French, British and American military forces attack Libya

Okay, you make it sound like Obama was just some poor man from the street who made it big in the world. Regardless of his youth, Obama was a very prominenent and popular junior Senator who often overshadowed his contemporary.

Besides that, Obama got more than enough corporate donations. You make it sound like you are painting Obama in the limelight. Why do you think the oil companies get away with price gouging in this country? And before anyone says otherwise, I'd ask them to answer how oil prices could fluctuate so rapidly especially increasing during the holidays and weekends. Attacks, political pressure and economic setbacks only occur on holidays and weekends, huh?

Anyway, certainly one of the reasons that oil companies can get away with the price settings that they do get away with in the United States, is because of the huge lobbying power they have in the White House. Obama wouldn't dare piss off the oil companies or he'd lose some of his biggest monetary support.

In that sense, he's just like every other corrupt politician who cares more about securing his popularity and position rather than trying to tackle something that might be fundamentally against his personal sustainability.

Of course he certainly was able to raise a lot of money via Facebook yes? and although he got "corporate" donations (at the time corporations couldn't actually donate but I get what you are saying), he raised 87% online. Just google it right now. $500 million, 87% online.

Another candidate could do the same.

Also, candidates stay popular by doing what people want them too. And no, oil companies aren't Obama's biggest contributors, I'm sorry but I just can't ignore that. As a matter of fact, they probably don't even like him seeing as how he does things like shut them down when BP had their oil spill.

There is nothing wrong with a President securing his position and trying to be popular (people despised how G. W. Bush always said he didn't care about being popular so I guess you can't win >.>). However, if you think Obama is corrupt, and that all politicians are corrupt, you should run for office since you'd be the only guy who'd run who isn't corrupt. Either that or find another politician you do trust and support him.

Point being, the fact you can do what I just said shows that the power still lies in the people - whether or not they use that power is another question.

Well, I should have specified corporate donations veiled as personal donations, but one could argue that's just a conspiracy theory on my part, but there is no basis to argue that one way or another.

Obama did virtually nothing in response to the oil spill. British Petroleum got out of that with nothing more than a proverbial slap on the wrist when a figurative estimate of how much damage it caused still doesn't even exist.

Besides, I wouldn't call someone who spent over $16 million dollars in lobbying Congress as a person who also doesn't have their hands in the President's pockets, but again that is assumption on my part. Just kind of funny when back in 2002 British Petroleum's C.E.O. was quoted as saying, "That's why we've decided, as a global policy, that from now on we will make no political contributions from corporate funds anywhere in the world." Yet that $16 million I spoke of was in 2009.

As for running for President that's glorifying it just a bit don't you think? There is more than just being educated and BAM! You can be President too! We're talking monetary contributions, popularity, alliances (both clean and underhanded). It's not all cotton candy and rainbows, and it isn't exactly plausible for the average American citizen to become president. The fact that the general public is painted a picture to the contrary is just horribly sad.

"Candidates stay popular by doing what the people want them to do?" Where have you been? Have you paid any attention to how the government works in the United States? Or did we tell Obama, "You know what, you don't need to worry about closing Guantanamo Bay anymore despite it being part of your platform to close it down for good. Better yet, why not restart it while you are at it? It's okay to go against your platform. You and every other President that has come and gone."

Your "consipracy" isn't completely unfounded, but it no longer matters to be honest. SCOTUS said that Corporations can donate since they are just a large group of people. So next election is going to be interesting >.>

Eh, I was living in Louisiana and I remember that there was a huge argument over whether or not Oil drilling should be stopped. Louisiana was trying to keep the drilling going since stopping meant lots of unemployment while Obama wanted a stop until everything was sorted out. All I'm saying is that he made no friends.

As for running for President, the requirements are not as modest as I implied, but my point is the fact you CAN do so was my point. Funraising and all that - look at Ron Paul. He wasn't rich (he was a gynecologist so he was well off but not RICH) and yet he raised money that would of rivaled Obama's intake. He just didn't go far because he was a Libertarian trying to run on a conservative ticket.

However, it is still realistic that you can run for local office right? You can make a mark there and affect your community.

Point is, not every polotician is dirty, and I would even say that most aren't. But you can at least kick em aside when if you can convince others that you think they need to go. That should tell you what my point was all about - power still resides in the people. If they aren't getting represented properly, then they just aren't exercising their power.

In the world of geopolitics you have to make assumptions based upon reasoned analysis, you usually don't know anything until it's already done, this isn't history neko-chan.

Your argument about the "human/morality" thing is laughable at most. The west didn't bother with similar incidents in other countries before yet they rush to the aid of oil rich Libya's rebels in a matter of days.

Just for interest neko-chan, what affliction would you personally like the government to be under?

[font=Verdana][color=green]It's quite funny at how this debate has quickly become an argument over America's involvement in world politics, as a whole.

I feel that this topic should swiftly get back on topic about Libya.

I'm not currently in a position to post at any great length, but from what I've read, you continue to perpetuate the notion that the US could apply taxes, withdraw support and convince the public of the merits of such a plan, while focusing on the minutiae of the arguments against. Like I say, both arguments are speculative, but there is no modern parallel with your idea that remotely fits with the size and reach of America. I would also appreciate it if you read the post after the 'rights' one where I clarify what I meant.

Also, butthurt on my part as it may be, BP has not been British Petroleum for a long time. It's barely a British company, and the majority of the executives and employees are American. Unintentional perhaps, but it clouds the issue.

[font=Verdana][color=green]Yup. It was american workers, working on an american oil rig, getting oil for the american economy. The only Britsh thing there was the name. It makes me absolutely laugh when Americans talk about how bad the oil was...it's all American's fault.

As long as the NATO units on the skies have AGM-88 HARMs and other hard-hitting munitions, this will be an easy task for 'em flyboys. They should also plan carefully about executing SEAD missions on Libyan soil. We don't want any crashed pilot being lynched by goatherders.

Alas, I can't remain here much longer so I propose a few questions to spur the debate back in the right direction.

Why should the United States involve itself in Lybia (or for that matter any other sovereign nation)?

Why can't the European Union handle the events in Lybia?

Are we going to ignore the people who support Qaddafi in Trippoli? Is it simply because the threat of civilians being killed that we should intervene? Should we do the same for other dictators who are accused of "violating human rights"?

If so, that would include Iran, Cuba, China, Russia and North Korea, should we interfere with their affairs by military action?

What if the rebels are worse than Qaddafi and they try to purge Qaddafi supporters. Should we try to stop that as well?

Why are we mandated to involve ourselves in the concerns of another Sovereign nation?

Do we have the right to invade another sovereign nation?

If so, do other nations have this right?


If we can invade another country to remove elements that we do not like, is another nation allowed to invade us for the same reasons?

If not, then why the double standard?

Ugh, I'm out of time. Tsurayu and others can add to the list of questions.

I think that it's stupid to invade people when we aren't making any money of it, we should cut down all the spending. I don't see where all the money is going anyway. I don't know the last time a public park was built, or a community center, so the spent money doesn't seem to be benefiting me at all. The other countries are probably going to get a pretty discount on oil for all of their help, so i don't blame them for stopping the violence and they can't be condemned for invading either, because they are not. They are defending people and i assume that they think that they are defending their interest. I would not a gun out of the hand of a concerned parent too, but then i would walk away and call the police because i have my own family to take care of. America has helped do that, time to let the little boy grow up and move away from his mother by himself and with the help of child services. (mom:gaddalfi, boy:libyan rebels, concerned stranger: America, child services: UN)oh, I respect both opinions, but it is not any of our business, that is why we took the trouble to form the UN, so we could have an excuse to diplomatically let the old people die with the comfort that everyone agrees that it's for the best if that is so

I think this sort of thinking is a bit shallow when it comes to politics, no offense intended.
American involvement with the no fly-zone insures if the rebels win the US will most likely get a fat discount on oil and or other resources. If they lose the western powers till have a 'bad guy' to beat on or possibly invade a-la Iraq - Win-win for the western powers.

But we don't even get oil from the Libyians, you might be right though, I never really considered the U.S. getting oil from them because everyone else seems to just dismiss the idea earlier on in the conversation

Wait... let me get this straight. You call tazpup's idea shallow yet you would like to see the United States get some kind of stipend for helping out with the efforts in Libya? Who has the shallow idea here? Looks a little blurry from this side.

Besides, I highly doubt that to be the case. We get most of our oil from Canada and the Arabic nations. The European Union is hardly going to agree to giving up a huge source of their oil to the United States regardless of any deals made between either the rebel forces or Gaddafi.

And if Gaddafi remains in power that gives the United States the cause for a full scale invasion of Libya? Why the hell for? Libya poses us no threat, nor any threat to anyone else. I don't understand why some of you want us to get involved in the affairs of another country when so far it has remained within their own borders. Let the Libyans handle their coup d'etat.

It's getting to the point where if someone even whispers anti-democratic propaganda that it is just cause for the United States to step in with armed conflict. It is no wonder the whole world hates us so much.

[font=Verdana][color=green]Pretty much summed up all my thoughts on the American involvement, Tsurayu.

I agree that those people should be left to their own devices,we only look bad with further intervention. I already hate how we Americans are insulted and are the constant eye of international scorn. The simple fact that we are in debt and need to take the time to become economically stable, makes me more upset. I have always believed that you should do what benefits you, not what screws you. This is just another incident that helps screw us and we can be critized about. We helped them express their opinion, so we should leave it at that. In response to what you said, I don't mind having shallow goals. The simple ideas are what save lives, jobs, and time, so if we start a war and it gives more people jobs and we are making money by taking over oil fields, and beating up a bad guy, I would be all for it, but at it's base, that would be unjust against the libyian people. They don't like us interfering, so let us just take a break and cut government spending. Sounds simple, but America's politicans are so stuck up their own ass trying to find a sophisticated answer, that they can't see how simple(however painful) it would be to get the economy back on track.

As long as we don't go to war and no US soldiers are sent out then I won't care.

I think the Libya situation is a good example of why being a World Power really, really sucks.

If we go in, we have to tread incredibly carefully so as to not make this look like Iraq Mk II. The very fact of US and British planes in Arab airspace has horrible repercussions. At the moment the Arab League and [more importantly] Turkey have given the mission nominal support, but the longer that goes on the more tenuous it's going to be. Best-case scenario is that the rebels get to Tripoli, lynch Qadhafi, imprison/kill a bunch of his supporters, and try to work out a new govt with the aid of the US, France, and Britain. Cue accusations of the new govt being a US puppet, and the so-called Arab Spring takes a huge hit. Worst-case scenario is that it turns into a long bloody stalemate, the Arabs and Turk withdraw their support, the US, France, and Britain look like Evil Imperialist Dogs, and the so-called Arab Spring takes a huge hit.

At the same time, say we didn't go in. Qadhafi's forces [a large number of them mercenaries from Mali and elsewhere] enter Benghazi and slaughter thousands of rebels. The number of dead is negotiable, but it would have been big, it would have been brutal, and it would have been very, very public. Cue the outcries of 'why didn't you help them?' 'another Rwanda,' 'another Srebenica,' 'another Darfur,' etc. Cue the accusations that the West has no support for Arab democracy, only cares about oil and propping up dictators, etc, and the so-called Arab Spring takes a huge hit.

So, yeah. The thing about having power is that no matter what you do with it, you WILL piss off someone.

I honestly hope they get Gadaffi soon, I'm sick of seeing his face on the news. The NATO forces also seem a bit. . . stubborn, they don't like to admit it when their air strikes hits allied rebels or civillians

So, supposedly, Gadhafi is dead. Many Western news outlets are finally going from "captured and wounded" to "killed" probably because it makes for a better news story. United States government doesn't have the proof they want, so there is no "official" reaction from the U.S. government yet.