The War On Libya Is A Mistake.

HavingCrack

Barrett Fancy Saloon wrote: »

There's no answer really, the lack of consistency and the picked battles does stink of hypocrisy but then whats the alternative...
A western campaign of installing western style governments in the assumption that these will work or just picking the battles.

It's understandable then that a heavy media coverage of any particular regime and its intolerances will lead to action for the simple reasons that the West tend to believe in our values and the fact that our governments, by their very nature and purpose, are likely to act to uphold these

I think this is the main point. No matter what course of action is taken, it will always be criticised by someone, somewhere. If the west and Un had doen nothing in Libya, they would be accused of standing by while civilians were murdered and when they do intervene they're accused of onlybeing in it for oil. It's a no win situation. I think every case is individual, some battles (Libya) will be won and some (Saudi Arabia at present) won't.

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

Ah that's different. Still though, America has bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and several other nations in range of Iran, and the capability to hit Tehran from practically any spot on the planet. I'm not sure waging a massive, costly war in order to gain another military base from which to menace Iran makes sense to be honest.

Land frontier anyone, just like Afghanistan.

Especially as Saddam was nothing if not pragmatic, and would have had no problems patching things up with America and allowing a base on Iraqi as part of a rapprochement.

You can't seriously believe that. This is a guy who had no WMD to hide and still told the inspectors to F Off!

Also, if Iran was the real target of the war, surely America would just have attacked Iran? Doesn't make sense to attack one country when your goal is another. This is a tad off topic though.[/QUOTE]

Belgim, Laos, Norway etc etc.

Jeboa Safari

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So why not support all clamours for democracy?

Because it's not possible. Why oppose the ones the west do support?

SafeSurfer

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Because it's not possible. Why oppose the ones the west do support?

Because their priorities make me cynical.

HavingCrack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So why not support all clamours for democracy?

It's basic enough geopolitics. The rise of proper democracy in Bahrain and Yemen would increase the pressure on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia cannot allow these protesrs to threaten the Saudi monarchy so it sends troops into Bahrain to supress protests (I can see interference in Yemen as also plausible). The Saudi oilfields are vital for western interests so therefore the west cannot overtly oppose the Saudi machinations through military intervention.

Einhard

HavingCrack wrote: »

To be honest, this occurs for a very simple reason. Western states have preferred stablily under dictators such as Mubarak, Ben Ali, The Yemenese regime, the Shah, Suharto, the Saudi monarchy, the Colombian regimes, the Argentinian junta, Mobutu etc that are regimes that are friendly towards western interests rather than democracies that may be unstable and hostile.

1-Yemen is a key US ally in the war on terror.
2-Saudi Arabia is a key US ally and a supplier of oil
3-Bahrain is seen as needing to stay in line for the Saudi's benefit.
4-Picking a fight with Syria would achieve nothing.

On the whole though, this policy has come back to bite them in the arse over the last few months obviously. I think they;re getting unfair press, they're supporting democracy where they can and where it does not clash with their allies interests. However in the absence of viable alternatives they're not too bothered with the status quo unless them become hostile to western interests (aka Iran ). Hence they were happy enough to do business with Gadaffi until he started butchering civilians.

I think there's much that's correct in this, although I disagree that the West prefers autocracies to messy democracies. That may have been the case in the past, but I'm not sure such an argument can be made now. How does the democratisation of Eastern Europe, and establishment of a democratic framework in Iraq fit into this theory? Surely, if your view is to be upheld, then America should just have installed a puppet in Baghdad? Instead, we have a messy, volatile, inchoate deomocracy, which has proven itself willing to inimicable to American interests. Indeed, the easiest thing for America to have done in that country, was patch things up with Saddam Hussein.


I think the West (and indeed, the international community as a whole) did business with Mubarak, and continue to do so with the likes of Saudi Arabia, because they don't see an alternative. That may be hypocritical to an extent, but I don't think it indicates a current preference for such regimes over open, democratic states.

phosphate

Einhard wrote: »

Because not every situation is the same and, as I pointed out, international relations are full of hypocrisies and doublt standards. In this instance however, nobody has been able to provide credible evidence of an ulterior motive. It's not enough simply to shout "Oil!", especially as the evidence contradicts such a view.

I would say oil is certainly a factor; you don't invest money in a region which offers no financial reward.

EU are heavily dependent on oil from Libya, especially Italy accounting for 38% of what's exported.

Italy 38%, Germany 15%, Spain 9.3%, Turkey 6.2%, France 6.2%, United States 5.2%

According to oil and gas journal, in 2007, Libya were top oil exporter in Africa with 42 billion barrels in reserves.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but nobody has managed to posit credible evidence of malign motives at play here. The most positive thing for the West to do, economically speaking, would be to back Gadaffi. But they're not. And despite your scoffing, you've not explained their true motives, which I assume are readily apparent to you.

Credible evidence? Einhard, take your pick of evidence all over the internet.
This attack on Gaddafi regardless of his actions is purely motivated by financial gain on the Libyan resources and nothing else.

Just because the UK, France and US say they're protecting Libyan civilians, doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

K-9

It's simple.

If nobody had done nothing, the same posters would be on here moaning as when they did something.

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Because their priorities make me cynical.

Fair enough, but surely doing some good, is better than doing no good at all?

For example, say my neighbour beat his wife regularly, and I ignored it. Now, any decent person would agree that such non-action would be pretty shitty on my part. Say though, I saw him beating his daughter, and immediately called the police, or ran over to stop him, would you say I shouldn't have intervened in the latter case, because I didn't in the former? Would you condemn me for both my intervention and non-intervention? Because that's the position some people seem to be adopting here.

phosphate

K-9 wrote: »

It's simple.

If nobody had done nothing, the same posters would be on here moaning as when they did something.

Why would I?

Oppressive regimes all over the world attack their people everyday and I don't hear you up in arms about it.

RichieC

Oil is certainly a factor, but on this one I'll let it slide since it will help people too... once it's all sorted and the yanks turn it into a libertarian business utopia my opinion will start to change though.

SafeSurfer

K-9 wrote: »

It's simple.

If nobody had done nothing, the same posters would be on here moaning as when they did something.

If nobody had done nothing we wouldn't be discussing it.

OutlawPete

twinytwo wrote: »

its all about the oil full stop.

Libya only has control of 2% of the world's Oil production.

If anything this is a media driven war.

Quite apt that the first president ever to be elected by the media then.

ascanbe

I can't believe anyone would approach this question with any degree of cynicism or willingness to question motives. I mean, it's not like past instances would give anyone reason to do so.
The real victims here are those whose sensibilities have been offended by the rabid 'lefties' who would dare entertain the possibility of this intervention, perhaps, not being entirely motivated by 'humanitarian' ideals.

Einhard

phosphate wrote: »

I would say oil is certainly a factor; you don't invest money in a region which offers no financial reward.

EU are heavily dependent on oil from Libya, especially Italy accounting for 38% of what's exported.

Italy 38%, Germany 15%, Spain 9.3%, Turkey 6.2%, France 6.2%, United States 5.2%

According to oil and gas journal, in 2007, Libya were top oil exporter in Africa with 42 billion barrels in reserves.

That actually disproves your point! Gadaffi has shown himself more than willing to supply the needs of Europe and the world. Foreign companies were making a fortune in Libya. Gadaffi's rapprochement with the West was an economic boon for all involved. Why on earth would the West seek then to kill the goose who laid the golden egg, especially when they didn't intervene when Gadaffi was public enemy #1, and funding the bombing of British city centres, and instigating the downing of American airliners?

I'm sorry, but it makes no sense. It's not that I believe the West to be incapable of acting so cynically, it's just that, in this instance, I don;t see how charges of malign motivations can be sustained.

Credible evidence? Einhard, take your pick of evidence all over the internet.
This attack on Gaddafi regardless of his actions is purely motivated by financial gain on the Libyan resources and nothing else.

LOL, noce try, but I'm not going serching for evidence to support a charge that you're making, which I disagree with, and against which I've laid out my own evidence.

Just because the UK, France and US say they're protecting Libyan civilians, doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

I don't believe it because they're saying it. I believe it because I cannot see any reason for them to be involved otherwise.

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Fair enough, but surely doing some good, is better than doing no good at all?

For example, say my neighbour beat his wife regularly, and I ignored it. Now, any decent person would agree that such non-action would be pretty shitty on my part. Say though, I saw him beating his daughter, and immediately called the police, or ran over to stop him, would you say I shouldn't have intervened in the latter case, because I didn't in the former? Would you condemn me for both my intervention and non-intervention? Because that's the position some people seem to be adopting here.

If you only intervene because you have some ulterior motive in relation to his daughter then yes, it would be hypocritical.

Einhard

phosphate wrote: »

Why would I?

Oppressive regimes all over the world attack their people everyday and I don't hear you up in arms about it.

I think this is a completely amoral attitude to take! You're basically arguing against some form of positive intervention, because its not taken in all cases! How can you advocate such an approach? FFS, surely doing some good is better than doing no good at all?

HavingCrack

Einhard wrote: »

I think there's much that's correct in this, although I disagree that the West prefers autocracies to messy democracies. That may have been the case in the past, but I'm not sure such an argument can be made now. How does the democratisation of Eastern Europe, and establishment of a democratic framework in Iraq fit into this theory? Surely, if your view is to be upheld, then America should just have installed a puppet in Baghdad? Instead, we have a messy, volatile, inchoate deomocracy, which has proven itself willing to inimicable to American interests. Indeed, the easiest thing for America to have done in that country, was patch things up with Saddam Hussein.


I think the West (and indeed, the international community as a whole) did business with Mubarak, and continue to do so with the likes of Saudi Arabia, because they don't see an alternative. That may be hypocritical to an extent, but I don't think it indicates a current preference for such regimes over open, democratic states.

Hence why I said about it coming back to bite them in the arse. Their support for tyrants has caused chickens to come home to roost.

I think you might have missed a bit of my argument. While the international community prefers democracies per sae, it has no qualms about dealing with dictators if that's the best option on the table as you correctly point out. However historically speaking the West(in particular the US) has a history of undermining democratic states and installing dictators to further their interests. Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, Colombia, the coup against Chavez in Venezuala recently, Pakistan, Laos etc. All these countries had democratic institutions which were undermined by the West as they were not in western interests. Interestingly if the west was truly interested in spreading democracy why did they not put one into Kuwait after the first Gulf War but instead put in a near absoltue monarchy?

I would argue that democracy was supported in Iraq because of the invasion rather than in spite of it if that makes sense. Parachuting another dictator in after deposing Saddam just wouldn't look good. To be honest, I;m suprised they just didn't come to an agreement with him though. I

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Einhard wrote: »

If you only intervene because you have some ulterior motive in relation to his daughter then yes, it would be hypocritical.

Well, she is a hottie.;)

K-9

phosphate wrote: »

Why would I?

Oppressive regimes all over the world attack their people everyday and I don't hear you up in arms about it.

You don't hear me?

Safesurfer wrote:

If nobody had done nothing we wouldn't be discussing it.

Plenty moaning about countries doing nothing, plenty. Now when they do something......................

Ideally we'd have 5 or 6 air strikes going on now and I agree, there'd still be moaners though. Israeli/Anti Arab plot etc.

Morons who can't see the positive in anything.

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

QUOTE] Why on earth would the West seek then to kill the goose who laid the golden egg, especially when they didn't intervene when Gadaffi was public enemy #1, and funding the bombing of British city centres, and instigating the downing of American airliners?

The US did intervene by bombling Libya in 1986.

HavingCrack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you only intervene because you have some ulterior motive in relation to his daughter then yes, it would be hypocritical.

But in the case of Libya I would argue that there is no ulterior motive. Gadaffi has only recently achieved rapapproachment with much of the world following his airline bombings and terrorist funding. The oil has been flowing freely from Libya for several years now. There is no need to start a war to gain access to it? Being a cynic one would say the west could have just let Gadaffi wipe out the rebels and then see the oil start rolling out again? I certainly don't trust Britain, France and the US on most things but I really don't see the ulterior motive in this particular case.

Einhard

HavingCrack wrote: »

Hence why I said about it coming back to bite them in the arse. Their support for tyrants has caused chickens to come home to roost.

I think you might have missed a bit of my argument. While the international community prefers democracies per sae, it has no qualms about dealing with dictators if that's the best option on the table as you correctly point out. However historically speaking the West(in particular the US) has a history of undermining democratic states and installing dictators to further their interests. Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, Colombia, the coup against Chavez in Venezuala recently, Pakistan, Laos etc. All these countries had democratic institutions which were undermined by the West as they were not in western interests. Interestingly if the west was truly interested in spreading democracy why did they not put one into Kuwait after the first Gulf War but instead put in a near absoltue monarchy?

I would argue that democracy was supported in Iraq because of the invasion rather than in spite of it if that makes sense. Parachuting another dictator in after deposing Saddam just wouldn't look good. To be honest, I;m suprised they just didn't come to an agreement with him though. I

Again, I agree with much of what you say, but I think that the reprehensible policy of underming democracies, and preferring puppet dictators, is very much in the past. I also think that, much of the negative reaction to the West is based on that past, rather than current or recent actions. Thus, people will state that America tears down democracies to build up friendly autocracies, and point to Iran as proof, yet completely ignore the current situation in Iraq, and to an extent, Afghanistan. I don;t think that any reasonable person could argue that the regimes in either nation are fawning American sycophants.

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The US did intervene by bombling Libya in 1986.

Yes, but it was a limited response to a Libyan sponsered bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen, rather than an attempt to remove Gadaffi.

I knew you'd bring it up though.:D

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

Well it is the American way. Or do you have evidence that America just steals massive amounts of oil from foreign nations? Even in Iraq, a nation America supposedly invaded for oil and gas, most of the contracts agreed by the Iraqi government have gone to other nations, especially China. The Yanks aren't exactly getting a good return for their investment!!



Ah, but the Krauts haven't forced anything on us!

Evidence? Im not the DPP, I dont require evidence!!!!! As for the Krauts, dont they along with France run Europe? Who benifits most from the bailout?

phosphate

ascanbe wrote: »

I can't believe anyone would approach this question with any degree of cynicism or willingness to question motives. I mean, it's not like past instances would give anyone reason to do so.
The real victims here are those whose sensibilities have been offended by the rabid 'lefties' who would dare entertain the possibility of this intervention, perhaps, not being entirely motivated by 'humanatarian' ideals.

It's not unreasonable to be cynical of these actions.

There are many dictators around the world which the west fully support.

The US have a base in Bahrain which would be critical towards any attack on Iran.

If Bahrain were to achieve a democratic state, they may wish to remove the US base as was done by Rafael Correa in Ecuador.

The US have a sweet deal with the Saudi royal family where most of their oil imports come from.

Yemen is also strategically important to the US so it makes absolutely no sense to be openly and agressively critical of the leadership if you want to remain an ally.

When protesters in Saudi Arabia are silenced through violence from the states army or police and the media and politicians remain quiet, you have to wonder why.

SafeSurfer

HavingCrack wrote: »

But in the case of Libya I would argue that there is no ulterior motive. Gadaffi has only recently achieved rapapproachment with much of the world following his airline bombings and terrorist funding. The oil has been flowing freely from Libya for several years now. There is no need to start a war to gain access to it? Being a cynic one would say the west could have just let Gadaffi wipe out the rebels and then see the oil start rolling out again? I certainly don't trust Britain, France and the US on most things but I really don't see the ulterior motive in this particular case.

I never suggested oil as a motive. I suggested brownie points for the US in the arab world and boosts for Obama's and Sarkozy's re election campaigns.

Einhard

Offy wrote: »

Evidence? Im not the DPP, I dont require evidence!!!!!

Well why didn't you just say so from the start?! I wouldn't have had the cheek to ask that you back up your assertions if I had known about your infallible omniscience!

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

Well why didn't you just say so from the start?! I wouldn't have had the cheek to ask that you back up your assertions if I had known about your infallible omniscience!

hehe why thank you sir, tbh I judge from history and trends. If it looks like an orange, if it smells like an orange, if it tastes like an orange then it probably is an orange.

Einhard

Offy wrote: »

hehe why thank you sir, tbh I judge from history and trends. If it looks like an orange, if it smells like an orange, if it tastes like an orange then it probably is an orange.

What if it's a tangerine?!:eek:

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, but it was a limited response to a Libyan sponsered bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen, rather than an attempt to remove Gadaffi.

I knew you'd bring it up though.:D

They specifically targeted Gadaffi in a "surgical strlike" and this wasn't an attaempt to remove Gadaffi? Ah now Einhard where is your credibility?

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

What if it's a tangerine?!:eek:

Then it probably came from America!

phosphate

K-9 wrote: »

You don't hear me?

Well, if you're concerned about oppressive regimes abusing the rights of people, why be selective? why not launch attacks on them all?

People tend to be very insular, even with access to the internet.

I could mention a few oppressive regimes which are supported by the west but since they're rarely if ever mentioned on the news, most people don't care.

phosphate

Einhard wrote: »

I think this is a completely amoral attitude to take! You're basically arguing against some form of positive intervention, because its not taken in all cases! How can you advocate such an approach? FFS, surely doing some good is better than doing no good at all?

Selling 1 billion dollars of weapons and doing business with a dictator like Gaddafi and then bombing him for humanitarian reasons -- that makes no sense.

Time will tell what the real motives are but I doubt very much there will be democracy in Libya anytime soon.....

Einhard

phosphate wrote: »

Well, if you're concerned about oppressive regimes abusing the rights of people, why be selective? why not launch attacks on them all?

People tend to be very insular, even with access to the internet.

I could mention a few oppressive regimes which are supported by the west but since they're rarely if ever mentioned on the news, most people don't care.

So you're basically arguing that, because the West hasn't attacked, say, Bahrain, to stop the oppression of citizens, it shouldn't attack Libya to stop the oppression of citizens. So, to do no good at all is better than doing some good? I think that's a horrible view to have to be honest, and I'm pretty sure that the rebels in Benghazi would probably join me in that.

K-9

phosphate wrote: »

Well, if you're concerned about oppressive regimes abusing the rights of people, why be selective? why not launch attacks on them all?

People tend to be very insular, even with access to the internet.

I could mention a few oppressive regimes which are supported by the west but since they're rarely if ever mentioned on the news, most people don't care.

I'd love the UN to be having air strikes on Israel, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuala, Indonesia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Russia and the UK oppressor.

ascanbe

Einhard wrote: »

Well it is the American way. Or do you have evidence that America just steals massive amounts of oil from foreign nations? Even in Iraq, a nation America supposedly invaded for oil and gas, most of the contracts agreed by the Iraqi government have gone to other nations, especially China. The Yanks aren't exactly getting a good return for their investment!!



Ah, but the Krauts haven't forced anything on us!

U.S. foreign policy has for quite a while now been dictated by what's good for Israel, rather than what's good for the U.S.
If, indeed, it's true that the U.S., though many U.S. companies with ties to the descison makers profited handsomely, hasn't profited in oil terms from that 'intervention', or doesn't stand to in the future, there are other questions regarding the possibilty of strategic positioning that still stand.

And the 'Krauts' didn't 'force' anything upon us; at least as far as we know, as the general public aren't deemed worthy of, indeed aren't by hastily introduced law entitled to, being privy to the knowledge of why the blanket bank guarantee was introduced and who, exactly, was involved in 'advising' our goverment to introduce it.
However, the EU, which is run mainly for the benift of the 'Krauts' amongst other countries and, in particular, for the banking overlords that hold sway, now stand to benifit handsomely from the 'legalised' pillaging of our country.
Funny, that.

Offy

K-9 wrote: »

I'd love the UN to be having air strikes on Israel, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuala, Indonesia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Russia and the UK oppressor.

WW3 here we come

K-9

ascanbe wrote: »

U.S. foreign policy has for quite a while now been dictated by what's good for Israel, rather than what's good for the U.S.

And the 'Krauts' didn't 'force' anything upon us; at least as far as we know, as the general public aren't deemed worthy of, indeed aren't by hastily introduced law entitled to, being privy to the knowledge of why the blanket bank guarantee was introduced and who, exactly, was involved in 'advising' our goverment to introduce it.
However, the EU, which is run mainly for the benift of the 'Krauts' amongst other countries and, in particular, for the banking overlords that hold sway, now stand to benifit handsomely from the 'legalised' pillaging of our country.
Funny, that.

Funnily enough the Germans stand to lose by CCTB but never let sense come into an oppressor debate.

phosphate

Einhard wrote: »

So you're basically arguing that, because the West hasn't attacked, say, Bahrain, to stop the oppression of citizens, it shouldn't attack Libya to stop the oppression of citizens. So, to do no good at all is better than doing some good? I think that's a horrible view to have to be honest, and I'm pretty sure that the rebels in Benghazi would probably join me in that.

What i'm arguing is that it's highly hypocritical and i'm suspicious of the true motives.

42 million americans are on foodstamps right now and you think Obama sincerely cares about Libyan civilians?

Do you really believe that? ...don't know what to say really.

K-9

Offy wrote: »

WW3 here we come

Sorry, I forgot N. Korea.

phosphate

K-9 wrote: »

I'd love the UN to be having air strikes on Israel, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuala, Indonesia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Russia and the UK oppressor.

I'd rather not get into it...there are 195 countries in the world.

Einhard

ascanbe wrote: »

U.S. foreign policy has for quite a while now been dictated by what's good for Israel, rather than what's good for the U.S.

Again, more sweeping assertions without a shred of supporting evidence. Israel's bête noire has long been a nuclear Iran. Iraq on the other hand, posed no serious threat to Israel. Yet, American decides to invade the latter, and take no military action against the former.

However, the EU, which is run mainly for the benift of the 'Krauts' amongst other countries and, in particular, for the banking overlords that hold sway, now stand to benifit handsomely from the 'legalised' pillaging of our country.
Funny, that.

Well, a few weeks ago, we had the chance to repudiate the EU/IMF bailout by voting from Sinn Fein or the ULA candidates. We didn't though. Sorry, democracy sucks eh?

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

Well, a few weeks ago, we had the chance to repudiate the EU/IMF bailout by voting from Sinn Fein or the ULA candidates. We didn't though. Sorry, democracy sucks eh?

I honestly think thats the worse argument Ive ever heard.

phosphate

Einhard wrote:

Again, more sweeping assertions without a shred of supporting evidence. Israel's bête noire has long been a nuclear Iran. Iraq on the other hand, posed no serious threat to Israel. Yet, American decides to invade the latter, and take no military action against the former.

If you understood US foreign policy and the economic situation in the US, you wouldn't need evidence.

Einhard

phosphate wrote: »

What i'm arguing is that it's highly hypocritical and i'm suspicious of the true motives.

42 million americans are on foodstamps right now and you think Obama sincerely cares about Libyan civilians?

Do you really believe that? ...don't know what to say really.

You do realise that people don;t automatically turn into uncaring monsters when elected to high office? I care about the Libyan civilians; many do here on boards; many do across the world- why on earth should Obama be immune from such a basic human emotion?

ascanbe

K-9 wrote: »

Funnily enough the Germans stand to lose by CCTB but never let sense come into an oppressor debate.

Stand to lose by what? I don't see how any country could 'stand to lose' by passing the entire burden of a debt that their banks bad loaning practices, and their goverments failure to regulate, make them at least equally culpable for, onto our shoulders.

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

You do realise that people don;t automatically turn into uncaring monsters when elected to high office? I care about the Libyan civilians; many do here on boards; many do across the world- why on earth should Obama be immune from such a basic human emotion?

and thats the second worse!!!!

phosphate

Einhard wrote:

You do realise that people don;t automatically turn into uncaring monsters when elected to high office? I care about the Libyan civilians; many do here on boards; many do across the world- why on earth should Obama be immune from such a basic human emotion?

I just believe if I were the US president, my priorities would be the US citizens, not the citizens of Libya...

Einhard

Offy wrote: »

I honestly think thats the worse argument Ive ever heard.

Why? Did we not have a chance to vote for SF and the ULA, who both promised to repudiate the deal?

phosphate wrote: »

If you understood US foreign policy and the economic situation in the US, you wouldn't need evidence.

Ah now, come on. I've offered evidence to support my point of view. In response, both you and Offy have stated that your opinions don't warrant evidence. Seriously, I like arguing with people on here, but if I was prone to accepting specious assertions based on faith alone I'd decamp to the Christianity forum. As it is, I'm gonna decamp to bed!