Like I said, I don't think it was a war for oil, for us.
and yet, as I've laid it out.. it was... it just wasn't the only reason.
do you disagree with what I have said about the oil stability being in our national and security interests?
I do think from the European perspective, it very much is a war for oil, since the have much closer business dealings with Libya and get much more of their oil from there. If you recall, it eventually came out that pressure from the UK government on the Scottish legal system lead to the release of one of the Lockerbie bombers, allegedly for humanitarian reasons although apparently back home in Libya, he experienced a miraculous remission and last I heard, was still alive.
So, if foreign governments will trade a terrorst who killed their own people (not to mention ours) for oil contracts, I'm not surprised they would try to get a superpower with superior military capabilities to do their dirty work. Same thing happened in Bosnia. There was a humanitarian crisis, but not a national security crisis. So, which country has has more civilian deaths since these uprisings started? Libya or Syria?
yep, what I expected.. it's the (R) thing again.. that's all, no need to explain this mysterious 'questions' and 'inability to understand' any more..
btw, it's the Bosnia thing that gave it way.. I guess going with example from the Bush era was too much to ask for..
so here's something, it turns out that Bush went after Saddam for humanitarian reasons, the same reasons we're in Libya, one day the Bush admin will find out the real reason and stick with it, instead of just giving out reasons du jour when asked....So yeah, this should help your understanding, since you had not a single question when it was Bush/Saddam.. Per Condi Rice, The Saddam thing is just like the Ghaddafi thing, he was killing his own people and that presented a security for us that we just couldn't stand..
Odd that he allowed Dafur to happen tho, how many of their people had died in comparison to Iraq.. since you're all about making comparison and all..well heh, comparisons to (D) actions that is..
I'm sure Iraq had nothing to do with oil or the vendetta against Saddam..or to keep the stability in the area.. nooooo, that was a good, unquestionable choice for you that had nothing to do with the (R) after the decider in chiefs name..
Jesus, do you see how partsian and childish you are being yet? Like it's been explained to you already,
There is no overall marching plan. There hasn't been for decades. We base our foreign policy on the current political situation and then we change it.
pull your head out of the partsian feeding bag already..
here's what Rice has said..
You’re looking at a dictator in Libya who has tried to put down an uprising. If you want to talk about a humanitarian disaster, why did we go into Libya? Because he was about to mow down his own people. He was going to eliminate his own people.
He was going to commit genocide against his own people. Saddam Hussein committed chemical warfare against his own people. And I’d really like to have an answer from those who say it was a good thing to intervene humanitarian way in Libya, because Gadhafi was killing massive numbers of civilians.
Saddam Hussein put 400,000 people in mass graves. He used chemical weapons against Kurds and Shia. If that wasn’t a humanitarian reason to intervene, quite apart from the security reasons, I really think people have a lot of explaining to do.
why didn't we go into Syria under Bush? Why didn't we go into Iran? Why not NK? oh wait, you don't have any questions for that president.. only this one..
so, ok how about you let that Condi answer, answer all these mysterious Libya questions for you... and hey, let's take this from the other POV, where were the ppl today who are questioning and complaining about Libya(that would be you btw), when Bush did the same exact thing for Iraq? Like Condi said..I really think you have a lot of explaining to do
or you could just go with what we both know to be true and that's the (R) thing..
Yes yes the "mouth of R's." Like I said, I get the humanitarian angle, however now that we are involved in Libya, are we willing to stay to do what it takes, kill Ghaddafi, help support a democratic government there...
are we going to kill Ghaddafi? Maybe you missed the news, but we almost did last week... killed his son and grandson instead, so to me that question is answered..
are we going to stay? who is this 'we'.. us? the US? Or the rest of the countries and arab league who are involved? I assume 'we' as in the US, will be there in some fashion in the background, or in a 'support' position..for many a year.. it's what we're all about now since Iraq, nation building.. seems a little extreme, but whaddyagonnado? you broke it, you bought it right? You're happily committed to Iraq for another 10-50 years, Afghanistan for the same.. so maybe you can tell me why you're so worried about being in Libya? One would think this is a pretty prize for you..even if the gift came from a Muslim,Liberal,secular, socialist..
I mean, do you understand the commitment we have made? Or, are you going to get bored with the whole thing and want the US to pull out later? I think that since we've gotten sucked into this, we've got a much bigger commitment than just lobbing a few bombs, and I don't see these issues being addressed. That's why asking what our national security interests are isn't just a matter of R's and D's. I see that you seem to find it difficult to think I can have anything other than a partisan slant on foreign policy.
I wouldn't say that, I'd say its more like I find it difficult to believe that you can have anything but a partsian slant on
any policy or topic, not just the foreign ones..since you've yet to prove you have the ability to be bipartsian on anything.. this thread being just another nugget of proof in the long line of many..
I don't remember a single question about Saddam, a single mystery that needed to be solved before you could see just exactly what that admin was doing and what their long term goals were..I don't seem to remember theses time-table issues, our commitment issues with any of that.. even tho, IIRC, those timetables were something like, 24 months weren't they? Greeted as hero's and saviors or something? and yet, silence from you, no questions asked..
Which, considering your reaction to Bin Ladin's killing, is more than a wee bit ironic!
I see you are still stuck in Kaz-bot mode.. repeating the same thing over and over even though the facts have proven you wrong over and over..I'm pulling for you to to overcome that deficit... but I do find it funny to see just how much it bothers you that Obama was the one to actually finish the job.. so there's that.. and considering you had no problems when this was Bush/Saddam but have a whole bunch of them
only when it's Obama/Ghaddaf .. I think this is partsian-kettle calling..and you're partsian-black..
