Politics Should Europeans get involved in Libya?

Why would west come and bomb Libya for oil if Kaddafi was selling oil to everyone who wanted it? If Rebels win, new government will be selling oil too.

Watching how eager French were to bomb ground troops and convoys to help rebels, tells me how much Gaddafi is hated among many politicians and leaders.
Obama said:"Kaddafi has to go"

Overall I'm in agreement with Taranis view on this matter.
 
Well, you could watch TV today, and the USA is leaning back on the subject, what is wise to do so. France is more acceptable in the Arabian world.

About Germany.. Hey it was only one politician who goofed. And he already got his ass kicked by the German media. And Germans themselves.

If the UN asks for switching off the heavy weapons of the Libyan Forces, and European Forces simply deny the use of them by Daffie, it's a matter of time until Daffie ends up in some hell hole, and can be arrested by the Libyan people.
 
It would not be "out -of-the realm of possibilities that in a week or two, Qadaffi will, either be killed by a "mole" in his inner circle", or a military person in his inner circle, (he) kills himself, and or a bomb or missile hits one of his command headquarters/bunkers and he is inside of it.

And of course he can also be arrested by the Libyan people as Reinaert mentioned.

If anyone noticed on this forum, last week I posted that the UN would act within a day or two, and they did and bid "bon voyage" (within two weeks) to Qadaffi's Amazon Guard (40 "virgins" hand-picked by Qadaffi as his inner circle guard.)

The three biggest users of Libyan oil are China, Russia and India. The USA does not buy much (if any) from Libya.

The largest oil fields in their own countries are: Saudi Arabia (and the other oil Middle Eastern countries), Russia and the USA.

Melusine
 
LeBrok said:
Why would west come and bomb Libya for oil if Kaddafi was selling oil to everyone who wanted it? If Rebels win, new government will be selling oil too.

Watching how eager French were to bomb ground troops and convoys to help rebels, tells me how much Gaddafi is hated among many politicians and leaders.
Obama said:"Kaddafi has to go"

Overall I'm in agreement with Taranis view on this matter.
Click to expand...

It is not about who sells the oil (or anything else), it is about stability in the region. Peace means also economic stability and a guarantee for frictionless trade at a low market price. Also for it's neighbouring regions, and also not necessarily only oil. It doesn't matter how this stability is preserved, whether it is preserved by a peaceful democracy, or by a typical James Bond villain in fantastic costumes, protected by sexy female guards.
So when a political unrest breaks out somewhere on this planet, and the economic stability of that region has an impact on the world market, the aim is to restore stability again as soon as possible. Of course Western countries would favor a successor who fits into Western values, so not to loose their credibility. But it is no must (see also leaders of Central Asian countries).
And it is a lot of hypocricy going on, when you first trade and negotiate for decades with certain heads of states around the world, and in the next moment, when a rebel starts to shake the trunk, you support the rebel by "Yeah, go kill him!". The same when you don't intervene in uprisings of regions (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa), which economically don't have much to offer, so that any intervention doesn't pay off in the end. Or a fight would be to exhausting in other aspects (too strong; or too powerful neighbours who will protect them).

I wouldn't say that military intervention in Libya is totally wrong and might have positive results in the end, also favored by Western human rights activists. I just want to say that the real reason behind this is somewhat different!
 
I have added an option "Don't care" in the poll. I am fed up of this kind of conflict. There are always arguments for and against military action. Either way it doesn't really matter for me.
 
Well, I think no dictator should be able to get away with the bombing of his own people.
We have seen the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia with 2 million people killed.
And one of the poorest countries in the world back then, Vietnam, put an end to that horror. The world sat back and watched. Condemning Vietnam for aggression.

I am glad now the time has changed.

America isn't led by an idiot like Bush no more.
Obama has done the right things.

A real change.
 
The Anglo-Americans and French should butt out of the Libyan civil war.
It's a tribal Tripolitania-v-Cyrenaica struggle.

Only UN or Arab League forces should have any right to interfere.

If they are not ready to do so, tough.
 
Reinaert said:
I am glad now the time has changed.
America isn't led by an idiot like Bush no more.
Obama has done the right things.
A real change.
Click to expand...


lol and you consider yourself a left-wing supporter???, obama is a marketing creation manufactured by wall street to make people believe that things are gonna change in usa... it's a lie, obama hasn't brought any special change to the usa, specially regarding external politics.

a lot of naive people have been brainwashed with the "yes we can" and "change" campaigns.

the real left-wing voters are well aware of this. wake up everybody.
 
Vallicanus said:
The Anglo-Americans and French should butt out of the Libyan civil war.
It's a tribal Tripolitania-v-Cyrenaica struggle.

Only UN or Arab League forces should have any right to interfere.

If they are not ready to do so, tough.
Click to expand...

Excellent post, and I think that even the UN should be particularly cautious. I am dismayed by the decision on the US's part to get involved in another war in that part of the world. And for once, it looks like the American public agrees with me that we should not be performing military actions.

France may indeed be more acceptable to the Arab world, so they're likely to lead the coalition, de jure. But the US is going to have a hard time fooling anyone into thinking that this isn't more US-backed meddling.
 
Mzungu mchagga said:
It is not about who sells the oil (or anything else), it is about stability in the region. Peace means also economic stability and a guarantee for frictionless trade at a low market price. Also for it's neighbouring regions, and also not necessarily only oil. It doesn't matter how this stability is preserved, whether it is preserved by a peaceful democracy, or by a typical James Bond villain in fantastic costumes, protected by sexy female guards.
So when a political unrest breaks out somewhere on this planet, and the economic stability of that region has an impact on the world market, the aim is to restore stability again as soon as possible. Of course Western countries would favor a successor who fits into Western values, so not to loose their credibility. But it is no must (see also leaders of Central Asian countries).
And it is a lot of hypocricy going on, when you first trade and negotiate for decades with certain heads of states around the world, and in the next moment, when a rebel starts to shake the trunk, you support the rebel by "Yeah, go kill him!". The same when you don't intervene in uprisings of regions (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa), which economically don't have much to offer, so that any intervention doesn't pay off in the end. Or a fight would be to exhausting in other aspects (too strong; or too powerful neighbours who will protect them).

I wouldn't say that military intervention in Libya is totally wrong and might have positive results in the end, also favored by Western human rights activists. I just want to say that the real reason behind this is somewhat different!
Click to expand...

Amen brother. I have exactly same points of view about economy and stability, and uneasy situation in middle east and our governments acting upon it. I wish I had more time to write and explain but I'm strongly limited by long hours of work and general tiredness these days.
 
the current situation of libya is (in great part) a consequence of the italian colonization. it's embarrassing to see how the italian goverment is trying to pass unperceived through all this.
 
Melusine said:
The three biggest users of Libyan oil are China, Russia and India. The USA does not buy much (if any) from Libya.
The largest oil fields in their own countries are: Saudi Arabia (and the other oil Middle Eastern countries), Russia and the USA.
Melusine
Click to expand...
Comrade, you contradict yourself. Russia is exporter of oil, we no needed in Libyan oil and never imported it.
Oil exports from Libya:
Oil reserves - 46,422 billion barrels (according to OPEC)
Extraction of oil - 77,1 million tons per year
Crude oil exports - 1,33 million barrels per day
Profit from the sale of oil for export - 31,377 billion dollars per year

Major importers of Libyan oil:
1) Italy - 425 thousand barrels per day; 32% of Libyan export.
2) Germany - 178; 13,4%.
3) Serbia, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Sweden, Czech Republic - 173; 13%.
4) France - 133; 10%.
5) China - 133; 10%.
6) Spain - 115; 8.6%.
7) USA - 80; 6%.
8) India, Malaysia, Singapore - 53; 4%.
9) Brazil - 40; 3%.
~ 80% goes to EU countries

http://visualrian.ru/images/large/866879
 
Yes, he needs to go. He kills his own people and has secret police that makes people dissapear, he violently supresses his own people, I'm glad Canada interviened. We need less dictators in the world not more.

If we don't help the arabs with their revolutions who will? they are mostly unarmed civilians. If the USA didn't have so much power in Egypt Mubarak wouldn't have left. Tunisia is a small country so the people were able to rise up, and being the first arab country the leadership was caught by surprise. Lybia is a different story with a monster on top, he won't hold back to keep his place in power.

The reason I think no one gets involved with the gulf countries revolution is because that will drag Iran into it and that war will happen much later. If all of North africa can get rid off all their dictators that is a very good start that will spread into the middle east.

I don't know why people are saying they went in for oil. If it really was about oil they would have done the opposite! They are already getting Lybias oil they don't want unrest that will only cause disturbances. Helping the rebels was the right thing to do.
 
Elias2 said:
If the USA didn't have so much power in Egypt Mubarak wouldn't have left.
Click to expand...

Hold your horses brother. I thought Mubarak was a friend of US?
Anyway just busting your b.... I'm glad he went without a fight, and I favor democracy over dictatorships too. I'm just afraid there could be another dictator or one party dictatorship marching right ofter. If these countries are still messy few years later, there'll be another dictator "restoring" a peace. I wish I'm wrong but I've seen it so many times in the past.

Here is a very uplifting program form BBC, the Doha Debates about Egypt.
http://www.thedohadebates.com/#
So many young educated smart people, especially women. I hope they will get upper hand as elite in Egypt.
 
It will be interesting to see what happens in Yemen now. Another US propped government about to fall.
 
Elias2 said:
I don't know why people are saying they went in for oil. If it really was about oil they would have done the opposite! They are already getting Lybias oil they don't want unrest that will only cause disturbances. Helping the rebels was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

That's exatctly the point, they don't want unrest! Primarily because it causes economic instability, not only in regards of trade with Libya, but also with the whole region. Trade becomes insecure, and market prices rise! The task now is to restore peace as fast as possible. And now that the rebels have already come so far and created a civil war, plus Gaddafi is an insane dictator who shoots at his own people, the opportunity finally has come to support the rebels. But it is not about human rights only, otherwise we could have intervened in many other countries around the world earlier, too.

And btw I don't buy that the German gov is opposing this intervention. To abstain from the decision on one hand, but proposing to take over more tasks in Afghanistan while the other countries are fighting in Libya, is an indirect agreement on it. I truly believe our politicians want the intervention in Libya, but fear to be portraid as the evil murdering guys by their own people and other nations. It's just about their image, nothing else.
 
I think that this situation is totally different from the one in Iraq.
 
Mzungu mchagga said:
And btw I don't buy that the German gov is opposing this intervention. To abstain from the decision on one hand, but proposing to take over more tasks in Afghanistan while the other countries are fighting in Libya, is an indirect agreement on it. I truly believe our politicians want the intervention in Libya, but fear to be portraid as the evil murdering guys by their own people and other nations. It's just about their image, nothing else.
Click to expand...

If they had been interested in being in favour of the intervention, but staying out of the fighting, they should have voted in favour in the UNSC - they wouldn't have been obligated in any way to participate. Think about it, Portugal (also NATO and currently UNSC member) didn't participate either. I think that the German government had ulterior motives in abstaining in the UNSC. Whatever they were, it's clear that this plan heavily backfired, and Germany has isolated internationally itself with this. In fact, no German government since 1949 has dared to do such an "Alleingang" (solo attempt). The most terribly part in this is that we have earned ourselves a reputation of being untrustworthy and unreliable (especially in Europe and in the Arab world), and we can now permanently forget about a permanent seat in the UNSC.

Riccardo said:
I think that this situation is totally different from the one in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Seconded for truth.
 
Taranis said:
If they had been interested in being in favour of the intervention, but staying out of the fighting, they should have voted in favour in the UNSC - they wouldn't have been obligated in any way to participate. Think about it, Portugal (also NATO and currently UNSC member) didn't participate either. I think that the German government had ulterior motives in abstaining in the UNSC. Whatever they were, it's clear that this plan heavily backfired, and Germany has isolated internationally itself with this. In fact, no German government since 1949 has dared to do such an "Alleingang" (solo attempt). The most terribly part in this is that we have earned ourselves a reputation of being untrustworthy and unreliable (especially in Europe and in the Arab world), and we can now permanently forget about a permanent seat in the UNSC.



Seconded for truth.
Click to expand...

Ok, so what do you think is the motive for this behaviour? If not gaining sympathy in German elections? Because otherwise peace, stability and human rights in this region would also be in Germany's interest.
 
Mzungu mchagga said:
Ok, so what do you think is the motive for this behaviour? If not gaining sympathy in German elections? Because otherwise peace, stability and human rights in this region would also be in Germany's interest.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know, but consider there's two possibilities to consider.

The first, as you said, is sympathy in elections. The German government attempted to imitate what Schröder did 2002, and that is use anti-war sentiment for an election campaign. The problem with this is that Libya simply isn't Iraq (the Libyans called for aid, the UNSC approved the action etc., whereas the Iraq War was essentially a solo action of the US without any legal basis). If this scenario is true, the German government blatantly overlooked some very obvious differences (notably, the sympathies for the rebel cause, which were amplified by Gaddafi's statements) - and why they did so utterly eludes me.

Which brings me to the second possibility: the German government decided that the rebels in Libya were a lost cause to begin with, and decided it was far more useful to make a low profile now, and then return to business as usual with the Gaddafi regime once the rebellion in Libya was crushed, something that would be impossible for all other Western nations if this scenario happened due to their support of the rebellion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 73648 times.

Back
Top