Is it possible Obama is protecting the Libyans not from Gaddafi, but from Europe?

[hedgehog]

I've heard reports that the English thin the former Interior Minister should be put in Gaddafi's place. A few months back, England freed the Pan Am 103 bomber with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge in order to get a better deal on oil.

What if England an France were going to go into Libya one way or another with plans to get control of Libyan oil? If the US had stayed out completely, we wouldn't have any say in whatever happened next.

I honestly don't know what the right thing to do would be. I think Obama is in a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

[displacedvermoter]

1. International gamesmanship of the highest order,

what else could we expect?

[Andy823]

2. Could be

I honestly don't know about the English and French wanting to take over Libya for it's oil, but I wouldn't doubt it. As for the idea that Obama is damned if he dose, and damned if he doesn't, I totally agree with you on that one! I see the same posters day after day, year after year complaining about Obama no matter what he does, or doesn't do, he can never win with those people. I also see more of the "new posters" coming in who do nothing but attack the president. Pretty obvious what their goal is and where they get their talking points! I always wonder how many of the right wing trolls that come here actually get paid for what they do!:shrug:

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. You mean "the UK", surely

England is not the UK.

And I seriously doubt that. The UK and France weren't going to go in anyway. Not without approval from either the UN Security Council or NATO. The Security Council voted in favour of the resolution drafted by the UK and France, with American support and abstentions from Russia and China (their protestations ring hollow considering that as permanent Security Council members either could have vetoed the resolution, and Turkish opposition to military action would have made the alternative route of NATO sanction for operations in Libya difficult).

[hedgehog]

4. I think England is the appropiate term here. IIRC, technically it

was the Scottish Parliament that pardoned the bomber, but there have been a lot of reports that the English Prime Minister pushed for the deal. It was a way of doing a dirty deal while seemingly keeping his hands clean.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. No, England is not the appropriate term, nor is it ever.

Unless you're specifically talking about the Kingdom of England as it existed prior to the 1707 Act of Union or the England football or rugby team.

The country which is a member of the UN Security Council is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Gordon Brown was prime minister of the UK (which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), not just of England. The Parliament at Westminster is for the whole of the UK, not just for England (despite devolved regional assemblies and parliaments for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland).

[hedgehog]

11. English Establishment maybe?

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Gordon Brown is Scottish, were you not aware?

His parliamentary constituency is in Fife. The word you want is "British".

[hedgehog]

15. OK - British Establishment! I'm really thinking of a group within

the UK which never has accepted the end of empire.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. You're also aware that the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, no?

And has military bases in the Mediteranean? The UK is still a world power, albeit not the dominant power it was before WWII. And British aims in Libya are not imperial (the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, explicitly forbidding the use of an occupation force, was drafted by Britain and France, not by the US). Your hypothesis is deeply flawed anyway, if the US were acting as a check on Britain and France (which is absurd), why then is the US seeking to hand over overall command and responsibility for military operations in Libya to the UK and France (or NATO) as soon as practicable?

[hedgehog]

21. I go by past history rather than current claims. How much of the carnage

in the Congo goes on because it suits the interests of various European companies? The US isn't the only country with policies influenced by the rich.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. You can't go by past history if you don't actually know that history though

which, forgive me, I'm not seeing much evidence of.

I sincerely doubt that civil unrest and violence are in anyone's interest; Western companies don't want to do business in civil war zones, and indeed the added costs of security and protection for mining and oil drilling operations in such parts of the world are things that no, people don't really want (to address the idea that "it suits the interest of various European companies").

[hedgehog]

26. History is written by the victors, I come from a long line of losers.....

wait - let me re-phrase that......

;-)

[blindpig]

5. Why should 'we' have a say?

In truth it is likely that the US is handing the EU Libya on a silver platter, knowingly or not.

[hedgehog]

7. It's tough knowing when to stand down from being the world's policeman.

[JVS]

6. What's the opposite of Occam's Razor?

[Stinky The Clown]

8. It is possible he is protecting them from Martians, too. Unlikely. But possible.

[DeSwiss]

10. Well firstly.....

...the nation-state name designations we have today, are used primarily for cosmetic and jingoistic purposes (USA! USA! USA!). Especially when they are juxtapositioned against global economics versus the needs of the poor and middle classes (or 99% of the world population). The rich have only one allegiance and that is to wealth.

Secondly, as for Obama being in a "classic damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario" -- well, that's what he signed on for, wasn't it? To make the tough decisions -- but to do so within the confines of the law?

"The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cost-of-libyan-intervention/2011/03/22/ABYfx8CB_story.html">~Barack Obama, December 2007

In the end what it all comes down to is our Constitution. That's all we've got between us and barbarity. At least that's what we claim anyway. Even though we do so mostly when it's convenient for those who advance this point.

- But either we are a nation of laws, or we ain't.....

[Catherina]

13. No. We're all going in there together. One big happy party

The English, the French, the Italians and whomever they choose to share the spoils with will get the oil so their industry won't take a hit and we'll all have a good location to squash future Arab revolts against our Arab monarch puppets in the Arab League. From the halls of Montezuuuuma to the shores of Tripoli...

[Scuba]

14. You mean the London Stock Exchange? BP? Xe? n/t

[hedgehog]

16. More or less, yes. Without having the time to research it right now,

I seem to recall Eisenhower stepping in to keep the UK and France from seizing the Suez Canal.

[Scuba]

17. In 56 I believe

[Modern_Matthew]

19. Yeah, he's getting pretty excellent at 3D chess. nt

[MrCoffee]

20. That's far more ridiculous than the stated reasons...

Are you really arguing that our reason for military intervention is to stake our claim to a share of the pie?

[Scuba]

22. No, that can't be it.....

:sarcasm:

[hedgehog]

23. Not to stake our piece of the pie, but rather to be in a position to ensure

it's the Libyans who get the whole pie! My understanding is that the opposition to Gaddafi is rather unorganized and very divided. I heard an NPR report yesterday that the UK government is getting ready to back one of Gaddafi's former Interior Ministers. I can't think of the guy's name right now, but Bush and Cheney had a puppet ready to go when they invaded Iraq.

I'm not sure if we should have gone into Libya or just kept hands off. I am leaning to the idea that our policy is based in part on ensuring that Gaddafi isn't replaced by a puppet.

[WatsonT]

27. Obviously not

that has never happened before.

[damntexdem]

25. Obama is in a strong position on this one.

True, it can turn sour; but it's very likely that he'll instead come out smelling sweet.

And it's one of the things for which I'll give him credit while bemoaning his generally-dismal record.