Libya - is there a reason we are getting involved?

A

Allover

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 July 2010
Messages
2,155
Visit site
As per subject line really, is there any good reason that we are "supporting" the no fly zone, is it something we have to do under the UN resolution?
 
No, it's not something we "have" to do. Cameron has been extremely forthright in calling for intervention, even when the US and France were hesitant. The stated purpose of the UN mission is to prevent Gadaffi committing atrocities against his own people. Unfortunately, it took so long to get the UN resolution in place that the Libyan rebels have already lost a lot of the ground that they had taken and been subject to the violence and brutality of Gadaffi's forces. Some skeptics have suggested we're getting involved because of oil but I doubt that, given that Cameron seems to want to distance himself from Blair's policies as much as possible. I'm praying that this won't turn into another Iraq and that Libya will get the democracy it deserves!
 
Alec Swan said:
You beat me to it!! :D

Alec.

Ets. Were it being done out of common human decency, then Mugabi would have been dead years ago. a.
Click to expand...
But if this were purely about oil, surely we'd have chucked Ahmadinejad out years ago? Iran has considerably bigger oil reserves than Libya and produces almost 3 times as much per year. Maybe oil is A reason, I don't know. But I highly doubt it is the ONLY reason. Libya is very different to Iraq, because it actually experienced a revolution against the government, led by the people. News of the UN resolution was welcomed by the rebels, who, until the UN actually started to enforce the no-fly zone, were taking a serious beating from Gadaffi's troops. Unfortunately, the situation is so complicated that, even if some countries involved in the UN intervention ARE principally motivated by oil, it doesn't necessarily mean that the intervention is wrong. The reason I say this is that, although I hate the thought that we might only be motivated by oil, I also don't want us to leave the rebels to be slaughtered.
 
I am thinking along the Oil lines myself, there are a lot of evil dictators out there that the UN does nothing about, Obiang of Equitorial Guinea is reported to be one of the worst and nothing is done against him (as far as i am aware they have no oil).

Is it our place to impose ourselves again on another country and culutre?
 
Allover said:
I am thinking along the Oil lines myself, there are a lot of evil dictators out there that the UN does nothing about, Obiang of Equitorial Guinea is reported to be one of the worst and nothing is done against him (as far as i am aware they have no oil).

Is it our place to impose ourselves again on another country and culutre?
Click to expand...
There ARE a lot of dictators that the UN does nothing about. Indeed, they were happy to leave Gaddafi in power for over 40 years UNTIL there was a revolution and he started slaughtering his own people openly! It is, as you point out, not our place to impose ourselves on another country and culture, but I'm confused as to how you see that as happening in Libya? The UN hasn't simply marched in as Britain and the US did in Iraq in 2003 (a war which I was opposed to and when on several demonstrations about, in case anyone thinks I'm pro-war and pro-intervention). The Libyan people, inspired by events in Egypt and Tunisia, began their own pro-democracy revolution (for which I commend them). Considering that the international community already imports oil from Libya (although Libya exports a tiny percentage of the world's oil) the best thing to do in interests of oil supply would probably have been to either leave Gadaffi to it of help him crush the rebellion. UN intervention and the transition to democracy is surely going to make the process more drawn out and cause more disruption to the oil supply while they deal with Gadaffi's forces and then the transition to democracy.
And Equatorial Guinea does export oil, and natural gas, as far as I'm aware.
 
I agree OIL is what drives the world.

Where were the UN when Tibet was taken over by China? Where was the UN when harmless monks protesting were killed and shipped elsewhere. Why is the Dahma Lama named as a terrorist.
Meanwhile the Chinese are quietly buying up the worlds resources.
 
HashRouge said:
There ARE a lot of dictators that the UN does nothing about. Indeed, they were happy to leave Gaddafi in power for over 40 years UNTIL there was a revolution and he started slaughtering his own people openly! It is, as you point out, not our place to impose ourselves on another country and culture, but I'm confused as to how you see that as happening in Libya? The UN hasn't simply marched in as Britain and the US did in Iraq in 2003 (a war which I was opposed to and when on several demonstrations about, in case anyone thinks I'm pro-war and pro-intervention). The Libyan people, inspired by events in Egypt and Tunisia, began their own pro-democracy revolution (for which I commend them). Considering that the international community already imports oil from Libya (although Libya exports a tiny percentage of the world's oil) the best thing to do in interests of oil supply would probably have been to either leave Gadaffi to it of help him crush the rebellion. UN intervention and the transition to democracy is surely going to make the process more drawn out and cause more disruption to the oil supply while they deal with Gadaffi's forces and then the transition to democracy.
And Equatorial Guinea does export oil, and natural gas, as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...

You are right, i have checked and it does export oil, maybe they could be next on the UN list of things to do!

Now i asked the question in the first instance as i really dont know why we had to get involved in yet another countries problems and whether we were right to do so.

We are presuming that Gadaffi will be "beaten" by the UN forces, stand down and that the new regime will be better than what is in place at the moment.
 
HashRouge said:
But if this were purely about oil, surely we'd have chucked Ahmadinejad out years ago? Iran has considerably bigger oil reserves than Libya and produces almost 3 times as much per year. Maybe oil is A reason, I don't know. But I highly doubt it is the ONLY reason. Libya is very different to Iraq, because it actually experienced a revolution against the government, led by the people. News of the UN resolution was welcomed by the rebels, who, until the UN actually started to enforce the no-fly zone, were taking a serious beating from Gadaffi's troops. Unfortunately, the situation is so complicated that, even if some countries involved in the UN intervention ARE principally motivated by oil, it doesn't necessarily mean that the intervention is wrong. The reason I say this is that, although I hate the thought that we might only be motivated by oil, I also don't want us to leave the rebels to be slaughtered.
Click to expand...

Two points for you. Firstly we simply can't take on Iran. By comparison with Libya, it's a vast country, and with our now depleted troop numbers, we would be as a pimple on the back of an elephant. Secondly, politics used to be a subtle affair. No longer!!

One thought, I wonder if Gadaffi will use the convicted Lockerbie bomber as a human shield. There'd be a degree of irony attached to that wouldn't there? Especially if we manage to slot him with a Tomahawk!! :D

A question. Why were the rebels so dim as to refuse help? They even handed back the SF boys who they caught!! Without a no-fly policy, they will be slaughtered.

Yet again, we're interfering in business which is none of ours. Innocents die. It's called war. I wish that it were otherwise, but sadly it isn't.

Alec.
 
Oil a small touch of revenge which we have been brewing for a while,
and as it happens the perfect excuse with the backing of the other Arab nations,

oh and something about someone killing their own people, we don't usually give a Cr&p about that when it's a country without much oil, if that's the case we just impose sanctions on something they don't need anyway.

Ah the complexity of international politics!!!
 
I'm very sceptical indeed about why Gadaffi is suddenly the target, when he is only doing much the same as he has been doing for years with less publicity and no intervention. I suspect it has taken a few weeks to set up some other lot in Libya to back so that oil, arm sales, etc will be unaffected.

Gadaffi is quite mild compared to some of the Tabliban backed lunatics who might be let in so I don't really buy the arguement that he is suddenly the baddest of the bad and should be targetted at the expense of all the other human rights contraventions that go on in other parts of the world less favoured by oil and arms sales.
 
And i suppose once this is over we will be able to help them replenish their weapons supplies, may be able to recoup some of the cost of going out there!
 
Of course we will, we will wine and dine the replacement and sell em loads!!! Of course had Libya been a little further south where there's no so much oil we would have still be selling them arms and watching their genocide with our usual disinterest and the occasional mutterings about how terrible they have been!!!

All those jobs on the line in the UK due to drastic cuts in services with disabled people and young and old loosing vital services and they commit our armed forces at a cost of millions, they must have fired 50 day centres in that first missile launch.
 
Munchkin said:
Ahha, I should have come here first, rather than soapbox :) - of course it's about the bloody oil!
Click to expand...

This^^^... and the fact that one can only bark for so long without biting, before one gets laughed at and stops being taken seriously.
Plus, we go in, we bomb/rocket launch the hell out of them and then get contracts to rebuild what we bombed/rocketed.
It's not that bad for the economy and the ratings - providing it goes according to plan.
 
1. Oil - it's important to get control so the price doesn't go crazy (not good news with current state of affairs economically). Personally, I have never had a problem with us securing oil. We need it and I prefer this to being flung back into the dark ages if the majority can't afford fuel. (This may also be related to the fact that we ran out of oil last week and it was blinkin' cold and we had no hot water - bring on the oil!).

2. Libya is a bit close to home. If Europe does nothing, there will be huge numbers of displaced people looking for somewhere to live. Where will they go? Well judging by their existing trend, on a boat to Italy and up into Europe. In the current economic climate, this could really cause a lot resentment and civil unrest IMO.

Personally, I just hope that someone is "found" to lead Libya that will bring stability and won't open the door for extremists.
 
To say "oil" is far too simplistic - oil is a world commodity bought and sold on the open market from many sources and even particular desired qualities don't matter that much in reality.

Having a war to use up weapon stores and create the need for future replacement contracts doesn't hold up either because these will be procured whether they are needed or not - in fact, I'd cynically say that not quite the right ones will be procured but that's digression.

Conspiracy theory is already rife with schemes that "the rebels" were put up to it by outside forces and this may be partly correct but it has also brought many Islamic radicals out of the woodwork that may not be so easily bought off as Qua'daffi was. Don't forget that there WAS an uprising in Iraq after the first Gulf War and all the western nations stood by as Saddam H annihilated it - though some pilots did have fun supposedly protecting the northern Kurds; however; there are three varieties of Kurd and as those pilots were flying from Turkey - the Turkey friendly Kurds were favoured. Therefore I don't think there's any big humanitarian element either for or against intervention.

Cuddling some Irish terrorists as they arrived was probably a bad move for Qua'daffi as was many of the other nose thumbing gestures he's famous for but exactly why we are involved is a mystery. Quite mind numbing to see David-Our Glorious Leader-Cameron explaining how his war is just and forthright while carefully tippy-toeing around actually mentioning that evil criminal Tony Blair.
 
Allover said:
Is it our place to impose ourselves again on another country and culutre?
Click to expand...

This is my problem with our "invasion" of these countries. IF the population were to want their leader out there is not alot their leader could do about it (see Egypt for an example). However to my knowledge the population of Libya is very much spilt between pro and anti... Thus I really do think we shoul dleave them to make up their own minds as to how they want their country built before we go barging in under the auspices of the UN and tell them what they can and can't do...

being devils advocate and completely on the flip side, the "rebels" are being slaughtered. Is it because there are not enough and they are saying what he UN wants to hear or is it because they are in the minority? We do not know for sure.
 
1stclassalan said:
To say "oil" is far too simplistic - oil is a world commodity bought and sold on the open market from many sources and even particular desired qualities don't matter that much in reality.
Whilst you may well be right, can you explain why when there are countries with no oil reserves, then we in our civilised world (:eek:), stand back and watch with complete indifference, whilst total innocents live lives of misery?


Having a war to use up weapon stores and create the need for future replacement contracts doesn't hold up either because these will be procured whether they are needed or not - in fact, I'd cynically say that not quite the right ones will be procured but that's digression. The buying and selling of arms, however practical or not, is steered by the bribes which float, to and fro!!

Conspiracy theory is already rife with schemes that "the rebels" were put up to it by outside forces and this may be partly correct but it has also brought many Islamic radicals out of the woodwork that may not be so easily bought off as Qua'daffi was. Don't forget that there WAS an uprising in Iraq after the first Gulf War and all the western nations stood by as Saddam H annihilated it - though some pilots did have fun supposedly protecting the northern Kurds; however; there are three varieties of Kurd and as those pilots were flying from Turkey - the Turkey friendly Kurds were favoured. Therefore I don't think there's any big humanitarian element either for or against intervention. I agree.

Cuddling some Irish terrorists as they arrived was probably a bad move for Qua'daffi as was many of the other nose thumbing gestures he's famous for but exactly why we are involved is a mystery. Quite mind numbing to see David-Our Glorious Leader-Cameron explaining how his war is just and forthright while carefully tippy-toeing around actually mentioning that evil criminal Tony Blair. I suspect that we're trying to do what has worked so well before. Install a new leader, who is more to our liking. It worked with Mr. Hussein, let's face it!!
Click to expand...

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
Whilst you may well be right, can you explain why when there are countries with no oil reserves, then we in our civilised world (), stand back and watch with complete indifference, whilst total innocents live lives of misery?
Click to expand...
I get the skepticism, I really do, BUT I think you need to stop thinking about Iraq for a moment. Think, instead, about UN intervention in the Yugoslav Wars and in Rwanda. In the first instance the UN did not get involved early enough to prevent genocide and in the second it did not take strong enough action. In both cases, thousands of people died when the UN could potentially have prevented it. Now, Libya is no longer simply a dictatorship with a poor record in human rights (and we all know there are still plenty of those around which we do nothing about!). It is a country in the grips of civil war, and this leads to the potential for genocide, especially since, before the UN intervened, the rebels were starting to weaken in the face of Gaddafi's forces. The UN, and the leading countries involved in the UN, have to think about the possible outcomes of "non-action" in cases like this and, from what I have read, David Cameron in particular has been influenced by the memory of the Bosnian genocide and the thought that the UN could have gone some way to stopping it. It isn't simply a case of thinking "ooh that country has oil", but a reflection of the realities in Libya. The fact that it has oil is, I think, bye the bye in this case. I don't doubt that there are greedy oil company representatives rubbing their hands in glee, but the UN has not simply got involved so that the member countries can get their hands on oil.
 
astrologically this is the age of aquarius, the tyrant will fall, there is no place in the new age for such people.
in recent weeks we have seen something unbelievable , almost, who would have thought that all this would happen? i for one support the peoples of the countries who have shown their courage in rising to bring down such, in this day and age, unsuitable and frankly criminal governments, and feel they deserve our support in their efforts, because without these lunies the world will be a better place.
i admire the courage of anyone who will stand up and take action against bullies and hope that they will form democratic governments and take their place on the world stage in a way they have been so long denied.
i always think about the oil implication, however talking of the american involvement, yes they probably do act out concern for the oil in some part, however it is a fact that the united states of america has more oil reserves than it will ever use in the forseeable future
 
But there are US, Spanish. Italian and French oil interests in Libya already and would it not suit them better to keep Gaddifi & have everything settle back down? By supporting the UN no fly zone they maybe jeopardising that.

From the FT

"the chairman of the Libya’s state-run National Oil Corporation, warned on Saturday that western companies, which have repatriated their staff due to the crisis, should send their employees back to work or risk seeing new oil and gas concessions awarded directly to rivals from China, India and Brazil. The three countries have all stayed neutral throughout the conflict and abstained from Thursday’s United Nations Security Council resolution 1973"
 
There are a lot of good reasons we should get involved, but we couldnt until the people of Libya finally rebelled ,themselves.Reasons such as Lockerbie, Training IRA terrorists,and the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher.
 
Just to put my pennies worth in... much of sub Saharan Africa are in support of Mugabe and his policies. I spend time here working, and have read media reports dismissing the UN and the west as interfering busybodies. Having family who farmed in Zimbabwe I thought I was fairly aware, but have been able to read the other side of the story. General African feeling is that the UK shouldn't stick their noses in, that when a coalition between Mugabe and Tchangari (sp) took months to co-ordinate the fact that the UK took days to form a Con Lib coalition showed the west to be not thinking in African interest at all, just getting involved in something that wasn't their business. Whilst propaganda is what it is, I guess we can all have an opinion for thousands of miles away, but when there are issues at home should we really be getting involved in other people's? We are only a small island after all...
 
Though it is easy and obvious to point to the connection to action and oil - stability is the only real desire of western business interests and governments are obviously motivated by business. They regularly sup with the devil in various countries in order to trade and this trade is two way - most of these countries have no means whatsoever to develop their natural assets and western business always pays for the priviledge - what happens to the money is another thing but it's always paid.

Getting action in purely humanitarian situations is far more difficult - it has to be justified at home and most western countries are basically isolationist even if labelled imperialist - especially America where they have deep political divisions over every large issue. I seem to remember them loosing over 300 marines in Lebannon without a drop of oil in sight and they had quite a to do helping out in French Indo-China.

Most of the "leave it to them" attitude of the British government to black African problems is founded in the deep wounds of a lost Empire which still smarts. Most black leaders were actively involved in "freedom fighting" and so participated in or closed their eyes to tribal warfare and ethnic cleansing we would find abhorent - though "we" probably did the same at the same period of our development.
 
i hope that one day there will be one world government who will act for the general good of everyone, we are are all interconnected whether we like it or not, and interdependant, we are one, also one worldwide currency to stabilise business financial projections and put an end to current frequent currency fluctuations, this would free up billions that could be used to create new jobs through confidence through stability and to develop alternative energie sources, we will then no longer be threatened by the likes of gadaffi offering his oil to china etc. there would be no place for dictators who massacre their own people, ethnic cleansing etc, we need to stand up now and support these brave people who are at the beginning of the wind of change, there is no place for these savages, for that is what they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top