# Libya - is there a reason we are getting involved?



## Allover (20 March 2011)

As per subject line really, is there any good reason that we are "supporting" the no fly zone, is it something we have to do under the UN resolution?


----------



## Holly Hocks (20 March 2011)

Allover said:



			As per subject line really, is there any good reason that we are "supporting" the no fly zone, is it something we have to do under the UN resolution?
		
Click to expand...

One word - "oil"


----------



## HashRouge (20 March 2011)

No, it's not something we "have" to do. Cameron has been extremely forthright in calling for intervention, even when the US and France were hesitant. The stated purpose of the UN mission is to prevent Gadaffi committing atrocities against his own people. Unfortunately, it took so long to get the UN resolution in place that the Libyan rebels have already lost a lot of the ground that they had taken and been subject to the violence and brutality of Gadaffi's forces. Some skeptics have suggested we're getting involved because of oil but I doubt that, given that Cameron seems to want to distance himself from Blair's policies as much as possible. I'm praying that this won't turn into another Iraq and that Libya will get the democracy it deserves!


----------



## Alec Swan (20 March 2011)

Holly Hocks said:



			One word - "oil"
		
Click to expand...

You beat me to it!! 

Alec.

Ets.  Were it being done out of common human decency,  then Mugabi would have been dead years ago.  a.


----------



## perfect11s (20 March 2011)

Holly Hocks said:



			One word - "oil"
		
Click to expand...

Oh if only that was true !!! and like we did in the  past we could go in overthrow the existing tribe and grab what we wanted and claim it for Great Britain... now what hapens is we go in   stir them up and get bogged
down in someone elses problems and just get dumped on .....


----------



## HashRouge (20 March 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			You beat me to it!! 

Alec.

Ets.  Were it being done out of common human decency,  then Mugabi would have been dead years ago.  a.
		
Click to expand...

But if this were purely about oil, surely we'd have chucked Ahmadinejad out years ago? Iran has considerably bigger oil reserves than Libya and produces almost 3 times as much per year. Maybe oil is A reason, I don't know. But I highly doubt it is the ONLY reason. Libya is very different to Iraq, because it actually experienced a revolution against the government, led by the people. News of the UN resolution was welcomed by the rebels, who, until the UN actually started to enforce the no-fly zone, were taking a serious beating from Gadaffi's troops. Unfortunately, the situation is so complicated that, even if some countries involved in the UN intervention ARE principally motivated by oil, it doesn't necessarily mean that the intervention is wrong. The reason I say this is that, although I hate the thought that we might only be motivated by oil, I also don't want us to leave the rebels to be slaughtered.


----------



## Allover (20 March 2011)

I am thinking along the Oil lines myself, there are a lot of evil dictators out there that the UN does nothing about, Obiang of Equitorial Guinea is reported to be one of the worst and nothing is done against him (as far as i am aware they have no oil).

Is it our place to impose ourselves again on another country and culutre?


----------



## HashRouge (20 March 2011)

Allover said:



			I am thinking along the Oil lines myself, there are a lot of evil dictators out there that the UN does nothing about, Obiang of Equitorial Guinea is reported to be one of the worst and nothing is done against him (as far as i am aware they have no oil).

Is it our place to impose ourselves again on another country and culutre?
		
Click to expand...

There ARE a lot of dictators that the UN does nothing about. Indeed, they were happy to leave Gaddafi in power for over 40 years UNTIL there was a revolution and he started slaughtering his own people openly! It is, as you point out, not our place to impose ourselves on another country and culture, but I'm confused as to how you see that as happening in Libya? The UN hasn't simply marched in as Britain and the US did in Iraq in 2003 (a war which I was opposed to and when on several demonstrations about, in case anyone thinks I'm pro-war and pro-intervention). The Libyan people, inspired by events in Egypt and Tunisia, began their own pro-democracy revolution (for which I commend them). Considering that the international community already imports oil from Libya (although Libya exports a tiny percentage of the world's oil) the best thing to do in interests of oil supply would probably have been to either leave Gadaffi to it of help him crush the rebellion. UN intervention and the transition to democracy is surely going to make the process more drawn out and cause more disruption to the oil supply while they deal with Gadaffi's forces and then the transition to democracy.
And Equatorial Guinea does export oil, and natural gas, as far as I'm aware.


----------



## Dobiegirl (20 March 2011)

I agree OIL is what drives the world.

Where were the UN when Tibet was taken over by China? Where was the UN when harmless monks protesting were killed and shipped elsewhere. Why is the Dahma Lama named as a terrorist.
Meanwhile the Chinese are quietly buying up the worlds resources.


----------



## Allover (20 March 2011)

HashRouge said:



			There ARE a lot of dictators that the UN does nothing about. Indeed, they were happy to leave Gaddafi in power for over 40 years UNTIL there was a revolution and he started slaughtering his own people openly! It is, as you point out, not our place to impose ourselves on another country and culture, but I'm confused as to how you see that as happening in Libya? The UN hasn't simply marched in as Britain and the US did in Iraq in 2003 (a war which I was opposed to and when on several demonstrations about, in case anyone thinks I'm pro-war and pro-intervention). The Libyan people, inspired by events in Egypt and Tunisia, began their own pro-democracy revolution (for which I commend them). Considering that the international community already imports oil from Libya (although Libya exports a tiny percentage of the world's oil) the best thing to do in interests of oil supply would probably have been to either leave Gadaffi to it of help him crush the rebellion. UN intervention and the transition to democracy is surely going to make the process more drawn out and cause more disruption to the oil supply while they deal with Gadaffi's forces and then the transition to democracy.
And Equatorial Guinea does export oil, and natural gas, as far as I'm aware.
		
Click to expand...

You are right, i have checked and it does export oil, maybe they could be next on the UN list of things to do! 

Now i asked the question in the first instance as i really dont know why we had to get involved in yet another countries problems and whether we were right to do so. 

We are presuming that Gadaffi will be "beaten" by the UN forces, stand down and that the new regime will be better than what is in place at the moment.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 March 2011)

HashRouge said:



			But if this were purely about oil, surely we'd have chucked Ahmadinejad out years ago? Iran has considerably bigger oil reserves than Libya and produces almost 3 times as much per year. Maybe oil is A reason, I don't know. But I highly doubt it is the ONLY reason. Libya is very different to Iraq, because it actually experienced a revolution against the government, led by the people. News of the UN resolution was welcomed by the rebels, who, until the UN actually started to enforce the no-fly zone, were taking a serious beating from Gadaffi's troops. Unfortunately, the situation is so complicated that, even if some countries involved in the UN intervention ARE principally motivated by oil, it doesn't necessarily mean that the intervention is wrong. The reason I say this is that, although I hate the thought that we might only be motivated by oil, I also don't want us to leave the rebels to be slaughtered.
		
Click to expand...

Two points for you.  Firstly we simply can't take on Iran.  By comparison with Libya,  it's a vast country,  and with our now depleted troop numbers,  we would be as a pimple on the back of an elephant.  Secondly,  politics used to be a subtle affair.  No longer!!  

One thought,  I wonder if Gadaffi will use the convicted Lockerbie bomber as a human shield.  There'd be a degree of irony attached to that wouldn't there?  Especially if we manage to slot him with a Tomahawk!! 

A question.  Why were the rebels so dim as to refuse help?  They even handed back the SF boys who they caught!!  Without a no-fly policy,  they will be slaughtered.  

Yet again,  we're interfering in business which is none of ours.  Innocents die.  It's called war.  I wish that it were otherwise,  but sadly it isn't.

Alec.


----------



## KarynK (20 March 2011)

Oil a small touch of revenge which we have been brewing for a while, 
and as it happens the perfect excuse with the backing of the other Arab nations, 

oh and something about someone killing their own people, we don't usually give a Cr&p about that when it's a country without much oil, if that's the case we just impose sanctions on something they don't need anyway.

Ah the complexity of international politics!!!


----------



## Munchkin (20 March 2011)

Ahha, I should have come here first, rather than soapbox  - of course it's about the bloody oil!


----------



## Mithras (20 March 2011)

I'm very sceptical indeed about why Gadaffi is suddenly the target, when he is only doing much the same as he has been doing for years with less publicity and no intervention.  I suspect it has taken a few weeks to set up some other lot in Libya to back so that oil, arm sales, etc will be unaffected.

Gadaffi is quite mild compared to some of the Tabliban backed lunatics who might be let in so I don't really buy the arguement that he is suddenly the baddest of the bad and should be targetted at the expense of all the other human rights contraventions that go on in other parts of the world less favoured by oil and arms sales.


----------



## unicornleather (20 March 2011)

Totally agree with Alec, Oz


----------



## Allover (20 March 2011)

And i suppose once this is over we will be able to help them replenish their weapons supplies, may be able to recoup some of the cost of going out there!


----------



## KarynK (20 March 2011)

Of course we will, we will wine and dine the replacement and sell em loads!!!  Of course had Libya been a little further south where there's no so much oil we would have still be selling them arms and watching their genocide with our usual disinterest and the occasional mutterings about how terrible they have been!!!

All those jobs on the line in the UK due to drastic cuts in services with disabled people and young and old loosing vital services and they commit our armed forces at a cost of millions, they must have fired 50 day centres in that first missile launch.


----------



## martlin (20 March 2011)

Munchkin said:



			Ahha, I should have come here first, rather than soapbox  - of course it's about the bloody oil!
		
Click to expand...

This^^^... and the fact that one can only bark for so long without biting, before one gets laughed at and stops being taken seriously. 
Plus, we go in, we bomb/rocket launch the hell out of them and then get contracts to rebuild what we bombed/rocketed.
It's not that bad for the economy and the ratings - providing it goes according to plan.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 March 2011)

Karyn,

each of those missiles,  has a base cost of £300k.

Alec.


----------



## Saucisson (21 March 2011)

1.  Oil - it's important to get control so the price doesn't go crazy (not good news with current state of affairs economically).  Personally, I have never had a problem with us securing oil.  We need it and I prefer this to being flung back into the dark ages if the majority can't afford fuel.  (This may also be related to the fact that we ran out of oil last week and it was blinkin' cold and we had no hot water - bring on the oil!).

2. Libya is a bit close to home.  If Europe does nothing, there will be huge numbers of displaced people looking for somewhere to live.  Where will they go?  Well judging by their existing trend, on a boat to Italy and up into Europe.  In the current economic climate, this could really cause a lot resentment and civil unrest IMO.

Personally, I just hope that someone is "found" to lead Libya that will bring stability and won't open the door for extremists.


----------



## 1stclassalan (21 March 2011)

To say "oil" is far too simplistic - oil is a world commodity bought and sold on the open market from many sources and even particular desired qualities don't matter that much in reality. 

Having a war to use up weapon stores and create the need for future replacement contracts doesn't hold up either because these will be procured whether they are needed or not - in fact, I'd cynically say that not quite the right ones will be procured but that's digression. 

Conspiracy theory is already rife with schemes that "the rebels" were put up to it by outside forces and this may be partly correct but it has also brought many Islamic radicals out of the woodwork that may not be so easily bought off as Qua'daffi was. Don't forget that there WAS an uprising in Iraq after the first Gulf War and all the western nations stood by as Saddam H annihilated it - though some pilots did have fun supposedly protecting the northern Kurds; however; there are three varieties of Kurd and as those pilots were flying from Turkey - the Turkey friendly Kurds were favoured. Therefore I don't think there's any big humanitarian element either for or against intervention.

Cuddling some Irish terrorists as they arrived was probably a bad move for Qua'daffi as was many of the other nose thumbing gestures he's famous for but exactly why we are involved is a mystery. Quite mind numbing to see David-Our Glorious Leader-Cameron explaining how his war is just and forthright while carefully tippy-toeing around actually mentioning that evil criminal Tony Blair.


----------



## Paddydou (22 March 2011)

Allover said:



			Is it our place to impose ourselves again on another country and culutre?
		
Click to expand...

This is my problem with our "invasion" of these countries. IF the population were to want their leader out there is not alot their leader could do about it (see Egypt for an example). However to my knowledge the population of Libya is very much spilt between pro and anti... Thus I really do think we shoul dleave them to make up their own minds as to how they want their country built before we go barging in under the auspices of the UN and tell them what they can and can't do...

being devils advocate and completely on the flip side, the "rebels" are being slaughtered. Is it because there are not enough and they are saying what he UN wants to hear or is it because they are in the minority? We do not know for sure.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 March 2011)

1stclassalan said:



			To say "oil" is far too simplistic - oil is a world commodity bought and sold on the open market from many sources and even particular desired qualities don't matter that much in reality. 
Whilst you may well be right,  can you explain why when there are countries with no oil reserves,  then we in our civilised world eek,  stand back and watch with complete indifference,  whilst total innocents live lives of misery?


Having a war to use up weapon stores and create the need for future replacement contracts doesn't hold up either because these will be procured whether they are needed or not - in fact, I'd cynically say that not quite the right ones will be procured but that's digression. The buying and selling of arms,  however practical or not,  is steered by the bribes which float,  to and fro!!

Conspiracy theory is already rife with schemes that "the rebels" were put up to it by outside forces and this may be partly correct but it has also brought many Islamic radicals out of the woodwork that may not be so easily bought off as Qua'daffi was. Don't forget that there WAS an uprising in Iraq after the first Gulf War and all the western nations stood by as Saddam H annihilated it - though some pilots did have fun supposedly protecting the northern Kurds; however; there are three varieties of Kurd and as those pilots were flying from Turkey - the Turkey friendly Kurds were favoured. Therefore I don't think there's any big humanitarian element either for or against intervention.  I agree.

Cuddling some Irish terrorists as they arrived was probably a bad move for Qua'daffi as was many of the other nose thumbing gestures he's famous for but exactly why we are involved is a mystery. Quite mind numbing to see David-Our Glorious Leader-Cameron explaining how his war is just and forthright while carefully tippy-toeing around actually mentioning that evil criminal Tony Blair.  I suspect that we're trying to do what has worked so well before.  Install a new leader,  who is more to our liking.  It worked with Mr.  Hussein,  let's face it!!

Click to expand...

Alec.


----------



## HashRouge (22 March 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			Whilst you may well be right, can you explain why when there are countries with no oil reserves, then we in our civilised world (), stand back and watch with complete indifference, whilst total innocents live lives of misery?
		
Click to expand...

I get the skepticism, I really do, BUT I think you need to stop thinking about Iraq for a moment. Think, instead, about UN intervention in the Yugoslav Wars and in Rwanda. In the first instance the UN did not get involved early enough to prevent genocide and in the second it did not take strong enough action. In both cases, thousands of people died when the UN could potentially have prevented it. Now, Libya is no longer simply a dictatorship with a poor record in human rights (and we all know there are still plenty of those around which we do nothing about!). It is a country in the grips of civil war, and this leads to the potential for genocide, especially since, before the UN intervened, the rebels were starting to weaken in the face of Gaddafi's forces. The UN, and the leading countries involved in the UN, have to think about the possible outcomes of "non-action" in cases like this and, from what I have read, David Cameron in particular has been influenced by the memory of the Bosnian genocide and the thought that the UN could have gone some way to stopping it. It isn't simply a case of thinking "ooh that country has oil", but a reflection of the realities in Libya. The fact that it has oil is, I think, bye the bye in this case. I don't doubt that there are greedy oil company representatives rubbing their hands in glee,  but the UN has not simply got involved so that the member countries can get their hands on oil.


----------



## tristar (22 March 2011)

astrologically this is the age of aquarius, the tyrant will fall, there is no place in the new age for such people.
in recent weeks we have seen something unbelievable , almost, who would have thought that all this would happen? i for one support the peoples of the countries who have shown their courage in rising to bring down such, in this day and age, unsuitable and frankly criminal governments, and feel they deserve our support in their efforts, because without these lunies the world will be a better place.
i admire the courage of anyone who will stand up and take action against bullies and hope that they will form democratic governments and take their place on the world stage in a way they have been so long denied.
i always think about the oil implication, however talking of  the american involvement, yes they probably do act out concern for the oil in some part, however it is a fact that the united states of america has more oil reserves than it will ever use in the forseeable future


----------



## firm (22 March 2011)

But there are US, Spanish. Italian and French oil interests in Libya already and would it not suit them better to keep Gaddifi & have everything settle back down? By supporting the UN no fly zone they maybe jeopardising that. 

From the FT 

"the chairman of the Libya&#8217;s state-run National Oil Corporation, warned on Saturday that western companies, which have repatriated their staff due to the crisis, should send their employees back to work or risk seeing new oil and gas concessions awarded directly to rivals from China, India and Brazil. The three countries have all stayed neutral throughout the conflict and abstained from Thursday&#8217;s United Nations Security Council resolution 1973"


----------



## Mike007 (22 March 2011)

There are a lot of good reasons we should get involved, but we couldnt until the people of Libya finally rebelled ,themselves.Reasons such as Lockerbie, Training IRA terrorists,and the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher.


----------



## woodtiger (23 March 2011)

Just to put my pennies worth in... much of sub Saharan Africa are in support of Mugabe and his policies.  I spend time here working, and have read media reports dismissing the UN and the west as interfering busybodies.  Having family who farmed in Zimbabwe I thought I was fairly aware, but have been able to read the other side of the story.  General African feeling is that the UK shouldn't stick their noses in, that when a coalition between Mugabe and Tchangari (sp) took months to co-ordinate the fact that the UK took days to form a Con Lib coalition showed the west to be not thinking in African interest at all, just getting involved in something that wasn't their business.  Whilst propaganda is what it is, I guess we can all have an opinion for thousands of miles away, but when there are issues at home should we really be getting involved in other people's?  We are only a small island after all...


----------



## 1stclassalan (23 March 2011)

Though it is easy and obvious to point to the connection to action and oil - stability is the only real desire of western business interests and governments are obviously motivated by business. They regularly sup with the devil in various countries in order to trade and this trade is two way - most of these countries have no means whatsoever to develop their natural assets and western business always pays for the priviledge - what happens to the money is another thing but it's always paid.

Getting action in purely humanitarian situations is far more difficult - it has to be justified at home and most western countries are basically isolationist even if labelled imperialist - especially America where they have deep political divisions over every large issue. I seem to remember them loosing over 300 marines in Lebannon without a drop of oil in sight and they had quite a to do helping out in French Indo-China.

Most of the "leave it to them" attitude of the British government to black African problems is founded in the deep wounds of a lost Empire which still smarts. Most black leaders were actively involved in "freedom fighting" and so participated in or closed their eyes to tribal warfare and ethnic cleansing we would find abhorent - though "we" probably did the same at the same period of our development.


----------



## tristar (23 March 2011)

i hope that one day there will be one world government who will act for the general good of everyone, we are are all interconnected whether we like it or not, and interdependant, we are one, also one worldwide currency to stabilise  business financial projections and put an end to  current  frequent currency fluctuations, this would free up billions that could be used to create new jobs through confidence through stability and to develop alternative energie sources, we will then no longer be threatened by the likes of gadaffi offering his oil to china etc. there would be no place for dictators who massacre their own people, ethnic cleansing etc, we need to stand up now and support these brave people who are at the beginning of the wind of change, there is no place for these savages, for that is what they are.


----------



## Tinkerbee (23 March 2011)

Oil? Really? How original.

Libya is what, 3% of oil supply? And um, the whole Iraq thing really brought down the price of oil didn't it...

And lets face it Gaddaffi was going to win, and we were "friends" and getting our oil so why would we back the other side?

And yeah, Kosovo was chock full of oil wasn't it...

For once we are being vaguely noble... not saying its 100% right what is happening but could you honestly stomach us standing back and watching those people get slaughtered?

If it was just us and the good old USA again then fair enough...but um. No. Get a new argument other than "OIL TROLOLOLOL!". 

And my pet peeve of the month done.


----------



## Tinkerbee (23 March 2011)

tristar said:



			i hope that one day there will be one world government who will act for the general good of everyone, we are are all interconnected whether we like it or not, and interdependant, we are one, also one worldwide currency to stabilise  business financial projections and put an end to  current  frequent currency fluctuations, this would free up billions that could be used to create new jobs through confidence through stability and to develop alternative energie sources, we will then no longer be threatened by the likes of gadaffi offering his oil to china etc. there would be no place for dictators who massacre their own people, ethnic cleansing etc, we need to stand up now and support these brave people who are at the beginning of the wind of change, there is no place for these savages, for that is what they are.
		
Click to expand...

ARGH! Good GOD I hope not.

Not one for invoking end times usually, but ever read Revelations?  

Doomsday aside, how on earth would that work out well?!


----------



## tristar (23 March 2011)

ever heard of the eurozone? a forunner of what could be possible, germany is the strongest economy in europe, property inflation almost zero, france has not suffered the economic, ups and downs due to their conservative attitudes towards money, older properties are now rising in value 6 per cent in one year,official source, notaires de france, a good indicator they are pulling out of recession, many houses in france are heated by wood and geothermie and renault have a new car not fueled by oil, things are changing, wind turbines are everywhere.
irelands problems were largely self induced and not the result of membership of the eu
it would save me personally a lot of time and effort to not have to figure out which currency to pay with when importing and exporting if there was one currency, a small example yes, but multiply this by all the others trying to do business worldwide and the financial benefits are enormous.
i think we are in libya now is  because its happening now, not next year, or in the future, lessons have been learned in previous situations, when civilians have been slaughtered its too late.
the idea of world government may seem impossible to many new to the idea, but it is a conception which grows upon one as the potential benefits come to mind  during reflection


----------



## CorvusCorax (24 March 2011)

Can anyone else hear trumpets? And who is that coming, riding that pale horse?!


----------



## 1stclassalan (24 March 2011)

tristar said:



			i hope that one day there will be one world government who will act for the general good of everyone, we are are all interconnected whether we like it or not, and interdependant, we are one, also one worldwide currency to stabilise  business financial projections and put an end to  current  frequent currency fluctuations, this would free up billions that could be used to create new jobs through confidence through stability and to develop alternative energie sources, we will then no longer be threatened by the likes of gadaffi offering his oil to china etc. there would be no place for dictators who massacre their own people, ethnic cleansing etc, we need to stand up now and support these brave people who are at the beginning of the wind of change, there is no place for these savages, for that is what they are.
		
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more Tristar...... but the perverse nature of other folk being what it is - we will be seen as the loony minority for quite a while yet. All transigent people with shortsighted views should look at a picture of the Earth taken by Neil Armstrong from the Moon.

I used to be in big business and had to spend large amounts of frustration time getting people to talk to one another in setting up deals only to have it all dissolve over and over again - this kind of thing will go one happening - it's human; though the way we organise ourselves in future will be much different than done today.At the moment, we are basically tribal with countries being based on ethnic difference - this will either change, follow the old "Melting Pot" song the more people mix. The world will have to limit population and the only way you can do that properly is to have world authority.


----------



## Tinkerbee (24 March 2011)

tristar said:



			ever heard of the eurozone? a forunner of what could be possible, germany is the strongest economy in europe, property inflation almost zero, france has not suffered the economic, ups and downs due to their conservative attitudes towards money, older properties are now rising in value 6 per cent in one year,official source, notaires de france, a good indicator they are pulling out of recession, many houses in france are heated by wood and geothermie and renault have a new car not fueled by oil, things are changing, wind turbines are everywhere.
irelands problems were largely self induced and not the result of membership of the eu
it would save me personally a lot of time and effort to not have to figure out which currency to pay with when importing and exporting if there was one currency, a small example yes, but multiply this by all the others trying to do business worldwide and the financial benefits are enormous.
i think we are in libya now is  because its happening now, not next year, or in the future, lessons have been learned in previous situations, when civilians have been slaughtered its too late.
the idea of world government may seem impossible to many new to the idea, but it is a conception which grows upon one as the potential benefits come to mind  during reflection
		
Click to expand...


I used to live in the Irish republic so yes I have 

Things like the CAP are atrocious so I can't see world wide policy making going any better...
I'm not exactly some old codger set in their ways, I'm 21 and fairly open to such things but I cannot imagine how it could work...


----------



## Tinkerbee (24 March 2011)

CaveCanem said:



			Can anyone else hear trumpets? And who is that coming, riding that pale horse?!
		
Click to expand...

EARTHQUAKES!!!! Its the end I tells ya!


----------



## Sugarplum Furry (24 March 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1yIfOYQWxA

You wanna talk earthquakes?  Someone sent me this link on Facebook, I've just watched the whole thing (it's long). I recommend if you live in Japan or anywhere near Kansas you get the hell out of there...


----------



## lassiesuca (24 March 2011)

I think we'll never know the true answer. Politicians are very good at putting on the noble act, so lets not be fooled eh? 

I know people are arguing that Libya doesn't export as much oil as say Saudi Arabia etc, but the point is that it still brings in a lot of oil, I for one believe a lot of it is oil for several reasons. 

They say they are intervening for humanitarian reasons, correct? So if this is the case, instead of spending $50 million PER missile and shooting them at Libya, yet there are starving children in Africa. There are lots of charities based in the U.K who support Africans, but I don't see the PM going out to Africa and funding for education systems, or health care, malaria testing kits? Do you? There is inhumane treatment going on in Africa (I know Libya is part of Africa, but I'm talking about the more Southern countries), children are forced to go out and fight in wars, to kill people randomly, the cycle is endless because children are becoming orphans, having to raise their siblings and trying to get money and surviving, if malaria doesn't catch them first. 

Is that fair? Is that right? You could argue, well it's expensive funding all those things, but if each missile costs roughly $50 million, and they've fired hundreds already, we're well into $500 million, just on artillery, let alone paying all the soldiers, fuel etc. I'm not suggesting that we should ignore everywhere else except Africa, of course I'm not; but to me it sounds a little bit fishy? 


I'm sure there is a little voice in David Cameron's head which is probably thinking about the humanitarian rights of these people and the unmoral practice of Gaddafi- any idiot can see that. 

I think the world is a confusing place, one which I don't know if I would want to grow up in. Inequality, discrimination, wars, cruelty and just general nastiness. 

I know that eventually Gaddafi's resources WILL be low, and the manpower of the US, France and UK, is twice of the Libyan, however I do fear that all these protests in Africa and the Middle East are going to spiral out of control. 

If Britain and the US intervene with Libya, then they'll be expected to intervene in Bahrain, the Yemen and so on, I think the last thing us Western countries want to be doing is creating more enemies. If Gaddafi holds on and wins this fight, he's going to be pretty p*ssed. I think we have to tread carefully. 


Personally, I believe the MAJORITY of the reason why we're intervening is because of oil.


----------



## 1stclassalan (25 March 2011)

Let's get a few facts straight - a Tomahawk Cruise missile costs $500,000 and an Earth Shadow European missile 600,000 euros - a lot of money but nowhere near the inflated prices quoted above. Much of the costs bandied about by the anti-war lobby would have been spent anyway because you can't keep an aircraft carrier or loads of servicemen in a cupboard for free - they have to kept on readiness and they use stuff every day training.

So on to the "why aren't we helping elsewhere" - Libya is not only a practical target for live action but also practical and possible in the present political and tactical military sense - other regimes are supposed to get the hint without the need for hot intervention and as for Qu'addaffi once being a friend - that's often the case in all politics from small offices up to international situations - make friends with one's enemies and screw your friends, history is full of examples.

Most international affairs are dominated by one thought - "you've got what I want" and this can be anything - commodities or a helpful government - anything else doesn't matter that much. At present world markets provide a framework of money which makes the whole thing just about tick along.

Remember, Africa together with most of the world is perfectly capable of feeding itself - it's only when large numbers are uprooted by civil war that disasters occur and they are manmade.


----------



## tristar (25 March 2011)

if we were more intregrated politically and organised as in world centralisation we would'nt need to have all these different armies and expensive warheads and maintaining aircraft carriers in all the individual countries as at present, which, i could wrong but i think can take up to 5,000 personnel, a sort of larger version of nato  could be formed, comprising all nationalities on standby to take action as and where needed, and  in this case to protect  civilians, the money saved would be phenomenal and could be used research oil energy substitutes , just as an example.
all this unrest in arab oil producing nations is contributing to rocketing oil prices, the price of domestic electricity and gas is resulting in many people not able to afford sufficient heating  another reason to pool our resources and energies and work together for the greater good to reduce our oil dependence by developing renewable energy and evolving house structures which consume minimal energy.
as seen in the last two weeks nuclear energy has proved once again to me its a frightening prospect, although aknowledging that the reactors in japan are of a forty year old design, one  has to question the sanity of building nuclear reactors in an earthquake zone, and then there is always the question of disposing of the waste safely, it it really possible?   
 on another subject relevant to the world goverment issue, while eurozone is still in the early days, for  the first time there is talk of political integration, without which in its present form it's really a halfway house


----------



## Alec Swan (31 March 2011)

It is not in the best interests of the rest of the world,  that there should be unrest in the lands of the major oil producers.  Our wish for stability in the Middle East,  must be obvious.  The problem arises,  when we "assist",  and when in the past,  we have influenced the installation of a change of regime,  then with little thought but our own ends,  the results can be disaster.  

Whilst the oil reserves of Libya,  in themselves,  are probably not going to influence the supplies to the rest of the world,  major Middle Eastern unrest,  most certainly will.  So yes,  I think that oil is the basis for our intervention.  A genuine,  and wide spread Middle Eastern war would be disastrous. 

Arabs are still tribal people,  and as such,  they tend to be area based.  It makes for difficulties when democracy is installed.  Gaddafi has,  and will defend,  his own home area,  and the current rather ramshackle revolutionaries are going to have their work cut out,  without major assistance,  and without it,  they will eventually, give up.  The current shoot and scoot policy which they have in place,  is little more than an irritation to the Libyan Government forces,  I suspect.  Those who are bent on revolution may just as well have bows and arrows.  

The time will arrive,  if it hasn't already when we will send in "advisors".  The problem is that you can't train an army which is already at war,  and has no concept of the word,  discipline.

I also think,  that the current Nato policy is bound for failure,  without amendment,  though this may well have been the plan from the outset.  Without such an amendment there is the risk that the whole debacle will end up as a stale mate.  We'll see what happens.

Alec.


----------



## VoR (31 March 2011)

Libya produces very little in terms of world oil production (about 2.5%), although as mentioned, unrest in an oil producing region does have a knock-on effect.

The really strange thing is that there is and has been unrest with some apparent attrocities in other countries, Bahrain, Tunisia, etc, yet no action agianst these, is it then because Gaddafi, just maybe supports terrorism?

IMHO it's not just about oil!


----------



## Alec Swan (31 March 2011)

Following on from the latest Libyan defection......

There's a Moussa Koussa loussa aboot this housa,  and possible replacements are being considered from,  Squiddly Diddly,  Augie Doggie,  and Jaberjaw.  

Chicken Licken,  Gossey Loosey and Foxy Loxy,  are also thought to have put in for the job!!  

Alec.


----------

