Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[Laerod]

CORPORATIONS! REPUBLICANS! THE CONSTITUTION!...wait...what's that Jesus?..you're saying Libya exports next to no oil to the United States? You are saying the Democrats are in power and Obomba authorized military action without a formal Congressional vote as mandated by the Constitution just like Bush did in 2003?...Obama also informed the American citizenry via audio recording from his lax vacation in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil?


Man...all this....Change....so....so very subtle.

Heh, vacation. Say, do you vacation from 9 to 5 every day too? Or do you have a more flexible vacation schedule?

[Kharuyan]

CORPORATIONS! REPUBLICANS! THE CONSTITUTION!...wait...what's that Jesus?..you're saying Libya exports next to no oil to the United States? You are saying the Democrats are in power and Obomba authorized military action without a formal Congressional vote as mandated by the Constitution just like Bush did in 2003?...Obama also informed the American citizenry via audio recording from his lax vacation in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil?


Man...all this....Change....so....so very subtle.

I am pretty sure nothing in your post is actually accurate.

There actually was one thing inaccurate. Bush had a formal Congressional vote (297-133 House; 77-23 Senate) before acting in 2003.

Aside from that, the Dems are in power, Obama did order military action, and Libya exports very little oil to the US.

[Laerod]

As far as economics go, all the stability needed would have been that around the oil fields and whatever was being reconstructed. This intervention has at best turned this civil war into a stalemate. Let's be clear: The most that the West can realistically hope for is a de facto or de jure partition of Libya. This is the second least economically beneficial situation. The least beneficial would be Gaddafi winning despite Western intervention. It has been completely against Western economic interests to intervene in and prolong this civil war.

I simply don't see this as the case, unless we also maintain that it would be impossible to have economic relations with a split - yet peaceful - Libya.

It will be fairly unlikely that the situation will be stable enough to allow for exploitation of resources by Western companies. Gaddafi's fought a bunch of proxy wars and has the means to stir up trouble. In all, intervening is high risk for very low if any gain in an economic sense.

[Hydesland]

Economics may or may not be a factor; I don't think that inherently makes the war immoral. It becomes immoral when the need for stable oil output overrides the interests of the civilian population, but if this was the case the west would be aiding and assisting Gaddafi in brutally crushing the revolt, not supporting the rebels.

[Chumblywumbly]

It will be fairly unlikely that the situation will be stable enough to allow for exploitation of resources by Western companies.

As Libya's economy is based upon oil exports, any two-state solution would presumably return to some form of involvement with the oil industry.

In relation to the stability of such a scenario, I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility.

In all, intervening is high risk for very low if any gain in an economic sense.

The 'gain' I discuss is returning to an approximation of the economic (if not political) status quo.

---

Economics may or may not be a factor; I don't think that inherently makes the war immoral.

True.

I am yet to be entirely convinced by the detractors of this conflict.

[Kharuyan]

That said, my actual stance is this:

Why does it have to be a problem of the US? Why does the US have to even care about some tin-pot dictator? For all the other countries that want US participation, let them take the lead in peace-keeping military actions for once. It'll show the world who really cares enough to engage if the US steps out. Let them fight their own war and save our multi-million dollar missiles, ships and aircraft for something important. More importantly, park them for a few years as one small part of reducing federal expenditures and focus on paying down the national debt. Libya is no ally of the US and the US has next to no interest in being there.

[Hyorius]

which idiot thinks the invasion is good? only stupid, anti-Muslim morons. The invasion on libya is an attempt by the global zionist + anti-islamic european alliance to control oil. The move will kill countless innocent citizens which the hypocritical NATO + allied forces are trying to "protect." these greedy bastards dont care about any lives (think about half a million iraqi children + hundreds of thousands innocent iraqi civilians who died because of UN sanctions NATO attacks? These imperialists are the real terrorists; they along with their jewish lobby and israel terrorise Muslims. When Israel bombarded Gaza and massacred thousands of innocent palestinians, these hypocrites didnt do anything. Innocent people are dying in Bahrain and other countries but they dont attack bahrain or other muslim nations with anti-government protests or rebels. Nato + Allies have a hidden agenda: greed for oil, attacking muslims and undermining them, etc

[Hydesland]

which idiot thinks the invasion is good? only stupid, anti-Muslim morons. The invasion on libya is an attempt by the global zionist + anti-islamic european alliance to control oil. The move will kill countless innocent citizens which the hypocritical NATO + allied forces are trying to "protect."

Prove a single one of these statements.

[Farnhamia]

which idiot thinks the invasion is good? only stupid, anti-Muslim morons. The invasion on libya is an attempt by the global zionist + anti-islamic european alliance to control oil. The move will kill countless innocent citizens which the hypocritical NATO + allied forces are trying to "protect." these greedy bastards dont care about any lives (think about half a million iraqi children + hundreds of thousands innocent iraqi civilians who died because of UN sanctions NATO attacks? These imperialists are the real terrorists; they along with their jewish lobby and israel terrorise Muslims. When Israel bombarded Gaza and massacred thousands of innocent palestinians, these hypocrites didnt do anything. Innocent people are dying in Bahrain and other countries but they dont attack bahrain or other muslim nations with anti-government protests or rebels. Nato + Allies have a hidden agenda: greed for oil, attacking muslims and undermining them, etc

Yes, yes, but what do you really think? And some of the "stupid, anti-Muslim morons" involved were the Arab League and the rebels themselves.

Not that I was in favor of invading Iraq, but you do have sources for those large numbers you're throwing about, of course. I imagine you simply didn't have time to post them all here.

[Kharuyan]

BLAH, BLAH! JIHAD AGAINST THE EVIL, DECADENT, IMPERIALIST, INFIDELS!! RISE UP AND RESTORE THE CALIPHATE!! DEATH TO ALL THOSE WHO REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO ISLAM!! JIHAD! BLAH, BLAH JIHAD! KILL ALL INFIDELS!! BAKA-LAKA, DERKA-DERKA MUHAMED JIHAD!!

The abridged version.

EDIT: And this is from a player whose nation state is a small, Middle-Eastern Emirate in-game.

[Farnhamia]

BLAH, BLAH! JIHAD AGAINST THE EVIL, DECADENT, IMPERIALIST, INFIDELS!! RISE UP AND RESTORE THE CALIPHATE!! DEATH TO ALL THOSE WHO REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO ISLAM!! JIHAD! BLAH, BLAH JIHAD! KILL ALL INFIDELS!!

The abridged version.

That's not the impression I got. I thought he was all about "Another attack from the West! Leave us alone!"

[Laerod]

which idiot thinks the invasion is good?

What invasion?

only stupid, anti-Muslim morons.

Like the aptly named Arab League. Or Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The invasion on libya is an attempt by the global zionist + anti-islamic european alliance to control oil.

What invasion?

The move will kill countless innocent citizens which the hypocritical NATO + allied forces are trying to "protect." these greedy bastards dont care about any lives (think about half a million iraqi children + hundreds of thousands innocent iraqi civilians who died because of UN sanctions NATO attacks?

Hundreds of thousands (of) innocent (I)raqi civilians have died due to NATO attacks? The number is 0, actually. The only involvement of NATO in Iraq is a training mission.

These imperialists are the real terrorists; they along with their jewish lobby and israel terrorise Muslims.

This is the first time I've seen anyone call the Arab League Jewish. I wonder if they would be offended.

When Israel bombarded Gaza and massacred thousands of innocent palestinians, these hypocrites didnt do anything. Innocent people are dying in Bahrain and other countries but they dont attack bahrain or other muslim nations with anti-government protests or rebels.

So part of your rant is evidence that NATO and Europe are not, in fact, attacking every muslim country there is?

Nato + Allies have a hidden agenda: greed for oil, attacking muslims and undermining them, etc

What? What oil? Europe already had access to that.

[Kharuyan]

That's not the impression I got. I thought he was all about "Another attack from the West! Leave us alone!"

He went past that much when he spewed such generic ad hominem gems as:

...only stupid, anti-Muslim morons...UN sanctions NATO attacks? they along with their jewish lobby and israel terrorise Muslims...These imperialists are the real terrorists...which the hypocritical NATO + allied forces are trying to "protect."

Then we have to pull out the tin-foil hats for conspiracy-time:

The invasion on libya is an attempt by the global zionist + anti-islamic european alliance to control oil...Nato + Allies have a hidden agenda: greed for oil, attacking muslims and undermining them, etc...these greedy bastards dont care about any lives

Then we have "pull out of my ass" random numbers:

The move will kill countless innocent citizens...(think about half a million iraqi children + hundreds of thousands innocent iraqi civilians who died...When Israel bombarded Gaza and massacred thousands of innocent palestinians...

Finally, we have irrelevant non sequitors(sp?):

Innocent people are dying in Bahrain and other countries but they dont attack bahrain or other muslim nations with anti-government protests or rebels.

[Farnhamia]

That's not the impression I got. I thought he was all about "Another attack from the West! Leave us alone!"

He went past that much when he spewed such generic ad hominem gems as:

...only stupid, anti-Muslim morons...UN sanctions NATO attacks? they along with their jewish lobby and israel terrorise Muslims...These imperialists are the real terrorists...which the hypocritical NATO + allied forces are trying to "protect."

Then we have to pull out the tin-foil hats for conspiracy-time:

The invasion on libya is an attempt by the global zionist + anti-islamic european alliance to control oil...Nato + Allies have a hidden agenda: greed for oil, attacking muslims and undermining them, etc...these greedy bastards dont care about any lives

Then we have "pull out of my ass" random numbers:

The move will kill countless innocent citizens...(think about half a million iraqi children + hundreds of thousands innocent iraqi civilians who died...When Israel bombarded Gaza and massacred thousands of innocent palestinians...

Finally, we have irrelevant non sequitors(sp?):

Innocent people are dying in Bahrain and other countries but they dont attack bahrain or other muslim nations with anti-government protests or rebels.

Granted, but where is the Caliphate and jihad and submitting and kill the infidels?

[Gauthier]

Pentagon: Gadhafi Forces in Disarray After Assault

Oh, here's a hilarious tidbit:

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the goals of the operation are to protect civilians from further violence by pro-Gadhafi forces, while enabling the flow of humanitarian relief supplies. But it was unclear how long the military effort would continue or on what scale.

That uncertainty led to criticism from senior Republicans in Congress.

House Speaker John Boehner said that the Obama administration "has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress and our troops what the mission in Libya is" and how it will be accomplished.

Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Obama needs to tell the American public "to what extent military force will be used and for how long."

Yeah, kind of like how they asked Shrub what the mission in Iraq exactly was, how it would be accomplished and just how long it would take.

[Kubrath]

I don't need to post long arguments to say the obvious:

[Farnhamia]

Pentagon: Gadhafi Forces in Disarray After Assault

Oh, here's a hilarious tidbit:

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the goals of the operation are to protect civilians from further violence by pro-Gadhafi forces, while enabling the flow of humanitarian relief supplies. But it was unclear how long the military effort would continue or on what scale.

That uncertainty led to criticism from senior Republicans in Congress.

House Speaker John Boehner said that the Obama administration "has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress and our troops what the mission in Libya is" and how it will be accomplished.

Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Obama needs to tell the American public "to what extent military force will be used and for how long."

Yeah, kind of like how they asked Shrub what the mission in Iraq exactly was, how it would be accomplished and just how long it would take.

You don't understand. Speaker Boehner and the other patriots in Congress learned their lesson back in the Bush Administration. They should have asked those questions and I believe they wanted to do so, but Vice-President Cheney made a mean face at them and then invited them to discuss it on a hunting trip, so they just yelled at the Democrats and anyone else who questioned the invasion of Iraq. I mean, no one in Congress supported President Bush or the invasion of Iraq, but when Mr. Cheney's eyes focus on you like that, well, you try to think of something else.

[Andaluciae]

Were.

I don't need to post long arguments to say the obvious:

(Image)

Ah, no.

If this were a war for oil, the allies would be intervening on behalf of the Gaddhafi regime. France and Britain both have lucrative oil contracts with Gaddhafi, and maintenance of those ties would seem to be a more compelling oil advantage.

[DEFCON-1]

The overwhelming liberal support and conservative opposition to this is evidence that people pick their position based on their party and not the other way around.

[Chumblywumbly]

The overwhelming liberal support and conservative opposition to this is evidence that people pick their position based on their party and not the other way around.

Break that down for me in terms of the UK.

Ta.

[Herrebrugh]

which idiot thinks the invasion is good? only stupid, anti-Muslim morons. The invasion on libya is an attempt by the global zionist + anti-islamic european alliance to control oil. The move will kill countless innocent citizens which the hypocritical NATO + allied forces are trying to "protect." these greedy bastards dont care about any lives (think about half a million iraqi children + hundreds of thousands innocent iraqi civilians who died because of UN sanctions NATO attacks? These imperialists are the real terrorists; they along with their jewish lobby and israel terrorise Muslims. When Israel bombarded Gaza and massacred thousands of innocent palestinians, these hypocrites didnt do anything. Innocent people are dying in Bahrain and other countries but they dont attack bahrain or other muslim nations with anti-government protests or rebels. Nato + Allies have a hidden agenda: greed for oil, attacking muslims and undermining them, etc

Well, no. It's more of an, a bit late, attempt to keep the entire population of Libya of being slaughtered.

[Hydesland]

The overwhelming liberal support and conservative opposition to this is evidence that people pick their position based on their party and not the other way around.

What conservative opposition?

[DEFCON-1]

The overwhelming liberal support and conservative opposition to this is evidence that people pick their position based on their party and not the other way around.

Break that down for me in terms of the UK.

Ta.

I do not know anything about UK politics

[Jasarite]

I don't need to post long arguments to say the obvious:

(Image)

You are, sadly, right. Oil is the only reason we are taking action.

[Laerod]

I don't need to post long arguments to say the obvious:

(Image)

It's not obvious. Explain to me how the Europeans and North Americans would be getting at this oil that they'd been receiving anyway but no longer are.