Are the Libyans going to Ceausescu Gaddafi?
 

What say you?

I hope so. Now that I know what that means. :laughing:

they should! that man is out of control

I bet he'll get out in time before that happens. Although, he doesn't have many cronies left who might take him...

I'm sure they would if they had the chance, but I think it's unlikely.

Obviously

Yes

I'd say this was already a done deal.
The west would rather have Gaddafi in power as opposed to an unpredictable rebel government.
Unpredictable in the sense that there would be no guarantee of reaching an agreement concerning Libyan oil.
I'd say what we are witnessing with regards to a no fly zone over Libya is a classic case of political heel dragging from all concerned.
Britain and France pretend to press for a motion, while Germany and Russia strongly oppose the proposal. While the main players, the U.S., make noises about "accountability".
In the meantime, Gaddafi's forces roll up the rebels as far as and including Bengazi.
Lot's of people die, Gaddafi remains in power, the civilised world is outraged and we get the oil.
Normal service is resumed...job done!

Game on...

BBC News - Libya: UN backs action against Colonel Gaddafi

Too little, too late?

That would be AWESOME!!!!

Too much too early. Let the Libyans deal with it. They'll give him what he deserves.

Would it really?

Well it seems Gaddafi's forces have declared a ceasefire.

Call me a cynic, but is it beyond the realms of plausibility that the ceasefire is all part of an elaborate plan?
What if the deal is to announce a ceasefire after the moral decision to enforce a no fly zone, is all part of a carefully pre planned ruse between the western players and Gaddafi?
Gaddafi consolidates his gains (which include the oil fields) securing his leadership and ensuring the previous arrangement concerning Libyan oil remains the status quo.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next!

I could be totally wrong btw...

Completely agree with this

I can't believe Obama is starting another war. Same **** different color.

Here we go again......

Obama has basically distanced himself from the whole situation. He refuses to take (or even recommend) any military action againt Gaddafi's forces. He'd rather go on vacation to Brazil.

It's a sad day when the French take military action against a foe before the U.S. does. (Clearly sarcastic, as another war is the last thing we need)

And Obama did not start this war, nor any other. He inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. :crazy:

Whatever. He could pull out and not start new **** but instead he continues with the same old Reagan Bush Clinton Bush bull****

You can't just "pull out" of a war that has nearly 10 years under its belt. It has to be done strategically. And even slightly comparing the foreign relations of the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama administrations to each other is ignorant as hell.
And for the record, Obama hasn't started any "new sh*t," he's actually strayed from any unnecessary wars (Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc).

I'm sorry I guess you missed this little headline

Fantastic. How many people do you think he murdered today?

I guess I did miss the headline, seeing as how it hasn't been mentioned ANYWHERE in this discussion thus far, by you or anyone else.

I'm assuming that THIS is the article you're referring to, which was only posted online less than ONE F*CKING HOUR ago:
US, Allies Attack Libya | Africa | English

Seeing as how the UN has no army to enforce it's sanctions, it looks like it is relying on the US, UK, France, Italy, and Canada to do so.

While this is not an ideal situation, I still don't think that I would go so far as to call this "starting new sh*t," seeing as how the US is INTERVENING in an ALREADY ONGOING conflict.

Come on man, you're grasping for straws.

Really? How so?

It is starting new **** since we only have one reason to intervene. Oil.

The US will always intervene in other countries' affairs when it comes down to the most 'necessary' of commodities (with "necessary" meaning that which lines Obama's pockets with the most money).

You said that Obama is "starting new sh*t." You are wrong. He's trying his hand at meddling in other people's sh*t. It's ignorant to argue semantics, so let's not do that.

We don't need another war, we can't afford to pay our teachers or military personnel what they deserve as it is.

Gaddafi's regime needs to crumble. The Libyans are fighting for basic human rights: food, water, education, representation in government, equality, etc. Things that most of us in the western world take for granted.

It is always about the oil, but hopefully the people of Libya will get a fair deal as well. Some humanity for the opressed would be nice.

Actually you are the one arguing semantics. So take your own advice and don't do it. I can't take hypocrites seriously.

Jesus f*cking Christ, you're a child. The core of your argument is that we don't need any more war, I'm AGREEING with you, and you still don't even comprehend it.

And how am I a hypocrite? I did say that the Gadahfi regime needs to come down (seeing as how they outright refuse to abide by UN mandates and sanctions). That is something I strongly believe in. I also strongly believe that the US cannot afford another war.

The US has chosen to help enforce the UN's ceasefire, along with Canada, UK, and France. I don't hear you criticizing British PM David Cameron or French president Nicolas Sarkozy. Who's the hypocrite?

Learn how to phrase your opinions in a better way, you'll have less resistance from those who basically f*cking agree with you in the first place.

The whole situation in Libya is a farce. It isn't right what Gaddafi is doing killing his own citizens but I don't agree with us intervening. There has to be something in it for us like oil and France obviously have links with a lot of African countries. I just question whether it's any of our business what's going on over there and if we're making the situation worse.

I don't agree with wars, there are so many things similar to Iraq here, do we learn our lessons? I also hope the reports aren't true about us killing Libyan citizens because then we would be as bad as Gaddafi. We shouldn't be wasting our money on this when there's things in our own country to address. Cameron is no different to the rest of them, all as bad as each other.

Again being a hypocrite. Just because you are being an ass and tried to argue a technicallity does not mean my the way I worded my opinion was bad. Stop being such an angry little man and grow up. I criticize Obama more so than the others since I am from the US and since we have have had conflicts with Iraq, and Afghanistan. I already explained how you are a hypcorite. Please learn the meaning of the word before you use it because I am not one for not criticizing the other leaders on here.

I am not arguing technicalities. Pardon me for assuming that you mean the words that you say. You're getting too butthurt to realize that everyone here is (for the most part) on the same page.

Back to the topic at hand. Oil or no oil, the UN has decided to sanction Gadhafi. As the greatest military and economic power in the free world, it seems that the US has chosen to lead the cause on behalf of the rest of the international community (as we always do). Like I've already said, and I'll put this plainly and simply for you: I AGREE THAT THIS IS A BAD IDEA. Just like you. See? No one is against you, no one is attacking you. It's pretty much a concensus at this point. Okay?

Maintaining a no-fly zone in Libya has been projected to cost the US between $300M and $1B per WEEK (according to the latest MSNBC reports). With the biggest deficit in the history of the world, our goverment has no business spending this kind of money. And money aside, we must decide if it is the right thing to do, morally speaking. I myself find it hard to stand by while others are suffering. I believe that this type of empathy is a common trait amongst most Americans. I feel that America is trying to be the hero in the situation. They let the Libyans be oppressed and murdered, and then swoop in with Tomahawk cruise missiles and B-2 bombers to clean house.

So that leaves us between a rock and a hard place. Do we sit by and let this happen without intervening? As a chief nation in the UN, doing nothing to help impose their mandates would most definitely make the US look weak and uncaring. Or do we intervene (which is the course that Obama has chosen)? In terms of pacifying the international community, it seems to be the right thing to do. But on a personal and common-sensical level, like I said, I disagree that this is something that the US needs to be involved in.

Libya produces about 2% of the world's oil. This year, crude oil has gone from around $86 per barrell to around $105. Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have already agreed to produce/export more to make up for the decline in supply caused by the conflict in Libya. So oil or not, the US will survive. In my city, gas is already $3.29/gal. We attacked Iraq for oil and we still payed out the ass for gasoline. While oil is a clear motive in the situation, I think that the US trying to dominate the modern Islamic world is also good motivation. As always, it boils down to either money, religion, or sex. Our government wants all the money, they want you to pray to their God, and in the end, we all get f*cked.

Yes.

If you think blowing up a country will get you cheaper oil then you are mistaken. OPEC sets the price for oil. It doesn't make any difference where you get it from it's still going to cost you the same.

And if you think what you pay is bad I suggest you move to Europe where you'd pay double or even triple what you are now.

EXACTLY. I'm glad somebody around here gets it. We attacked Iraq for oil and it ended up costing me $80 to fill up my tank (over $4/gal).


I'm not sure of the conversion rate between $/gal and Euros/L, but it seems that everyone is getting shorted here, some much more than others. But I can't find it in myself to complain of gas prices when other people around the world don't have clean water or shoes on their feet. It saddens me that the nations with the largest supplies of crude oil (one of the most profitable commodities on earth), seem to have the lowest standards of living and the least human rights and freedoms.

Ah for ****'s sake. Gaddafi has always been supplying oil to the West, how the **** is removing him in the interest of obtaining oil? If anything the actions of the West will lead to unclear leadership structures in the Libya, and thus a potential disruption in the oil supplies after Gaddafi is gone.

The world isn't that black and white, mate.

Please if you think it is not about oil you are blind. Obviously it is not about being humanitarians because if that was the case we would get involved with other issues in Africa.

Stop making assumptions haha. I was far from butthurt dude.

So all bullsh*t aside, the only intelligent input that you have to offer to this conversation is "Obama is starting new sh*t for oil."
Thank you for enlightening us with your wisdom.

Nice to see you skipped over the post that was right above the one you quoted.

Which post would that be? The one where you claimed it was only about oil, or the one where you claimed Obama is starting new sh*t?

Seriously, I love how every discussion with even the slightest political undertone has to turn into a f*cking pissing contest. :usehead:

Make an assumptions since that is what you do so well :finger:

Well it was funny how in a way the pissing contest was a result of your misconception, but we cleared that up yet you continued the pissing contest with a slight insult.

Clearly this is about oil regardless of what The Monkey is saying. Why else would the government get involved with this ****? They turn a blind eye to other situations in Africa where people are actually being slaughtered. Even heard the idea of being paid back in oil for our contribution.