Another war?
polycounter lvl 12
Sorry, I love this forum and all the game art discussion, but I also respect so many opinions that go on here, and so felt the need to post this and see what people think.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/19/operation-odyssey-dawn-tomahawks-libya
OK. I hope this doesn't go much further than a disarmament of a dictator. But why now? Is it really because of Facebook and Twitter? Is it because we now have the tools of social media, and people who have been desperate now have the tools to organize an uprising in the middle east? And only because of that we (UK+US Military) now rise against the abuse of these people?
Where were we when the Palestinians needed us?
Why was Gaddafi OK to punish his people for 40 years? And why was Blair shaking his hand less than a decade ago?
Is this only related to what effects our western economics?
I feel that the same powers the interwebs helped to create the rising in the middle east is also doing something to us westerners and getting us to have a good look at what our military foreign agenda is....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/19/operation-odyssey-dawn-tomahawks-libya
OK. I hope this doesn't go much further than a disarmament of a dictator. But why now? Is it really because of Facebook and Twitter? Is it because we now have the tools of social media, and people who have been desperate now have the tools to organize an uprising in the middle east? And only because of that we (UK+US Military) now rise against the abuse of these people?
Where were we when the Palestinians needed us?
Why was Gaddafi OK to punish his people for 40 years? And why was Blair shaking his hand less than a decade ago?
Is this only related to what effects our western economics?
I feel that the same powers the interwebs helped to create the rising in the middle east is also doing something to us westerners and getting us to have a good look at what our military foreign agenda is....
Replies
Two down (Iraq and Lebanon), Libya is next. Four left.
Social Internet websites have nothing to do with it.
[ame]
1) We shouldn't interfere, and let things be resolved on their own. By doing this we would not be seen again as the old regime that wants to control the way other countries are run, thus reducing the risk of repercussions from other middle eastern/north african states. Like "those westerners always stick their noses in/want to control the world". We are not always right and don't pay attention to the cultural differences and views on government.
2) By not doing anything we are reinforcing the notion that regimes can do what they want killing their own people because they have the power of an army behind them. Much like Nazi Germany and other countries that use the state to oppress and use genocide against their own people. If the UN are going to help people against tyrannical leaders, that are ruling just for the benefit of power, then they (UN) should take every opportunity when there is a danger of high levels of death within a nation.
sooner or later if enough people shout, people will listen to them. and ultimately, since the UN actually sanctioned this activity it's very different to Iraq.
and to expand on the end of the post above: many of the worlds WORST wars, were as bad as they became because people didn't stand up to the tyrannical dictators when they should have.
if Europe had stood up to hitlar when he broke the rules of the treaty, and started building an army bigger than was allowed, WW2 wouldn't have happened. instead we (england) and most of the world, watched and waited while he invaded 3 countries before we actually did anything.
more than that, though. when a dictator is openly defiant to global laws, and international relations, and is happy enough to bomb his own people into submission, then what would stop him (morally) doing it to another nation?
as for the facebook/twitter stuff... yeah i can see it as being quite a huge catalyst. Egypts government shut down the internet because they didn't want the world to see what they were doing. North Korea doesn't allow internet for the same reason.
once people find a means to express their voice globally, then the world can help them. if the world doesn't know that there's a problem, then why would they help?
The people letting themselves being used a human shield is just a very sad sight.
I think they waited long enough to intervene
Wow. Hilarious......yet so sad.
Also the military didn't open fire on the protesters.
Honestly, it would be easier to just let Gaddafi steam roll the rebels and let Libya return to the status quo. (not saying it's right but if it's all about the oil why not keep the devil you know instead of the devil that you don't know)
This wasn't even pushed for by the US, they dragged there heels and complained about the required resources, The UK and France where the driving forces behind resolution 1973.
The Russians and Chinese have massive investments in the region but even they did not veto. Just saying politics isn't as 2 dimensional as it seems, I personally find it pretty stomach churning listening to people try and paint gaddafi as some heroic underdog
1. increase the value of dollar $$$ by removing the current national leader who would rather trade in euro and putting someone else in the place who would be under western payroll and basically a puppet.
2. control of the local oil resource through the newly replaced governmennt.
3. make more money for the western defense contractors (companies who make weapons, tanks etc.) who supply weapons to both sides of the war.
Whats your definition of 'win'?
We are not invading them. We are not launching a full out attack on them. We made strategic pinpoint attacks that were authorized by the majority of over 192 nations that sit on the UN panel.
It's easy to point your finger at us and say we're the bad guy and in most cases I'd agree, but this was NOT our call.
sort of different situation with Libya, there's armed revolt, and by "armed" I mean rebel tanks and even airplanes. But the way media talks about it would make you think Gadhafi slaughters civilians.
Rrright, civilians with tanks and airplanes. "You should not kill the rebels", says UN, "you should step away and let them take over. Or else we bomb you back to stone age. Either way - you're fucked".
:thumbup:
George Bush landing on an aircraft carrier with a big Mission Accomplished banner.
Right, because they're evil and immoral, and we're righteous.
The terrorists are gonna get us! Quick, give us your money so we can protect you.
What? It's not just the US doing it. England is doing it too! In fact the entire (bullshit) organization known as the UN is in on it. That means it must be right.
"Come'on, look at my pretty face, I promise you that I didn't want this to happen."
Same blank reassurance that we're doing this as a last resort. We're righteous, they're evil. We don't believe in violence, but by god we'll bomb anyone that does.
Seriously. It feels like we might as well have Mickey Mouse run the government.
For reference, Bush's speech and now Obama's speech.
Egypt took care of business and they weren't bombed like these poor bastards, they didn't need anyones help.
As for imperialism, where? What country recently has anyone taken over (besides Russia), and I mean obliterate it and take over completely? Where in the world is such a country? What puppet governments do we (the US) own? Afghanistan? They don't even listen to us and the leaders complain about us all the time, and they are paid by Iran, they even admitted it.
As far as the Iraq situation and some of the hints of mythology referred to here:
"On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a "unanimous" 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution."
Also the "mission accomplished" banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, it signified a long mission accomplished by the crew of that carrier.
Bush also said in that speech on the carrier:
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to "parts" of that country that remain dangerous." "Our mission continues...The War on Terror continues, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide."
However the speech also said that:
"In the ("Battle") of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
And we did prevail, the battle with tanks and planes etc... was won, the war was not stated, it was the Battle.
Freaking wiki something sometime and learn, jeez, talk about puppets. Never believe the news, look it up for yourself.
No matter what, war sucks! Unless it's against Zombies, Aliens or Nazi's, and you have a reset button.
At my local station it is around $8.8 a gallon for petrol and I pay $9.22 a gallon for diesel, there is no way I would call that cheap - and on the first of April it is to go up by another 30 odd cents.
Whereas, you seem to be paying around $3.39 for regular gas and $3.89 for diesel.
Those are only rough conversions, however.
Also, Britain has one of the highest rates of tax on fuel in Europe... if we weren't paying tax and duty on petrol we may be more inline with you guys, but we aren't.
Not entirely sure where I was going with this, have an epic hangover
I'm not saying everything that everything the U.S. does is correct as that would be ridiculous, but generally things are more complicated then people realize. But who cares, its much easier to point a finger and be done with it.
Oh man, am I being self centered? Uh...France and Britain are in there too....go team! I luv me some Top Gear!
It's going to be interesting to see how this all works out.
This would all be a lot easier to swallow if it wasn't on the heals of a decade long bungled attempt to finish pappa Bushes dirty work.
Personally I think the US should of sat this one out.
Its a lot harder to wind down the HUGELY expensive and massively bankrupting war machine when its still rolling. We can talk about punching social security for more money but that pinata is tapped out. Punching SS is what gave Bush the money and balls to start two wars in the first place... it's gone, wasted on ammo and fuel. Call the boys home, put em on the US Mexico boarder elbow to elbow and dare people to try and smuggle drugs or gun across.
---
Bush did the job that a weak ineffective UN-SC would NOT do, but voted unanimously TO do. And Iraq invaded Kuwait, how does that translate into dirty work by pappa Bush? Oh Homer and your myths.
And now the US military are a bunch of bungling idiots who can't finish a job...hmmm, Ok. Ooh-rah! Semper Fi! I would still fight for your right to say it though.
http://www.austingasprices.com/Conoco_Gas_Stations/Kyle/69885/index.aspx
I am afraid I typed into billredd's location and gas prices.. that came out on Google - I just wanted to make sure I wasn't completely talking out of my arse when it came to a comparison
I can imagine those prices would not do wonders for your economy - I imagine the fact that Britain is such a small country that driving distances are not a crippling factor.
For example from going to Land's End to John O'Groats is 'only' 876 miles by road - only around 80 miles more distance than going from one side of Texas to the other...
However, I am not sure there is much stuff doing that particular route, whereas interstate trucking goes on a hell of a lot more.
People are not very happy at all about the price it is at the moment, especially people who make their living driving... ie cabbies/lorry drivers etc.
I had heard the price is on its way up over in the US, its certainly more expensive than when I lived over there 10 years ago!
[ame]
all the information you have and you get are mostly biased and controled by the media which is also controled by the same people who start these war games.
sounds like a conspiracy theory but it is what it is.
as for USA being the bad guy, no USA as a country is oblivious to the things going on around the world mostly because they are blinded by the media.
it is the key people in control of weapons, banks, oil companies and other big corporations that benefit the most from making wars. and most of these people happen to be in USA and in Britain and in Saudi Arabia.
speaking of which, Saudi is also to be blamed as much as USA or Britain because they are in bed with USA for oil trade. any other arab states that threatens the oil business such as Libya has to be brought under control now.
as for Iraq (which is pronounced e-ruck like Italy or India and not eye-rack) USA supplied weapons to Saddam to defeat the Soviets long ago and eventually get in power, but recently Saddam's time ran out and he had to go.
regarding UN, it is a joke now, they dont speak on behalf of the people of the countries they represent. they answer to the big corporations.
btw, who do you think started the biggest conflict of all times - Israel vs Palestine ?
USA did.
staying inside the information bubble that is the USA it is hard to know world history or true history. hell most people cant even locate a moderately known 3rd world country on the map let alone know the history. obviously i dont blame the blinded but I blame those in true power not the presidents or politicians.
also, speaking of oil - there has been and continues to be lot of technology developed currently and in the past which would totally make oil obsolete. but these technology has either been bought or kept really expensive by oil companies to keep the oil in business. if oil is no longer in demand there goes the big business.
I understand your point about the U.S. and its relationship with Israel and Palestine but your statement is a bit much eh?
nuh-uh. There is nothing available that would be able to take us off of our dependency on oil. The amount of energy contained in oil is redonk. We can branch out and use a combination of other energy sources to help us ween ourselves off of oil (and we should), but there is no other energy source that is viable as an oil replacement. Not within any time-frame that would be relevant anyway.
Half of the first Gulf War was paid for by Saudi Arabia... Interesting.
Iraq invaded Kuwait because it had a strangle hold on Iraq's oil exports. If you look at the map its clear why Iraq an almost land locked country wanted to expand its coastline and not pay Kuwait's insane fees. Also check out who else Kuwait neighbors and also check out where American forces where stationed when things got started...
Iraq needed to bring its oil to market to pay off its huge debt it racked up during the Iran/Iraq war of which we helped them win, another reason Iran hates the US.
The US liking the strangle hold Kuwait had on Iraq (keeping pandora in her box) didn't do anything about it so Saddam being the nut job he was, took matters into his own hands "nobody will mind one little country..." Had the US helped their buddies in Iraq negotiate a fair deal with Kuwait, Iraq might never have invaded... Hands off diplomacy at its best. It worked well with the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, that didn't bite us in the ass at all...
So Bush Sr was caring out the dirty work of the Saudis. But that deal did not include nation building and Saddam looked like he would play nice, he was as shocked as anyone to see the US show up to defend Kuwait. Never underestimate America's love for Saudi oil... With Saddam "contained" and finally playing by the rules Bush Sr pulled out. The strangle hold on Iraqi oil exports back in place all was right with the world.
A few I hate you notes from Saddam and Bush Sr regretted that mistake. He missed out on his chance to plant democracy in the middle east... damn... (oh if they had just waited for Twitter).
Fast forward a few years, Jr is in the Oval office and listening pretty intently to Good Ol Dick Chaney... Sweet fuck on a stick the war's back on boys!
We don't even need to go into the BS they slung to put on Gulf War Part2.
As for the military it has always done a stunning job at doing what is asked. I just wish the idiots who tell the military what to do, had a fuckin clue what they where doing. The US military hasn't had a clear mandate since "mission accomplished" was proclaimed, its been stuck being middle eastern police, which is something the military isn't really set up to do, they kill stuff they don't police other countries where they don't speak the language all that well...
How do you defuse a domestic disturbance? Shoot them both?
What if the neighbors see you? Shoot them too?
Yea good enough I guess, go police the middle east.
Also the military is really good at spending money... really really good at killing and spending cash... Our enemies know this and just need to keep the military "engaged" enough to watch it burn through the treasury. Gahdaffi made mention of his in a few of his speeches as of late.
I can't believe the drill baby drillers want to tap Americas oil reserves. Speaking from a purely selfish and strategic stand point they should drain the middle east dry, sap it of its power and save the oil the US has close to home for itself. Why tap it now when its not going to make a dent in the price of oil and just make the US much more dependent on the middle east for something it will still need long after the world stops burning oil for fuel.
If people don't think US is attacking Libya I found/read into what the army is really doing...
Obama, on his visit to Chile said something along these lines:
45, 2000lbs pounds bombs from a B2.
46 bombs from a F1 fighter jet.
I don't know about you... but whose the real terrorist? All to help the REBELS, the guys with the GUNS and now the POWER...
Constant Information about this can be found here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/20/us-libya-stealth-bombers-fighter-jets_n_838076.html
well keep in mind when i say USA, i dont mean the people in USA or even the USA government - i am talking about big businesses that benefit from the wars that are caused by these conflicts. wars are started by business men, not presidents or politicians. presidents and politicians are just financed by the business men.
well besides the obvious solar, wind, geothermal energy and water turbines (keep in mind water is 3/4 of our planet surface) there has been several inventions that uses water as fuel but sadly somehow they never saw the light of day in mainstream market.
I mean, any situation in any country is a product of the people living there, right? Why should people who do not live there butt in and "fix things"?
It probably sounds horribly immoral and politically inncorrect but, I seriously never got this urge some people have to "travel down there and show theese people how things REALLY SHOULD BE."
You can say it's empathy but, in the end you're just forcing views and rules you've come to accept onto people who are not used too it, nomatter the intention it will probably do more harm than good.
I'd rather see a country work out their own kinks and evolve upon their own premises.
I'm just seriously against anyone other than Libyans getting mixed up in this.. if you're going to send anything, send doctors.. that's it.
any guesses on where we're headed next?
Gadaffi was super a-ok for western leaders without any reason to go to war over oil.
- western oil companies got really good deals since Gadaffi became "a good guy" after settling Lockerbie
- Lybia kept the refugees in check which have been bothering especially Italy
- Gadaffi invested his cash in Europe (like buying French weapons), guess why suddenly everyone wanted to be his best pal (especially Berlusconi)?
- Gadaffi kept islamism at check because if there's one thing despots like him don't like is another religious/political group in their country which can endanger their absolute power. (same in Iraq - the whole religious war started after Saddam was gone)
If it weren't for those "pesky demonstrants" the EU could have continued being a paper tiger preaching about human rights, freedom, etc while doing good business with Lybia behind closed doors.
The only reason anything is being done now is because the general public is starting to notice how hypocritical the whole game is the EU leaders have been playing.... Berlusconi who kept supporting Gadaffi to the point where it became ridiculous because he feared for the Italian economy. Sarko who tries to cash in on local elections for being the "tough man", Germany who alway open their mouth wide how they support freedom and then abstain at the UN resulution vote...("you have our support! ...morally that is") really, if it weren't for that, nobody would have gone to war at all.
The people who bomb, and kill innocent civilians for no reason. Not the ones raining death showers onto military installations to destroy weapons of war not innocent people.
Also looking at that map, China has a nice 1.4% of the worlds oil left. Not to mention they are the second highest users of the stuff and there commies! Im surprised America hasnt taken a little detor there, destroyed communism, clear our trillions of dollars of debt, take out our biggest oil competition and a nice little oil reserve for the road.
If it wasnt for Walmart im sure this would have already happened by now. Over throw the government you owe debt too and your debt is pretty much gone.
A terrorist is anyone who advocates terror. If I saw 136 cruise missiles coming at my country I would be terrified!
Lets just say US is in the middle east to help out the people without any gain. After the past events (Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan) of throwing money into a bottomless well is it really a good idea to go help another country?
I mean every political person said "WE ARE IN DEBT", and their next move is to fire 136, million dollar missiles at a country?
The whole thing started because of a peaceful (i can only assume this) protest, in which gaddafi sent in people with guns to start shooting people and break up the protest out of fear, and when the people got angry because of this and started throwing stones (id beleive firing a gun or two), the army point anti-aircraft guns into the crowd and started firing. If the world just let Libyia to sort itself out and ghadafi wins he will slaughter anyone who disagrees with him, I dont see that as a country progressing.
I was explaining to billredd who seemed pretty clueless as to why Gulf War1-2 ever happened. Defense of Kuwait's sovereignty? Really? wow... It was over oil, just more at the request of the largest oil producer. When Saudi Arabia says jump, the US says "topple who"? Bush Sr was doing the Saudi's dirty work and Jr was finishing the job.
I'm pretty convinced that Lybia is all about sewing the seeds of democracy, and human rights. BUT those seeds should be sewn from inside, not out. Now the west is in the difficult position of choosing which human rights to enforce, not happening in Bahrain, its home to the gulf's protector (the US 5th fleet)
Personally I don't think they should be crying for outside intervention (have they not seen what happens?), the most meaningful and long lasting revolutions are ones the people themselves put on. The west has been blamed for too much meddling in the middle east as it is, step in like they have to provide air support to the rebels and you're now accused of setting up a puppet government even the people you help will wonder if they really are legit.
IF OIL factors into it it would largely be from Europe not the US.
Libya does account for 2% of the worlds oil but not all oil is the same. Libyan oil is mostly "sweet crude" of which Europe pretty much runs on, ahh low sulfur diesel. Unlike other oil from different areas like Saudi Arabia, who largely pump a lot of lower grade oil with a lot more sulfur that is harder to refine into high quality products like Jet fuel and low sulfur diesel. I think it takes 1.5 barrels of Saudi oil when compared to a barrel of sweet crude? You should look that up tho...
One other interesting thing I read yesterday was that there is a boycott against Libyan oil, that supply shortfall must come from somewhere and it appears Saudi Arabia has stepped up to the plate to sell some of its surplus. a 2% boost in profits while oil is going sky high, it's a good year to be a stable oil supplier...
While I still don't think oil factors into the US decision to fuck up Libya, I can't say the same for Europe. If oil factored into it, the US probably would of done nothing like in Bahrain where it let the Saudis steam roll the protesters. Europe has seen what transportation issues cause and its a well known fact that when the price of gas jumps so does civil unrest. I'm sure some political parties horde oil to ratchet up that factor around election time... mostly in the US where one party largely controls the corporations that import and refine oil...
The US is more worried about stability, and so are the Saudi's, its a good year to be one of the only stable oil producers with a surplus...
Dropping the atomic bomb(s) on Japan was done in order to prevent a costly (for both sides) land invasion of the Japanese mainland. I'm not saying it was "right" but it sure as hell wasn't for "no reason" as you imply. Lets not forget that it was done in the era when both sides targeted civilians (allied carpet bombing, German V-1 and V-2 rockets ect.), just some context.
I think this is a good example of how "civilized" war has become in terms of casualties. I'm not trying to say that the carnage of war is any less brutal, it most assuredly isn't, but the sheer numbers of those killed and injured. Could you imagine having over 80,000 (battle of the bulge) casualties for a single battle anymore?
As far as the cost of the Tomahawk missiles goes. If you have to take out air defenses, would you rather spend the money to send over a missile or risk lives doing it another way? How much money are the lives of people worth?
If Kadafi really wanted to ward off cruise missile attacks he'd put up mock mcdonald's and starbucks in front of his palace. The western world would shit a brick if they accidently blew that up... think i may be on to something here.
Also this thread has really gone off the deep end and i don't even know what we're talking about any more.