Civil War in Libya

[LeftEyeNine]

Without the aid of France, the United States would never have won their independence. Nations are not always capable of evolving on their own, outside support can be necessary in some situations.

If Middle East had no oil or other resources the giant ones wouldn't drool over, I could indeed be convinced of the good intentions you are advocating on behalf of them.

Sorry like your history apparently taught one, my history taught me that if France and UK walk into a bar, it's never safe there. UN/NATo or whatever, they are all failed organizations not to lack that warm feeling of helping humanity while they are commonly put into action justified so but rather defending or taking proactive measures for the giant one's needs & wants.

I wonder how history would write it had Srebrenitsa been a little Middle East well of black gold in the middle of Europe.

So, thanks but no thanks. West does not step in where actual benefits do not exist.

[rory_20_uk]

And nor should we be.

Enlightened self interest is the name of the game - helping others helps ourselves. If not, well, tough.

[LeftEyeNine]

And nor should we be.

Enlightened self interest is the name of the game - helping others helps ourselves. If not, well, tough.

"Actual benefits" was not meant like how you've taken it.

Other than that, I also agree that ♪♫ we are the world, we are the children, we are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving ♫

Didn't it always happen that way anyway ? ^^

[TinCow]

If Middle East had no oil or other resources the giant ones wouldn't drool over, I could indeed be convinced of the good intentions you are advocating on behalf of them.

Sorry like your history apparently taught one, my history taught me that if France and UK walk into a bar, it's never safe there. UN/NATo or whatever, they are all failed organizations not to lack that warm feeling of helping humanity while they are commonly put into action justified so but rather defending or taking proactive measures for the giant one's needs & wants.

I wonder how history would write it had Srebrenitsa been a little Middle East well of black gold in the middle of Europe.

So, thanks but no thanks. West does not step in where actual benefits do not exist.

It is true that nations generally only intervene in foreign countries when it is in their interests. The does not make the intervention evil though. Imagine a man helping all of the homeless people in his neighborhood to find shelter and get jobs. Now imagine the man was doing it only because he owned the property and wanted to make it look nicer so he could get a higher selling price. The motive may have been non-humanitarian, but the end result is the same regardless. The French intervention in the American Revolution was entirely to damage the Old Enemy, Britain. The Americans didn't care about that motive, all we cared about was that France was helping us achieve what we wanted.

Also, the benefit to the West in Libya is stability, NOT oil. Libya has so little oil that it is essentially irrelevant to the situation. The talking heads on the news (and Gadaffi) like to point to the oil as the cause, but Libya has about 1.5% of the world's oil supply. No one would notice if it simply disappeared.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It is true that nations generally only intervene in foreign countries when it is in their interests. The does not make the intervention evil though. Imagine a man helping all of the homeless people in his neighborhood to find shelter and get jobs. Now imagine the man was doing it only because he owned the property and wanted to make it look nicer so he could get a higher selling price. The motive may have been non-humanitarian, but the end result is the same regardless. The French intervention in the American Revolution was entirely to damage the Old Enemy, Britain. The Americans didn't care about that motive, all we cared about was that France was helping us achieve what we wanted.

Also, the benefit to the West in Libya is stability, NOT oil. Libya has so little oil that it is essentially irrelevant to the situation. The talking heads on the news (and Gadaffi) like to point to the oil as the cause, but Libya has about 1.5% of the world's oil supply. No one would notice if it simply disappeared.

Or, if the man was helping the homeless for the selfish reason of wanting the homeless to get jobs and later contribute to the economy and his income by renting out some of his apartments themselves.


Edit: Ed Milliband supports the action wholeheartedly
...and so does Nick Clegg

This was a great opportunity for them to act in their own political interests and stand athwart action, but it sounds like they might have the ability to be serious and not just oppose the decision in order to be difficult, with no real or substantial agenda behind them.

[LeftEyeNine]

It is true that nations generally only intervene in foreign countries when it is in their interests. The does not make the intervention evil though. Imagine a man helping all of the homeless people in his neighborhood to find shelter and get jobs. Now imagine the man was doing it only because he owned the property and wanted to make it look nicer so he could get a higher selling price. The motive may have been non-humanitarian, but the end result is the same regardless. The French intervention in the American Revolution was entirely to damage the Old Enemy, Britain. The Americans didn't care about that motive, all we cared about was that France was helping us achieve what we wanted.

Also, the benefit to the West in Libya is stability, NOT oil. Libya has so little oil that it is essentially irrelevant to the situation. The talking heads on the news (and Gadaffi) like to point to the oil as the cause, but Libya has about 1.5% of the world's oil supply. No one would notice if it simply disappeared.

The logic is in itself vulnerable and that's why I'm not buying it.

"I'll do something but you can't know why I do".

No.