Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action

[JohnSmith2007 353]

What is the position of Democrats regarding military intervention? And no, I'm not asking your opinion of what that position, but an actual officially stated position to which you believe the party is now betraying?

I said SOME democrats, not THE democrats. Of course you already knew that. You are just playing your usual word games to try and change the subject. Some Democrats have always been against military action regardless of which president is doing it. Those are the honorable ones. There are others, like the ones that voted with Bush to go into Iraq and then later condemn the action, that are without honor. Did you know we tried to assassinate MG yesterday? Was that part of the mandate? Do you agree with that? Did you know that we are bombing Libyan troops as they carry out their campaign against the rebels? Is that part of a "no-fly zone"? Do you agree with that? Now that the Arab League has condemned the attacks and have withdrawn its support do you still think we should continue?

Why do you think the West decided to bomb Libya ?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I said SOME democrats, not THE democrats. Of course you already knew that. You are just playing your usual word games to try and change the subject. Some Democrats have always been against military action regardless of which president is doing it. Those are the honorable ones. There are others, like the ones that voted with Bush to go into Iraq and then later condemn the action, that are without honor. Did you know we tried to assassinate MG yesterday? Was that part of the mandate? Do you agree with that? Did you know that we are bombing Libyan troops as they carry out their campaign against the rebels? Is that part of a "no-fly zone"? Do you agree with that? Now that the Arab League has condemned the attacks and have withdrawn its support do you still think we should continue?

And we have a WINNER!!!

Anyone who thinks Obama and the rest of the crew is bombing Libya for anything other than oil needs to sue the doctor who performed their lobotomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Libya

Oil reserves in Libya

Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels (6.60×109 m3) as of 2007. Oil production was 1.8 million barrels per day (290×103 m3/d) as of 2006, giving Libya 63 years of reserves at current production rates if no new reserves were to be found. Libya is considered a highly attractive oil area due to its low cost of oil production (as low as $1 per barrel at some fields), and proximity to European markets. Libya would like to increase production from 1.8 Mbbl/d (290×103 m3/d) in 2006 to 3 Mbbl/d (480×103 m3/d) by 2010–13 but with existing oil fields undergoing a 7–8% decline rate, Libya's challenge is maintaining production at mature fields, while finding and developing new oil fields. Most of Libya remains unexplored as a result of past sanctions and disagreements with foreign oil companies.[1]

Cumulative production through 2009 was 27 Gbbl.[2] Given the stated number, this would be 65% of reserves.

The drilling of oil wells in Libya was first authorised by the Petroleum Law of 1955.[3] The National Oil Corporation is the largest oil company of Libya.

[Zero Sum 305]

Why do you think the West decided to bomb Libya ?

If we go on the Iraq pattern of thought, it could be to secure better oil contracts for friendly oil companies. It could also be mostly humanitarian though. At least that's what I'd like to believe, given the current tide of popular uprisings through the middle east. Democracy could actually be trying to make its way into some people's minds in the region and perhaps that too could be a stimulating factor for some Western nations in aiding militarily those populations as they face barbaric repression from the governments in question.

Maybe that's a reason why the Arab League hasn't joined in either.

But we do consume a lot of oil on this side of the world.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

If we go on the Iraq pattern of thought, it could be to secure better oil contracts for friendly oil companies. It could also be mostly humanitarian though. At least that's what I'd like to believe, given the current tide of popular uprisings through the middle east. Democracy could actually be trying to make its way into some people's minds in the region and perhaps that too could be a stimulating factor for some Western nations in aiding militarily those populations as they face barbaric repression from the governments in question.

Maybe that's a reason why the Arab League hasn't joined in either.

But we do consume a lot of oil on this side of the world.

That plays right into the same questions as; "Is there really a Santa Clause", "Is Dracula still around and sucking the blood out of others or did the werewolves get him", and "what happened to the Leprechauns" ?

Edited March 21, 2011 by Why_Me

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What is the position of Democrats regarding military intervention? And no, I'm not asking your opinion of what that position, but an actual officially stated position to which you believe the party is now betraying?

I will find out when my Congresswoman responds to my email. She is Lynn Woolsey, one of Nancy's pets, except on war issues. We call her the bag lady from Petaluma.

[Zero Sum 305]

That plays right into the same questions as; "Is there really a Santa Clause", "Is Dracula still around and sucking the blood out of others or did the werewolves get him", and "what happened to the Leprechauns" ?

I know what happened to the Leprechauns but I can't tell here.

At some point we need to draw up clearly thought questions. If this is about oil contracts, we should see some obvious effects on corporate profits and contracts as the smoke clears in Libya. Given the incredible political power that many of these companies control, it should be no surprise they will find a way to profiteer from a democracy in that country.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I said SOME democrats, not THE democrats. Of course you already knew that. You are just playing your usual word games to try and change the subject. Some Democrats have always been against military action regardless of which president is doing it. Those are the honorable ones. There are others, like the ones that voted with Bush to go into Iraq and then later condemn the action, that are without honor. Did you know we tried to assassinate MG yesterday? Was that part of the mandate? Do you agree with that? Did you know that we are bombing Libyan troops as they carry out their campaign against the rebels? Is that part of a "no-fly zone"? Do you agree with that? Now that the Arab League has condemned the attacks and have withdrawn its support do you still think we should continue?

Which Democrats are openly supporting military action that have officially stated their opposition to taking military action except under specific conditions, which, according to you have not been met? Not every Democrat shares the same views about rules of engagement that Kucinich does. In fact, he is a minority within his own party in that respect. Kucinich does bring up an important issue about where to draw the line between what is within the constitutional powers of the President regarding military action and what is left up to Congress. This is a conversation that needs to take place within Washington and I applaud him for standing up for his principles, but don't confuse his stance on the rules of engagement and what the Democratic Party's official position is. Feel free though to find a member of Congress who has been against military action under any circumstances short of a declaration of war, who is now openly supporting what is going on in Libya.

Edited March 21, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why do you think the West decided to bomb Libya ?

If you could substantiate that claim with anything, then it would be worthy of talking about. The U.S. as part of the U.N. is enforcing the no-fly zone. As to how far this goes beyond that will be up for scrutiny.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I know what happened to the Leprechauns but I can't tell here.

At some point we need to draw up clearly thought questions. If this is about oil contracts, we should see some obvious effects on corporate profits and contracts as the smoke clears in Libya. Given the incredible political power that many of these companies control, it should be no surprise they will find a way to profiteer from a democracy in that country.

This has zero to do with democracy. Iraq wasn't about WMD's and democracy, Afghanistan isn't about getting rid of the Taliban and finding democracy either. It's rarely about democracy. And the chance of an Islamic nation ever getting close to what we call "democracy" is nothing short of Santa Clause showing up at your door tomorrow.

Oil company's tend to work better with dictatorships for the fact they can get away with bloody murder. It's been proven time and time again and it's still happening today. If the West gave two f**king sh*ts about democracy it would have started cleaning things up in this world a long time ago. It's about cheap oil being right next to Europe and nothing more.

I can call the moon the sun, but it doesn't make it the sun.

[Zero Sum 305]

This has zero to do with democracy. Iraq wasn't about WMD's and democracy, Afghanistan isn't about getting rid of the Taliban and finding democracy either. It's rarely about democracy. And the chance of an Islamic nation ever getting close to what we call "democracy" is nothing short of Santa Clause showing up at your door tomorrow.

Oil company's tend to work better with dictatorships for the fact they can get away with bloody murder. It's been proven time and time again and it's still happening today. If the West gave two f**king sh*ts about democracy it would have started cleaning things up in this world a long time ago. It's about cheap oil being right next to Europe and nothing more.

I can call the moon the sun, but it doesn't make it the sun.

Of course we could theoretically assume that profiteering was behind this and the majority of American foreign policy. But specifics are always so much better.

There would be evidence for all arguments IMO.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

If you could substantiate that claim with anything, then it would be worthy of talking about. The U.S. as part of the U.N. is enforcing the no-fly zone. As to how far this goes beyond that will be up for scrutiny.

And since when did the US ever listen to the UN ? Only when it fit our needs. Same with the UN agreeing to what we ever wanted.

Let's call a spade a spade. There's no reason to white wash this and make it something it isn't.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Of course we could theoretically assume that profiteering was behind this and the majority of American foreign policy. But specifics are always so much better.

There would be evidence for all arguments IMO.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/296182-they-want-to-build-a-pipeline-through-a-war-zone/

[Zero Sum 305]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/296182-they-want-to-build-a-pipeline-through-a-war-zone/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This has zero to do with democracy. Iraq wasn't about WMD's and democracy, Afghanistan isn't about getting rid of the Taliban and finding democracy either. It's rarely about democracy. And the chance of an Islamic nation ever getting close to what we call "democracy" is nothing short of Santa Clause showing up at your door tomorrow.

Oil company's tend to work better with dictatorships for the fact they can get away with bloody murder. It's been proven time and time again and it's still happening today. If the West gave two f**king sh*ts about democracy it would have started cleaning things up in this world a long time ago. It's about cheap oil being right next to Europe and nothing more.

I can call the moon the sun, but it doesn't make it the sun.

There is substantive evidence that the Bush Administration (see Wolfowitz) wanted to invade Iraq and looked for reasons to do so that they could sell to the public (WMD, 911 connection). Wolfowitz even believed that the war would be paid for by having access to Iraqi oil. Keep in mind that the Bush Administration had no serious intention to reduce our consumption of oil (see Cheney) and looked at our problems with oil as a problem of supply, not demand.

That is an entirely different scenario than what is going on with the current administration. Obama not only wants us to reduce our consumption of oil, but of all fossil fuels (see EPA) and has been pushing to get enough government investment into renewable energy as well as energy conservation efforts.

Does France have a stake in the oil? Perhaps, but Gaddafi wasn't threatening to halt production so it would have been in their best interests to keep Gaddafi in power to maintain the status quo. Why would they jeopardize their steady supply by throwing a wrench into Gaddafi's regime when he has been a strategic ally for so many years?

While the issues rarely fall down to one, single motivating reason - the fact is Gaddafi is no longer wanted by the people of Libya and and a revolution is taking place by people demanding a more democratic government. The U.N. passed a no-fly resolution backed by the Arab League. That's legitimate reasons enough, IMO.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There is substantive evidence that the Bush Administration (see Wolfowitz) wanted to invade Iraq and looked for reasons to do so that they could sell to the public (WMD, 911 connection). Wolfowitz even believed that the war would be paid for by having access to Iraqi oil. Keep in mind that the Bush Administration had no serious intention to reduce our consumption of oil (see Cheney) and looked at our problems with oil as a problem of supply, not demand.

That is an entirely different scenario than what is going on with the current administration. Obama not only wants us to reduce our consumption of oil, but of all fossil fuels (see EPA) and has been pushing to get enough government investment into renewable energy as well as energy conservation efforts.

Does France have a stake in the oil? Perhaps, but Gaddafi wasn't threatening to halt production so it would have been in their best interests to keep Gaddafi in power to maintain the status quo. Why would they jeopardize their steady supply by throwing a wrench into Gaddafi's regime when he has been a strategic ally for so many years?

While the issues rarely fall down to one, single motivating reason - the fact is Gaddafi is no longer wanted by the people of Libya and and a revolution is taking place by people demanding a more democratic government. The U.N. passed a no-fly resolution backed by the Arab League. That's legitimate reasons enough, IMO.

The bold part is exactly what I was thinking. If western nations want clear access to oil exports it would be better to let Gaddafi crush the rebel forces and move on.