Hillary Clinton off to Paris to discuss Libya's future

reply to post by cloaked4u


Of course that's the reason and we don't want crazy dictators controlling something so vital to our country. If they want to come over here and control us that is certainly their right.

I find it funny how people think that if we just let everyone do what they want with the worlds oil supply everything will work out fine and they will all be friendly towards us.

Last time we left the world alone we ended up fighting world war 2. Maybe that's what you guys are hoping for but i'd rather see us involved before it get's to that point especially with nuclear weapons all over the place.

Its America's oil then?

America gets to dictate what is done with other countries resources? As to nuclear weapons, if a country wants to get them bad enough, they are going to get them.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Remember when Iraq was not troubled by suicide bombers or car bombs? Oh yeah Sadaam was running the place then!!!

Remember when Saddam ordered the invasion of Iran? Used WMD's/chemical weapons on the Kurds and then invaded (or tried) Kuwait? That's just the recent doings... But you're right, Saddam was the glue the kept the region together... One of the good guys, no? Never mind the ancient Persian-Arab conflicts/ethnic disputes that have been going on since the dawn of time.

Originally posted by LadySkadi

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Remember when Iraq was not troubled by suicide bombers or car bombs? Oh yeah Sadaam was running the place then!!!

Remember when Saddam ordered the invasion of Iran? Used WMD's/chemical weapons on the Kurds and then invaded (or tried) Kuwait? That's just the recent doings... But you're right, Saddam was the glue the kept the region together... One of the good guys, no? Never mind the ancient Persian-Arab conflicts/ethnic disputes that have been going on since the dawn of time.

He was a good guy in American foreign policy till he stopped doing what the Americans wanted. How about Osama, he was one of the good guys at one time as well.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by cloaked4u

 

I find it funny how people think that if we just let everyone do what they want with the worlds oil supply everything will work out fine and they will all be friendly towards us.

I think I just met my first ATS neo-con.

reply to post by MidnightTide


If you say so...

reply to post by LadySkadi


See these guys woulda let Saddam have kuwait because it's none of our business. Then suppose Saddam joins up with Iran to take Saudi Arabia, we won't get involved because it's none of our business. Then maybe they move and take over another oil rich country but we don't get involved cause it's none of our business.

Now they quit selling oil to America. Now it's our business but now we would have to have a major war to get it back This is what these anti-war people don't realize.

reply to post by MidnightTide


The world is a fluctuating place and tomorrow will never be the same as yesterday. You need to pick your friends for what they offer you now not 20 years down the road.

Wow this is just basic stuff you guys don't understand. Like argueing with a 4th grader where you have to explain everything to them.

reply to post by kro32


Its not America's oil. They may need it, but that doesn't justify action of any sort.

A superpower still does not have any right to force itself on a sovereign nation.

-Lightrule

Originally posted by kro32
Last time we left the world alone we ended up fighting world war 2. Maybe that's what you guys are hoping for but i'd rather see us involved before it get's to that point especially with nuclear weapons all over the place.

Haha, we were not leaving the world alone previous to WWII. Japan never would have become an industrialized nation had we not pointed the cannons at them and told them to get to work leading to the Meiji Restoration. But wait, Japan didn't have resources where were they going to get them from? In order to try to gain them they took up the slogan, "Enrich the country, strengthen the military" and that's how they became Imperial Japan, thanks to the US. Pearl Harbor couldn't have happened without our involvement. Unless people are afraid that some Samurai would have gotten on a boat and shot some fire works at us. Also don't forget that after WWI (we were involved in that btw, and that was before WWII) we helped set up the BIS that Hitler used to finance his war effort. (Watch the movie Banking with Hitler) That is how a poor nation all of a sudden had the money to fight against superpowers. We did that, it may be the law of unintended consequence but it's just the truth. These aren't the only examples of US involvement in world affairs but they are relevant to the argument that WWII happened because he weren't involved...no, it's just the opposite we got involved and WWII happened. Your right nuclear Weapons are going to be all over the place soon, and guess what's going to happen when a nation that we have peeved off gets them? We should leave people alone and not give them a reason to remember that they hate us for sticking our noses into their business.

reply to post by Lightrule


They didn't force anything. They were aiding one side in a civil war, the same thing the French did for us and there's nothing wrong with that. And please don't start throwing out conspiracy stuff you have no proof of. This is a very good thread and I would hate to see it cheapened.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

The world is a fluctuating place and tomorrow will never be the same as yesterday. You need to pick your friends for what they offer you now not 20 years down the road.

Wow this is just basic stuff you guys don't understand. Like argueing with a 4th grader where you have to explain everything to them.

Wonderful insight there, which is why supporting Saddam and Osama in the soviet cold war era gave you such benefits in the future....and perhaps a fourth grader would have been able to spell arguing properly.

It amazes me that some Americans think they have the right to dictate what other countries do (but that is ok, soon the states will be unable to police the globe - as in you will not be able to afford it)

Emerson heads to Paris for Libya talks
AAP | August 31, 2011 | 7:28AM


www.news.com.au/breaking-news/emerson-heads-to-paris-for-libya-talks/story-e6frfku0-1226126146401

(...)

Dr Emerson said the meeting would discuss Libya's transition to democracy.

"The Government urges Muammar Gaddafi to give himself up and for his forces to put down their weapons and stop the senseless bloodshed," he said.

Australia is the third largest humanitarian donor to Libya.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

Of course it would be ok. Remember when the Soviet Union had bases everywhere also? Military bases would be good economically for Libya anyways so I don't see what the issue is with this. We have bases all around the world in many different country's and nothing has happened to those nations autonomy.

Except where the bases are, which are 'sovereign' American soil.

They're just keeping on treading the mill and I, for one, do not like it one jot.

Originally posted by LadySkadi

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Remember when Iraq was not troubled by suicide bombers or car bombs? Oh yeah Sadaam was running the place then!!!

Remember when Saddam ordered the invasion of Iran? Used WMD's/chemical weapons on the Kurds and then invaded (or tried) Kuwait? That's just the recent doings... But you're right, Saddam was the glue the kept the region together... One of the good guys, no? Never mind the ancient Persian-Arab conflicts/ethnic disputes that have been going on since the dawn of time.

I think I forgot, please help me out. Who was it again that provided Saddam with guns, tanks and WMDs?

Originally posted by MidnightTide

It amazes me that some Americans think they have the right to dictate what other countries do (but that is ok, soon the states will be unable to police the globe)

It continues to amaze me that there are those, still naive enough to believe that attempting to maneuver one's country to a position that is most opportune for that country is a practice that applies solely to the US/West. Or is it more apt to say that when the East is an aggressor it's for a more noble purpose?

Originally posted by ALF88

I think I forgot, please help me out. Who was it again that provided Saddam with guns, tanks and WMDs?

You are side-stepping.

Where were they used, on which ethnic groups, for what reason and who gave the order?

***

In any case, this thread is about Libya, so let's chat about the leadership (dictatorship) in that country, shall we?

Originally posted by LadySkadi

Originally posted by ALF88

I think I forgot, please help me out. Who was it again that provided Saddam with guns, tanks and WMDs?

You are side-stepping.

Where were they used, on which ethnic groups, for what reason and who gave the order?

edit on 30-8-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

And you are ignoring the very fact that it was your government who gave those WMDs to him. Using them on the Kurds was a crime, but so was providing him with the gas and other weapons. One should think the US has learned from its mistakes in the past, but it is pretty obvious that you didn't.

Originally posted by ALF88
I think I forgot, please help me out. Who was it again that provided Saddam with guns, tanks and WMDs?

Hey Einstein

In Gulf wars I & II

The US and coalition forces destroyed thousands of Soviet/Russian made Tanks, BMPs trucks, fighter jets, helicopters not to mention SCUD missiles and launchers and or the verifiable overwhelming fact that all of his troops were armed with RPGs, AK47s plus boots, belt buckles, helmets and socks etc etc etc...

So you tell me.

Sorry, but the entire situation just sounds like this to me:

to discuss spoils of war
to discuss temporary/permanent US bases in Libya
to dictate foreign / humanitarian aid conditions