tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post5203288523804278464..comments2024-01-20T11:56:48.682+01:00Comments on WindRose Hotel: Don’t Give to France What Is not France’sS.R. Piccolihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15622464895435470724noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post-3689289511309395042011-03-28T16:58:39.060+02:002011-03-28T16:58:39.060+02:00The oil theory is always a favourite, but whoever ...The oil theory is always a favourite, but whoever has oil has to sell it, and this, no matter who is in power. The clients of today become those of tomorrow, unless there is any valid reason to drop former clients. <br />One used the same argument for the Iraqi intervention, but we are still paying the market price of oil. When there's instability, the price goes up, so it stands to reason that a democratic country with oil resources, would be more stable than a tyrannic, totalitarian regime.<br /><br />Everyone knew it was right to stop Gaddafi. Had the US President not been sharply reminded by Hilary of the urgency of the situation, and Obama delayed things by another day or two, it might even have been too late. Gaddafi was banking on this.<br />All he needed was to take Benghazi, and the war would have been virtually over. Euro-American intervention would then have been considered unjustified.<br />The US shouldn't have delayed their support. They could also have recognised the Delegation of Libyan Transition, (what other alternative was there?) but militarily they could have held back even more.<br /><br />Whatever Sarkozy does or doesn't do, he won't gain any popularity contest in France, and he knows this. If he felt, as Cameron obviously did, that something had to be done without delay, it was because he, as well as Cameron, sincerely believed it.<br /><br />One can always find pictures of Presidents and Prime Ministers who apparently don't shun the contact of tyrants at certain times in history, but that means nothing.<br />Without referring to the ten years of subversive terrorist support, before he was given a sharp lesson by Reagan in 1986, what Gaddafi did to try to hang on to his power is inadmissible in today's world. In fact Gaddafis, like Husseins, belong to another age. All these uprisings seem to underline this. <br /><br />Today the 'oppressed' have mobile phones and Internet. They are freer than they were previously, but they can now see what they're missing more than ever, and they want and deserve the same extent of freedom.<br />Europe and the West can't help free everyone at the same time however, and must step carefully, because certain uprisings can be provoked by radical elements. But what is happening in Libya should act as a positive stimulant for the surrounding countries, especially Egypt that is geopolitically and strategically so important for the world. Naturally it's stability is essential.Mirinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14762774089637304953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post-339254610025906612011-03-27T17:14:22.890+02:002011-03-27T17:14:22.890+02:00Lots about this being said here. Leftists are upse...Lots about this being said here. Leftists are upset because Obama is using the military. Some of the Left is upset because he's using the military without Congressional approval. <br />On the right some are having a bit of fun saying Obama has gone to war for oil (the consistent charge against the Bush's). We agree with those Leftists that he didn't consult with Congress first. We are chagrined that France? has become the 'leader of the free world'...yikes! We don't think we have a dog in this fight (neo-cons do). About the argument of the UN that military force should be used when the rulers are killing or hurting their own people. If that's the case why wasn't there support of stopping Saddam, or Gadhafi before this, or the murderous regime in the Sudan, or Cuba, etc. <br />Gadhafi is a billionaire, yet the US has sent him tens of $millions for military support. <br />Then it turns out the opposition leadership is Al-Qaeda linked, so the knuckleheads at the top of our government don't even know who they're supporting with this action, or they are knowingly supporting Al-Qaeda.<br />My understanding is that a great portion of Europe's oil supply comes from Libya, so if they want to form a coalition and protect that resource, that's fine, keep the US out of it. Since such things have a tendency to escalate, we (some Conservatives) want to stay out of it because Obama is incompetent and in way over his head. (In the two years he's been in office, more soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan that during the whole of the Bush administration. Good grief, he even suggested giving medals to soldiers that withheld fire!)<br />Bottom line, this is Europe's problem, do it without US money and US military. We are $trillions in debt, and our military engaged in two wars already.Steven Dexterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15299032034330006689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post-24829542701469494152011-03-25T20:00:49.013+01:002011-03-25T20:00:49.013+01:00Excellent post indeed. As you have rightly said, s...Excellent post indeed. As you have rightly said, something had to be done to stop Gaddafi killing more of his own people. What we didn’t need was a coalition force without Germany and led by Sarkozy’s France, which is clearly Obama’s fault.Hans-Hermannhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/noreply@blogger.com