|
Edited on Wed Aug-24-11 12:44 PM by sabrina 1
how 'well' foreign oil companies were doing with Qadaffi. They WERE doing well, until he decided that Libya needed to keep more of the profits, after which talk, as Bloomberg was reporting at the time, stockholders began to worry but as I said, it was also the currency issues, for which he had support from other African nations, that worried the Western Colonialists the most. You may laugh at his talk of that, the problem is, other countries have been interested, especially China with whom he was developing close relationships, in weakening the dollar for a long time. And despite your dismissive attitude, that is a very big issue for this country.
He DID privatize state owned companies, and then LATER threatened to start nationalizing them again. You ought to read the Wikileaks cables if you want to know what was really going between the West and Libya right before the convenient 'uprising'. As for his 'dealings' with the US, trying to comply with his demands held up business contracts for long periods of time, and he was making more each some were met.
I have to laugh at you of all people, talking about people getting personal. Generally that is not my style, but it is yours, and I respond to you the same way you address me since it appears to be the language you are most comfortable with, personal attack. An example:Meanwhile the comments about oil are patently dishonest (as per your own posts, but we'll ignore that)
As for Saddam and Kuwait, that was THEIR conflict, not the US's and the only reason we went there if for the same reason we are now in Iraq, in Afghanistan, secretly in Yemen, Pakistan, and everywhere else we are killing people for profit. Kuwait was crossing into Iraq's oil reserves actually, but the conflict was used as an excuse to get the US positioned in that region of the world, because Big Oil wanted to secure its holdings there.
We should be developing our own energy sources, but there is still so much profit in oil that is not going to happen as long Americans continue to support the US Colonial wars that we will keep engaging in anywhere there is oil and/or other resources, like natural gas, that we can control. After all those Arabs are not capable of taking care of their own resources.
And this, so familiar from the days when I argued with rightwingers over the illegal invasion of Iraq. They too had a favorite accusation for people who did not support that invasion. Not much difference between the so-called 'left' and the 'right' when you don't support their colonial wars Please spare me your sympathy for Gaddafi. Yeah, I was a 'Saddam lover' too according to rightwingers, without a shred of evidence.
Congratulations for your complete adaptation of Bush supporters' attacks on anyone who doesn't support the US getting involved in Imperial wars in the ME and Africa. I kind of have faith in the people of the ME and Africa in being more than capable of taking care of their own business, if the WEST WOULD JUST GET OUT OF IT! For centuries now, the West has done exactly what is happening in Libya right now, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And you can't support one while claiming not to support the other.
Sorry, there is absolutely no case to be made for US interference in Iraq and no excuse for the murder of 500,000 children so we can live in luxury here, and no case for our occupation of Afghanistan or our interference in Libya right now, or Yeman or anywhere else.
The only case that can be honestly made is as long as there is oil and profits to be made, bombs and weapons to sell, infracture to contract out to Halliburton after we destroy it, Americans, at least some of them, have the absolute gall to believe, as you have demonstrated above, that they DO have that right. Rather than use all those resources to develop new energy sources and to lead the world away from Oil which has been responsible for most of the wars of the last century, the US would rather go to war, drop bombs (plenty of money in that business also). And will continue to do so until its citizens simply say 'no more'.
It is inconsistent to support this lates 'humanitarian effort' and to say you did not support Iraq. According to our leaders, they were both for the same reasons 'to liberate the people' and to 'remove a brutal dictator who was a threat to the world' etc.
And no, we can't point to their terrorism, because we forgave them for it so long as they gave us access to their oil.
I wonder which of the countries on the PNAC list we will have to 'rescue' next? Iraq and Libya are done, my guess is will be Syria, or maybe even Iran if we get arrogant enough. And I'm sure we will hear the same rhetoric. Why change it, people still fall for it after all.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
