..to the shores of Tripoli...

tonyb

nooshinjohn wrote: »

^^Could also be that the Frenchies get a huge chunk of their oil from Libya.

....and we buy next to nothing from them. It will be interesting to see who gets new oil contracts after the dust settles and new nutjobs come into power.
Lybia,Egypt, and if the Saudi's fall, and the same nutjobs control all 3 countries, watch out.

hearingimpared

Demiurge wrote: »

Sonia Sotomayor.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA you still have it Dave.

Rivrrat

Maybe it has something to do with this: "On 23 February 2011, amidst the Libyan protests, Mustapha Abdel Jalil, former Libyan Justice Minister, alleged that he had proof that Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, had personally ordered Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to carry the bomb on to flight 103"

I think this is exactly what this is all about. We're still collectively angry about that, the UN finally took the leash off our military to go take care of Libya, and the military is relishing the opportunity to do exactly that.

And as far as a UN coalition goes, so far we've used B2 bombers and 114 cruis missles, along with f-15's and F-16's to attack ground forces. We have the technology and the numbers, i's pretty much our show.

Wait till our aircraft carriers get itno position early in the week.

Timothy Smith

Somehow with the French taking the lead in this fight I see the Libyan army marching down the Champs De Elysee and the French government and people collaborating, the Americans invading to kick out the Libyans, and the French people all later claiming to have been in the "resistance".

Or maybe I'm just being negative.

obieone

Maybe Sarkozy finally had enough of that 'Google search' gag

The only reason for the frogs, and the U.N. to do this, is, because they must believe it's going to be a cake walk.

I still can't wait for the Pravda outlets to spin this.......'No Blood for Oil'?:rolleyes:

Timothy Smith

What a world when the French President leads and the American president follows.

hearingimpared

Timothy Smith wrote: »

What a world when the French President leads and the American president follows.

Oye Vey!!! But nothing surprises me with our current chief executive.

disneyjoe7

It's a sign of weakness when the we follow anyone. IMHO

hearingimpared

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

It's a sign of weakness when the we follow anyone. IMHO

So is bowing low to other heads of state.

nooshinjohn

hearingimpared wrote: »

So is bowing low to other heads of state.

Come on Joe... The Prez lost a contact lens. Don't go making this all political.:biggrin:

hearingimpared

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Come on Joe... The Prez lost a contact lens. Don't go making this all political.:biggrin:

Ha haha, I thought he was just trying to move some gas pains around! He hehe.:eek:

george daniel

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

It's a sign of weakness when the we follow anyone. IMHO

+1 on that

treitz3

I have a question. I will be the first to admit that I am not the authority on the economy or international affairs and add to that, this is the first I have heard of this. That said, when I was growing up I heard and I guess always had the mindset that if the US needed to boost the economy....they would go to war.

War equals a better US economy due to the manufacturing of warfare supplies and logistical necessities. Here's my rather naive question. Does anybody think that this may be the case? Don't pound me into the dirt, I'm just asking.

cstmar01

treitz3 wrote: »

I have a question. I will be the first to admit that I am not the authority on the economy or international affairs and add to that, this is the first I have heard of this. That said, when I was growing up I heard and I guess always had the mindset that if the US needed to boost the economy....they would go to war.

War equals a better US economy due to the manufacturing of warfare supplies and logistical necessities. Here's my rather naive question. Does anybody think that this may be the case? Don't pound me into the dirt, I'm just asking.

eh it was shown that during the WWI WW2 etc that the economy went up etc. You could argue that seeing it created jobs for those that had to manuf. the goods etc that the soliders would use.

This is a bit different because we were at a world war. Plants that made all the stuff was here in the US and couldn't be exported to say China etc.

I'm not 100% sure where all the plants are that make all the military weapons etc are, or how much of an increase you would see in production seeing that there is also a surplus supply of weapons and I don't know who gets all the military contracts.

That being said, I don't believe it would have the same affect as it did years ago as it would today seeing it would possibly create some jobs but not as many as before. Smaller situation, bigger supply, outside US manf. (possibly on some stuff) etc all I think would lead to not as large of an effect.


Reminds me of the movie Canadian bacon lol

markmarc

Taking an abstract view for just a minute, this is a fascinating political situation that in some ways is quite unique, yet in others is very similar to the Gulf War under GHWB. We have the Arab League which passing a resolution requesting a no-fly zone, Al Jezeera network televising 24/7 for weeks Gaddafi's ramblings and actions, UN authorization to take what measures to protect innocent civilians, France taking a leading role, etc, etc.

Of course with any Arab uprising the concern is always what is the political beliefs of those who come to power. I thought Israeli PM Netanyahu's comments in his interview by Piers Morgan said a great deal. He had nothing but good thoughts about Gaddafi being off the stage. This tells me that Israel does not see Hamas or Al Qaida as having infiltrated the Libyan rebels.

Europe is involved because they are desperate to stop any additional influx of muslim refugees into Europe, both from an economic and political standpoint. If they can free Libya, the Egyptian oil workers can return to the oil industry jobs. They believe a key component to a peaceful middle east that doesn't export its people to Europe is a strong economy in the home countries. Secondly, as mentioned previously, Libyan oil is very high quality, and is a short distance away with nothing really to interfere with its movement once it leaves the port.

The big question becomes whether the rebels can quickly reorganize and begin marching back towards Tripoli. Or, if they end up in a stalemate situation. I'm sure the coalition hopes that at the very least the rebels gain control of the entire oil production and distribution network. The goal being to financially starve Qaddafi out of power.

obieone

treitz3 wrote: »

I have a question. I will be the first to admit that I am not the authority on the economy or international affairs and add to that, this is the first I have heard of this. That said, when I was growing up I heard and I guess always had the mindset that if the US needed to boost the economy....they would go to war.

War equals a better US economy due to the manufacturing of warfare supplies and logistical necessities. Here's my rather naive question. Does anybody think that this may be the case? Don't pound me into the dirt, I'm just asking.

Technology has pretty much put that economic theory to bed. 50 years ago it would take 1,200 men to run an Iowa class battleship. Today, due to technology and automation, an Aegis class destroyer can inflict the same amount of damage with 1/10th of the crew. Litterally.
And the civilian supply side is pretty much the same.
Those 112 TLAMS, prolly just gave 100 people 6 months worth of work. If that?
Also to note, is that, during WW2, the population of the U.S. was much smaller, and took a larger chunk of the poulation to make the war effort.

One more example: During the 1970's/80's, Raytheon used to be one of the largest employers in the northeast. Today...???


As to his motivation for doing this, it's very puzzling. Does not compute

nooshinjohn

obieone wrote: »

As to his motivation for doing this, it's very puzzling. Does not compute

It does if you look at it from his perspective. By making OUR military and our foreign policy subservient to the whims of the United Nations, he has once again shown the world that, from his perspective, America is irrelevant. Why LEAD when it is so much easier to follow and take the blame... "Mission Accomplished".:mad:

tonyb

nooshinjohn wrote: »

It does if you look at it from his perspective. By making OUR military and our foreign policy subservient to the whims of the United Nations, he has once again shown the world that, from his perspective, America is irrelevant. Why LEAD when it is so much easier to follow and take the blame... "Mission Accomplished".:mad:

It is baffleing, how we can go to war, without the consent of congress, on a whim from the U.N. I see the prez as an idealog who wants to hand over control of our wealth to the U.N. to be re-distributed by them. A re-organization of world power so to speak.
Even Bush had to get consent, and they still called it illegal. Now you hear crickets from the press. I believe even Bush sr. in the first Gulf war was critisized for not takeing Hussain down, but the U.N. resolution prohibited it. Yet he still had to get consent from congress I believe to go in to begin with. Obama thinks he's a dictator and can circumvent congress at will, and so far,he has.
I still beleive there are some outside forces at work driving these mid east uprisings. If it were true citizens rising up for regime change,we could help without a U.N. resolution and without putting our people in harms way. We've done it before. Let's look at the flip side though. We as a nation, in the past and probably still today, create situations,feed finance, to those willing to change regimes, that we think will benefit us, Agreed ?? Is it not logical to assume that outside, and inside forces are at work to change ours ? Think about it, and in your own mind,try to identify those who want to change America.