Interesting Video on the Libya "Crisis", Rothschilds Fam, Gold and World Banking

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

We can't say "humanitarian crisis" and assume things are the same all over. Geography, neighboring countries, possibility of success, casualties, etc. All these things play a role.

Examine the evidence, not opinion. The truth is, a lot of oil companies have lost profits over the the current conflict. So you have to explain that. You also have to explain how it was the entire international community and not just the US.

As for the video Wr posted, I agree with whiterails, this guy is giving his opinion. He says that Ghaddafi will become a martyr? People hate Ghaddafi. He has a long history of anti-democratic policy. He's been perceived as a global pariah for a long time now. When asked if oil plays a role, he brings up various vague economic possibilities. Possibilities which would pretty much exist all over the middle east. Again, we have to examine the facts. It's a great thing that the international community responded when they did.

http://www.juancole.com/2...n+%28Informed+Comment%29

This article covers the facts better than I can explain. Juan Cole has been following the conflict since the beginning.

And let's stop trying to learn about issues of international politics and conflict through short 5 to 10 minute videos. A 10 minute video will never be able to give you a complete and full picture of what is going on. Never. If you want to learn about the world you have to spend time reading sourced scholarship.

Mo, you're using to many words and not enough YouTube videos to present your point, which is why no one will listen.
I came here to post that Juan Cole article as well, thought it was a fantastic read.

I'd really like to reiterate this point though;

10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. andRepsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

 

[pookieman]

Originally Posted by JDB1523

So from my understanding Qaddafi wanted to create a new currency actually made of gold, which would then be the official currency used to purchase oil, is this correct? Is this at least what the video is stating?

That sounds great for online conspiracy videos but, who has the world's most gold? The West (the EU followed by the US). "Abandoning" the world's reserve currency to try and cripple the US would simply make them the second wealthiest purchaser of oil. The world invests in the USD as a safe haven because of our political stability, not for major capital gains (and if you think I've lost it, just look at how people flocked to US Treasury bonds AFTER we were downgraded by the S&P).

These are complete BS videos in regards to their inference of the changing of reserve currencies. The West surely had a hand in these transitions of governments, but to think we actually went to Iraq to prepare for Libya, and also to defend our world currency reserve status, is ludicrous.

Nobody is blaming the west, however we are being deceived(in part) by the west...things aren't adding up with all the news reports going on...

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

We can't say "humanitarian crisis" and assume things are the same all over. Geography, neighboring countries, possibility of success, casualties, etc. All these things play a role.

Examine the evidence, not opinion. The truth is, a lot of oil companies have lost profits over the the current conflict. So you have to explain that. You also have to explain how it was the entire international community and not just the US.

As for the video Wr posted, I agree with whiterails, this guy is giving his opinion. He says that Ghaddafi will become a martyr? People hate Ghaddafi. He has a long history of anti-democratic policy. He's been perceived as a global pariah for a long time now. When asked if oil plays a role, he brings up various vague economic possibilities. Possibilities which would pretty much exist all over the middle east. Again, we have to examine the facts. It's a great thing that the international community responded when they did.

http://www.juancole.com/2...n+%28Informed+Comment%29

This article covers the facts better than I can explain. Juan Cole has been following the conflict since the beginning.

And let's stop trying to learn about issues of international politics and conflict through short 5 to 10 minute videos. A 10 minute video will never be able to give you a complete and full picture of what is going on. Never. If you want to learn about the world you have to spend time reading sourced scholarship.

Mo, you're using to many words and not enough YouTube videos to present your point, which is why no one will listen.
I came here to post that Juan Cole article as well, thought it was a fantastic read.

I'd really like to reiterate this point though;

10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. andRepsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

So a 5-10 minute article is better than a video from youtube? Why do you guys have such a vindication against youtube. It's just a channel. It's not a brand or type of video. The guy in that article is essentially stating his opinions. Just like the guy in the video. Did you guys even pay attention to who the guy in the video even is? Probably not. Just saw youtube video and said "AWWWW YEAAHH ANOTHA CONSPIRACY THEORY VIDEO!!" The guy is the Russian envoy to NATO. The guy who wrote that article is a college professor that's lived in the middle east and parts of asia. I'm not discrediting him like you are doing the guy in the video I posted. I'm just reading his info like you guys should do with all things. Objectivity is key. How would science grow if people took research personal? It wouldn't. Ya'll have this mentality of having to always picking a side rather than just being yourself and having discussions about information presented from different angles. You don't always have to side with somebody every time you speak. I swear this generation of co-signers has run rampant. 

 

[south sole]

  [h1]The Scramble for Access to Libya’s Oil Wealth Begins[/h1]



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/b...e-for-access-to-libyas-oil-wealth-begins.html

Libya represents an easy exit out of poverty/crisis for Europe and Gaddaffi is the only block in the way.  




Jay-Electronica was going in on twitter earlier. I'll peep what his sources were and see what I can post. 

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Mo Matik - So the allied forces suddenly care about Libyan civilians and intervened for humanitarian reasons? This is the same man they were doing underground dealings with during the past decade and who was channeled millions of dollars through them. When decades earlier they were saying he was the most vicious dictators and responsible for all these terrorist acts against them.

This is all just a new war theater and an extension of the US/NATO military agenda entrenched in North Africa.

It definitely is. If you look into the history foreign intervention of wars in the Middle East, besides the protection of Israel, oil has been the driving force for intervention. This is no secret and historians, as well as famous high U.S. officials have always proclaimed this. As Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State said: "You control the oil and you control the nations".

Let me paraphrase an article, "Operation Libya and the Battle for Oil" from Michel Chossudovsky (my University prof).

The real objective of intervening in Libya is not for humanitarian reasons, but to take possession of Libya's oil reserves, go in and destabilize the National Oil Corporation (NOC) and eventually privatize the country's oil industry, and then after this to transfer the control and ownership of Libya's oil wealth into foreign hands. The NOC is ranked 25 among the world’s Top 100 Oil Companies.Libya is among the globe's largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, which is more than twice those of the U.S.

The strategic assumptions behind using military intervention in Libya are reminiscent of previous U.S.-NATO military operations which occured in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Oil is the trophy of U.S.-NATO led wars.

Libya is a prize economy and it is known that war is good for business. Wall Street, the Anglo-American oil giants, the U.S.-E.U. weapons producers would also be beneficiaries of a U.S.-NATO led military campaign directed against Libya. Libyan oil is a bonanza for the Anglo-American oil giants. While the market value of crude oil is currently over excess of $100/barrel, the cost of Libyan oil is extremely low, probably as low as $1.00 a barrel. Let's also remember that Libya possesses the largest oil reserves in Africa.

The financial stakes to have to get involved in this for foreign superpowers are extremely high. The military intervention's goal is dismantling Libya's financial institutions as well as overtaking billions of dollars of Libyan financial assets deposited in Western banks. It gets a lot more complicated in which this is also about getting to extend power for geo-political reasons.

In a post-Gaddhafi Libya, a U.S.-NATO led intervention leading to the installion of a U.S. puppet regime is also being done in order to exclude China from the region and edging out China's National Petroleum Corp.

So, who will gain from this intervention if it succeeds? The Anglo-American oil giants such as British Petroleum which signed a hefty deal with the Gaddafi government for oil in 2007 and is amongst other potential beneficiaries of this U.S.-NATO military intervention.

More generally, this is to continue the redrawing of the map of Africa, which is a a process of neo-colonial re-division and overtake oil. History always repeats itself and oil has been one of the sole reasons of the conquest of the rich oil countries in the regions of the Middle East and Africa and it is the same reason today. I don't know how anyone cannot see the obvious links and how this is not for oil.

If Libya was the Congo and was not rich in oil, you think the allied forces would give a damn? Really? Look at the genocide that has been going in the Congo, where is the outcry for intervention? Why is Libya being more valued in intervening and not the Congo to help stop the genocide?

 

[south sole]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey



More generally, this is to continue the redrawing of the map of Africa, which is a a process of neo-colonial re-division and overtake oil. History always repeats itself and oil has been one of the sole reasons of the conquest of the Middle East and it is the same reason today. I don't know how anyone cannot see the obvious links and how this is not for oil.

 Great post Hazel.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by south sole

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey



More generally, this is to continue the redrawing of the map of Africa, which is a a process of neo-colonial re-division and overtake oil. History always repeats itself and oil has been one of the sole reasons of the conquest of the Middle East and it is the same reason today. I don't know how anyone cannot see the obvious links and how this is not for oil.

�Great post Hazel.�

i don't think they're ready for this one but

@ both vid and comment.
It's been a war on your mind since day 1.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Mo Matik - So the allied forces suddenly care about Libyan civilians and intervened for humanitarian reasons? This is the same man they were doing underground dealings with during the past decade and who was channeled millions of dollars through them. When decades earlier they were saying he was the most vicious dictators and responsible for all these terrorist acts against them.

This is all just a new war theater and an extension of the US/NATO military agenda entrenched in North Africa.

It definitely is. If you look into the history foreign intervention of wars in the Middle East, besides the protection of Israel, oil has been the driving force for intervention. This is no secret and historians, as well as famous high U.S. officials have always proclaimed this. As Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State said: "You control the oil and you control the nations".

Let me paraphrase an article, "Operation Libya and the Battle for Oil" from Michel Chossudovsky (my University prof).

The real objective of intervening in Libya is not for humanitarian reasons, but to take possession of Libya's oil reserves, go in and destabilize the National Oil Corporation (NOC) and eventually privatize the country's oil industry, and then after this to transfer the control and ownership of Libya's oil wealth into foreign hands. The NOC is ranked 25 among the world’s Top 100 Oil Companies.Libya is among the globe's largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, which is more than twice those of the U.S.

The strategic assumptions behind using military intervention in Libya are reminiscent of previous U.S.-NATO military operations which occured in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Oil is the trophy of U.S.-NATO led wars.

Libya is a prize economy and it is known that war is good for business. Wall Street, the Anglo-American oil giants, the U.S.-E.U. weapons producers would also be beneficiaries of a U.S.-NATO led military campaign directed against Libya. Libyan oil is a bonanza for the Anglo-American oil giants. While the market value of crude oil is currently over excess of $100/barrel, the cost of Libyan oil is extremely low, probably as low as $1.00 a barrel. Let's also remember that Libya possesses the largest oil reserves in Africa.

The financial stakes to have to get involved in this for foreign superpowers are extremely high. The military intervention's goal is dismantling Libya's financial institutions as well as overtaking billions of dollars of Libyan financial assets deposited in Western banks. It gets a lot more complicated in which this is also about getting to extend power for geo-political reasons.

In a post-Gaddhafi Libya, a U.S.-NATO led intervention leading to the installion of a U.S. puppet regime is also being done in order to exclude China from the region and edging out China's National Petroleum Corp.

So, who will gain from this intervention if it succeeds? The Anglo-American oil giants such as British Petroleum which signed a hefty deal with the Gaddafi government for oil in 2007 and is amongst other potential beneficiaries of this U.S.-NATO military intervention.

More generally, this is to continue the redrawing of the map of Africa, which is a a process of neo-colonial re-division and overtake oil. History always repeats itself and oil has been one of the sole reasons of the conquest of the rich oil countries in the regions of the Middle East and Africa and it is the same reason today. I don't know how anyone cannot see the obvious links and how this is not for oil.

If Libya was the Congo and was not rich in oil, you think the allied forces would give a damn? Really? Look at the genocide that has been going in the Congo, where is the outcry for intervention? Why is Libya being more valued in intervening and not the Congo to help stop the genocide?

Intervention is never strictly humanitarian and does have a lot to do with how Western countries feel about the person in power. If the dictator is not catering to Western demands enough, and is becoming a problem you can be sure that they won't be in power for long. Qaddafi may have had some wonderful, socialist ideas in his youth but it was quite clear in the past decade that the man had gone off the deep end, and the tribal tensions in the country between the East and the West were only getting worse. When things deteriorated to the point of him killing civilians in Benghazi the uprising began. Now the West had two choices; let things take their own course and not get involved at all or intervene because it was clear Qaddafi was going to show no remorse in his handling of the rebels. This was not like Egypt or Tunisia where the army refused to fire on civilians, this was going to turn into a full fledged massacre. 
Your main point doesn't make sense, to be blunt. You say that this is all about oil in your opening paragraphs. You say that if we control Libya's oil there will be tremendous profits and that "war is good business." Then, later on, you bring up the point that:

British Petroleum which signed a hefty deal with the Gaddafi government for oil in 2007

So if the man was ALREADY selling large companies such as BP oil, why would we have to go in and take it? In fact,

Officials in the rebel leadership have previously played down the likelihood that they will tear up Libya's revenue sharing agreements with foreign oil majors, saying they will respect contracts signed by the National Oil Company (NOC).

'Of course, (it includes) oil (contracts),' Shammam told Reuters. 'If people steal your money are you going to let them get away with it?' He said if companies were found to have won their contracts illegally, they would be given the option to pay back 'funds to the Libyan people.'

Source.

Aside from that, war is good for a business that relies on fragile pipelines that could be destroyed...during a war? Instability is never good for business unless you work for Halliburton. 

Libya does hold a great deal of the worlds oil reserves, however they are ninth on the list. If oil was the main concern, why are we not in Iran? Why did we tacitly support the uprising in Egypt as well, since they have such a small share? 

Now of course I'm not saying this is 1000000% about humanitarian intervention and has nothing to do with oil or any economic gains. That would be foolish. But it is also foolish to look at things as if they are strictly black and white. There is a tremendous gray area that people overlook due to the different things that factor in to decisions to intervene in conflicts such as these.

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

We can't say "humanitarian crisis" and assume things are the same all over. Geography, neighboring countries, possibility of success, casualties, etc. All these things play a role.

Examine the evidence, not opinion. The truth is, a lot of oil companies have lost profits over the the current conflict. So you have to explain that. You also have to explain how it was the entire international community and not just the US.

As for the video Wr posted, I agree with whiterails, this guy is giving his opinion. He says that Ghaddafi will become a martyr? People hate Ghaddafi. He has a long history of anti-democratic policy. He's been perceived as a global pariah for a long time now. When asked if oil plays a role, he brings up various vague economic possibilities. Possibilities which would pretty much exist all over the middle east. Again, we have to examine the facts. It's a great thing that the international community responded when they did.

http://www.juancole.com/2...n+%28Informed+Comment%29

This article covers the facts better than I can explain. Juan Cole has been following the conflict since the beginning.

And let's stop trying to learn about issues of international politics and conflict through short 5 to 10 minute videos. A 10 minute video will never be able to give you a complete and full picture of what is going on. Never. If you want to learn about the world you have to spend time reading sourced scholarship.

Great post and excellent link.  I just read it and it was very informative in regards to the myths.  Bookmarked!  
10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. andRepsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

 

[jonbx5]

edit

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

We can't say "humanitarian crisis" and assume things are the same all over. Geography, neighboring countries, possibility of success, casualties, etc. All these things play a role.

Examine the evidence, not opinion. The truth is, a lot of oil companies have lost profits over the the current conflict. So you have to explain that. You also have to explain how it was the entire international community and not just the US.

As for the video Wr posted, I agree with whiterails, this guy is giving his opinion. He says that Ghaddafi will become a martyr? People hate Ghaddafi. He has a long history of anti-democratic policy. He's been perceived as a global pariah for a long time now. When asked if oil plays a role, he brings up various vague economic possibilities. Possibilities which would pretty much exist all over the middle east. Again, we have to examine the facts. It's a great thing that the international community responded when they did.

http://www.juancole.com/2...n+%28Informed+Comment%29

This article covers the facts better than I can explain. Juan Cole has been following the conflict since the beginning.

And let's stop trying to learn about issues of international politics and conflict through short 5 to 10 minute videos. A 10 minute video will never be able to give you a complete and full picture of what is going on. Never. If you want to learn about the world you have to spend time reading sourced scholarship.

Mo, you're using to many words and not enough YouTube videos to present your point, which is why no one will listen.
I came here to post that Juan Cole article as well, thought it was a fantastic read.

I'd really like to reiterate this point though;

10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. andRepsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

So a 5-10 minute article is better than a video from youtube? Why do you guys have such a vindication against youtube. It's just a channel. It's not a brand or type of video. The guy in that article is essentially stating his opinions. Just like the guy in the video. Did you guys even pay attention to who the guy in the video even is? Probably not. Just saw youtube video and said "AWWWW YEAAHH ANOTHA CONSPIRACY THEORY VIDEO!!" The guy is the Russian envoy to NATO. The guy who wrote that article is a college professor that's lived in the middle east and parts of asia. I'm not discrediting him like you are doing the guy in the video I posted. I'm just reading his info like you guys should do with all things. Objectivity is key. How would science grow if people took research personal? It wouldn't. Ya'll have this mentality of having to always picking a side rather than just being yourself and having discussions about information presented from different angles. You don't always have to side with somebody every time you speak. I swear this generation of co-signers has run rampant. 


Can you please elaborate on what you mean by:
"Ya'll have this mentality of having to always picking a side rather than just being yourself and having discussions about information presented from different angles"

Is not the point of debate to pick a side and provide evidence to support your claims?   You'd rather people ignore the credibility of your sources and argue based on conjectural statements?   When these "different angles" as you call them, are based on absolute nonsense, then no, it is not worth discussing them.  

You really seem to be underestimating the importance of "credible sources".   You're brushing it aside, and it is without a doubt the most important aspect of any argument.   If you argument is entirely based on BS sources, your argument is completely useless.  An op-ed piece from Russia Today is not a credible source.  That's what I meant by "Youtube Scholars".  Your statement of "So a 5-10 minute article is better than a video from youtube?" shows just how far you have to go in regards to distinguishing between a credible source, and a non-credible source. You seem to have the idea that sources do not matter, and it couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[tkthafm]

Just like I said...

"We don't have a problem with Western countries like Italian, French and UK companies. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil,' Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager at Libyan rebel oil firm Agoco, said."

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/ogn_203860.html

Not about "stealing oil" ... but stifling Russia/China/Iran. The US/EU/Israel are in a race (and losing) for allies in Africa.

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Intervention is never strictly humanitarian and does have a lot to do with how Western countries feel about the person in power. If the dictator is not catering to Western demands enough, and is becoming a problem you can be sure that they won't be in power for long. Qaddafi may have had some wonderful, socialist ideas in his youth but it was quite clear in the past decade that the man had gone off the deep end, and the tribal tensions in the country between the East and the West were only getting worse. When things deteriorated to the point of him killing civilians in Benghazi the uprising began. Now the West had two choices; let things take their own course and not get involved at all or intervene because it was clear Qaddafi was going to show no remorse in his handling of the rebels. This was not like Egypt or Tunisia where the army refused to fire on civilians, this was going to turn into a full fledged massacre. 
Your main point doesn't make sense, to be blunt. You say that this is all about oil in your opening paragraphs. You say that if we control Libya's oil there will be tremendous profits and that "war is good business." Then, later on, you bring up the point that:

British Petroleum which signed a hefty deal with the Gaddafi government for oil in 2007

So if the man was ALREADY selling large companies such as BP oil, why would we have to go in and take it? In fact,

Officials in the rebel leadership have previously played down the likelihood that they will tear up Libya's revenue sharing agreements with foreign oil majors, saying they will respect contracts signed by the National Oil Company (NOC).

'Of course, (it includes) oil (contracts),' Shammam told Reuters. 'If people steal your money are you going to let them get away with it?' He said if companies were found to have won their contracts illegally, they would be given the option to pay back 'funds to the Libyan people.'

Source.

Aside from that, war is good for a business that relies on fragile pipelines that could be destroyed...during a war? Instability is never good for business unless you work for Halliburton. 

Libya does hold a great deal of the worlds oil reserves, however they are ninth on the list. If oil was the main concern, why are we not in Iran? Why did we tacitly support the uprising in Egypt as well, since they have such a small share? 

Now of course I'm not saying this is 1000000% about humanitarian intervention and has nothing to do with oil or any economic gains. That would be foolish. But it is also foolish to look at things as if they are strictly black and white. There is a tremendous gray area that people overlook due to the different things that factor in to decisions to intervene in conflicts such as these.

Don't you see the trend? The industrialized countries, the most aggressive ones, such as the United States, incite destabilization in oil-producing countries. 

This intervention is about the installation of a regime that better serves the strategic interests of the U.S. and Western nations, as well as its oil majors, coming in the form of a new tool of imperial hegemony. I will parapharase for you an article I read entitled "Cables Show Libya's intervention is all about oil".

Yes, Britain did do a hefty deal with Libya. However, there is more to it than that. Let me get more specific on what was going on behind the scenes. There has been a scramble by dozens of international oil and gas companies to cash in on the lifting of sanctions in Libya for a while now. This created problems. What was the problem? A November 2007 cable stated that the  “Libyan resource nationalism

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR



Now of course I'm not saying this is 1000000% about humanitarian intervention and has nothing to do with oil or any economic gains. That would be foolish. But it is also foolish to look at things as if they are strictly black and white. There is a tremendous gray area that people overlook due to the different things that factor in to decisions to intervene in conflicts such as these.

I want to emphasize this part of what AR said. Both of us are aware of intervention and "humanitarian" efforts in the past. But we shouldn't be ready to jump to conclusions. Hazel your professors theory is probably sound, but it's still a theory. The facts are, that oil companies have lost profits during the war. That, as AR said, having a brutal dictator is good for oil companies in place if they are willing to make deals. As you know, it's why we supported Gaddafi, Mubarak, and other dictators for as long as we did.

 

[bboy1827]

Damn, that would make sense why they don't want Ron Paul elected to office either, going against the Dollar, back to the Gold standard would destroy world banks and effectively destroy Multinational Corporations...damn.

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by CallHimAR



Now of course I'm not saying this is 1000000% about humanitarian intervention and has nothing to do with oil or any economic gains. That would be foolish. But it is also foolish to look at things as if they are strictly black and white. There is a tremendous gray area that people overlook due to the different things that factor in to decisions to intervene in conflicts such as these.

I want to emphasize this part of what AR said. Both of us are aware of intervention and "humanitarian" efforts in the past. But we shouldn't be ready to jump to conclusions. Hazel your professors theory is probably sound, but it's still a theory. The facts are, that oil companies have lost profits during the war. That, as AR said, having a brutal dictator is good for oil companies in place if they are willing to make deals. As you know, it's why we supported Gaddafi, Mubarak, and other dictators for as long as we did.

I actually think they do not give a damn about human life in Libya. Why is Libyan human life more valued for intervention than other countries with humanitarian crises? They pick and choose their battles. If oil companies have lost profits during the war, that is in the short term. But, in the long term, they will definitely gain profits and even MORE than before the war.

I explained in my previous post the problems that were happening and why Gaddafi was seen as a threat when it came to Libya's oil. Gaddafi was slowly implementation more strict nationalisation policies for Libya's oil.

 

[patmc13]

p4l.

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by CallHimAR



Now of course I'm not saying this is 1000000% about humanitarian intervention and has nothing to do with oil or any economic gains. That would be foolish. But it is also foolish to look at things as if they are strictly black and white. There is a tremendous gray area that people overlook due to the different things that factor in to decisions to intervene in conflicts such as these.

I want to emphasize this part of what AR said. Both of us are aware of intervention and "humanitarian" efforts in the past. But we shouldn't be ready to jump to conclusions. Hazel your professors theory is probably sound, but it's still a theory. The facts are, that oil companies have lost profits during the war. That, as AR said, having a brutal dictator is good for oil companies in place if they are willing to make deals. As you know, it's why we supported Gaddafi, Mubarak, and other dictators for as long as we did.

Unless that dictator is making deals with your worst enemies, which is exactly what Gaddafi (unlike Mubarak, a loyal dog) was doing. 

 

[rashi]

Ghaddafi, his son (who the media said was arrested), and 20,000 troops all of a sudden disappeared? 

 

[callhimar]

Had a long response typed up then there was an earthquake and Chrome crashed so lets try this again.
The point you make about installing a government that caters to western interests is where you begin to lose me. If this were the Cold War something like that would certainly make sense given our track record, however in todays world this doesn't hold up. It remains to be seen what will come out of all these revolutions that have taken place, as well as what will happen in both Afghanistan and Iraq, however if democratic governments do come to power your argument is flawed. Yes, they may be more open to partnering with the west since they played such a large role in the process in certain cases, however they will have to respond to their populations. In this case it is more than likely that these governments will not agree with western governments as much as you seem to think they would. The interests of these populations is vastly different from the interests of western powers which would lead me to believe that democracies in the region could put these countries at odds with American and European agendas. 

Your point about this keeping China and Russia from gaining a foothold in North Africa almost certainly does have something to do with the intervention. While the United States is still the main hegemonic power it is in clear decline. Three opponents to this are Europe (in the form of a stronger, more centralized E.U.) China and Russia. It is in both American and European interests to keep the latter two out of any region due to the better relations between the U.S. and E.U. which could certainly be one explanation as to why the E.U. was so strongly in favor of this intervention to begin with. 

You also bring up that Libyan oil was going to be nationalized soon, and that this was going to benefit the Libyan people. I'd agree it was going to benefit some Libyan people, but not all. In more recent times, as pointed out by Cole, there was clear favoritism displayed to those who were more closely aligned with Gaddafi. The possibility of Libyan oil being nationalized would have certainly benefited these parties, but would it have benefited those in the east that were left on the outside looking in for the past few decades?

I bring up Iran because there have been protests movements there, and a soft intervention like the one in Libya could be an option if these movements grow stronger. The cases of Libya and Iraq/Afghanistan are completely different animals considering the level of intervention. There doesn't look like there will be a military occupation and nation building exercise carried out in Libya like there is in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are no boots on the ground in Libya where we know the opposite is true in Iraq and Afghanistan. Libya is a much softer, more humanitarian intervention and not an all out military occupation which is why there was support for NATO involvement among the rebels. 

This is a direct quote from Obama prior to the intervention;

Given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. 

This is why we pick and choose our fights.

The reality that interventions may not be able to be mounted in every case where there is justification for doing so is no reason for them not to be mounted in any case.

From "Can Intervention Work?"

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CallHimAR


Mo, you're using to many words and not enough YouTube videos to present your point, which is why no one will listen.
I came here to post that Juan Cole article as well, thought it was a fantastic read.

I'd really like to reiterate this point though;

So a 5-10 minute article is better than a video from youtube? Why do you guys have such a vindication against youtube. It's just a channel. It's not a brand or type of video. The guy in that article is essentially stating his opinions. Just like the guy in the video. Did you guys even pay attention to who the guy in the video even is? Probably not. Just saw youtube video and said "AWWWW YEAAHH ANOTHA CONSPIRACY THEORY VIDEO!!" The guy is the Russian envoy to NATO. The guy who wrote that article is a college professor that's lived in the middle east and parts of asia. I'm not discrediting him like you are doing the guy in the video I posted. I'm just reading his info like you guys should do with all things. Objectivity is key. How would science grow if people took research personal? It wouldn't. Ya'll have this mentality of having to always picking a side rather than just being yourself and having discussions about information presented from different angles. You don't always have to side with somebody every time you speak. I swear this generation of co-signers has run rampant. 

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by:
"Ya'll have this mentality of having to always picking a side rather than just being yourself and having discussions about information presented from different angles"

Is not the point of debate to pick a side and provide evidence to support your claims?   You'd rather people ignore the credibility of your sources and argue based on conjectural statements?   When these "different angles" as you call them, are based on absolute nonsense, then no, it is not worth discussing them.  

You really seem to be underestimating the importance of "credible sources".   You're brushing it aside, and it is without a doubt the most important aspect of any argument.   If you argument is entirely based on BS sources, your argument is completely useless.  An op-ed piece from Russia Today is not a credible source.  That's what I meant by "Youtube Scholars".  Your statement of "So a 5-10 minute article is better than a video from youtube?" shows just how far you have to go in regards to distinguishing between a credible source, and a non-credible source. You seem to have the idea that sources do not matter, and it couldn't be further from the truth.

The point of debate is to be bipartisan. It is to be well versed in arguing a point from either side using persuasive speech and cross examination. Much like the format of the court of Law. And like the court of law, it's not about what really happened or the truth. It's all about what you can persuade a jury to believe with information present. But a real human knows that this a a flawed approach because the truth does not hold presidence, but rather persuading an audience into a belief does. At the end of the day sources really don't matter. The truth does. Debate is a constant stalemate between two differing parties. Much like bipartisanship leaders in our government arguing from blue and red positions, but st the end of the day, not really fixing anything. Debate is just for argumentative purposes. Truth is beyond debate because the truth is simply the truth. And one fact about the truth is that it is different for everybody so a consensus can never truly be made. Debate is a format of conversation. All news media outlets are non-credible sources. We just have to sift through information that caters to our particular demographic. Debate comes into play because it allows varying polarities to present information from their demographic and the real learning and dialysis takes place in mitigation, as well as and most importantly the audience not directly engaged. They get to see an issue discussed from varying viewpoints and in their mind they formulate their own reality. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, RT are all unreliable because they are businesses and the point is to make money. I take it all with a grain of salt not whole heartedly believing in one over the other. That's how set urself up for failure and let down in the future. These news agencies only a a fiduciary interest to serve their employers contractual agreement. No one in the news media is out there to present the truth at any cause. I don't care how many t-shirts Anderson Cooper wears when reporting live from the scene. It's all "show"business.

 

[papageorgeo510]

Interesting stuff! The dollar and Euro are soon to collapsed. Therefore, they're going to trying to combined these two currencies into one global currency. Thus, having the power around the world. Gaddafi's plan to change into gold currency dismantles they power to create money out of nowhere.

 

[redman]

Originally Posted by papageorgeo510

Interesting stuff! The dollar and Euro are soon to collapsed. Therefore, they're going to trying to combined these two currencies into one global currency. Thus, having the power around the world. Gaddafi's plan to change into gold currency dismantles they power to create money out of nowhere.

Do you really think China would stand by and watch the dollar die.

 

[emkicks]

Posting to watch tomorrow. Cant be working the brain this late at night then I wont be able to sleep

 

[wr]

If you are a government, you have to at least have countermeasure for multiple scenarios. I don't see why ipeople think these countries don't have plans for USD collapse. It's illogical and against each sovereigns fiduciary to whole heatedly trust the dollar as so many people believe. The world has been in a constant state of hot and cold wars since WW1. To think they haven't planned for the worse is foolish...