|
Post by IncogNITO on Apr 26, 2011 18:38:19 GMT -5
The amount of OIL produced.
|
|
|
Post by Barb on Apr 26, 2011 22:20:53 GMT -5
The people of Libya ASKED for help.
|
|
|
Post by IncogNITO on Apr 27, 2011 18:25:17 GMT -5
So have the Syrians.
President Obama has declined a request from Syrian rebels for American support. “The White House has to date rejected our requests for stronger action on Syria,” Ammar Abdulhamid, an unofficial spokesman in the West for the Syrian activists organizing the widespread demonstrations, told The Washington Times.
|
|
|
Post by IncogNITO on Apr 27, 2011 21:23:48 GMT -5
Agreed it is past time we turned in our badges we can't afford another million to a billion dollars to protect someone in another country when we can't even take care of our own. It cost us a 100 million in tomahawk missiles alone on the first day. We don't need to be in this mess. Obama is only fighting in Libya because of the amount of oil the country puts on the world market. It is wrong to get involved in another countries civil war and his claims it is the right thing to do while he has let million of Innocent children die in Africa who also asked for help. The only reason we went into Libya is because of the oil market. Bush made the mistake of taking us to war over oil and Obama has done the same. 100 million in one day we we are still fighting and we are still doing missile strikes and he wont say how much what to you want to bet Libya has cost us another billion in debt already.
|
|
|
Post by Barb on Apr 27, 2011 22:43:51 GMT -5
I'm not totally in agreement with that. Ghadaffi was threatening to bomb the people of Libya in their homes. They asked for help. We joined a coalition to establish a no fly zone.
|
|
|
Post by IncogNITO on Apr 28, 2011 9:33:07 GMT -5
We initiated the no fly zone, we built the coalition. We spent over a million dollars a day in the first week alone. Yet we wont do the same for Syria or the Sudan where exactly the same thing is going on. No Barb doesn't cut it. The leaders in Syria threaten to kill the rebels and their children and they are doing that down to the baby in the cradle. In the Sudan they have done just that wiping out an entire generation. Nothing you have said makes fighting in Libya ok when other countries are going through exactly the same thing all asked for help all had leaders who threatened to kill innocents. No Barb we did not go into Libya to save people. We went into Libya to try and free up more oil production. We should NOT be there and to say because he was killing people says it was ok to wipe out entire generations in other countries we ignored the death in. We do not need to be a part of a civil war in any other country. We can't afford it we can't sustain it and as in Libya if we don't win we have made matters worse for ourselves. We need to stay out of other countries bussiness unless we want to rule the world and that ain't going to happen.
|
|
MAK
Major
MAKadamia Nut
78%
Moderate Maverick
Posts: 227
|
Post by MAK on Apr 28, 2011 10:31:23 GMT -5
Perhaps if the Syrian mess had unfolded (escalated) at a faster pace and well before Libya we'd be helping there. Although...being that Syria is a big butt kisser to Iran (and vice versa) that could very likely have a lot to do with it and we still wouldn't help. Besides, we are running out of resources to be world cops in more than a few countries at a time. I do like that France and Great Britian are at the forefront of the Libyan mess. Another thing...I am tired of the "we are doing it for oil" rhetoric. You did bring up an interesting point about other parts of the world that need assisstance. Many of the afflicted areas are being helped through the many organizations in our country as well as other organizations throughout the rest of the world. I will agree with you that still enough is not being done. Our specialty..military help...isn't as easily found, but it is highly sought after by those who need assisstance. And those very people we help, usually (eventually) turn on us. It's enough to drive you to drink!
|
|
|
Post by Barb on Apr 28, 2011 11:35:37 GMT -5
I'm also tired of the "for oil" thing and would like to think we help when we can because sometimes we are just good people.
|
|
|
Post by IncogNITO on Apr 28, 2011 15:03:24 GMT -5
I'm also tired of the "for oil" thing and would like to think we help when we can because sometimes we are just good people. If we provided that help consistently and to all I would agree. We do not and it is all based on what we can get out of it. We don't even get that right. Because if Ghadaffi wins we are screwed and in time if the rebels win they will turn on us as all rebels we have helped. Add to that we can't afford to arm or even support the rebels in any meaningful way. We do not need to be the worlds police. What we need to do is tear down NATO and the UN and build a new International organization that can do the job. But we should not be out there building paper dragon coalitions. We need to be spending the Million dollars a day on reducing our national debt and feeding our own starving families. Once our own house is in order maybe we can say hey we can help you but not now not when we are fighting our own political war that is costing lives here at home.
|
|
|
Post by Calcasieu on Apr 28, 2011 15:05:24 GMT -5
The only reason we went into Libya is because of the oil market. Bush made the mistake of taking us to war over oil and Obama has done the same. Poor comparison. The depth of our involvement in Libya is nowhere near what it was (and continues to be) in Iraq. As for the true motivation behind our military involvement, I'm sure there are several factors and oil is most likely one of them. If Gadhafi truly is a major threat to the stability of the oil market then I think something should be done about him. I'm just not sure military strikes are the right solution. It's a band-aid, not a long-term fix. You can't fight economic attacks with bombs. There HAS to be a better way. I found this piece on this subject. Not very in-depth but it offers up a few explanations for our involvement. They all sound plausible to me (some more than others). Why attack Libya and not Syria? - April 26, 2011 by Alan Silverleib, CNN
|
|
|
Post by IncogNITO on Apr 28, 2011 15:14:36 GMT -5
Perhaps if the Syrian mess had unfolded (escalated) at a faster pace and well before Libya we'd be helping there. Although...being that Syria is a big butt kisser to Iran (and vice versa) that could very likely have a lot to do with it and we still wouldn't help. Besides, we are running out of resources to be world cops in more than a few countries at a time. I do like that France and Great Britian are at the forefront of the Libyan mess. Another thing...I am tired of the "we are doing it for oil" rhetoric. You did bring up an interesting point about other parts of the world that need assisstance. Many of the afflicted areas are being helped through the many organizations in our country as well as other organizations throughout the rest of the world. I will agree with you that still enough is not being done. Our specialty..military help...isn't as easily found, but it is highly sought after by those who need assisstance. And those very people we help, usually (eventually) turn on us. It's enough to drive you to drink! A drink would be nice but I got to work tonght. Can you have one for me. I just wish we would stop making excuses for what we do and don't do and tell the truth. Honesty no matter how much it hurts to hear can be respected but when we lie and manipulate it always comes back to bites us in the ass.
|
|
|
Post by Barb on Apr 29, 2011 0:09:11 GMT -5
But you are assuming it is lies. I happen to believe we went there because we wanted to help. And if you listened to what Obama said...he did it exactly the way he said he would.
|
|
|
Post by IncogNITO on Apr 29, 2011 15:00:40 GMT -5
If we went only for only the reasons stated then there is no reason to have not gone in to Syria or the Sudan. When you have two other countries asking and in the case of the Sudan people getting on hands and knees and begging for help ,the excuse is we can't be the worlds police. Yet we go into to Libya. If you don't see there is something wrong here your blinders are on to tight. The only difference between Libya and Syria is the amount of oil produced and it is the same for the Sudan but with it you have to add it is a different continent. And no Obama did not do what he said he would do. We did not truly take a back seat and we kept dropping bombs for almost a week at our discretion after others supposedly took over. Then our unmanned drones were put back into play with out any official announcement until someone from the press in Libya told on him. Might have been the accidental blowing up of the AID convoy that gave him away. We are still spending a million dollars a day on bombs for this thing.
|
|
|
Post by Barb on Apr 29, 2011 22:54:06 GMT -5
Mak gave you a reason.
And I don't have on any fucking blinders.
|
|
MAK
Major
MAKadamia Nut
78%
Moderate Maverick
Posts: 227
|
Post by MAK on Apr 30, 2011 5:17:37 GMT -5
I've been around...however...I haven't seen a pair of those. I'm trying to get a visual here.
|
|