|
0 members (),
34
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,536
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,080 Likes: 134
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,080 Likes: 134 |
I'm still wondering what the "unintended consequences" are that the topic is about let me take a stab at this the author states as a thesis that recent events in Mali and Algeria are part and parcel of Libyan revolutionary activities and as a result of US support the "unintended consequences" would be the recent attacks on a consulate in Benghazi, and an attack on an Algerian oil pipeline facility, and the insurgency in Mali. Pretty straightforward and not very interesting from a historical perspective, as everyone should know it is the nature of human activities that they can not be predetermined but simply limited to best available probability. My original premise was the author spent more time bashing everyone he doesn't like rather than providing meaningful analysis worth consideration, and it is still valid. I think I have a lot more to say but to quote logT, "it wasn't very interesting"
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Save America - Lock Trump Up!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,853
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,853 |
' I guess a summary of attitudes is that nobody who posted thinks war is generally a very good idea, so there's that. Okey-dokey. I think a summary of my attitude would be that the United States is ruled (and largely populated) by war-mongers who do a lot of damage in the world, and that some fraction of that damage is unintended. The destruction of a relatively stable state in Libya so that oil companies could increase their profits, apart from creating chaos in Libya, released large amounts of Libyan arms and the movement of Libyan trained and armed Touareg rebels [freedom-fighters?] into Algeria, Niger and Mali. More instability and destruction have ensued and will ensue from these machinations of the Pashas of Petroeum, though (so far!) probably not enough destruction to make them regret their actions to increase their profits.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,080 Likes: 134
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,080 Likes: 134 |
war-mongers who do a lot of damage in the world, and that some fraction of that damage is unintended The destruction of a relatively stable state in Libya so that oil companies could increase their profits these two statements are the basis of your criticism ... did you follow the logic or simply bypass the facts and go for the bash your second statement implies that the populist uprising was in fact a CIA black op disguised for the benefit of the oil companies ... is that about right? Don't drink the BC koolaid as much as US interventions are distasteful to you do not allow that to taint an objective analysis of the facts but if you believe you have a legitimate argument that the CIA is in fact the leaders in the Libyan uprising please continue (I'll let you figure out why I say CIA) o as an aside you did know that BP has been in Libya forever so perhaps you can explain how their profits will increase in a power change etc
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Save America - Lock Trump Up!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
Here is a link that details the companies with major interests in Lybian Oil link Aside from the fact that the involvement of US comp[anies is minimal... exceeded by russiAN GAZPROM... THe simple fact is that we have extensively discussed that the outcome of war is unpredictable... where as the outcome of instability is predictable.... supply disruptions I really do not see a logic beyond knee jerk anti americanism But of course, I will happily be corrected if someone can produce facts as I have
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
I wonder why the U.S. spent 1 billion dollars to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi? Why was the CIA involved with the Libyan rebels? Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Just askin' 
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583 |
I wonder why the U.S. spent 1 billion dollars to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi? Why was the CIA involved with the Libyan rebels? Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Just askin' Hmmmmm, could it be that since the war in Iraq has ended and the one in Afghanistan is winding down, that the DOD is looking for another cash cow for their defense contractor buddies? ![[Linked Image from mail.yimg.com]](http://mail.yimg.com/nq/cg/a/images/tsmileys2/20.gif)
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)
Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
Hmmmmm, could it be that since the war in Iraq has ended and the one in Afghanistan is winding down, that the DOD is looking for another cash cow for their defense contractor buddies? Now there's a thought! 
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
[quote=Ezekiel]I wonder why the U.S. spent 1 billion dollars to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi? Why was the CIA involved with the Libyan rebels? Just askin' Not being privy to the inner circles of govenment, I have no real idea. My only point was to examine the basis for your previous allegations. As I now understand your point, since I cannot say why the US did what it did, therefore it is certain that the US was motivated by oil and commercial interests. All that said, It is pretty clear that Quadaffi and the USA had a strained relationship for a very long time... with each side tweaking the other. I thnk that many people in the US government never forgot nor forgave Quadaffi for the Lockerbie bombing Following a three-year joint investigation by Scottish police and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, murder warrants were issued for two Libyan nationals in November 1991. Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi eventually handed over the two men for trial at Camp Zeist, Netherlands in 1999 after protracted negotiations and UN sanctions. In 2001 Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was jailed for the bombing. In August 2009 he was released by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. He died in May 2012 remaining the only person to be convicted for the attack.
In 2003 Gaddafi admitted Libya's responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paid compensation to the victims' families though he maintained he never personally gave the order for the attack.[3] During the Libyan civil war in 2011, a former government official contradicted Gaddafi claiming the Libyan leader had personally ordered the bombing.[3] Despite these assertions, numerous conspiracy theories have developed regarding responsibility for the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103. Wiki Also, Since we are asking questions, I have to wonder why Nato countries (including Norway) acted as active front men for the USA in this circumstance...
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
Also, Since we are asking questions, I have to wonder why Nato countries (including Norway) acted as active front men for the USA in this circumstance... Actually, a lot of those NATO countries had more to lose from a disruption in Libya's oil flow than the U.S. The U.S. really is not a major importer from Libya, but ![[Linked Image from cdn.theatlantic.com]](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/Importers-of-LIbyan-Oil.jpg) So you see, the E.U. did have a lot at stake. How much of the U.S. interest in preserving its Geopolitical alliances in Europe was behind the massive investment? Who knows! But if I had to bet...
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
So you see, the E.U. did have a lot at stake.
How much of the U.S. interest in preserving its Geopolitical alliances in Europe was behind the massive investment? Who knows! But if I had to bet... Zeke, it seems that argument you present shifts rather easily.... with the single unifying theme of nefarious and conspiritorial US foreign policy. I am not denying there are innumerable illustrative instances. But I do think that this point loses credibility when it is carelessly applied with essentially no evidence other than ... ...what else could it be? And Zeke, for what it is worth, I have found that people are much more willing to make bets when there is no chance they will have to pay off. Like, I bet this stock is going to go up, or I bet the whole world economy is going to crash into ashes.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
