Thread: Libyas neighbours fear "powder keg" scenario

Originally Posted by lutherf

???

So that WHO could exploit the natural resources? Who is going to move into the area and open up shop? The US? France?

The answer for that was already stated at the end of the post you quoted.

Originally Posted by Brexx

How does destabilizing the region make it easier to exploit the resources?

Because the more organized those countries are the better they are equipped to keep from being exploited. Libya was the linchpin of that effort as he was pushing for many pro-African things (eg. setting up an African central bank).

What does "keeping them on the western elite's teat" mean?

It means undeveloped African countries have to continually turn to Western nations to get things done (especially in the context of technology).

Thats what happens when you wage a "kinetic military action" from 40,000ft.

The party you bomb will lose, but you have no control over the aftermath.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Thats what happens when you wage a "kinetic military action" from 40,000ft.

The party you bomb will lose, but you have no control over the aftermath.

Which might mean that (gasp) the LIBYANS will get to run Libya now.

A third world country actually managing itself. Will wonders ever cease?

Originally Posted by John Drake

Which might mean that (gasp) the LIBYANS will get to run Libya now.

A third world country actually managing itself. Will wonders ever cease?

It usually means the most well-organized violent group will run a country. Most countries in the world are run by the group that was most well organized and violent. Sometimes that group is considered "the good guys" and often "the bad guys". Our country is no different if you think of both the revolutionary war and the civil war in that context.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Meh. You assume that Chirac's reluctance to join your merry band of invaders was entirely due to economic interest. First, by doing that, you imply that the US motivations for invading were of a similar nature, even if you don't realize it. Second, you'll have to exert yourself a little if you want to make it stick, providing some numbers would be a start, some neocon opinion piece you stumbled upon ten years ago won't cut it. Finally, I could make an equally good case that the French reluctance to join in your war is proof in and of itself that their motivation had nothing to do with self-interest, since the demise of Saddam Hussein's regime was highly predictable, not to say ineluctable, considering President Bush's determination to bring it about. As you say, it would have made more sense for the French to join your little club, if they were greedy bastards, that is.

This 'proves' three points well known about Europeans in general and the French in particular:

It's good (invasion for economic gain) when WE (Europeans) do it, but bad when the US does it.

By definition: A great US president is one that does what Europeans want the US to do... ie: Libya

By definition: A bad US president is one that reminds Europeans the the US does not need them to do as we wish to... ie: Iraq.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Which might mean that (gasp) the LIBYANS will get to run Libya now.

Libyans have been running Libya since 1951, first under a king, then under a colonel, a "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution", and a "King of Kings of Africa".

Originally Posted by John Drake

A third world country actually managing itself. Will wonders ever cease?

I'm still waiting for the wonder to begin.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Because the more organized those countries are the better they are equipped to keep from being exploited. Libya was the linchpin of that effort as he was pushing for many pro-African things (eg. setting up an African central bank).



It means undeveloped African countries have to continually turn to Western nations to get things done (especially in the context of technology).

Most countries, including the ones in the region we are talking about, are more than happy to have their resources "exploited". It means huge amounts of foriegn capital coming into the country and a revenue stream to government that they would not otherwise have.
There was no need to destabilize the region in order to exploit the resources. In fact, if the whole idea was to get at the resources then "destabilizing" the region was exactly the wrong thing to do.

Undeveloped African nations do not have to turn to western nations to get things done. China is already a big player in Africa. They have lots of cash and are hungry for resources.

Originally Posted by tsquare

This 'proves' three points well known about Europeans in general and the French in particular:

It's good (invasion for economic gain) when WE (Europeans) do it, but bad when the US does it.

By definition: A great US president is one that does what Europeans want the US to do... ie: Libya

By definition: A bad US president is one that reminds Europeans the the US does not need them to do as we wish to... ie: Iraq.

And how exactly does "this", whatever it is, prove these 3 points of yours?