Was the Nato intervention of Libya to free the people? Or to free the oil?
46 replies, posted
Gold Dinar
[video=youtube;GuqZfaj34nc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc[/video]
RT interviews a "conspiracy theorist" :tinfoil:
[video=youtube;3T8_cH2n9CI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T8_cH2n9CI[/video]
Putin criticize the actions of Nato.
[video=youtube;Iw5Ij_RFJ1Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw5Ij_RFJ1Q[/video]
Do you think the NATO intervention was more about the oil and less about freeing the people?
Conspiracy theories are allow in this debate :dance: if you somehow can back it up.
I'd post my evidence but big brother and the russians is after me!!! :tinfoil:
Was certainly about oil, but more so about the USD.
Oil is bought with USD, Gaddafi was going to implement a new trade currency using gold which would really have messed with the USD.
Why do you think the Chicom's and Ruskie's dropped the USD as a reserve currency?
[url]http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2011/05/iraq-iran-libya-oil-and-dollar.html[/url]
How is it he's in power for 30 years and NOW we decide it's time to take him out? This certainly isn't our first excursion involving Libya.
i never cared enough to think about it this way. interesting and to be honest i'm sold after a bit of time spent thinking
Putin argued some good points (I am not a Putin dick rider), but when saying the Libyan people should be given time to sort out their own problems, I think we all know the rebels stood absolutely no chance.
It strongly depends on how cynical you are.
Many critics argue that NATO is 99% U.S. and most of the work done in Libya was essentially U.S.
The thing is, if we waged war on purely economic grounds, why would the U.S. take a stake in something that does not impact them financially? I was told that Libya is the main supplier of oil to most of the EU, not the U.S.
The protection of foreign interests in Libya, such as oil certainly came along when France sent out their first jets a few months ago.
How could intervening possibly in any way secure us more oil
Another argument is that civil wars usually stagnate the economy of the country. This can easily be seen in the American Civil War in where the industry has been entirely focused on the war effort and the agricultural business in the southern parts were utterly destroyed.
Why would NATO choose to escalate a civil war by choosing the rebel side when they were losing?
I wouldn't trust RussiaToday for information, it's pretty much government-funded propaganda.
Intervention against a state or army that has done nothing to directly harm us is never justified.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;32884492]How could intervening possibly in any way secure us more oil[/QUOTE]
Because Libya will now be under western influence for the rest of its existence
The UN constantly helps uprisings so that they have a claim in that region, and so that those new countries will be born into UN control and industry
[editline]21st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Onion836;32885091]I wouldn't trust RussiaToday for information, it's pretty much government-funded propaganda.[/QUOTE]
You have no idea what you're talking about, stop posting
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32885196]Because Libya will now be under western influence for the rest of its existence
The UN constantly helps uprisings so that they have a claim in that region, and so that those new countries will be born into UN control and industry[/QUOTE]
Corporations have no reason to lower their prices just because NATO helped them out. They don't care.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;32885384]Corporations have no reason to lower their prices just because NATO helped them out. They don't care.[/QUOTE]
I don't remember ever mentioned lowering prices but thanks for the info
Also Gaddafi's regime was under western influence as well, the west put him in power
[editline]20th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32885401]I don't remember ever mentioned lowering prices but thanks for the info[/QUOTE]
Well what else could we possibly be talking about. We're talking about oil, and the only way to get anything more out of oil is with lower prices. It's not like they'd stop selling to NATO
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;32885407]Also Gaddafi's regime was under western influence as well, the west put him in power
[editline]20th October 2011[/editline]
Well what else could we possibly be talking about. We're talking about oil, and the only way to get anything more out of oil is with lower prices. It's not like they'd stop selling to NATO[/QUOTE]
We knock out tons of dictators that we put in place, as soon as they stop doing what we ask
Why would the corporations ever lower gas prices
They're not invading countries for oil to give you better prices, they're doing it so they have more of a limited resource
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32885444]We knock out tons of dictators that we put in place, as soon as they stop doing what we ask
Why would the corporations ever lower gas prices
They're not invading countries for oil to give you better prices, they're doing it so they have more of a limited resource[/QUOTE]
Why would we get more if we have influence.
Explain.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;32885473]Why would we get more if we have influence.
Explain.[/QUOTE]
We have a militant ally and they are obligated to give us resources in exchange for the help we provide when setting up the infrastructure of their fledgling country
Can't remember which it was, but there's a South American country whose power grid is almost entirely powered by an American corporation that received US government funding
Whenever NATO or the UN decide to help out a rebellious nation, it's not for the sake of doing good, there's always a backdoor benefit for those involved
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;32885473]Why would we get more if we have influence.
Explain.[/QUOTE]
If your victory was obtained by an ally that arrived in a very decisive timing, then you may be more or less inclined to repay them back with some form of gratitude.
Oil is a commodity, businesses will sell it to whomever for whatever the going rate is. National ties are irrelevant. I've never heard of a US alliance where the other country pays in oil for our protection
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;32885527]Oil is a commodity, businesses will sell it to whomever for whatever the going rate is. National ties are irrelevant. I've never heard of a US alliance where the other country pays in oil for our protection[/QUOTE]
Its more that we're able to go in and take what we want without any protest or opposition, because its our country in the first place
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32885550]Its more that we're able to go in and take what we want without any protest or opposition, because its our country in the first place[/QUOTE]
...Libya isn't our possession
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;32885560]...Libya isn't our possession[/QUOTE]
Not legally, but considering we'll no doubt contribute to it's infrastructure and we've invested tremendous amounts of resources in overthrowing Gaddafi, it practically is.
[QUOTE=Onion836;32885091]I wouldn't trust RussiaToday for information, it's pretty much government-funded propaganda.[/QUOTE]
It's still a lot better then US news outlets, good with more opinions even if it's biased.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;32885407]Also Gaddafi's regime was under western influence as well, the west put him in power[/QUOTE]
But the Gold Dinar would destroy that influence.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;32885560]...Libya isn't our possession[/QUOTE]
Were you watching the news during all of this?
By intervening, the next government that steps up will basically be obliged to give the US whatever it wants, but there's more of a catch since it was 'NATO' that stepped in, meaning Libya is basically 'indebted' to the EU as well as the US.
They knock out a dictator, and the people in the country begin to love them. Making bargaining for oil easier, and more in the EU's favor. Remember when the Libyan rebels were saying, 'We're going to help out our allies France and Britain' and all that shit?
Face it, the EU is nearly out of oil, by securing Libya, they gain a very valuable limited commodity that allows them to do what they want for a longer time.
[editline]21st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Onion836;32885091]I wouldn't trust RussiaToday for information, it's pretty much government-funded propaganda.[/QUOTE]
It's an amazingly accurate representation of american news, but as soon as it comes to russian news, you're better off watching CNN.
[editline]21st October 2011[/editline]
Also, by having the rebels supposedly kill him in his convoy, they remove any sort of trial that might've happened after this. This is a fucking smooth operation.
Another war started and funded by US when will this ever end?
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;32884492]How could intervening possibly in any way secure us more oil[/QUOTE]
More? It's securing our current oil interests.
[editline]21st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Knuffelbeer;32890213]Another war started and funded by US when will this ever end?[/QUOTE]
Never. We just sent 100 advisors into Uganda, we'll soon be there.
Very little oil from Libya was, and to a lesser extent right now, is sold to the US. The vast majority of it goes to African and European nations. Nations that already had lucrative oil deals with Libya. So I don't believe our intervention was about oil.
That being said, I don't entirely believe that our sole purpose there was to protect civilians. Gaddafi's convoy was fleeing Sirte when it was attacked by, I believe, French and American forces. The vast majority of civilians had already evacuated Sirte in the weeks prior to the rebels advancing. So who were Nato protecting? The rebels are not civilians anymore. Once they chose to pick up a weapon, they became fighters. It's beyond obvious that Nato was deliberately aiding the rebels to oust Gaddafi. However, judging from the countless times Nato bombarded his compound in Tripoli, it seems their aim was to simply kill Gaddafi. I think it probably started out as a mission to protect civilians. Benghazi was saved from destruction by Nato forces in the early days of our role there. But it seems Nato's interests quickly changed when they began attacking forces and buildings that posed no direct threat.
In the end, I think Gaddafi dying was the worst thing that could have happened. Don't get me wrong, I won't be one to moarn his death. But regardless of what he did, I think he should have been put on trial for his crimes. Like any criminal.
That, and with his death goes pretty much any chance of getting the whole truth behind the Lockerbie bombing.
[QUOTE=Knuffelbeer;32890213]Another war started and funded by US when will this ever end?[/QUOTE]
It was actually Britian and France that were the driving force for intervention in Libya. It was them that drafted the no-fly zone.
I don't know enough about he situation in Libya to express a proper opinion but it seems like every time a country intervenes to help an ally, the said country always seems to have an alterior motive, like securing oil. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'd like to gain a better understanding and overview of the situation in Libya.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32885196]You have no idea what you're talking about, stop posting[/QUOTE]
Look in the channel description, it says it's government funded. Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, debate it instead.
Don't get me wrong, basically every media outlet is bullshit anyways.
[QUOTE=Knuffelbeer;32890213]Another war started and funded by US when will this ever end?[/QUOTE]
Ron Paul 2012 haha, no seriously it wont until the oil runs out.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.