bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 If so, this applies 100% across the board to all political opinions. Correct, but some of those opinions are consistent and congruent with "western" interests and actions. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Correct, but some of those opinions are consistent and congruent with "western" interests and actions. Including those that complain about bad Western behaviour, complaints based on conventional Western values. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Including those that complain about bad Western behaviour, complaints based on conventional Western values. Western "values" are instantiated more strongly by actions than words. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Western "values" are instantiated more strongly by actions than words. My point is that the critics, the dissidents, and the drive-by complainers are no less consistent, or hypocritical, if such is the case, then are those defending their nations' behaviour. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 My point is that the critics, the dissidents, and the drive-by complainers are no less consistent, or hypocritical, if such is the case, then are those defending their nations' behaviour. Oh but they are..."Bomb their ass and steal their gas" is a much more consistent message! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) Oh but they are..."Bomb their ass and steal their gas" is a much more consistent message! No, it's hypocrisy. That's why they keep getting dizzy, tripping, and falling down trying to expound on that message simultaneous with pieties about "humanitarian intervention," "defending democracy," and such matters. Further, claiming your message is consistent is to deem leaders and policymakers (without notable exception) to be mendacious liars and hypocrites, which underlines my point. Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
GostHacked Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 The reality is that "whining" means you're too harsh about Western nations' behaviour; whereas complaints about the behaviour of Official Enemies is sober discourse and concern for human lives. Get with the program. Explain why the US along with Saudi Arabia crushed the democracy movement in Bahrain, while trying to promote the democracy movement in Libya? Some of you posted that we don't have the resources to go into every conflict, which I agree. - However, there are many conflicts we can get involved in to make a real difference, but we don't benefit from it. Some of you posted that we have to pick and chose what conflicts to get involved in. - And we pick the countries that will provide us with some benefit. If there is no benefit, no one gives a shit. Some of you don't understand that the sole reason we to go into a country is because there is a benefit for us. - We are now going to war over natural resources. It is a complete farce to say we are going into Libya for humanitarian reasons. This is a blatant take over of Libya by the UN/NATO. We need to bomb Libya so we can save it? Is that like shooting someone in the chest to save them? No one has yet to explain with any clarity why Libya and not other countries. No one has given me a real good analysis of why Libya and not any of these other countries that are experiencing the same issues? Let's hear it. Why are we not in Syria right now? Pretty quick to act on Gadaffi, but slow to act on Assad. Quote
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) Explain why the US along with Saudi Arabia crushed the democracy movement in Bahrain, while trying to promote the democracy movement in Libya? Some of you posted that we don't have the resources to go into every conflict, which I agree. - However, there are many conflicts we can get involved in to make a real difference, but we don't benefit from it. Some of you posted that we have to pick and chose what conflicts to get involved in. - And we pick the countries that will provide us with some benefit. If there is no benefit, no one gives a shit. Some of you don't understand that the sole reason we to go into a country is because there is a benefit for us. - We are now going to war over natural resources. It is a complete farce to say we are going into Libya for humanitarian reasons. This is a blatant take over of Libya by the UN/NATO. We need to bomb Libya so we can save it? Is that like shooting someone in the chest to save them? No one has yet to explain with any clarity why Libya and not other countries. No one has given me a real good analysis of why Libya and not any of these other countries that are experiencing the same issues? Let's hear it. Why are we not in Syria right now? Pretty quick to act on Gadaffi, but slow to act on Assad. You misunderstood my post, which was sarcastic. I find the "humanitarian" justification highly dubious, and the support for Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in crushing the democratic movement only underscores my doubt for me. Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Wilber Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 So tell me, what is the reality? The reality is what you can do and the consequences of doing it. Chaos has been created in the region. Are you forgetting about Tunisia and Egypt who are still going through the chaos? It just does not seem to be reported as often. Guess we are responsible for all that as well. What is going on there may not be a civil war at all. I will argue the revolts are western started. Remember there were British SAS soldiers on the groun painting targets and getting a feel for things weeks/months before the chaos started in Libya. I can only conclude that we have caused the uprising to offer a solution. Our governments have done that kind of thing, and are doing it now. It is the nature of the SAS that it is very unlikely we know what they have been up to. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Guest Derek L Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 No one has yet to explain with any clarity why Libya and not other countries. No one has given me a real good analysis of why Libya and not any of these other countries that are experiencing the same issues? Let's hear it. Why are we not in Syria right now? Pretty quick to act on Gadaffi, but slow to act on Assad. [tinfoil-hat]Do you know for a fact that we are not involved in the rebellions in the other Middle East countries? Have you read W.’s book yet? Read over the part about the Freedom Agenda.[tinfoil-hat/] As for why Gadaffi and not Assad......Petro-Canada doesn't have deals signed with Syria Quote
GostHacked Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 You misunderstood my post, which was sarcastic. I find the "humanitarian" justification highly dubious, and the support for Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in crushing the democratic movement only underscores my doubt for me. Understood. Quote
GostHacked Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 The reality is what you can do and the consequences of doing it. What are the consequences? Guess we are responsible for all that as well. To an extent we are responsible. We've been propping up most of these dictators for decades through various means. It is the nature of the SAS that it is very unlikely we know what they have been up to. We have a hint of what they have been up to. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/07/3156530.htm Up to six SAS solders were detained by rebels near Benghazi after flying into the area by helicopter on Friday. It is understood they were escorting British diplomats trying to establish contact with opponents of Libyan leader Moamar Gaddafi. An opposition spokesman in Benghazi has told reporters that rebels refused to talk to the British delegation because of the way they entered the country. I am sure they were there to support humanitarian efforts. The team is said to have entered without prior arrangement in the dead of night, carrying guns, explosives, and passports of multiple nationalities Gotta have explosives and forged passports(I am guessing they were forged/fake passports) when doing humanitarian missions. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 I'll go out on a limb, and say Syria will be next: http://www.suncor.com/en/about/919.aspx Syria Ebla Gas DevelopmentThe project: Develop and produce natural gas from Syrian fields Expected result: Initial development would produce 80 million cubic feet per day of natural gas based on probable reserves of around 500 billion cubic feet equivalent Approximate investment: $1.1 billion investment Target on-stream date: 2010 And per Wikileaks: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/01/31/wikileaks-libya-petro-canada.html A newly leaked U.S. diplomatic note says Libya threatened to nationalize Petro-Canada's operations in the North African country over a spat with the Canadian government.It's the latest revelation in a bizarre international saga that first grabbed headlines two years ago. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi cancelled a late September 2009 stopover in Newfoundland after Canada promised a tongue-lashing for the hero's welcome Libya extended to a man convicted in the Lockerbie bombing. The U.S. cable, obtained from WikiLeaks by British newspaper the Daily Telegraph, says Libya's state oil company called in a senior Petro-Canada official with a threat to nationalize the firm's operations in Libya if Canada did not apologize. It also says Sandra McCardell, Canada's ambassador to Libya, told her American counterpart that Ottawa had initially planned to refuse Gadhafi permission to visit. However, Canadian companies with business interests in Libya "launched a furious lobbying effort" and persuaded Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government to allow the trip to go forward. The plot thickens Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 No, it's hypocrisy. That's why they keep getting dizzy, tripping, and falling down trying to expound on that message simultaneous with pieties about "humanitarian intervention," "defending democracy," and such matters. Nobody with such a bumper sticker is expounding on such things. Further, claiming your message is consistent is to deem leaders and policymakers (without notable exception) to be mendacious liars and hypocrites, which underlines my point. But I am not a leader or policymaker...mine is an amoral perspective. Did you know that they kill dogs and cats at animal "shelters"? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Nobody with such a bumper sticker is expounding on such things. But I am not a leader or policymaker...mine is an amoral perspective. Did you know that they kill dogs and cats at animal "shelters"? You are a relatively unique debater, and for that I tip my hat. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Guest Derek L Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Wait a minute, after using Mr. Peabody's time machine: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2004/12/19/martin-libya041219.html Martin told reporters discussion focused on international concerns including the situation in Darfur, human rights and trade. Martin also stressed the need for judicial reform in Libya, due process and consular access to foreign nationals. So, according to this, and the above wikileaks report, one can deduce a timeline such as this: ~2003-2004: Gadhafi renounced terrorism and gave up his chemical weapons program. 2004: Relations improve between the West and Gadhafi 2007-2008: Western companies invest in Libya 2009: Gadhafi, after celebrating the return of the Lockerbie bombing, is given a "tounge lashing" by the west, so he threatened to nationalize western companies operating in Libya. 2011: After the uprisings in the middle east started to spread to Libya, Gadhafi starts killing protesters. 2011: The UN tells Gadhafi to stop and play nice like Mubarak, he tells them to pound sand 2011: The UN authorizes a no fly zone over Libya to prevent the further killings of the protestors. Why would the west intevene in Libya, when they already had access to it's oil? Quote
GostHacked Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Wait a minute, after using Mr. Peabody's time machine: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2004/12/19/martin-libya041219.html So, according to this, and the above wikileaks report, one can deduce a timeline such as this: ~2003-2004: Gadhafi renounced terrorism and gave up his chemical weapons program. 2004: Relations improve between the West and Gadhafi 2007-2008: Western companies invest in Libya 2009: Gadhafi, after celebrating the return of the Lockerbie bombing, is given a "tounge lashing" by the west, so he threatened to nationalize western companies operating in Libya. 2011: After the uprisings in the middle east started to spread to Libya, Gadhafi starts killing protesters. 2011: The UN tells Gadhafi to stop and play nice like Mubarak, he tells them to pound sand 2011: The UN authorizes a no fly zone over Libya to prevent the further killings of the protestors. Why would the west intevene in Libya, when they already had access to it's oil? Good questions. That timeline puts things into a new perspective as well. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lockerbie-evidence-planted-by-cia-1586487.html A fragment of circuit board alleged to have been part of the bomb's timing mechanism is the sole item of physical evidence linking the two Libyans to the December 1988 bombing. But Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for Linlithgow, declared: "I have come to suspect that the timing device in question was not that of Pan Am 103 but a different timing device that the CIA had picked up from the Libyans ... I have been driven to the conclusion that the device was a CIA plant." Why is it that wherever the CIA goes, terrorism is soon to follow? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Good questions. That timeline puts things into a new perspective as well. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lockerbie-evidence-planted-by-cia-1586487.html Why is it that wherever the CIA goes, terrorism is soon to follow? Or, the "circuit board", could have been sold/supplied by the CIA to another "group", and Gadhif's Amazon Guard could have stole it, then planted it on the airline to make the CIA look like they were trying to frame Libya..... Quote
madmax Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Same leftist silly claim about Iraq. IF that is a LEFTIST ONLY CLAIM then give them the thumbs up. Only a naive person would not believe that the war in Iraq was about oil. Yet we all pay the WORLD prices. No one is getting any free oil from Iraq or anywhere. Always paid world prices and the Saddam Era Iraq always supplied. First Iraqis with Cheap oil then the world. But regardless of that, it was about Control, not about selling to the world markets. Regardless, those on the lunatic right are useful idiots. Quote
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 IF that is a LEFTIST ONLY CLAIM then give them the thumbs up. Only a naive person would not believe that the war in Iraq was about oil. Always paid world prices and the Saddam Era Iraq always supplied. First Iraqis with Cheap oil then the world. But regardless of that, it was about Control, not about selling to the world markets. Exactly. It wasn't about "stealing the oil," but about a permanent base in Iraq, and strategic influence in an energy-rich region. Some people are under an unaccountable, senseless delusion...that since some of our enemies are genuine baddies (and they are), we must therefore, by some contortion of logic, be their direct opposite: the Good Guys, struggling always to preserve and protect what is right. Plagiarized from fairy tales and epic poems. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Guest Derek L Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Exactly. It wasn't about "stealing the oil," but about a permanent base in Iraq, and strategic influence in an energy-rich region. Some people are under an unaccountable, senseless delusion...that since some of our enemies are genuine baddies (and they are), we must therefore, by some contortion of logic, be their direct opposite: the Good Guys, struggling always to preserve and protect what is right. Plagiarized from fairy tales and epic poems. That stratgey has worked for thousands of years………..if it ain’t broke… Quote
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 That stratgey has worked for thousands of years………..if it ain’t broke… So you support another country invading Canada, with one of its primary purposes to set up a permanenet military base? Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Guest Derek L Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 So you support another country invading Canada, with one of its primary purposes to set up a permanenet military base? Of course not, but if a country has the ability and the desire to, our support/lack of doesn't really mater. Do you support foreign countries nationalizing, legal overseas Canadian business interests? Quote
Wilber Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 What are the consequences? Consequences of what? To an extent we are responsible. We've been propping up most of these dictators for decades through various means. So now we are bad guys to not prop them up and even badder to actually help get rid of one of them? We have a hint of what they have been up to. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/07/3156530.htm I am sure they were there to support humanitarian efforts. Gotta have explosives and forged passports(I am guessing they were forged/fake passports) when doing humanitarian missions. You can guess all you want but all we really know is that there were six of them in Benghazi. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) Of course not, but if a country has the ability and the desire to, our support/lack of doesn't really mater. This isn't much of an answer. One could give you the same answer about anything you object to, based on the merits of Power and Will alone. Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.