In 1941 Germany declared war on the USA. America could have simply ignored it as it was laughable that Germany, already emroiled in a huge European war, could pose any threat to the U.S.

 

But America entered into World War 2 and, at a huge cost to itself, helped us to secure victory over Hitler and Mussolini.

 

Where was the oil in Germany and Italy?

 

Contrary to the Soviets, the USA has never sought to colonise a country. It has moved in, done the job and moved out. Compare West Germany to the DDR, which was simply another colony of the Soviet Union.

 

Name me one country that America has occupied and has colonised.

 

Conspiracy theorists and those with rabid anti-USA views jump on the 'oil' theory without any deep thought about their rantings, as is happening here, but the facts simply do not bear it out.

 

The incursions in Libya are being done for humanitarian reasons and we are just one part of a NATO coalition helping to prevent the mass murder of Libyan citizens who wish to see the end of a brutal dictatorship.

 

There is one post in this thread which is probably the most disgraceful that I think I've ever seen on a forum in which Cameron is compared to Adolf Hitler, simply because he wishes to prevent the mass slaughter of thousands of Libyans! I find it incomprehensible that his actions can be compared to a man who killed six million people in gas chambers and was indirectly responsible for about 20 million deaths in World War 2, but this seems to be fairly normal rhetoric for some of those who are blindly anti-American because of whatever twisted logic drives them.

 

Even it it were just about oil, which there is no doubt that it isn't, what I also find puzzling is that these same people ranting about our government's actions are often the same ones ranting about fuel prices and the cuts in our economy.

 

I want my government to secure its oil supplies. Our economy and the economy of the countries that supply oil to us, depends on stability and without that stability the oil will stop and we will all suffer.

 

No, the wild theories that the US is behind the Libyan uprisings is fantasy, there is no evidence whatsoever for this and it defies common sense that America would have wished to see the end of Gadaffi if all it is interested in is oil!

 

Finally, we get the usual rubbish about America's consumption. Well yes, of course it consumes more than most countries because it's a highly developed economy. A primitive country without motor cars and electricity is obviously going to consume less of the world's resources! But the resources that America consumes are mainly its own!

 

Britain and Germany and France and Spain consume a much greater share of the world's resources than many other countries for the same reason!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

francisgraham - 2011-04-01 12:30 PM

 

40 years Libya has been a stable country, albeit under a brutal dictatorship, from which the oil has flowed without problems. Until the recent uprising, which was encouraged by similar events in Egypt, Tunisia and other Arab dictatorships, there was no indication of any possible interruption to oil production.

 

So how does the West profit from fermenting revolution in Libya? And if oil was the only reason for our intervention in Libya then why didn't we simply aid Gadaffi and help him to squash the rebels as quickly as possible?

 

By refusing to help him and actually aiding the rebels we can guarantee that, should he overcome them, he will hate the West even more than he ever has in the past and our oil supplies will be in great jeopardy. He'll do his utmost to sell his oil to those countries that did not aid the rebels and make sure that the Nato countries are refused Libyan oil.

 

If the rebels succeed, which is looking unlikely, we have no idea what sort of government will be installed and what its aims will be. What if there is a large Islamist faction in the anti-Gadaffi forces?

 

It is beyond me why any Western country would have desired regime change in Libya if oil was the only cynical reason for this. Surely it would have been better to simply let Gadaffi continue in office and to let the oil flow as it has done for the last forty years?

 

And as for the West only being interested in those countries with oil, this simply doesn't make any sense.

 

In 1950 Clement Atlee made the brave decision to support the United Nations and to send our troops to South Korea to stop communist North Korea from over-running that country. The USA and other countries made huge sacrifices and ensured the future of South Korea, which is now a prosperous and free democracy. At the time there were those, who like some on this forum, would have condemned that decision but, when one sees the horrors that communism has inflicted on those countries where it was allowed to take hold, who can now say that we were wrong to support South Korea?

 

Where was the oil in Korea?

 

In 1955 the USA and other countries took a similar stance in Vietnam. Ultimately, this wasn't as successful as in Korea, but the aim was the same, to stop the spread of communism. Fortunately, even the Vietnamese have now seen the truth about communism and are pursuing a totally different path based on free enterprise.

 

Where was the oil in Vietnam?

 

In 1941 Germany declared war on the USA. America could have simply ignored it as it was laughable that Germany, already emroiled in a huge European war, could pose any threat to the U.S.

 

But America entered into World War 2 and, at a huge cost to itself, helped us to secure victory over Hitler and Mussolini.

 

Where was the oil in Germany and Italy?

 

Contrary to the Soviets, the USA has never sought to colonise a country. It has moved in, done the job and moved out. Compare West Germany to the DDR, which was simply another colony of the Soviet Union.

 

Name me one country that America has occupied and has colonised.

 

Conspiracy theorists and those with rabid anti-USA views jump on the 'oil' theory without any deep thought about their rantings, as is happening here, but the facts simply do not bear it out.

 

The incursions in Libya are being done for humanitarian reasons and we are just one part of a NATO coalition helping to prevent the mass murder of Libyan citizens who wish to see the end of a brutal dictatorship.

 

There is one post in this thread which is probably the most disgraceful that I think I've ever seen on a forum in which Cameron is compared to Adolf Hitler, simply because he wishes to prevent the mass slaughter of thousands of Libyans! I find it incomprehensible that his actions can be compared to a man who killed six million people in gas chambers and was indirectly responsible for about 20 million deaths in World War 2, but this seems to be fairly normal rhetoric for some of those who are blindly anti-American because of whatever twisted logic drives them.

 

Even it it were just about oil, which there is no doubt that it isn't, what I also find puzzling is that these same people ranting about our government's actions are often the same ones ranting about fuel prices and the cuts in our economy.

 

I want my government to secure its oil supplies. Our economy and the economy of the countries that supply oil to us, depends on stability and without that stability the oil will stop and we will all suffer.

 

No, the wild theories that the US is behind the Libyan uprisings is fantasy, there is no evidence whatsoever for this and it defies common sense that America would have wished to see the end of Gadaffi if all it is interested in is oil!

 

Finally, we get the usual rubbish about America's consumption. Well yes, of course it consumes more than most countries because it's a highly developed economy. A primitive country without motor cars and electricity is obviously going to consume less of the world's resources! But the resources that America consumes are mainly its own!

 

Britain and Germany and France and Spain consume a much greater share of the world's resources than many other countries for the same reason!

 

 

 

 

 

 

A very good post. With which I completely disagree.

 

Prior to 1974 we used to attack, invade and occupy other countries for a whole raft of reasons: to "civilise" them, to force them to abandon their religious beliefs and become Christians, to steal their natural resources, to put military bases there, etc.

I'm not talking of such (relatively) ancient history. I'm referring to history since oil became THE BIG ISSUE.

 

Oil became the Big Issue in 1974, when the "oil crisis" led to the (then) unbelievable increases in the price of oil from OPEC countries.

 

Those enormous price-hikes, combined with very rapidly increasing demand from the old industrialised and the new industrialising nations, mean that it is the treasured life-blood of all oil-based economies: for fuel, and to make products with.

Nobody fought for oil prior to 1974. It was cheap. It was plentiful. Not that many countries consumed very much of it.

 

But since then, just about every armed conflict/invasion that the USA and UK have started or got involved in has centred, ultimately, on their need to keep getting that oil from other countries to support their oil-based economies and consumerist lifestyle.

 

We don't go to war for moral reasons. We go to war for pragmatic, capitalist, power-based reasons. That's why we send our soldiers to go and kill other human beings in other countries.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the above post you completely ignore the occasions where I have proved that the USA went to war for other reasons, none of which were to do with oil.

 

Neither have you provided a scintilla of proof to back your wild accusation that the uprising in Libya was organised and arranged by the USA to facilitate regime change.

 

Where is your proof of this? Did the USA organise the uprising in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Syria, Jordan and Yemen? If they did they've been very busy and it's amazing that all these CIA operatives have been able to convince a bunch of Arabs who actually hate them, that they should revolt against their leaders!

 

Your hatred of the US is such that you are completely blind to the truth, that these events are the spontaneous eruption of peoples who are sick to death of living under despotic dictatorships, most of which are family businesses.

 

What the citizens of these countries actually want is a system like that in America, where there is democracy and freedom and half of the Arab world would give its right hand for a Green Card!

 

Let's have some proof from a definitive source that the NATO operations in Libya are anything other than a humanitarian effort to prevent the massacre of thousands that would have happened if Gadaffi's air force had not been neutered.

 

And again, why would the US have attempted regime change when the oil was flowing smoothly and when there was no sign of that changing, until of course the people, encouraged by the events in Egypt and Tunisia, decided that enough was enough?

 

Edited to say: This is a list of countries in which the USA has been involved in the last twenty years. It's not a full list but in each country they have been involved militarily or have provided humanitarian aid. Perhaps you can tell me which of these countries have oil?

 

Bosnia

Herzegovina

Serbia

Kosovo

Georgia

Macedonia

Djibouti

South Ossettia

Panama

Liberia

Somalia

 

and of course Afghanistan. Is there oil in Afghanistan?

 

To claim that the USA is only interested in helping those countries that have oil, simply displays a breathtaking ignorance of world affairs over the last few decades!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...