devilsadvoc8 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I am a bit mystified that we have entered into the Libyian conflict. With the UK and France already signed on, why not let them do the heavy lifting since we are already bogged down elsewhere in the region. Do we need yet another population base angry with us? If the arab league is so willing to come out against the Libyian loon, why not let them use all those fancy fighters we sell them? With the UK, France, and I presume Italy involved, they should be fine without us. Just my 2 pence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 If it just amounts to firing off a bunch of cruise missiles and bombers sortees (i.e. relatively limited engagement), I'm not too worried about it, with the caveat that I really haven't thought about how likely it is we'll get a good outcome (for example, are the people we're supporting a bunch of loonies that will ultimately come back to bite us in the a$$). So far as engendering more animosity, we're well beyond the point that it makes a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I am a bit mystified that we have entered into the Libyian conflict. With the UK and France already signed on, why not let them do the heavy lifting since we are already bogged down elsewhere in the region. Do we need yet another population base angry with us? If the arab league is so willing to come out against the Libyian loon, why not let them use all those fancy fighters we sell them? With the UK, France, and I presume Italy involved, they should be fine without us. Just my 2 pence. It sounds like we are desperately trying to offload control to Britain France or NATO for those very reasons. My guess is we are the only country capable (willing?) to rapidly execute the precise strategic bombing that it takes to initially set up a no fly zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 It sounds like we are desperately trying to offload control to Britain France or NATO for those very reasons. My guess is we are the only country capable (willing?) to rapidly execute the precise strategic bombing that it takes to initially set up a no fly zone. If this is the case, our allies have fallen into an embarrassing state of ill-preparedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 And now Italy is wavering. Typical. They only risk 8 jets while we send warships and bombers across the world. They helped prop up the madman themselves. Take some f'n responsibility! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I'd be more OK with this if we didn't just go into places that had oil. Look at what is going on Bahrain and not a peep, ditto the genocide in the Sudan. I guess if you want the US to intervene you need to have oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I'd be more OK with this if we didn't just go into places that had oil. Look at what is going on Bahrain and not a peep, ditto the genocide in the Sudan. I guess if you want the US to intervene you need to have oil. Yeah, 'cause all the "No Blood For Oil" rhetoric the loony fringe left you preside over was correct. See how we just took over the Iraqi oil fields for the United States gain like you claimed was going to happen. Maybe we should invade Japan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I'd be more OK with this if we didn't just go into places that had oil. Look at what is going on Bahrain and not a peep, ditto the genocide in the Sudan. I guess if you want the US to intervene you need to have oil. Over the last half dozen years Libya has been producing about a half of a percent of our oil imports. To me the "oil" argument is exceptionally thin here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Over the last half dozen years Libya has been producing about a half of a percent of our oil imports. To me the "oil" argument is exceptionally thin here. It's not just us. It's oil as something traded on the world market. Even if we don't get oil directly from Libya, what happens there impacts the price we pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 It's not just us. It's oil as something traded on the world market. Even if we don't get oil directly from Libya, what happens there impacts the price we pay. Oil prices still vastly out pace inflation growth so if the master plan is to try to seed democracy in oil rich countries the strategy is not paying off very well. I also think this line of thinking is a dangerous slope in that any country that is in need of aid, but happens to have oil as a major export, we will be unable to assist because "it looks bad". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Oil prices still vastly out pace inflation growth so if the master plan is to try to seed democracy in oil rich countries the strategy is not paying off very well. I also think this line of thinking is a dangerous slope in that any country that is in need of aid, but happens to have oil as a major export, we will be unable to assist because "it looks bad". It is a long term strategy. Democracy doesn't happen overnight. Also, it is as much about opening markets for large oil companies (whether they are American or not) as anything else. When was the last time we stoked democracy in a country that did not have oil? Bosnia? The fact that it looks bad has not stopped us before, and it won't stop us in the future. The Daily Show had it right last night. http://www.hulu.com/watch/225699/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-americas-freedom-packages#s-p1-sr-i1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masked Fan Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 The persecution of the citizens in Libya is none of our damned business. Let them handle their own damned civil war and we can make deals with the winner. I really hate every live episode of Team America World Police. Yeah, 'cause all the "No Blood For Oil" rhetoric the loony fringe left you preside over was correct. See how we just took over the Iraqi oil fields for the United States gain like you claimed was going to happen. I wish Iraq was the 51st state, Texxon. It's not just us. It's oil as something traded on the world market. Even if we don't get oil directly from Libya, what happens there impacts the price we pay. Sure friggin does. Libya oil is a drop in the pail and yet the greedy bastards with the black gold are driving the cost per barrel up with ANY excuse that sounds reasonable. Just like Katrina. Watch how friggin slowly the prices come down after though. It just aint right. Plus Saudi sed they'd up production to compensate for any shortfall from Libya . It's all such B.S. Some President just needs to put his foot down and cap what the USA will pay. See if they want to sell their oil or let it pile up. Bastards. Oil prices still vastly out pace inflation growth so if the master plan is to try to seed democracy in oil rich countries the strategy is not paying off very well. I also think this line of thinking is a dangerous slope in that any country that is in need of aid, but happens to have oil as a major export, we will be unable to assist because "it looks bad". The only thing that looks bad to me is that WE foot the bill for these "wars" while these Oil Rich countries rebuild. At the very least our war machines should be getting FREE petroleum products as we roll over oil field after oil field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) It is a long term strategy. Democracy doesn't happen overnight. Also, it is as much about opening markets for large oil companies (whether they are American or not) as anything else. People have been pushing this oil agenda theory for decades now and it doesn't seem to be making that much of a difference. What I don't understand is, if there is some sort of secret master plan to continuously bomb oil bearing nations, why not just use that power or leverage to focus on opening our own oil reserves and issue some drilling permits. That seems far easier and more practical then nation building so oil companies can expand. Is the path of least resistance really invading other countries rather then drill in Alaska? When was the last time we stoked democracy in a country that did not have oil? Bosnia? The fact that it looks bad has not stopped us before, and it won't stop us in the future. Kosovo comes to mind. And I wasn't really trying to imply that it does or would stop us. It's more that I find the idea that we can't intervene because a nation has oil to be somewhat limiting. I'll agree that we are inconsistent in which countries we choose to protect, but I don't that that it necessarily correlates to oil and it doesn't make it mutually exclusive with altruistic intent. Edited March 23, 2011 by squishyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts