I'm sure everyone has heard that France, the United States, and the UK have launched air attacks on Gaddafi. Gaddafi has said "no mercy" in his attempt to retain power and he supports terrorism. I think what we are doing is a humanitarian effort to stop a lunatic from hurting people who aren't able to really defend themselves.
Now, I've been reading comments made on both American and British news websites. The majority of Americans keep referring to the Iraq/Afghanistan war as a comparison. They claim we're going in for oil or refer to things like "oh next they're gonna tell us they have weapons of mass destruction." Do they not see that it is 3 countries-not just the US- standing up for citizen's rights? Obama also said that ground troops will not be deployed. A lot of the comments I've heard/seen have ignored that statement and they compare Obama to George Bush. The comments made on British sites seem to also have the same views-oil. I really don't see it? Now, if we launch an all out war against Libya, I might just change my mind.
I wanted to post this to see other like-minded people's opinions from around the world. What are your views?
Enough flaws attributable to Obama, escalation of war in Afghanistan (Der Spiegel just issued some photos of Afghan progress delivered per "Kill Team") and Pakistan, leading to unnecessary and dangerous destabilization and future blow-back, Iraq, Guantanamo, the Manning affair, torture goes on, show-trials and on and on. No World Order here, rather more Disorder than they can handle.
But I hear that Obama has been convinced by Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power, and their motivation for each of them was their personal experiences in the roles they played with the genocide in Rwanda that heightened their sense of urgency facing now the slaughter that would have happened in Benghazi. I don't know if that is really true, but that's at least the tale that was put out for the moment.
It's a pretty dangerous situation. Alarmingly, the most basic intelligence, the background situation, the tribal structure and sub-groupings with different loyalties seems (once again) to be unmapped territory. 'We' literally don't know what were dealing with here.
Short story is, there is no turning back now. (Think Lockerbie, multiply it with 911 and add chemical weapons.) If Qadaffi holds out, this is going to be very ugly.
Who spends billions in weapons and planes to save somebody in a faraway land? After all we all live in Capitalist Nations! Nothing comes for free!
It's all media wars masquerading this whole thing as a favour to Libyan people, But Libya has the best oil in the middle east!!
I'd like to see just which american puppet will become the new "Democratically" elected president of Libya!
And like to see if americans will be keeping their troops out of Lybia!
Perhaps we should post a sign : DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
Incredibly, here in the 21st century, terrible, prolonged, genocides have occurred in Rwanda and the Darfur region of Sudan. Did the West rush out their militaries to stop citizen deaths and suffering? They eventually supported U.N. peacekeeping forces but that's a far cry from the quick response to Libya's civil war.
Of course oil factors into our reaction. It's the lifeblood of industrial societies. It's a matter of national interests for all of the free world. Yes, it sounds tawdry to think we respond quickest when our oil is threatened but what are we really to do? We have to survive and can't allow the flow of oil to be threatened.
Please note that there's a huge difference between paying through the nose for foreign oil and colonizing oil-producing countries in the old-fashioned and thoroughly unworkable imperialist system. We are willingly subject to an OPEC cartel but not to any serious threat to the flow of oil.
I wish we weren't dependent on foreign oil. But as long as we are, we have to ensure the flow of that oil is not threatened.
It's an ugly fact of life that we need to change. Our efforts to that end has been too little and too slow. I have no idea what it will take to give the matter more priority.
Well, the West tried non-intervention in (oil producing) Sudan and we got the protracted genocide and Chinese involvement without reponsibility as a prize. Sure, we can essentially say to the Arab countres and other dictatorships "Do what you want". But then people who support that view also has to stand responsible when murder and suppression inevitably follows.
However, inaction is a geopolitical stategy which was dismanteled after WW2. Letting Germany and Japan run unchecked turned out to be not a very good idea for humanity, which is why the strategy was changed to continual geopolitical presence.
You specifically mention oil, but the exact same argument can be made for pretty much any resource. It is the responsibility of the host country of the natural resource to ensure that it available to those who need it and are willing to pay a reasonable amount. Having the power to put an arbitrary strangehold by rejecting resources to other countries who are paying you for it (instead of taking it through imperialism) demands responsible courses of action.