Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/21/11 10:40 AM, orangebomb wrote:

At 3/21/11 10:11 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 3/20/11 05:23 PM, lapis wrote:

At 3/20/11 11:59 AM, bcdemon wrote:

And why is nobody saying anything about Saudi Arabia sending troops to Yemen to calm the protests there?

The situation in Bahrain, SA, and Yemen get a little tricky from here, because those governments are allies with the U.S. Bahrain is home to the 6th fleet of the Navy, Saudi Arabia is our biggest supplier of oil, and Yemen's government is trying to stop terrorist groups there from forming into another Taliban in the region.

Really? So as long as a country allows the USA to base it's ships there, the US gov turns a blind eye to murdering peaceful protesters? What a great deal for Bahrain, they get the security of the US 6th fleet, and criminal immunity from killing civilians.

In Bahrain, the king announced that with the help of the Saudi army, they stopped a plot to remove him from power.
That "plot" was democracy. But it's probably easier to blame it on Iran.

In Yemen.
Even the top Yemen military personnel are defecting to the opposition side. Several top diplomats also said they were joining the opposition, including Yemen's ambassadors to Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Japan and the Arab League.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe says the departure of President Saleh is "unavoidable."

Gaddafi declared ceasefire but his forces killed 40 people. I heard that US was saying that they won't encourage target killing of the dictator. But I think they should change their mind.

At 3/21/11 06:17 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 3/21/11 10:40 AM, orangebomb wrote:

At 3/21/11 10:11 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 3/20/11 05:23 PM, lapis wrote:

At 3/20/11 11:59 AM, bcdemon wrote:

And why is nobody saying anything about Saudi Arabia sending troops to Yemen to calm the protests there?

The situation in Bahrain, SA, and Yemen get a little tricky from here, because those governments are allies with the U.S. Bahrain is home to the 6th fleet of the Navy, Saudi Arabia is our biggest supplier of oil, and Yemen's government is trying to stop terrorist groups there from forming into another Taliban in the region.

Really? So as long as a country allows the USA to base it's ships there, the US gov turns a blind eye to murdering peaceful protesters? What a great deal for Bahrain, they get the security of the US 6th fleet, and criminal immunity from killing civilians.

We can't be everywhere at once, because our forces are pretty much stretched to the limit in Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan and Libya. I don't like it either, but we can't afford to make any more enemies in the region, much less lose our base in the Persian Gulf. I'm sure that America has or will condemn Bahrain for this, but as of right now, Libya is America's main focus, hopefully not for long.

In Bahrain, the king announced that with the help of the Saudi army, they stopped a plot to remove him from power.
That "plot" was democracy. But it's probably easier to blame it on Iran.

As I said earlier, we don't want to piss off more people in the Middle East than we already have now, it's really give and take. I don't like it either, but our hands are tied right now with Libya and Afghanistan, what do you want America to do?

Gadafi's done. His only hope will be to flee to Venezuela and hope the government that takes his place doesn't come looking for him.

Would be fun to see him flee to Venezuela, when the new Libyan government goes into venezuela and retrieves him forcefully, then some big uprising takes hold in Venezuels while its military is occupied and Chavez ends up getting what's coming to him as well.

I think they would look good hanging together.

At 2/23/11 01:59 PM, animehater wrote: Which is exactly why now that the sanctions have been lifted for years do they decide to revolt. Had nothing to do with the fact that they are tired of Gadaffi's oppression and are inspired by other revolutions in neighboring countries that have not experienced such sanctions, nothing to do with that at all.

But that don't make it right.

At 3/21/11 10:58 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 3/21/11 06:17 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 3/21/11 10:40 AM, orangebomb wrote:

At 3/21/11 10:11 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 3/20/11 05:23 PM, lapis wrote:

At 3/20/11 11:59 AM, bcdemon wrote:

And why is nobody saying anything about Saudi Arabia sending troops to Yemen to calm the protests there?

The situation in Bahrain, SA, and Yemen get a little tricky from here, because those governments are allies with the U.S. Bahrain is home to the 6th fleet of the Navy, Saudi Arabia is our biggest supplier of oil, and Yemen's government is trying to stop terrorist groups there from forming into another Taliban in the region.

Really? So as long as a country allows the USA to base it's ships there, the US gov turns a blind eye to murdering peaceful protesters? What a great deal for Bahrain, they get the security of the US 6th fleet, and criminal immunity from killing civilians.

We can't be everywhere at once, because our forces are pretty much stretched to the limit in Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan and Libya. I don't like it either, but we can't afford to make any more enemies in the region, much less lose our base in the Persian Gulf. I'm sure that America has or will condemn Bahrain for this, but as of right now, Libya is America's main focus, hopefully not for long.

All I have heard so far is that the USA is "deeply troubled" by the actions the Sunni-led government has taken to quell it's countries uprising. Not only that, but check this out, this is what State Department spokesman Mark Toner said about the governments aggression:
"We also call on security forces to cease violence, especially on medical personnel and facilities,"

Nothing about civilians? Egypt, Tunisia and in Libya, the main concern was the civilians. It seems the US doesn't want to jump all over the Gov of Bahrain, even going so far as giving warning to the protesters who want democracy:
"Protestors, too, must engage peacefully and responsibly."

In Bahrain, the king announced that with the help of the Saudi army, they stopped a plot to remove him from power.
That "plot" was democracy. But it's probably easier to blame it on Iran.

As I said earlier, we don't want to piss off more people in the Middle East than we already have now, it's really give and take. I don't like it either, but our hands are tied right now with Libya and Afghanistan,

Well the UAE just pulled out of the "coalition" against Libya. They were going to be the major ME player militarily speaking offering up 40 some-odd fighter jets. But they didn't like the way the USA and the EU considered their uprising a democracy issue. The Gulf sees the uprisings in Bahrain as an Iranian intrusion.

U.S. national security expert Harlan Ullman:
"But the leaders of Bahrain and Yemen are on our side, even though they're doing bad things to their people."

what do you want America to do?

Choose human rights over resources.

At 3/22/11 10:47 AM, bcdemon wrote: Choose human rights over resources.

The big issue is that America cannot afford such an agressive diplomatic stance. It's a big nation, with big demands economically and militarily.

The Middle East is a location of primary importance for nations such as United Kingdom, United States, France and all other mid to major level international players who don't produce surplus oil for their needs. As a fluctuating power base, and by virtue of it being the biggest oil tap globally, it's also of vital military importance. As such, those nations who have a huge vested interest (most developed non-OPEC nations) in this area need to play very very softly.

By America choosing Human Rights over resources, I get the impression you want the US to scrap normalised relations with Nations such as Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Going by your principles, most, if not all, members of the Arab league would be struck off America's list of nations its willing to have international relations with. By doing this, America is basically saying "We're not going to trade, militarily assist or form any kind of deals or treaties with you until you stop doing stuff we don't like" and that means no oil deals or military installations.

Please note, if I got the wrong end of the stick the below rant is completelly irrelevant unless other readers think America should cease normalisation with the above mentioned states.

If that is the case, you bet your ass America is going to lose not only a lot of business in these countries, but can also see itself running dangerously low on vital strategic supplies of oil. Oil deals are only possible in the Middle East because the nations that want that oil have to grease hands with some dodgy people. It is, and has been since the formation of OPEC, the way of the world.

By losing access to large amounts of Arab Oil, America will find itself increasingly dependant on those Nations within OPEC who are both willing to trade with a diplomatically agressive 'moral' America and also fulfill the humanitarian requirements for America to have normalised relations with them.

Non-OPEC countries could also supply America, but such deals would likely be expensive and time consuming considering America would need to agree prices, conditions and timescales with each nation independantly without the assistance and communication lines of a well developed economic alliance.

Now onto the more complicated issue of military bases. Without places such as Bahrain to station Naval fleets or Saudi Arabia to place Airforce groups, America will find itself struggling to project power in the region. Not only does this hamper American capabilities to launch military strikes on targets in this region, it also removes the massive bargaining chip of Military Intervention from American diplomacy for that area. It's far easier to get rogue states to co-operate, or at least slow them down, when you have the Damacles Sword of a powerful military strike hanging above their heads.

Think of it as what I like to call the Korean Effect. North Korea has a powerfull, well organised and capable military force when compared to the Nation's economy. They have access to submarines, heavy artillary, are constantly developing cruise missles and have the manpower to invade South Korea. If America didn't have forces stationed both within South Korea and nearby Japan, its threats of immediate military action in the event of Korean aggression would be laughable at best, considering the time it would take to move whole armies and fleets from the West Coast compared to how long it would take the NKPA to launch attacks towards Seoul.

The effect, therefore, of a lack of military projection weakens America's ability to bring nations into line with diplomacy and the simple threat of an attack. Additionally, it also weakens American defence. Hypothetically speaking, an Arab nation could rise up to be a super power off the back of oil money and directly threaten America with a build of arms and nuclear weapons (see Iran as a very loose example)

Without nearby forces to pre-emptivelly strike, America leaves itself dangerously exposed to both real and hypothetical threats, weakening its ability to deal with rapidly changing power balances. Just because a nation isn't threatning America with bombs today doesn't mean it won't be in 5-10 maybe 20 years time.

It's a combination of the enemy of my enemy is my friend and not looking a gift horse in the mouth. We can either save some civilians and take a moral stand against the worst perpetrators while reluctantly dealing with some dodgy people to do so, or we can find ourselves increasingly becoming more and more isolated as our capabilities and negotiating influence diminishes.

At 3/21/11 06:17 PM, bcdemon wrote: Really? So as long as a country allows the USA to base it's ships there, the US gov turns a blind eye to murdering peaceful protesters? What a great deal for Bahrain, they get the security of the US 6th fleet, and criminal immunity from killing civilians.

What's your point? Are you saying that supporting democratic movements inconsistently is worse than supporting none at all?

I can't understand the domestic outrage against the operations in Libya (condemnation from oppressive Arab governments is no surprise). Everyone's so concerned about "staying within the mandate" and not "attacking" anyone. Why not attack Gaddafi and provide air support for the rebels? It's a low risk and relatively low-cost operation and if it works, then everyone involved is better off. Does anyone actually think that limited US armed intervention on behalf of democratic movements will somehow strengthen despotic regimes and discourage future uprisings?

I think Libya like other nations need to deal with their own problems on their own, for Libya is not our problem to be dealing, if it became our national problem then it be a whole different story, but sadly it's not that whole different story.

Taken for granted we simply invaded Libya, further more it's costing us even more money then we are gaining and last but not least the President of the United States in turn has NO AUTHORITY to declare military action against another nation as part of the United States Constitution, for that alone belongs to the people of Congress, not to the President himself/herself.

At 3/22/11 06:26 PM, Thecrazyman wrote: I think Libya like other nations need to deal with their own problems on their own, for Libya is not our problem to be dealing...

Yes, because nothing that happens overseas, especially in oil-producing countries, ever has any bearing on this country.

Taken for granted we simply invaded Libya,

Not at all, retard. Yes, you are a retard because I see exactly where you are going with it. The Libyans suffer for decades under Gaddafis oppression, they rebel against him in force, and when the US launches cruise missiles and airstrikes against the despot, that is exactly the same as some unprovoked imperialist takeover.
Either that or you just run your mouth without understanding what you say.

further more it's costing us even more money then we are gaining

Oh really? Have you calculated the monetary benefits of another friendly Arab nation should the rebels win with our assistance, getting all the gratitude without any of the negativity that comes from an occupation?

and last but not least the President of the United States in turn has NO AUTHORITY to declare military action against another nation as part of the United States Constitution...

Listen to you bitch and moan about procedure and constitutionality over such stakes as a low-risk military operation when we're targeting a person who exercises ABSOLUTE TOTALITARIAN CONTROL over his people.
I'm far more nationalist than most people, but I see it as both a moral and pragmatic obligation to promote democracy abroad, and there few better opportunities than what has arisen for us in Libya. Our military power can make a substantial difference, and if it's enough to bring down Gaddafi without serious cost, we should do it. I have no problem whatsoever in this case with Obama stretching the legal bounds of UN resolutions if it means helping the Libyan people and circumventing the need for tortuous bickering and posturing in Congress.

At 3/22/11 05:58 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 3/21/11 06:17 PM, bcdemon wrote: Really? So as long as a country allows the USA to base it's ships there, the US gov turns a blind eye to murdering peaceful protesters? What a great deal for Bahrain, they get the security of the US 6th fleet, and criminal immunity from killing civilians.

What's your point? Are you saying that supporting democratic movements inconsistently is worse than supporting none at all?

No, I'm saying don't be hypocrites. If you're going to stand on your moral high ground preaching about protecting citizens, then do it for all, not just the ones that suit your interests.

I can't understand the domestic outrage against the operations in Libya (condemnation from oppressive Arab governments is no surprise). Everyone's so concerned about "staying within the mandate" and not "attacking" anyone. Why not attack Gaddafi and provide air support for the rebels? It's a low risk and relatively low-cost operation and if it works, then everyone involved is better off. Does anyone actually think that limited US armed intervention on behalf of democratic movements will somehow strengthen despotic regimes and discourage future uprisings?

That's my hole issue, the uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen are being quelled by government (and outside armies) violence the same way Gadaffi did and nobody is doing or saying anything about it.
A small handful of countries and Amnesty International have condemned the actions of the Bahraini government. Others (like USA) aren't saying much if anything.
Happy to say my country finally condemned the violence against civilians in Yemen, Bahrain and Syria.

The UN mandate as I understood it was for a no-fly-zone. Not tactical support for an anti-government uprising. It was supposed to be about taking out surface to air installations, not clearing out convoys of government troops.
But I guess it's like anything else, once you get your foot in the door....

At 3/23/11 09:58 AM, bcdemon wrote: The UN mandate as I understood it was for a no-fly-zone. Not tactical support for an anti-government uprising. It was supposed to be about taking out surface to air installations, not clearing out convoys of government troops.

The Security Council, (...) Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

At 3/23/11 09:58 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 3/22/11 05:58 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 3/21/11 06:17 PM, bcdemon wrote: Really? So as long as a country allows the USA to base it's ships there, the US gov turns a blind eye to murdering peaceful protesters? What a great deal for Bahrain, they get the security of the US 6th fleet, and criminal immunity from killing civilians.

What's your point? Are you saying that supporting democratic movements inconsistently is worse than supporting none at all?

No, I'm saying don't be hypocrites. If you're going to stand on your moral high ground preaching about protecting citizens, then do it for all, not just the ones that suit your interests.

You know we can't do that, partly because we are allies with these governments, for better or worse, if we go after them now, we're going to lose our foothold in the Middle East. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't condemn their actions on civilians, but at the end of the day, our hands are tied, we can't really do anything there without pissing off more people, including Saudi Arabia.

The UN mandate as I understood it was for a no-fly-zone. Not tactical support for an anti-government uprising. It was supposed to be about taking out surface to air installations, not clearing out convoys of government troops.
But I guess it's like anything else, once you get your foot in the door....

If you read the mandate a little closer, it said "All Necessary Action" on Libya, which includes stopping Gadhafi's troops from killing civilians. Someone needs to take out Gadhafi soon, because he is clearly not going to back down from his high horse, and his army is going to kill every rebel they get their hands on. And before you say I'm being hypocritical, you need to realize how the alliance system works, and remember the history between Gadhafi and America, {Remember what happen at Lockerbie, 1986?}

At 3/23/11 11:33 AM, orangebomb wrote: {Remember what happen at Lockerbie, 1986?}

Lol, classic typo.

At 3/23/11 11:33 AM, orangebomb wrote:

At 3/23/11 09:58 AM, bcdemon wrote: No, I'm saying don't be hypocrites. If you're going to stand on your moral high ground preaching about protecting citizens, then do it for all, not just the ones that suit your interests.

You know we can't do that, partly because we are allies with these governments, for better or worse, if we go after them now, we're going to lose our foothold in the Middle East. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't condemn their actions on civilians, but at the end of the day, our hands are tied, we can't really do anything there without pissing off more people, including Saudi Arabia.

Unfortunatly I think at this point you should give up convincing this guy what it means to give and take. Sadly, he seems to lack a solid understanding in international relationships and how crucial they are for a Nation, both economically and militarily. Me, you and Shepard (among other users who've contributed) have made points to this effect and other points as well.

It appears some people just don't 'get' that we live in a cruel world and that its not always possible, or beneficial, for a Nation to take an aggresive moral stand against totalitarian and brutal regimes, but should do so when the opportunity presents itself without harm to the State.

At 3/21/11 03:14 PM, lapis wrote: Well, given the UN and NATO's track record of protecting civilians in, say, the Congo, Rwanda or Darfur, it's pretty obvious that we should look for ulterior motives.

This pretty much sums up the entire situation.

At 3/21/11 10:58 PM, orangebomb wrote: I'm sure that America has or will condemn Bahrain for this

Which means absolutely nothing. It's an empty gesture.

Also, nobody really cares about human rights. It's just a convenient excuse to intervene wherever we can.

At 3/23/11 01:15 PM, SkeletonGimp wrote: Unfortunatly I think at this point you should give up convincing this guy what it means to give and take. Sadly, he seems to lack a solid understanding in international relationships and how crucial they are for a Nation, both economically and militarily. Me, you and Shepard (among other users who've contributed) have made points to this effect and other points as well.

Thanks tips. But I do understand about give and take in the international community and the politics behind it. I also understand the need for allies. Does this mean they should get a free pass to commit human rights abuses? Not in my opinion. Obviously you (and others) are of the opinion that is it ok to kill civilian protestors as long as the government is pro-USA

Resolution 1973 states:
"to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country"

Last I checked, "Civilians" didn't include rebel forces attacking the government.

At 3/23/11 02:07 PM, bcdemon wrote: Thanks tips. But I do understand about give and take in the international community and the politics behind it.

"International community," lol. There is no international community.

I also understand the need for allies. Does this mean they should get a free pass to commit human rights abuses? Not in my opinion.

Yeah, that's a really good way to keep friends.

Obviously you (and others) are of the opinion that is it ok to kill civilian protestors as long as the government is pro-USA

Uh, it doesn't really matter. That's not really anybody else's problem and the Americans don't really care, deep down, about human rights abuses -- otherwise they would be making a huge fuss about their own allies' faults.

Last I checked, "Civilians" didn't include rebel forces attacking the government.

They also demand a ceasefire -- which is not really an option for Gaddafi considering that he is cut off from the rest of the world and not even in complete control over his entire country. Besides, the rebels aren't going to stop fighting either. They might as well just ask him to point a pistol to his head.

At 3/23/11 02:07 PM, bcdemon wrote:

Thanks tips. But I do understand about give and take in the international community and the politics behind it. I also understand the need for allies.

Good. But you haven't made it clear what you want us to do with our erstwhile allies in regards to their humanitarian track record?

We can condemn them, break normalised relations or take economic or military action against them either through the UN or on our own back through sanctions, blockades or no-fly zones and/or troops on the ground for assisstance to opposition movements or out right invasion.

Does this mean they should get a free pass to commit human rights abuses? Not in my opinion. Obviously you (and others) are of the opinion that is it ok to kill civilian protestors as long as the government is pro-USA

I certainatly am not of the opinion it is ok to kill civilian protestors, and believe the US and UK should make strong condemnation of such action. But as you yourself say, it's important to keep allies, especially so when this region of the world holds the West almost as hostage to that vital resource of oil.

There's not many saintly regimes in Arab states, so again I ask what specific action should we take without jeapordising Western needs and requirements diplomatically and economically, or seriously disrupting alliances both economic and military?

I'm pretty sure if you think of an ideal solution that both helps the civilians and keeps that particular State trading us oil and generously giving us space to park our military without costing us billions of tax payer's pounds and dollars I'm pretty sure the Prime Ministers and Presidents of the West would jump at it. I'm not joking, no one wants to sit back and watch innocent people get butt raped by their rules, but there's not much they can do without jeapordising our National needs.

Resolution 1973 states:
"to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country"

Last I checked, "Civilians" didn't include rebel forces attacking the government.

This is true, and I agree we shouldn't be directly assisting the Rebels, only protecting civilian settlements from things such as house razing (burning civilian homes to reduce cover for rebel forces to use) and/or indiscriminate shelling into populated areas. Attacking command and control centres go beyond the remit of the UN mandate in my own opinion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-1 2837330

Well that didn't last long..

If the guy had an atom bomb, this wouldn't be a problem. For him, at least.

Actually, that is the ONLY reason why countries like Libya, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, et cetera, desire nuclear weapons -- as a deterrent against Western forces which, as you can see, can pretty much roll over their country with the very weapons they forbid them to purchase. If they had nuclear weapons, Western countries could not invade them, but it would be of no significant tactical advantage for them to actually use them in a conflict (for obvious reasons).

(And the possibility that they would be used for terrorism is even more absurd -- not even a fool would give their most prized weapon to a bunch of uneducated, incompetent, suicidal radicals with little to gain in the process.)

At 3/23/11 04:05 PM, SkeletonGimp wrote:

At 3/23/11 02:07 PM, bcdemon wrote:

Thanks tips. But I do understand about give and take in the international community and the politics behind it. I also understand the need for allies.

Good. But you haven't made it clear what you want us to do with our erstwhile allies in regards to their humanitarian track record?

You could start by publicly condemning the actions of the government, the way Obama did with Muamar. Maybe throw in a threat of moving out, and taking your funds with you. There are a few things that could be done.

Does this mean they should get a free pass to commit human rights abuses? Not in my opinion. Obviously you (and others) are of the opinion that is it ok to kill civilian protestors as long as the government is pro-USA

I certainatly am not of the opinion it is ok to kill civilian protestors, and believe the US and UK should make strong condemnation of such action. But as you yourself say, it's important to keep allies, especially so when this region of the world holds the West almost as hostage to that vital resource of oil.

Well you're in luck, a new report says that the USA has the worlds largest energy resources.
"They eclipse Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th) and Canada (6th) combined"
Combined, did you see that, COMBINED.
So now that your energy woes are solved, let's get back to protecting human rights everywhere shall we?

At 3/24/11 05:52 PM, bcdemon wrote: So now that your energy woes are solved, let's get back to protecting human rights everywhere shall we?

Other people's lack of rights is not really our problem.

At 3/24/11 05:52 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 3/23/11 04:05 PM, SkeletonGimp wrote:

At 3/23/11 02:07 PM, bcdemon wrote:

Thanks tips. But I do understand about give and take in the international community and the politics behind it. I also understand the need for allies.

Good. But you haven't made it clear what you want us to do with our erstwhile allies in regards to their humanitarian track record?

You could start by publicly condemning the actions of the government, the way Obama did with Muamar. Maybe throw in a threat of moving out, and taking your funds with you. There are a few things that could be done.

And what do you think they'll do in retaliation?

Yes, the President can tell them they've been naughty children and should stop misbehaving (which is about all a condemnation amounts to) and it may or may not give the nation a kick in the ass to sort out their mess. In this case I'm all for condemnation.

Making threats to allies, however, is a massive no-no. It sets a precedent that you're willing to break your alliances and that makes your fellow partners worry. Who's to say you won't start making threats tomorrow to do with how unhappy you are with a Nation's Climate Control policies? Again, this is aggresive diplomacy which is dangerous if used against a supposed ally/partner nation.

Taking funds out of the Nation will simply result in a like-for-like response. Take away investments in oil companies, they'll withdraw investments in financial services. Take away investments in /infrastructure development, they'll take away export deals. All this is pretty damaging to an economy as it results in business loss, job loss and a reduce in tax reciepts. Considering how deeply invested the US is in these nations, if we follow this tactic of your with every single Arab Nation that's totalitarian, you'll see massive negative effects to the economy.

The world really looks black and white where you're sat, doesn't it?

I certainatly am not of the opinion it is ok to kill civilian protestors, and believe the US and UK should make strong condemnation of such action. But as you yourself say, it's important to keep allies, especially so when this region of the world holds the West almost as hostage to that vital resource of oil.

Well you're in luck, a new report says that the USA has the worlds largest energy resources.
"They eclipse Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th) and Canada (6th) combined"
Combined, did you see that, COMBINED.
So now that your energy woes are solved, let's get back to protecting human rights everywhere shall we?

Thanks for the report, news to me.

Ok, this report isn't 100% accurate in regards to potential energy resources, as it is an estimate, but it's probably close enough.

The big issue I have is the fact it's time consuming to get round to drilling up this oil. First, you need to find a suitable site. This means not building on protected land or land that could result in massive ecological damage to the surrounding area (drilling upstream of a large river, for example, can be seen as a bad idea if it can potentially result in damaging effects downstream) and making sure its land you can buy and build on. I'm sure plenty of that oil happens to be beneath large cities and people's homes, so although it can theoretically be dug up it's unlikely a company will go to the huge legal and financial hassle of moving large blocks of a city and/or residential area.

After getting a suitable site, a company has to then purchase the land, or get a lease, from the owner (private/public) and then go about getting planning permission, building permits and all other beurocratic nightmares, as relevant tothe state and federal law of that location.

Finally, after shelling out plenty just to get the site, they can begin construction.

It will take some time to tap into these resources, and a truck load of government cash to incentivise companies to bother doing so, at a time when the US has little time and little money in the public coffers.

Places like saudi arabia have it easy trying to take advantage of their oil fields as large tracks of their nation are undeveloped desert expanses, meaning its usually very easy to bulldoze in and build an oil well. The US not so easy, as I have described above.

Until the US finds a way to, and gets to a point of, producing enough oil to meet its own demands, it will still be reliant on OPEC oil. My point, therefore, still stands.

A riddle for you.

You have a water well which is enough to keep 2 people alive, but you have a family of 5. Your neighbour has a water well with enough water for his family, and yours, combined.

So, you buy water from your neighbour to give to your family. You later find out you have more water then your neighbour underneath your house, but you need new wells.

You can't afford a well at this time as you're buying water from your neighbour. If you stopped buying water, you could afford to build a new well, but your family may die of dehydration by that time.

What do?

At 3/25/11 08:02 AM, SkeletonGimp wrote: The world really looks black and white where you're sat, doesn't it?

Well, once you wash the rainbow of politics away, yeah it is.

Until the US finds a way to, and gets to a point of, producing enough oil to meet its own demands, it will still be reliant on OPEC oil. My point, therefore, still stands.

Well neither Yemen or Bahrain are a part of OPEC, that and neither of them export any real amount of oil products to the USA. So to say your "protecting your energy resources" by turning a blind eye is bull, you're only protecting less than 6000 barrels of oil per day. In comparison, Canada exports about 2.051 million barrels per day to the USA.

A riddle for you.

You have a water well which is enough to keep 2 people alive, but you have a family of 5. Your neighbour has a water well with enough water for his family, and yours, combined.

So, you buy water from your neighbour to give to your family. You later find out you have more water then your neighbour underneath your house, but you need new wells.

You can't afford a well at this time as you're buying water from your neighbour. If you stopped buying water, you could afford to build a new well, but your family may die of dehydration by that time.

What do?

My family drinks boiled river water until my new wells are drilled. And luckily for me, I live next a HUGE river. I guarantee I would not stand idly by while my neighbor beats his children just so I can continue to purchase water off him.

At 3/25/11 10:34 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 3/25/11 08:02 AM, SkeletonGimp wrote: The world really looks black and white where you're sat, doesn't it?

Well, once you wash the rainbow of politics away, yeah it is.

Well unluckily for you, politics are here to stay and won't be disappering any time soon.

You see, politics is simply a glorified version of a moral debate. There's just more money and bullshit involved, and morals have existed since we figured out it was a smart idea to start talking to each other.

Until the US finds a way to, and gets to a point of, producing enough oil to meet its own demands, it will still be reliant on OPEC oil. My point, therefore, still stands.

Well neither Yemen or Bahrain are a part of OPEC, that and neither of them export any real amount of oil products to the USA. So to say your "protecting your energy resources" by turning a blind eye is bull, you're only protecting less than 6000 barrels of oil per day. In comparison, Canada exports about 2.051 million barrels per day to the USA.

This is true for those nations, but you also mentioned other states such as Saudi Arabia, who also happen to be allied so closely to Bahrain they have commited troops to the effort.

I'm sure such a large OPEC nation would have absolutely no problem what so ever with the US barging in militarily/economically on one of their allies......

Now, if we take your attitude of an aggressive 'moralistic' diplomacy towards all nations that have crap human rights records, we would be forced to follow sanctions, strong condemnations and possible military strikes on Saudi Arabia, who is an OPEC nation and who also plays host to a number of USAF aircraft. My points, therefore, still stand.

What's more, you ignored the point I made specifically of Bahrain being useful from a military stand point. Losing a naval base, an Airforce wing and stationed patriot missle systems and sepc ops teams cuts off a vital military foothold in the Arabic theatre, reducing American capability to operate in the Gulf, and therefore reducing American ability to intervene in any kind of situation.

Besides, even if these nations didn't have allies and were pariah states like Libya, it would look fucking awful for the West to be seen as 'crusading' in against another Arab state. As an example, look at Iran with Saudi Arabia publicly pushing America to use diplomacy rather then thinly veilled threats of military strikes.

Libya is an exception to the 'crusading' view thanks to the fact it has identified itself as an 'African' state for some time, with Gaddafi's anger at the Arab League for refusing to establish a Pan-Arabian state. That, and the fact he's been a pain in the AL's ass, plus the people (including influencial diplomatic figures) were crying out for direct involvement.

What's more, America has already condemned Yemen on its crackdown.

A riddle for you.

You have a water well which is enough to keep 2 people alive, but you have a family of 5. Your neighbour has a water well with enough water for his family, and yours, combined.

So, you buy water from your neighbour to give to your family. You later find out you have more water then your neighbour underneath your house, but you need new wells.

You can't afford a well at this time as you're buying water from your neighbour. If you stopped buying water, you could afford to build a new well, but your family may die of dehydration by that time.

What do?

My family drinks boiled river water until my new wells are drilled. And luckily for me, I live next a HUGE river. I guarantee I would not stand idly by while my neighbor beats his children just so I can continue to purchase water off him.

/Facepalm

Do you know what a rhetorical question is? Do you know what a metaphore is? Did you even get what the riddle was trying to point out, or are you just being facetious?

Look, the world is not as black and white as you want it to be, it never will be. Just because one nation is insignificant doesn't mean another nation can do what it wants to them whether it's the 'right' or 'wrong' thing to do. Bahrain and Yemen may or may not be powerfull or useful nations on their own, they are however allied with nations who are significant to the West in a big way, both in treaty and in the Arabic Spirit/religion.

Politics, as much as you seem to not want it to not exist, is a complicated and messy webway where a mere rumour can trigger massive repercussions, both economic and militarily. You seem to be ignorant of this fact, or know it exists and still choose to portay your views as if they'd work in the real world.

Please, take off the rose tinted glasses you seem to have glued to your face.

At 3/25/11 05:46 PM, SkeletonGimp wrote: You see, politics is simply a glorified version of a moral debate.

Politics is a continuation of war by other means. And vice versa. Politics is essentially a war for one's own interests and aims, ideological or otherwise. It has nothing to do with morality, really.

Which is why even democratic leaders in the developing world are disapproving of it -- because they have pretty much zero stake in it, or in fact, even lose out considering that this is pretty much proof that the UN can essentially invent moral legitimacy to justify attacking countries. But ultimately it is all posturing -- China and Russia could have easily blocked this entire thing with a veto but there's no point in irritating Western leaders for no good reason.

Besides, even if these nations didn't have allies and were pariah states like Libya, it would look fucking awful for the West to be seen as 'crusading' in against another Arab state.

Well, look what's happening now. Where's all the outrage? Gaddafi has really done nothing wrong in the past year, let alone anything terribly savage. He is not "shooting at protesters" -- he is shooting at people in OPEN REBELLION AGAINST HIS REGIME. Then the UN comes in with air strikes and a no-fly zone to "protect civilians," which is all and well until you realize that he's NOT TARGETING "CIVILIANS" FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, HE'S TARGETING REBELS WHICH POSE A THREAT TO NOT ONLY HIS RULE, BUT TO HIS VERY EXISTENCE.

Look, the world is not as black and white as you want it to be, it never will be.

Exactly -- which is what the hordes of absolute morons which we call the public will never truly understand.

At 3/27/11 01:32 PM, HandsomeCat wrote: the problem is that libya and america are fighting over some god damn oil and gas and gold and thats why they start a war but at least america didnt split the profit and make an alliance because america alllways does that so thank god and if america wins then libya will gets its punishment for not letting egyptians in there country while they have a peace treetie

Ignoring the fact that America was one of the last on the scene and the fact that France has intervened in Libya much more then any other country for a while now, like when Libya invaded Chad France came down alone to spank Libya and make Gaddafi say sorry hence why they were first here. It's the same in Bosnia where the first bombers were Spanish.

The fact of the matter is that Libya will eventually experience it's down fall. Other countries/cultures that have been similar to Libya have experienced it. You can go back as for as roman times, and probably even before that. Countries have always though that they were all high and mighty since the beginning of time pretty much. They have all experienced the down fall from it.
Not to mention the fact that Libya has it's own group of people which they call rebels. That want this reign to be over and done with. Give it time and the tyranny in Libya will fall just like in every other culture before it.

At 3/27/11 12:44 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 3/25/11 05:46 PM, SkeletonGimp wrote: You see, politics is simply a glorified version of a moral debate.

Politics is a continuation of war by other means. And vice versa. Politics is essentially a war for one's own interests and aims, ideological or otherwise. It has nothing to do with morality, really.

Which is why even democratic leaders in the developing world are disapproving of it -- because they have pretty much zero stake in it, or in fact, even lose out considering that this is pretty much proof that the UN can essentially invent moral legitimacy to justify attacking countries. But ultimately it is all posturing -- China and Russia could have easily blocked this entire thing with a veto but there's no point in irritating Western leaders for no good reason.

I would say it's a bit of both, but at its essence it's a moral question of what is right for the Nation and what is wrong of the Nation. Each side of the political spectrum has its own views and variations on the answers to this question.

Besides, even if these nations didn't have allies and were pariah states like Libya, it would look fucking awful for the West to be seen as 'crusading' in against another Arab state.

Well, look what's happening now. Where's all the outrage? Gaddafi has really done nothing wrong in the past year, let alone anything terribly savage. He is not "shooting at protesters" -- he is shooting at people in OPEN REBELLION AGAINST HIS REGIME. Then the UN comes in with air strikes and a no-fly zone to "protect civilians," which is all and well until you realize that he's NOT TARGETING "CIVILIANS" FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, HE'S TARGETING REBELS WHICH POSE A THREAT TO NOT ONLY HIS RULE, BUT TO HIS VERY EXISTENCE.

I already said that Libya has identified itself as an African state for some time now. However, there has been plenty of criticism against the airstrikes/no fly zone. I suppose it's also easier to support a fully fledged rebellion that can do all the hard foot work for you instead of sending in your own occupation force.

Libya's the only 'Arab' nation thus far to have seen its protest movement turn into open warfare.

However, artillary strikes and gunship attacks on areas with large civillian populations is a big no-no, and we had plenty of reports of him doing this before it turned into full on civil war, let alone the UN airstrikes.