Operation Freedom Falcon: NATO vs. Libya (Congress, Iran, wage, middle east)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hello people. Here I would ask you to express your opinion on the topic. I'm an Indonesian student and I really need opinion of native Americans for a research for my studies. So, I would be very grateful if you answer the following questions:
1) Do you think NATO actually has the legal right to support opposition against the legitimate power? Do you consider it legal, fair?
2) Do you think Gaddafi's regime was tyrannical?
3) Do you agree that the intervention has something to do with Libyan natural resources (first of all, oil)?
Thanx for your answers. I will also try to attach a poll, so if I manage - feel free to answer.
Hello people. Here I would ask you to express your opinion on the topic. I'm an Indonesian student and I really need opinion of native Americans for a research for my studies. So, I would be very grateful if you answer the following questions:
1) Do you think NATO actually has the legal right to support opposition against the legitimate power? Do you consider it legal, fair?
2) Do you think Gaddafi's regime was tyrannical?
3) Do you agree that the intervention has something to do with Libyan natural resources (first of all, oil)?
Thanx for your answers. I will also try to attach a poll, so if I manage - feel free to answer.
I'm not "Native American" (our term for the American Indian of early America), but I am "native-born American" and my family has been here since the 1800s.
Here's my answers:
1) Legal right? Yes, because whoever is in power MAKES the laws. What is "legal" means very little in the modern world, other than it is "What the king, or the government, or the Pharoah, etc., wants." In the case of NATO, the "king" is the United States, which funds about 1/4 of NATO, but which rules NATO through its "allies" like other major NATO-funders, the U.K. and France. Gates criticizes NATO; How much does U.S. pay? - CBS News
Just because something is legal, says nothing about whether it is moral, ethical, or "right,"--which it is not, in my opinion, since the majority of U.S. taxpayers (like me) do NOT want our money used to fund "world policing." We also don't like our money being used to fight for OTHER nation's financial interests, which is the clear case in Libya. The U.S. should have achieved energy independence from the MidEast during the first oil crisis of the 1970s, and our leaders absolutely refused to fix the problem. Now the U.S. is far more dependent on foreign oil than we were then. Our leaders don't WANT to fix the problems in America; they want to justify the huge Military Industrial Complex that inevitably bankrupts all military empires.
2) No doubt Gaddafi's regime was tyrannical, but he was not the ONLY tyrant in the world, and was probably not the worst. The U.S., even with its ridiculously oversized military, doesn't have the wealth or population or economy to take over every nation currently ruled by a tyrant, even if I thought those nations would be better off under our rule.
3) Absolutely the Libyan War is over oil. Our wars are ALWAYS about resources/profits now. When the war in Libya first broke out, everyone was saying "we're doing it for humanitarian reasons, since the U.S. doesn't get much oil from Libya." I looked into it further, and found that before the war, our allies France and the U.K. were already getting much of their oil from Libya, and the U.S. oil companies were ramping up there too: "Libya is a vital energy producer, and BP had previously committed itself to spending more than $1bn on exploration plans under Muammar Gaddafi's government. Shell was also becoming active before the civil war broke out, as was Total of France..." The race is on for Libya's oil, with Britain and France both staking a claim | World news | The Guardian
I think you'll find that many people want to believe that America went to war in Libya for "humanitarian reasons." The American people are good people, and while our government uses our money to wage wars for Big Business profits, we are generally told that we go to war for "peace, justice and the American Way." Our leaders know we won't oppose their wars nearly as much, if we think we're "freeing the world from tyranny." Unfortunately, by the time we are old enough to see how our leaders manipulate us for their own profit and gain, there are large numbers of naive young people who were born after us, supporting our leaders as long as they use the right justifications. It's really sad that that military empires cannot ever smarten up and STOP bankrupting themselves, but that is the inevitable course of history.
Hello people. Here I would ask you to express your opinion on the topic. I'm an Indonesian student and I really need opinion of native Americans for a research for my studies. So, I would be very grateful if you answer the following questions:
1) Do you think NATO actually has the legal right to support opposition against the legitimate power? Do you consider it legal, fair?
2) Do you think Gaddafi's regime was tyrannical?
3) Do you agree that the intervention has something to do with Libyan natural resources (first of all, oil)?
Thanx for your answers. I will also try to attach a poll, so if I manage - feel free to answer.
Good question. Libya was involved in a civil war. Our president (not the American people, or even the elected leaders in congress) chose to support one side in a civil war, employing the US military to murder the legitimate government and military of the country. All without declaring a war. This was wrong.
Was Gaddafi's regime tyrannical? Yes. Had Gadaffi supported terrorists that attacked US citizens? Yes. I would have supported attacks against the individual, either a very large bomb through his bedroom window, or a sniper attack. Slaughtering the entire military of the country, throwing the country in chaos and supporting a mob's takeover, was uncalled for.
Was it about natural resources? I don't think so. Oil was being produced and sold to western powers under Gaddafi. There is no gurantee that this will be the case, once the power struggle settles out. I expect to see oil production and exports to go down.
I think this is going to hurt, rather than help, US interests. Messing with other countries internal affairs, no matter how well intentioned, rarely ends well for us. Examples include Iran, Afganistan, and to an extent, Pakistan.
I support neither. It is not our business, or place to make alliances with any nation.
If they want to be our friend, they do so because they wish, not because we forced them to be and then give the our tax dollars to keep quite and behave.
3) Absolutely the Libyan War is over oil. Our wars are ALWAYS about resources/profits now. When the war in Libya first broke out, everyone was saying "we're doing it for humanitarian reasons, since the U.S. doesn't get much oil from Libya." I looked into it further, and found that before the war, our allies France and the U.K. were already getting much of their oil from Libya, and the U.S. oil companies were ramping up there too: "Libya is a vital energy producer, and BP had previously committed itself to spending more than $1bn on exploration plans under Muammar Gaddafi's government. Shell was also becoming active before the civil war broke out, as was Total of France..." The race is on for Libya's oil, with Britain and France both staking a claim | World news | The Guardian
That's true to an extent, but I don't believe it was the primary motive. The greater crime for which the wrath fell upon Col. Gaddafi is about money and banking, and his unwillingness to sell out the Libyan people to the international gangsters at the World Bank and IMF.
The plans to institute a gold Dinar, and the call for payments in gold for Libyan oil rather than worthless Federal Reserve dollars was moving forward, and that was a precedent the gangsters were not prepared to allow. Divvying up the Oil was just the spoils of war.
"Operation Freedom Falcon: NATO vs. Libya Hello people. Here I would ask you to express your opinion on the topic. I'm an Indonesian student and I really need opinion of native Americans for a research for my studies. So, I would be very grateful if you answer the following questions: 1) Do you think NATO actually has the legal right to support opposition against the legitimate power? Do you consider it legal, fair? 2) Do you think Gaddafi's regime was tyrannical? 3) Do you agree that the intervention has something to do with Libyan natural resources (first of all, oil)? Thanx for your answers. I will also try to attach a poll, so if I manage - feel free to answer. "
1. Dilema, not just with Libya, involves an ethnocentric view of culture clashes and human rights. The entire region has its own flavor of laws and culture that breeds chronic regime change by violent revolution.
Nato is a conglomeration of nations whose decisions made in concurrence, are an attempt to validate violating a legitimate government. Think of it as gang rule. As such it creates its own legitimacy. Legal is no guarantee of legitimacy as the 'law' is never absolute in a court of opposing lawyers. The question erroneously assumes 'legal' is an absolute term.
Justification for attacking Libya would then have to apply to many other countries where humanity is laid waste by the standards of NATO.
Not surprisingly only Euro style rhetoric is aimed at these other conflicts. Why the US president chose Libya, despite the lack of support by legislators and American people, is a question to which he must supply a believable answer. His response to date is inconsistent with his originaly stated intent. Unless you listen to a herd of lawyers attempt to clarify what the great orator actually meant.
The middle east, north African region has been an alien place to a world where Japan and the US fought as the bitterest of enemies and today you would think they experienced minor diplomatic flap sometime in the distant past.
Whether it is the blend of religious/political rule which fosters unforgiveness or something else inherant in that culture that keeps violent conflict alive, that region will always be at the heart of controversy when held up to the global standards and evolution.
2. Tyrannical, forget the labels as the argument regarding their definition is really a cartesian product. Best to consider the observed behaviors and make a judgement as to how acceptable they are to any given perspective. I wouldn't want to be living under those conditions.
3. Absolutely no link to natural resources by Nato. Perhaps that was in the back of the minds of some particiapants but it was not a prime reason.
That does not mean countries like China, Russia would not do their best to access possible startegic locations and natural resources through covert or covert means. All countries seek advantage, the extent to which it acts to acquire this advantage makes all the difference.
Libya had been accumulating an impressive list of global offensives over the years which more than likely formed the basis for tipping the scales to ensure its own demise. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Last edited by Kracer; 11-05-2011 at 09:37 AM..
Reason: quotes
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
