Remove this ad

avatar

Mo Matik

Registered Member

Posts: 3,671

#44 [url]

Aug 22 11 7:34 PM

We can't say "humanitarian crisis" and assume things are the same all over. Geography, neighboring countries, possibility of success, casualties, etc. All these things play a role.

Examine the evidence, not opinion. The truth is, a lot of oil companies have lost profits over the the current conflict. So you have to explain that. You also have to explain how it was the entire international community and not just the US.

As for the video Wr posted, I agree with whiterails, this guy is giving his opinion. He says that Ghaddafi will become a martyr? People hate Ghaddafi. He has a long history of anti-democratic policy. He's been perceived as a global pariah for a long time now. When asked if oil plays a role, he brings up various vague economic possibilities. Possibilities which would pretty much exist all over the middle east. Again, we have to examine the facts. It's a great thing that the international community responded when they did.

http://www.juancole.com/2...n+%28Informed+Comment%29

This article covers the facts better than I can explain. Juan Cole has been following the conflict since the beginning.

And let's stop trying to learn about issues of international politics and conflict through short 5 to 10 minute videos. A 10 minute video will never be able to give you a complete and full picture of what is going on. Never. If you want to learn about the world you have to spend time reading sourced scholarship.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

JDB1523

Registered Member

Posts: 3,593

#45 [url]

Aug 22 11 8:44 PM

So from my understanding Qaddafi wanted to create a new currency actually made of gold, which would then be the official currency used to purchase oil, is this correct? Is this at least what the video is stating?

That sounds great for online conspiracy videos but, who has the world's most gold? The West (the EU followed by the US). "Abandoning" the world's reserve currency to try and cripple the US would simply make them the second wealthiest purchaser of oil. The world invests in the USD as a safe haven because of our political stability, not for major capital gains (and if you think I've lost it, just look at how people flocked to US Treasury bonds AFTER we were downgraded by the S&P).

These are complete BS videos in regards to their inference of the changing of reserve currencies. The West surely had a hand in these transitions of governments, but to think we actually went to Iraq to prepare for Libya, and also to defend our world currency reserve status, is ludicrous.

TEAM CLEVELAND CAVS
Young Professionals Blog

Quote    Reply   
avatar

tkthafm.niketalk

Registered Member

Posts: 762

#46 [url]

Aug 22 11 9:12 PM

Hilarious hearing the lies coming out of the mouths of the snakes all over the media. The irony of a power structure devoted to propping up these dictators all over the Middle East for decades now (and sill today... anyone remember Bahrain, or does that country not matter anymore ?) now touting humanitarian values is too much.

It's not about stealing the gold or oil or world banking directly. It's about gaining a foothold in a strategic location (next to Egypt, AQM); gaining a trade foothold (and stifling China/Russia/Iran) and obviously further surrounding Iran. I hate Gaddafi, but it's sad to see the various lies told about the country being so quickly drank up by the public without question. No mention of all the benefits Libyan citizens enjoyed (free education, free health care, very high literacy rate, highest human development index in Africa, subsidized housing); just propaganda about genocide and lack of democratic rights (hint: Israel; slaughtering Gazan babies with airstrikes paid for in part by our tax dollars as we speak - no NATO action ?).

No mention of the various atrocities committed by the rebels (slaughtering black Libyans). No mention on how Gaddafi was one of the West's favorite arms buyers.

Inevitably, just given Libya's low population density, location, and the already existing extremist elements; Libya will become another nice hangout spot for al-Qaeda. It will not stifle China/Russia as NATO hoped, and the Libyan citizens (the few of those who actually welcomed NATO action) will soon learn the painful lesson that comes from making a deal with a devil.

Civilize the mind but make savage the body

Last Edited By: tkthafm Aug 23 11 1:32 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

tkthafm.niketalk

Registered Member

Posts: 762

#47 [url]

Aug 22 11 9:19 PM

pookieman wrote:
quik1987 wrote:
Why Libyia and not North Korea?

Yep...and we all know why...that and what is there to gain from N.Korea anyhow?
Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty

Remember we're only attacking the weakest targets frst helping oppressed peoples gain their freedom. smiley: happy

Civilize the mind but make savage the body

Last Edited By: tkthafm Aug 22 11 9:21 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

Wr.niketalk

Registered Member

Posts: 1,922

#48 [url]

Aug 22 11 10:41 PM

JDB1523 wrote:
So from my understanding Qaddafi wanted to create a new currency actually made of gold, which would then be the official currency used to purchase oil, is this correct? Is this at least what the video is stating?

That sounds great for online conspiracy videos but, who has the world's most gold? The West (the EU followed by the US). "Abandoning" the world's reserve currency to try and cripple the US would simply make them the second wealthiest purchaser of oil. The world invests in the USD as a safe haven because of our political stability, not for major capital gains (and if you think I've lost it, just look at how people flocked to US Treasury bonds AFTER we were downgraded by the S&P).

These are complete BS videos in regards to their inference of the changing of reserve currencies. The West surely had a hand in these transitions of governments, but to think we actually went to Iraq to prepare for Libya, and also to defend our world currency reserve status, is ludicrous.
The US fights daily to protect consumer confidence in the dollar. 


The world invests in the USD because they have to in order to participate in the global economy.


Gadaffi wasn't trying to create gold currency to buy oil. That was the normal way of business of the world until not too long ago. The USD as reserve currency is a fairly recent thing even though it may not seem that way. 


These people are waging war to protect their way of life. 






Last Edited By: Wr Aug 22 11 10:46 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

AZwildcats.niketalk

Registered Member

Posts: 3,410

#49 [url]

Aug 22 11 11:11 PM

Russia Today has had a reputation as being an extremely anti-USA and not 100% factual. While I am also intrigued by the gold dinar theory, take the opinions and "facts" in the video with a grain of salt

      CHELSEA F.C. (2012 European Champions)

       PHOENIX SUNS ARIZONA WILDCATS TENNESSEE TITANS

Quote    Reply   
avatar

CallHimAR

Registered Member

Posts: 2,886

#50 [url]

Aug 22 11 11:18 PM

Mo Matik wrote:
We can't say "humanitarian crisis" and assume things are the same all over. Geography, neighboring countries, possibility of success, casualties, etc. All these things play a role.

Examine the evidence, not opinion. The truth is, a lot of oil companies have lost profits over the the current conflict. So you have to explain that. You also have to explain how it was the entire international community and not just the US.

As for the video Wr posted, I agree with whiterails, this guy is giving his opinion. He says that Ghaddafi will become a martyr? People hate Ghaddafi. He has a long history of anti-democratic policy. He's been perceived as a global pariah for a long time now. When asked if oil plays a role, he brings up various vague economic possibilities. Possibilities which would pretty much exist all over the middle east. Again, we have to examine the facts. It's a great thing that the international community responded when they did.

http://www.juancole.com/2...n+%28Informed+Comment%29

This article covers the facts better than I can explain. Juan Cole has been following the conflict since the beginning.

And let's stop trying to learn about issues of international politics and conflict through short 5 to 10 minute videos. A 10 minute video will never be able to give you a complete and full picture of what is going on. Never. If you want to learn about the world you have to spend time reading sourced scholarship.

Mo, you're using to many words and not enough YouTube videos to present your point, which is why no one will listen.

I came here to post that Juan Cole article as well, thought it was a fantastic read.

I'd really like to reiterate this point though;

10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. andRepsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

Last Edited By: CallHimAR Aug 22 11 11:27 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

pookieman

Registered Member

Posts: 2,258

#51 [url]

Aug 23 11 12:04 AM

JDB1523 wrote:
So from my understanding Qaddafi wanted to create a new currency actually made of gold, which would then be the official currency used to purchase oil, is this correct? Is this at least what the video is stating?

That sounds great for online conspiracy videos but, who has the world's most gold? The West (the EU followed by the US). "Abandoning" the world's reserve currency to try and cripple the US would simply make them the second wealthiest purchaser of oil. The world invests in the USD as a safe haven because of our political stability, not for major capital gains (and if you think I've lost it, just look at how people flocked to US Treasury bonds AFTER we were downgraded by the S&P).

These are complete BS videos in regards to their inference of the changing of reserve currencies. The West surely had a hand in these transitions of governments, but to think we actually went to Iraq to prepare for Libya, and also to defend our world currency reserve status, is ludicrous.
Nobody is blaming the west, however we are being deceived(in part) by the west...things aren't adding up with all the news reports going on...

Quote    Reply   

Wr.niketalk

Registered Member

Posts: 1,922

#52 [url]

Aug 23 11 1:22 AM

CallHimAR wrote:
Mo Matik wrote:
We can't say "humanitarian crisis" and assume things are the same all over. Geography, neighboring countries, possibility of success, casualties, etc. All these things play a role.

Examine the evidence, not opinion. The truth is, a lot of oil companies have lost profits over the the current conflict. So you have to explain that. You also have to explain how it was the entire international community and not just the US.

As for the video Wr posted, I agree with whiterails, this guy is giving his opinion. He says that Ghaddafi will become a martyr? People hate Ghaddafi. He has a long history of anti-democratic policy. He's been perceived as a global pariah for a long time now. When asked if oil plays a role, he brings up various vague economic possibilities. Possibilities which would pretty much exist all over the middle east. Again, we have to examine the facts. It's a great thing that the international community responded when they did.

http://www.juancole.com/2...n+%28Informed+Comment%29

This article covers the facts better than I can explain. Juan Cole has been following the conflict since the beginning.

And let's stop trying to learn about issues of international politics and conflict through short 5 to 10 minute videos. A 10 minute video will never be able to give you a complete and full picture of what is going on. Never. If you want to learn about the world you have to spend time reading sourced scholarship.

Mo, you're using to many words and not enough YouTube videos to present your point, which is why no one will listen.

I came here to post that Juan Cole article as well, thought it was a fantastic read.

I'd really like to reiterate this point though;

10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. andRepsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.
So a 5-10 minute article is better than a video from youtube? Why do you guys have such a vindication against youtube. It's just a channel. It's not a brand or type of video. The guy in that article is essentially stating his opinions. Just like the guy in the video. Did you guys even pay attention to who the guy in the video even is? Probably not. Just saw youtube video and said "AWWWW YEAAHH ANOTHA CONSPIRACY THEORY VIDEO!!" The guy is the Russian envoy to NATO. The guy who wrote that article is a college professor that's lived in the middle east and parts of asia. I'm not discrediting him like you are doing the guy in the video I posted. I'm just reading his info like you guys should do with all things. Objectivity is key. How would science grow if people took research personal? It wouldn't. Ya'll have this mentality of having to always picking a side rather than just being yourself and having discussions about information presented from different angles. You don't always have to side with somebody every time you speak. I swear this generation of co-signers has run rampant. 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Hazeleyed Honey

Registered Member

Posts: 2,828

#54 [url]

Aug 23 11 3:39 AM

Mo Matik - So the allied forces suddenly care about Libyan civilians and intervened for humanitarian reasons? This is the same man they were doing underground dealings with during the past decade and who was channeled millions of dollars through them. When decades earlier they were saying he was the most vicious dictators and responsible for all these terrorist acts against them.

This is all just a new war theater and an extension of the US/NATO military agenda entrenched in North Africa.

It definitely is. If you look into the history foreign intervention of wars in the Middle East, besides the protection of Israel, oil has been the driving force for intervention. This is no secret and historians, as well as famous high U.S. officials have always proclaimed this. As Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State said: "You control the oil and you control the nations".

Let me paraphrase an article, "Operation Libya and the Battle for Oil" from Michel Chossudovsky (my University prof).

The real objective of intervening in Libya is not for humanitarian reasons, but to take possession of Libya's oil reserves, go in and destabilize the National Oil Corporation (NOC) and eventually privatize the country's oil industry, and then after this to transfer the control and ownership of Libya's oil wealth into foreign hands. The NOC is ranked 25 among the world’s Top 100 Oil Companies.Libya is among the globe's largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, which is more than twice those of the U.S.

The strategic assumptions behind using military intervention in Libya are reminiscent of previous U.S.-NATO military operations which occured in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Oil is the trophy of U.S.-NATO led wars.

Libya is a prize economy and it is known that war is good for business. Wall Street, the Anglo-American oil giants, the U.S.-E.U. weapons producers would also be beneficiaries of a U.S.-NATO led military campaign directed against Libya. Libyan oil is a bonanza for the Anglo-American oil giants. While the market value of crude oil is currently over excess of $100/barrel, the cost of Libyan oil is extremely low, probably as low as $1.00 a barrel. Let's also remember that Libya possesses the largest oil reserves in Africa.

The financial stakes to have to get involved in this for foreign superpowers are extremely high. The military intervention's goal is dismantling Libya's financial institutions as well as overtaking billions of dollars of Libyan financial assets deposited in Western banks. It gets a lot more complicated in which this is also about getting to extend power for geo-political reasons.

In a post-Gaddhafi Libya, a U.S.-NATO led intervention leading to the installion of a U.S. puppet regime is also being done in order to exclude China from the region and edging out China's National Petroleum Corp.

So, who will gain from this intervention if it succeeds? The Anglo-American oil giants such as British Petroleum which signed a hefty deal with the Gaddafi government for oil in 2007 and is amongst other potential beneficiaries of this U.S.-NATO military intervention.

More generally, this is to continue the redrawing of the map of Africa, which is a a process of neo-colonial re-division and overtake oil. History always repeats itself and oil has been one of the sole reasons of the conquest of the rich oil countries in the regions of the Middle East and Africa and it is the same reason today. I don't know how anyone cannot see the obvious links and how this is not for oil.

If Libya was the Congo and was not rich in oil, you think the allied forces would give a damn? Really? Look at the genocide that has been going in the Congo, where is the outcry for intervention? Why is Libya being more valued in intervening and not the Congo to help stop the genocide?

Last Edited By: Hazeleyed Honey Aug 23 11 3:53 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

south sole

Registered Member

Posts: 1,322

#55 [url]

Aug 23 11 3:53 AM

Hazeleyed Honey wrote:


More generally, this is to continue the redrawing of the map of Africa, which is a a process of neo-colonial re-division and overtake oil. History always repeats itself and oil has been one of the sole reasons of the conquest of the Middle East and it is the same reason today. I don't know how anyone cannot see the obvious links and how this is not for oil.




smiley: pimpGreat post Hazel.

Quote    Reply   

Wr.niketalk

Registered Member

Posts: 1,922

#56 [url]

Aug 23 11 4:07 AM

south sole wrote:
Hazeleyed Honey wrote:


More generally, this is to continue the redrawing of the map of Africa, which is a a process of neo-colonial re-division and overtake oil. History always repeats itself and oil has been one of the sole reasons of the conquest of the Middle East and it is the same reason today. I don't know how anyone cannot see the obvious links and how this is not for oil.




smiley: pimp�Great post Hazel.�
i don't think they're ready for this one butsmiley: pimp@ both vid and comment.
It's been a war on your mind since day 1.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

CallHimAR

Registered Member

Posts: 2,886

#57 [url]

Aug 23 11 12:38 PM

Hazeleyed Honey wrote:
Mo Matik - So the allied forces suddenly care about Libyan civilians and intervened for humanitarian reasons? This is the same man they were doing underground dealings with during the past decade and who was channeled millions of dollars through them. When decades earlier they were saying he was the most vicious dictators and responsible for all these terrorist acts against them.

This is all just a new war theater and an extension of the US/NATO military agenda entrenched in North Africa.

It definitely is. If you look into the history foreign intervention of wars in the Middle East, besides the protection of Israel, oil has been the driving force for intervention. This is no secret and historians, as well as famous high U.S. officials have always proclaimed this. As Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State said: "You control the oil and you control the nations".

Let me paraphrase an article, "Operation Libya and the Battle for Oil" from Michel Chossudovsky (my University prof).

The real objective of intervening in Libya is not for humanitarian reasons, but to take possession of Libya's oil reserves, go in and destabilize the National Oil Corporation (NOC) and eventually privatize the country's oil industry, and then after this to transfer the control and ownership of Libya's oil wealth into foreign hands. The NOC is ranked 25 among the world’s Top 100 Oil Companies.Libya is among the globe's largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, which is more than twice those of the U.S.

The strategic assumptions behind using military intervention in Libya are reminiscent of previous U.S.-NATO military operations which occured in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Oil is the trophy of U.S.-NATO led wars.

Libya is a prize economy and it is known that war is good for business. Wall Street, the Anglo-American oil giants, the U.S.-E.U. weapons producers would also be beneficiaries of a U.S.-NATO led military campaign directed against Libya. Libyan oil is a bonanza for the Anglo-American oil giants. While the market value of crude oil is currently over excess of $100/barrel, the cost of Libyan oil is extremely low, probably as low as $1.00 a barrel. Let's also remember that Libya possesses the largest oil reserves in Africa.

The financial stakes to have to get involved in this for foreign superpowers are extremely high. The military intervention's goal is dismantling Libya's financial institutions as well as overtaking billions of dollars of Libyan financial assets deposited in Western banks. It gets a lot more complicated in which this is also about getting to extend power for geo-political reasons.

In a post-Gaddhafi Libya, a U.S.-NATO led intervention leading to the installion of a U.S. puppet regime is also being done in order to exclude China from the region and edging out China's National Petroleum Corp.

So, who will gain from this intervention if it succeeds? The Anglo-American oil giants such as British Petroleum which signed a hefty deal with the Gaddafi government for oil in 2007 and is amongst other potential beneficiaries of this U.S.-NATO military intervention.

More generally, this is to continue the redrawing of the map of Africa, which is a a process of neo-colonial re-division and overtake oil. History always repeats itself and oil has been one of the sole reasons of the conquest of the rich oil countries in the regions of the Middle East and Africa and it is the same reason today. I don't know how anyone cannot see the obvious links and how this is not for oil.

If Libya was the Congo and was not rich in oil, you think the allied forces would give a damn? Really? Look at the genocide that has been going in the Congo, where is the outcry for intervention? Why is Libya being more valued in intervening and not the Congo to help stop the genocide?

Intervention is never strictly humanitarian and does have a lot to do with how Western countries feel about the person in power. If the dictator is not catering to Western demands enough, and is becoming a problem you can be sure that they won't be in power for long. Qaddafi may have had some wonderful, socialist ideas in his youth but it was quite clear in the past decade that the man had gone off the deep end, and the tribal tensions in the country between the East and the West were only getting worse. When things deteriorated to the point of him killing civilians in Benghazi the uprising began. Now the West had two choices; let things take their own course and not get involved at all or intervene because it was clear Qaddafi was going to show no remorse in his handling of the rebels. This was not like Egypt or Tunisia where the army refused to fire on civilians, this was going to turn into a full fledged massacre. 

Your main point doesn't make sense, to be blunt. You say that this is all about oil in your opening paragraphs. You say that if we control Libya's oil there will be tremendous profits and that "war is good business." Then, later on, you bring up the point that:

British Petroleum which signed a hefty deal with the Gaddafi government for oil in 2007
So if the man was ALREADY selling large companies such as BP oil, why would we have to go in and take it? In fact,

Officials in the rebel leadership have previously played down the likelihood that they will tear up Libya's revenue sharing agreements with foreign oil majors, saying they will respect contracts signed by the National Oil Company (NOC).

'Of course, (it includes) oil (contracts),' Shammam told Reuters. 'If people steal your money are you going to let them get away with it?' He said if companies were found to have won their contracts illegally, they would be given the option to pay back 'funds to the Libyan people.'

Aside from that, war is good for a business that relies on fragile pipelines that could be destroyed...during a war? Instability is never good for business unless you work for Halliburton. 

Libya does hold a great deal of the worlds oil reserves, however they are ninth on the list. If oil was the main concern, why are we not in Iran? Why did we tacitly support the uprising in Egypt as well, since they have such a small share? 

Now of course I'm not saying this is 1000000% about humanitarian intervention and has nothing to do with oil or any economic gains. That would be foolish. But it is also foolish to look at things as if they are strictly black and white. There is a tremendous gray area that people overlook due to the different things that factor in to decisions to intervene in conflicts such as these.


Quote    Reply   
avatar

SunDOOBIE

Registered Member

Posts: 4,601

#58 [url]

Aug 23 11 12:56 PM

Mo Matik wrote:
We can't say "humanitarian crisis" and assume things are the same all over. Geography, neighboring countries, possibility of success, casualties, etc. All these things play a role.

Examine the evidence, not opinion. The truth is, a lot of oil companies have lost profits over the the current conflict. So you have to explain that. You also have to explain how it was the entire international community and not just the US.

As for the video Wr posted, I agree with whiterails, this guy is giving his opinion. He says that Ghaddafi will become a martyr? People hate Ghaddafi. He has a long history of anti-democratic policy. He's been perceived as a global pariah for a long time now. When asked if oil plays a role, he brings up various vague economic possibilities. Possibilities which would pretty much exist all over the middle east. Again, we have to examine the facts. It's a great thing that the international community responded when they did.

http://www.juancole.com/2...n+%28Informed+Comment%29

This article covers the facts better than I can explain. Juan Cole has been following the conflict since the beginning.

And let's stop trying to learn about issues of international politics and conflict through short 5 to 10 minute videos. A 10 minute video will never be able to give you a complete and full picture of what is going on. Never. If you want to learn about the world you have to spend time reading sourced scholarship.
Great post and excellent link.  I just read it and it was very informative in regards to the myths.  Bookmarked!  





10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. andRepsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

Hold those things that tell your history and protect them.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

whiterails.niketalk

Registered Member

Posts: 593

#60 [url]

Aug 23 11 1:06 PM

Wr wrote:
CallHimAR wrote:
Mo Matik wrote:
We can't say "humanitarian crisis" and assume things are the same all over. Geography, neighboring countries, possibility of success, casualties, etc. All these things play a role.

Examine the evidence, not opinion. The truth is, a lot of oil companies have lost profits over the the current conflict. So you have to explain that. You also have to explain how it was the entire international community and not just the US.

As for the video Wr posted, I agree with whiterails, this guy is giving his opinion. He says that Ghaddafi will become a martyr? People hate Ghaddafi. He has a long history of anti-democratic policy. He's been perceived as a global pariah for a long time now. When asked if oil plays a role, he brings up various vague economic possibilities. Possibilities which would pretty much exist all over the middle east. Again, we have to examine the facts. It's a great thing that the international community responded when they did.

http://www.juancole.com/2...n+%28Informed+Comment%29

This article covers the facts better than I can explain. Juan Cole has been following the conflict since the beginning.

And let's stop trying to learn about issues of international politics and conflict through short 5 to 10 minute videos. A 10 minute video will never be able to give you a complete and full picture of what is going on. Never. If you want to learn about the world you have to spend time reading sourced scholarship.

Mo, you're using to many words and not enough YouTube videos to present your point, which is why no one will listen.

I came here to post that Juan Cole article as well, thought it was a fantastic read.

I'd really like to reiterate this point though;

10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. andRepsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.
So a 5-10 minute article is better than a video from youtube? Why do you guys have such a vindication against youtube. It's just a channel. It's not a brand or type of video. The guy in that article is essentially stating his opinions. Just like the guy in the video. Did you guys even pay attention to who the guy in the video even is? Probably not. Just saw youtube video and said "AWWWW YEAAHH ANOTHA CONSPIRACY THEORY VIDEO!!" The guy is the Russian envoy to NATO. The guy who wrote that article is a college professor that's lived in the middle east and parts of asia. I'm not discrediting him like you are doing the guy in the video I posted. I'm just reading his info like you guys should do with all things. Objectivity is key. How would science grow if people took research personal? It wouldn't. Ya'll have this mentality of having to always picking a side rather than just being yourself and having discussions about information presented from different angles. You don't always have to side with somebody every time you speak. I swear this generation of co-signers has run rampant. 

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by:

"Ya'll have this mentality of having to always picking a side rather than just being yourself and having discussions about information presented from different angles"

Is not the point of debate to pick a side and provide evidence to support your claims?   You'd rather people ignore the credibility of your sources and argue based on conjectural statements?   When these "different angles" as you call them, are based on absolute nonsense, then no, it is not worth discussing them.  

You really seem to be underestimating the importance of "credible sources".   You're brushing it aside, and it is without a doubt the most important aspect of any argument.   If you argument is entirely based on BS sources, your argument is completely useless.  An op-ed piece from Russia Today is not a credible source.  That's what I meant by "Youtube Scholars".  Your statement of "So a 5-10 minute article is better than a video from youtube?" shows just how far you have to go in regards to distinguishing between a credible source, and a non-credible source. You seem to have the idea that sources do not matter, and it couldn't be further from the truth.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help