Edward Snowden identified as source of NSA leaks

[Deleted]

No, I mean Europeans.

I answered to that above but sorry that must have been your impression.

- - - Updated - - -

Destroy a country to take their goods? What?

Ah hold on sorry. Replace an evil dictator and bring democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

France has very strong imperialistic tendencies too mind you.

[Reeve]

I answered to that above but sorry that must have been your impression.

- - - Updated - - -



Ah hold on sorry. Replace an evil dictator and bring democracy.

I'm pretty much OK with helping locals kicking a guy out of office who was hiring mercenaries to come in and kill his own people when it's quick and easy to do so and when doing so doesn't immediately guarantee a nasty regime in its place.

[Mayhem]

I'm pretty much OK with helping locals kicking a guy out of office who was hiring mercenaries to come in and kill his own people when it's quick and easy to do so and when doing so doesn't immediately guarantee a nasty regime in its place.

uhm i´m not too sure, but didn´t the ones now at power declared sharia law again? ... i don´t think that´s really any better

and for all craziness ghaddafi was known for he actually tried to work for a better and stronger africa (at least if i can trust my best friend) so yeah, don´t take my word for fact, it´s what i heard, literally

[Wikiy]

Sorry to disagree but as they say... Speak for yourself.
France's action in Libya (due to the inability to trade with Iran ((due to the trade sanctions imposed by...hummm well whatever ))) were disgusting. You don't destroy a country to take their goods.

Yeah, and the US invaded Iraq for oil, right? No. France also didn't intervene in Libya for goods. They did it because they wanted to get rid of an oppressing dictator, and the people of Libya wanted it.

[Deleted]

I'm pretty much OK with helping locals kicking a guy out of office who was hiring mercenaries to come in and kill his own people when it's quick and easy to do so and when doing so doesn't immediately guarantee a nasty regime in its place.

Absolutely. The fact that Libya is a top producer of probably the finest oil around with a staggering 1.6 million barres per day for the next 90 years, and that the rebels were funded also directly by Italy's eni and France's total is a coincidence.

[Wikiy]

uhm i´m not too sure, but didn´t the ones now at power declared sharia law again? ... i don´t think that´s really any better

and for all craziness ghaddafi was known for he actually tried to work for a better and stronger africa (at least if i can trust my best friend) so yeah, don´t take my word for fact, it´s what i heard, literally

Does the following sound like Libya is worse off than when it had Gaddafi as its leader:

On 7 July 2012, Libyans voted in parliamentary elections, the first free elections in almost 40 years.[86] Around thirty women were elected to become members of parliament.[86] Early results of the vote showed the National Forces Alliance, led by former interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril, as front runner.[87] The Justice and Construction Party, affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood, has done less well than similar parties in Egypt and Tunisia.[88] It won 17 out of 80 seats that were contested by parties, but about 60 independents have since joined its caucus.[88]

As of January 2013, there was mounting public pressure on the National Congress to set up a drafting body to create a new constitution. Congress had not yet decided whether the members of the body would be elected or appointed.[89]

Following the 2012 elections, Freedom House improved Libya's rating from Not Free to Partly Free, and now considers the country to be an electoral democracy.

[Deleted]

Yeah, and the US invaded Iraq for oil, right? No. France also didn't intervene in Libya for goods. They did it because they wanted to get rid of an oppressing dictator, and the people of Libya wanted it.

"Dictator", "people", "oppressing"....
You forgot "fascist" otherwise it would have been a perfect comment.

[Mayhem]

Does the following sound like Libya is worse off than when it had Gaddafi as its leader:

no, absolutely not, i stand corrected, thank you

[Kalyyn]

Kalyyn, you are an intelligent, educated human being.

You don't know that. I could be a gerbil!

Do you think your post I'm quoting is the result of a sound, reasonable judgement, or more the irrational rant of prejudice and misinformation? I'm talking to you honestly, don't take offence of anything, please. Just... Read again what you said.
Why would anyone hate someone else for no reason?

Oh it's most certainly irrational prejudice. I won't argue against that. Despite my mocking, Mayhem is correct. I am quite paranoid. But frankly, I couldn't stop being paranoid if I wanted to. The world makes a lot more sense when you just assume that everyone wants you dead.

[Mayhem]

Yeah, and the US invaded Iraq for oil, right? No. France also didn't intervene in Libya for goods. They did it because they wanted to get rid of an oppressing dictator, and the people of Libya wanted it.

a whole ´nother topic, i still wonder why the US invaded iraq, if it was for any good reason, why´d they had to lie? forget it, this goes offtopic

- - - Updated - - -

You don't know that. I could be a gerbil!


Oh it's most certainly irrational prejudice. I won't argue against that. Despite my mocking, Mayhem is correct. I am quite paranoid. But frankly, I couldn't stop being paranoid if I wanted to. The world makes a lot more sense when you just assume that everyone wants you dead.

damn i wished i was wrong, sorry to read that

[Kalyyn]

damn i wished i was wrong, sorry to read that

Don't worry. I'm mostly harmless.

[Reeve]

Absolutely. The fact that Libya is a top producer of probably the finest oil around with a staggering 1.6 million barres per day for the next 90 years, and that the rebels were funded also directly by Italy's eni and France's total is a coincidence.

If I were Total/ENI, I'd sure as hell want to get that rebellion over with ASAP. I'd also probably prefer to avoid the rebellion in the first place. That rebellion was extremely expensive for oil companies (and oil company contractors like mine).

Either way, the oil in Libya doesn't detract from the positive aspect of kicking someone out of power that was killing his own citizens.

[Laize]

You're mistakenly believing that I approve of domestic spying. Which is weird, because we literally had this conversation not 12 hours ago. I guess you thought I was lying? Or maybe I don't know my own opinions?

My mistake. Though IIRC you seemed to oppose Snowden because you think he gave foreign governments classified information?

[Deleted]

You don't know that. I could be a gerbil!


Oh it's most certainly irrational prejudice. I won't argue against that. Despite my mocking, Mayhem is correct. I am quite paranoid. But frankly, I couldn't stop being paranoid if I wanted to. The world makes a lot more sense when you just assume that everyone wants you dead.

This is a wonderful yet extremely sad post, and I praise you for it.

[Wikiy]

a whole ´nother topic, i still wonder why the US invaded iraq, if it was for any good reason, why´d they had to lie? forget it, this goes offtopic

True, it is another topic. All I was trying to say is that saying France invaded Libya for its good is as far-fetched as is saying the US did the same to Iraq for oil.

[Reeve]

a whole ´nother topic, i still wonder why the US invaded iraq, if it was for any good reason, why´d they had to lie? forget it, this goes offtopic

I honestly think it was just Bush wanting to finish what daddy started. And I think it's quite possible he believed his own stories about WMDs. I don't think it was a lie, so much as a failed justification.

But yeah, I was very much against that war from the start. Seemed very much out of left field. Honestly though, the "America always goes to war to get resources from poor countries" crowd will always point Iraq out, even though it wasn't American oil companies mostly that have been redeveloping Iraqi oil fields. They'll make similar claims about Afghanistan even though the resources weren't found until after we were already in the country for a while, and China is the one getting the most access. Hell, I've even seen some people say we invaded Afghanistan for the opium, for goodness sake.

[Deleted]

True, it is another topic. All I was trying to say is that saying France invaded Libya for its good is as far-fetched as is saying the US did the same to Iraq for oil.

No not really. Why would you think that? Are you making an absolute statement like "no war is fought over resources"? Or are you saying "based on facts this war was about removing a dictator"? Cause there are facts that point at a resource based invasion too you know? Involvement of foreign oil companies during the war, international deals before and after the war, the race towards reconstruction, the unused refinement plants...

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly think it was just Bush wanting to finish what daddy started. And I think it's quite possible he believed his own stories about WMDs. I don't think it was a lie, so much as a failed justification.

But yeah, I was very much against that war from the start. Seemed very much out of left field. Honestly though, the "America always goes to war to get resources from poor countries" crowd will always point Iraq out, even though it wasn't American oil companies mostly that have been redeveloping Iraqi oil fields. They'll make similar claims about Afghanistan even though the resources weren't found until after we were already in the country for a while, and China is the one getting the most access. Hell, I've even seen some people say we invaded Afghanistan for the opium, for goodness sake.

"Resources" doesn't mean "oil" only. Going to war to abuse of land through investment doesn't make the war any more justified...

[Mayhem]

i´m still not to sure if it wasn´t just for preserving the status quo, namely petrodollar... so it musst not have been for the ressources itself but in what currency they are traded

it´s weekend guys and i´m going to get wasted, read you tomorrow, have a good one

[Reeve]

No not really. Why would you think that? Are you making an absolute statement like "no war is fought over resources"? Or are you saying "based on facts this war was about removing a dictator"? Cause there are facts that point at a resource based invasion too you know? Involvement of foreign oil companies during the war, international deals before and after the war, the race towards reconstruction, the unused refinement plants...

Whether or not the war was "about" resources, it would be stupid of the oil companies not to take an active interest in it. Oil company involvement is not in any way proof that the war was about the oil.

"Resources" doesn't mean "oil" only. Going to war to abuse of land through investment doesn't make the war any more justified...

Can you explain what you mean by this?

[Kalyyn]

My mistake. Though IIRC you seemed to oppose Snowden because you think he gave foreign governments classified information?

He revealed that we were spying on our allies. Which, as we discussed before, everyone and their grandmother already knew. But it's the principle of the matter.