"So what is the intervention about, then Santa? Human rights? Of course it is. NATO loves human rights, just ask the people they've carpet bombed throughout the 1990s. Just ask Gaddafi's dead grandchildren. Just ask the mothers who were at the maternity wards they bombed in Yugoslavia."

Personally, I think its an ill conceived attempt to continue the protest movement in the Mid East, and win goodwill from the Arab world.

"If the allies hadn't joined in, this thing would have been over months ago and whatever effects on the markets it had would have been over, and oil would be flowing out of lybia and Quadaffi would be buying more western war machines. What exactly is the incentive here. Neither of you have answered my question, if the west was only concerned about oil and markets, why not let Kadhaffi squash those racist anti-Semitic protesters."

Because at the time of their intervention it was believed that Gaddafi, like Mubarak and Ben Ali, was on the ropes. They thought Gaddafi's regime would collapse. And anyway, it was a convenient opportunity to wipe out someone who had never been reliable.

Especially with their puppets in Egypt and Tunisia out of the picture. They didn't a new North African puppet.

"Personally, I think its an ill conceived attempt to continue the protest movement in the Mid East, and win goodwill from the Arab world."

Really, this is supposed to be plausible? Sitting around watching protest movements in Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen and Bahrain and Syria get hammered but bombing Libya will win them "good will"? Give me a break.

"Sure, aint a canard if its true"

Really what interventions have I supported. Name one or shut the hell up.

Santa your ignoring of this point is breath taking: ''Syria has no oil hence no intervention, even though the slaughter there is an order of magnitude greater than that in Libya.''

The whole of American, and it must inevitably follow NATO policy, can be understood in terms of oil and support for Israel. If you honestly think that support for democracy has anything to do with it, you must be very niave indeed.

"Nope, not about oil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/22/oil-price-surge-risk-global-recovery-iea"

So scared of turmoil in Lybia hurting the markers. The NATO Fat Cats decided against turning a bling eye to Kadhafi which would have ended the war sooner, instead they balance the conflict causing a stalemate that makes the turmoil last longer!

Brilliant Putin!

At the time of the intervention it was believed that Gaddafi's regime was a house of cards and on the brink of collapse. There was street fighting in Tripoli. It was believed the rebels had Gaddafi on the ropes. Plus ousting Gaddafi meant they could implant a new "Mubarak"-ish regime in North Africa. They lost two reliable puppets. They needed a new one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8339435/Libya-Muammar-Gaddafis-regime-on-the-brink-of-collapse.html

My god, where you living under a rock when this began?

"At the time of the intervention it was believed that Gaddafi's regime was a house of cards and on the brink of collapse."

At the time of Intervention Kadhafi's regime had turned back the tide and was on the outskirts of the rebel capitol having already captured many key cities.

And ful- intervention in Syria is not an option, Syria (again) is much closer tied to the greater Arab world, borders Israel, and is more centralized has greater military capabilities than Libya. Also Libya happened first, we are already committed there, and another war would be even more disastrous to the arab view of NATO. Finally no Arab states are calling for action as they were before the Libya conflict. There are your answers, where are mine.

Possibly, but I sure as fuck came out a MONTH LATER when NATO airplanes first got involved over Lybia as Kadhafi's forces (which hadnt defected in the past month) approached behghazi

Santa on reflection I do not think that you are niave, I now think that you are a ''my country right or wrong mercant''. The thing is that it is not a patriotic or defensive war, but rather a cynical attempt to keep effective control of the oil supply by attempting to back the winning side. If it is about democracy or the Arab Spring, as you appear to be arguing, what about our government's attitude to Saudi? Your answer is very inadequate indeed I am afraid.

You have had your answers already to all of the questions you pose. I notice, however, that this is still unclear ( a yes or no would be nice)

@Santa
''I'm, not pro-bombing Libya, I'm concerned about this innocent dictator as much as you''

I must have misunderstood, do you support the NATO military campaign in Libya or not?

"Santa on reflection I do not think that you are niave, I now think that you are a ''my country right or wrong mercant'"

Completely wrong, I think that saying the intervention is over oil is lazy and frankly stupid. You have NOT given me an answer to the contradiction inherent in your stance.

"If it is about democracy or the Arab Spring, as you appear to be arguing, what about our government's attitude to Saudi"

I did not argue this at all this is what I said earlier

"Personally, I think its an ill conceived attempt to continue the protest movement in the Mid East, and win goodwill from the Arab world. "

It was an attempt to improve the image of the US to the world and therefore improve its standing and its ongoing fights in Iraq (which I do believe was fought at least partially over oil) and Afghanistan and against Al Qaida as a whole.

"You have had your answers already to all of the questions you pose. I notice, however, that this is still unclear ( a yes or no would be nice)"

No I havnt, you have not answered at all, and if you have point them out. My question AGAIN, why would the US intervene in Lybia for oil when avoiding intervention (and allowing Kadhafi to consolidate his hold) would have brought them oil quicker and cheaper? Im waiting Ful.

"I must have misunderstood, do you support the NATO military campaign in Libya or not? "

No, but again, I think saying it was about oil is lazy, and stupid.

'"If it is about democracy or the Arab Spring, as you appear to be arguing, what about our government's attitude to Saudi"

I did not argue this at all this is what I said earlier

"Personally, I think its an ill conceived attempt to continue the protest movement in the Mid East, and win goodwill from the Arab world. "'

I misread what you wrote, I do think it is about the Arab Spring, but I believe we didnt intervene to warm the cockles of our heart, or even a commitment to democracy, NATO intervened because of perceived political benefit and the desire to show itself as the just police of the world.

In the late February (the 26th) the western powers had already committed themselves to an anti-Gaddafi posture with their imposition of sanctions and the presence of US warships. On March 5, the rebels were beginning their assault on Sirte, Gaddafi's home town and one of the few places he still controlled at the end of February/beginning of March. On March 7, France & UK submitted a no-fly zone resolution, paving the way for intervention. There were also several major defections on March 16, including several fighter planes and two battalions of pro-Gaddafi forces defecting in Sirte. The no fly zone was passed on the 17th, and the intervention began on the 19th.

" I think saying it was about oil is lazy, and stupid."

But this being about earning Arab goodwill makes much more sense. Even if they were discussing intervention as early as February 24th.

"Santa on reflection I do not think that you are niave, I now think that you are a ''my country right or wrong mercant'"

Ding ding ding.

''No I havnt, you have not answered at all, and if you have point them out. My question AGAIN, why would the US intervene in Lybia for oil when avoiding intervention (and allowing Kadhafi to consolidate his hold) would have brought them oil quicker and cheaper? Im waiting Ful.''

Here is your answer (again!)

''Santa the key is compliance, preferably through bribary and corruption (Saudi etc.). When it looked like Gaddaffi was on the way out we rushed to support the rebels/terrorists/patriots/fundamentalists (strike out as appropriate). Before that we flogged his son a PhD, no questions asked. The only thing that matters is oil and the profits associated with it.''

"In the late February (the 26th) the western powers had already committed themselves to an anti-Gaddafi posture with their imposition of sanctions and the presence of US warships"

You mean because they had warships and sanctions they had to send in planes? Got it. Funny you left out the troops outside of the rebel capitol...

"But this being about earning Arab goodwill makes much more sense. Even if they were discussing intervention as early as February 24th."

Im sorry, I was under the impression that in the context of the Arab spring, most of the Arab world was viewing the wanton slaughter of unarmed protesters unfavorably, I dont think the Arab world all of a sudden flipped a switch and was outraged after Feb 24. I was also under the impression that discussing intervention and intervening were completely different things.

@ santa ''I misread what you wrote, I do think it is about the Arab Spring, but I believe we didnt intervene to warm the cockles of our heart, or even a commitment to democracy, NATO intervened because of perceived political benefit and the desire to show itself as the just police of the world.''

So the intervention, in your view, is a mistake?

''Santa the key is compliance, preferably through bribary and corruption (Saudi etc.). When it looked like Gaddaffi was on the way out we rushed to support the rebels/terrorists/patriots/fundamentalists (strike out as appropriate). Before that we flogged his son a PhD, no questions asked. The only thing that matters is oil and the profits associated with it.''

And AGAIN. That is completely against the events on the ground. On March 19th when NATO intervened the world was talking about a potential massacre in Benghazi, not the imminent ouster of Khadafi. I dont even know what flogging a PhD means. and after all that nonsense you paste on something about oil.You Proved it Ful! Logically impeccable.


Using the Ful method I will argue Aliens exist:

Im hungry, its almost dinner time. I once saw a flying saucer movie. There was once a Alien landing in Times Square. Aliens exist...

"So the intervention, in your view, is a mistake? "

Yes, I said it was a mistake before it occurred, and predicted that whether or not the US would intervene people like you would say the decision was made in the interest of Oil

Rising above the a-h attack by Santa.

''I dont even know what flogging a PhD means''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8350867/Libya-LSE-should-strip-Gaddafis-son-of-PhD.html

Santa the momentum to support the the rebels/terrorists/patriots/fundamentalists (strike out as appropriate) started long before March 19th, when they were on the offensive and looked like winning, this involved extensive diplomatic and military preparations. Gaddaffi was vowing revenge and there was no going back and if the oil supply was to be kept under firm control, ''our'' side had to win. Isn't this the driver behind the western policy in the middle-east (coupled with support for Israel) or am I missing something? It would explain all of the policies and adventures of the last 50 odd years (I could list them if you would really like me to).

To repeat:

@ santa ''I misread what you wrote, I do think it is about the Arab Spring, but I believe we didnt intervene to warm the cockles of our heart, or even a commitment to democracy, NATO intervened because of perceived political benefit and the desire to show itself as the just police of the world.''

So the intervention, in your view, is a mistake?

"So the intervention, in your view, is a mistake?"

For the fourth fucking time YES

hold on

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

''For the fourth fucking time YES''

Calm down the posts just crossed across the server. You had better go and have your lunch man.

"Santa the momentum to support the the rebels/terrorists/patriots/fundamentalists (strike out as appropriate) started long before March 19th, when they were on the offensive and looked like winning, this involved extensive diplomatic and military preparations. Gaddaffi was vowing revenge and there was no going back and if the oil supply was to be kept under firm control, ''our'' side had to win. Isn't this the driver behind the western policy in the middle-east (coupled with support for Israel) or am I missing something? It would explain all of the policies and adventures of the last 50 odd years (I could list them if you would really like me to)."

So if our policy since 1950 has been all about oil and israel. shouldnt we never have stood up to Kadhafi in the first place. Maybe offered to arbitrate differences or some weak attempts to stop the violence. But if all we wanted was oil and a swift end to turmoil, the US would never have gotten involved.

Bottom line, you showed in your last post your approach. You state that the US foreign policy objectives in the middle east are all about oil so, therefore, this MUST be about oil. You don't pay attention to the intervention itself, and the inherent contradictions in your statements, but because the US is interested in oil, this was without a doubt about oil. Much like your approach on the civil war, which is "all war is about money, so therefore the civil war was about money"

the difference is looking at the facts on the ground and coming to a conclusion and having a conclusion and warping the facts to fit your model for the event

@ Santa
'' "all war is about money, so therefore the civil war was about money" ''

# Note the use of quotation marks #

This is something I have never said and I must I challenge you to produce the evidence.

But as you have raised it - what I have said clearly, and still hold as an opinion, is that slavery was not the only cause of the American civil war. I am not sure why that opinion provokes such a violent reaction from you. Perhaps it is just your style?

"the difference is looking at the facts on the ground and coming to a conclusion and having a conclusion and warping the facts to fit your model for the event"

That sounds like exactly what you're doing. You think Gaddafi is Satan, so all facts are going to be aligned to make sure the NATO bombing is seen in the best possible light (even though you think it's a "mistake", a "mistake" because nobody will interpret this intervention as humanitarian, because the poor poor empire is so misunderstood). It can't possibly be about oil, or making France feel like a co-equal imperial power, it has to be something benign, because all US interventions are benign.