So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

[Mega]

I hope the peoples of these lands stand & fight.....i hope a hero-leader appears & at last Rise up against the NWO & rout them!

sell the oil to China/India & trade in Gold/silver.

Mike

[don]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

Mike: Don't you realize that European imperialism is over and that the US was never an imperialist nation.

[thunderdownunder]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

When Egypt was in turmoil > they had no Oil > there was no Intervention
When Algeria was in turmoil > they had no Oil > there was no intervention
When Libya was in turmoil > they have lots of light sweet Crude > you get The "Usual suspects" turning Up.
If the House of Saud can't bribe its way out > the Usual suspects will "protect" its "Democracy"
and so the golden rule was written ..........
He who has the gold makes the rules

[sunskyfan]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

I (as a US citizen) have NO interest in another war. I wish nothing but the best for the Libyan people. My only question is why is it automatic that it is okay for some bat shit guy to control 2% of the world's oil production?

[chr5648]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

Am I missing something? Isn't congress supposed to authorize these missile attacks?

[don]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

Am I missing something? Isn't congress supposed to authorize these missile attacks?

You are so yesterday. (spoken like a true conservative however. Bravo!)

[blazespinnaker]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

Am I missing something? Isn't congress supposed to authorize these missile attacks?

He's got two months.

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

[Mega]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

I wonder whom will break 1st libya or Blighty:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/b...e-slashed.html#
Mike

[GRG55]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

When Egypt was in turmoil > they had no Oil > there was no Intervention
When Algeria was in turmoil > they had no Oil > there was no intervention
When Libya was in turmoil > they have lots of light sweet Crude > you get The "Usual suspects" turning Up.
If the House of Saud can't bribe its way out > the Usual suspects will "protect" its "Democracy"
and so the golden rule was written ..........
He who has the gold makes the rules

Suggest you go back and check your facts on Algeria. It may not have quite the oil reserves that Libya has, but it is a VERY significant exporter of petroleum to many of the same markets as Libya; particularly Italy. American headquartered Andarko is a large producer in Algeria, and Australia's BHP also has significant petroleum production interests in that country.

The American-centric analysis about Libya on two of the threads on this site is entertaining to an outside observer. At once we have commentators lamenting that US influence in the world is declining, amidst handwringing about US involvement in more "foreign adventures" and amazement that the USA is inconsistent in its foreign policy reponses when it comes to nations with oil, versus those without. Frankly, if Zimbabwe had huge oil reserves, the world would have intervened. What's so damn surprising about that?

Those of us watching from a Middle East vantage think the USA under the Obama Administration has well and truly lost its way. When the USA went into Iraq the decision, right or wrong, was made by those nations [principally the USA and the UK] that provided all the firepower. The accusation at the time, coming from the lesser European powers, the hoi polloi that make up the rest of the UN, and domestic Democrats, including the current President, was that the war was not "legitimate" since it lacked the imprimatur of a United Nations resolution.

Well, that means now-President Obama has put himself between a rock and a hard-place. Given his very public position regarding the invasion of Iraq, he can't now initiate US military action against another sovereign nation without first securing that all important endorsement from the "International Community" [if I hear Hillary use that phrase one more time I think I am going throw up]. Unfortunately for him the American people know full well that in any serious or lengthy foreign war the nation that will be called upon to provide the vast majority of the military resources is the USA - and the idea that the "International Community" shall have material influence over the deployment of American soldiers and armaments, or that some other nation is going to "lead" a war in which the US military is involved, doesn't have a lot of support in Abilene, or Youngstown, or anywhere in between.

So the end result is a President and Administration falling over backwards to court the much desired approval of the "International Community" by sponsoring UN resolutions for pre-emptive military action [would you expect anything less from a Nobel Peace Prize winner?], while at the same time trying to appease domestic voters with assurances that USA participation in such action will be "limited" [which is the REAL reason they don't want to get involved in Libya]. Policy quicksand writ large...

[Ghent12]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

Well, that means now-President Obama has put himself between a rock and a hard-place. Given his very public position regarding the invasion of Iraq, he can't now initiate US military action against another sovereign nation without first securing that all important endorsement from the "International Community" [if I hear Hillary use that phrase one more time I think I am going throw up].

It takes an international community to raise a child...

I wonder how long it will be until most of the current President's supporters realize that they, in fact, voted for a third Bush term.

[GRG55]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

It takes an international community to raise a child...

I wonder how long it will be until most of the current President's supporters realize that they, in fact, voted for a third Bush term.

When it comes to foreign wars I don't think this is really the case. I don't think Bush would be withdrawing from Iraq, and I doubt he would have been so wishy-washy on Libya. The Arabs in the Middle East didn't like 'W', but they respected him. The current US President can't make that claim...

[Ghent12]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

When it comes to foreign wars I don't think this is really the case. I don't think Bush would be withdrawing from Iraq, and I doubt he would have been so wishy-washy on Libya. The Arabs in the Middle East didn't like 'W', but they respected him. The current US President can't make that claim...

Bush most certainly would have withdrawn, just at a slightly different time. The timescale of withdrawal at this point is immaterial anyways. Bush would have absolutely mirrored (with slight variance) the actions of the current President on Afghanistan as well. You're right that the action with Libya would have been a bit different under the Dubya, but only because the prior president has more experience doing, well, almost anything (even if badly).

The entire situation is just a madlib with little user input, with minor details being changed here and there but the overall picture remains the same:
1) Still in Iraq.
2) No end game in Afghanistan.
3) Intervention in Libya.
4) Gargantuan welfare state growth (under Bush it might not have been "healthcare reform" but something else).
5) Perpetual deficit and bailouts with no end game in sight. Hell, most of the real players are still at the table!

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

the USA is inconsistent in its foreign policy reponses when it comes to nations with oil, versus those without. Frankly, if Zimbabwe had huge oil reserves, the world would have intervened. What's so damn surprising about that?


So the end result is a President and Administration falling over backwards to court the much desired approval of the "International Community" by sponsoring UN resolutions for pre-emptive military action [would you expect anything less from a Nobel Peace Prize winner?], while at the same time trying to appease domestic voters with assurances that USA participation in such action will be "limited" [which is the REAL reason they don't want to get involved in Libya]. Policy quicksand writ large...

As Lord Palmerston famously said, "nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests". So agreed, no surprise we get more involved in oily civil wars. Presidents, regardless of party affiliation, once in the seat make decisions based on US national interest, not on campaign promises. As you point out, they just get there in different ways in order to appease various factions at home and in doing so often get themselves tied up in knots. Obama's problem will be how to exit gracefully.

[flintlock]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

I have to agree with Ghent12 here. While not exactly twins, they could be mistaken for brothers, at least when it comes to foreign policy.

I admit I'm surprised about Obama. I never saw his policy on Afghanistan coming. Certainly nothing like this potential debacle in Libya. I know some of my Jewish friends, diehard Democrats for life, are a bit shocked at the treatment given to Israel. Obama has been full of surprises. Gitmo is another one.

[tsetsefly]

Re: So, now we attack Lybia......19Th Centry returns for the West

Bush most certainly would have withdrawn, just at a slightly different time. The timescale of withdrawal at this point is immaterial anyways. Bush would have absolutely mirrored (with slight variance) the actions of the current President on Afghanistan as well. You're right that the action with Libya would have been a bit different under the Dubya, but only because the prior president has more experience doing, well, almost anything (even if badly).

The entire situation is just a madlib with little user input, with minor details being changed here and there but the overall picture remains the same:
1) Still in Iraq.
2) No end game in Afghanistan.
3) Intervention in Libya.
4) Gargantuan welfare state growth (under Bush it might not have been "healthcare reform" but something else).
5) Perpetual deficit and bailouts with no end game in sight. Hell, most of the real players are still at the table!

+1, cant say anyone is retreating from Iraq with the embassy city the US built itself their, the military presence still over there. And how about the increasing incursions into Pakistan?

What I am amused by is the democrats reaction to the Libya fiasco. With Iraq they blasted the Iraq war for being about oil and not removing a dictator. How is this any different?