Back to Libya...

[username]

While U.S. troops are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq in the supposed fight against terrorists..

That "supposed" is telling, isn't it? Are we involved in any war that isn't self-serving? I doubt it.

[Cracker]

We get over 80% of our oil from Canada. What are we getting out of Afghanistan? Tell me.

[Cracker]

Yeah, I didn't think so. Afghanistan DOESN'T HAVE OIL!

You fuckers are going to have to think up some other stupid bullshit line to use.

Did you people know that? No oil. I'll be damned.

Fucking liberal tards.

[username]

Yeah, I didn't think so. Afghanistan DOESN'T HAVE OIL!

You fuckers are going to have to think up some other stupid bullshit line to use.

Did you people know that? No oil. I'll be damned.

Fucking liberal tards.

AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GEO-STRATEGIC AND GEO-POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE

By Dr. Subhash Kapila

Introductory Observations

The United States new Af-Pak Strategic Blueprint has lumped together Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single hyphenated geo-strategic and geopolitical identity in the region as the central focus of its renewed bid to restore stability.

The dangers of strategically joining at the hip both Afghanistan and Pakistan together may be a wise tactical masterstroke but is strategically unwise.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are two separate and distinct geo-strategic and geopolitical entities. A comparative analysis of Afghanistan and Pakistan which this Paper attempts to analyze, would indicate that the geo-strategic and geopolitical significance of Afghanistan far outweighs that of Pakistan, both in regional terms and in the global power games.

In passing, it could also be asserted that despite its landlocked location, Afghanistan far outweighs Pakistan in geo-economic terms too both in terms of substantial deposits of oil and natural gas (assessed but not tapped) and as a energy corridor for Central Asia energy produce.

If Afghanistan was not geo-strategically and geo-politically significant, then the United States would have not have executed two military interventions in Afghanistan in a span of 20 years.


http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers3...r3139.html

[Cracker]

Look at the DATE, 2009. We started there in 2001.

There are no oil refineries there, no infrastructure. No investors want to fuck with it. Look at a map sometime.

IT ISN'T ABOUT OIL.

You people are idiots. You heard some stupid shit somebody else said and you take it as God's honest truth. Keep your CNN MSNBC view of the world. The rest of think you are sheeple.

[Cracker]

You had to google stupid shit to try to back up your opinion. You didn't even know why you had the opinion you have. You heard it somewhere. That is a fucking shameful way to be as an adult.

You should research BEFORE you form an opinion. I know you people had the Scientific Method in school. That was the fucking point.

[Cracker]

You maybe should have read the entire report you googled. The point was THIS:

"In terms of future US containment strategy of China, Afghanistan air bases offers better prospects than Pakistan, provided USA stays embedded in Afghanistan. Afghan air-bases also provide an added strategic asset for US strategic air coverage of the Central Asian Republics and the Middle East. "

It isn't about THE OIL. Jesus Christ.

The best part:

"Concluding Observations

A comparative analysis of the geo-strategic and geo-political significance of Afghanistan and Pakistan has contextually become pertinent resulting from the new United States AF-PAK STRATEGY. This strategy has changed American priorities of restoring stability and security in Afghanistan to that of retrieving Pakistan from state-failure.

The present analysis in the Paper, though brief has attempted to focus attention on the fact that the geo-strategic and geo-political significance of Afghanistan for outweighs that of Pakistan, not only for the United States but also for the major regional powers.

The United States can hope for a “strategic embedment” in Eurasia provided it strategizes for a sustained and prolonged engagement in Afghanistan by divorcing its historical baggage of bowing to Pakistan Army's strategic sensitivities over Afghanistan, disconnects Pakistan from its Afghanistan policy formulations and recognizes the strategic reality that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are using Islam and Islamist terrorism as a weapon to push USA out of the region. "

[Cracker]

I win, by the way.

[HairOfTheDog]

Here's what I don't get. Gadhafi has been in power for 42 years. He is an unstable POS and doesn't even trust his family and closest advisors fully, so he changes up his organization without announcement regularly to shield himself from an internal coup. Seems to work for him, but of course causes continual change of policy and instability for the Libyan people. Twice in my lifetime, I recall the US responding to threats and actions by Gadhafi with bombings, and talk of overthrowing him. Yet, he is still alive and in charge despite sanctions, military action, and years of rumors that we was on his way out. He always seemed to retreat after a major defeat and go under the radar for a while like a beaten dog, which often made me wonder if the US would rather deal with him than an unknown in the region.

It's likely, in my opinion, that the US and EU leaders would rather have this paranoid and somewhat impotent Gadaffi in charge than deal with an unpredictable new regime at this time. Continue containing the beast. But, it seems that the Libyan rebels are more organized than in the past and the Transitional National Council has a plan for running the country once Ghadafi is ousted. They are moving forward and do not want western military assistance, if I understand correctly. Game on between the Libyan rebels and the Libyan resistance.

The official US and EU positions seem to be that we are supporting the liberation and democratization of the Libyan people against a tyrannical and repressive regime, which is of course good. But, how do we ignore the fact that our enemies are fighting for the people we are currently supporting and these enemies will likely be a part of the "New Libya". Huge fucking concern, potentially helping to give birth to something we've spent 10 years trying to kill. Rock and a hard place doesn't even begin to cover the US's position.

[username]

I win, by the way.

Umm, yeah, you've proven that we're there for humanitarian reasons. We engage in war to help the less fortunate.

[Duchess]

You people are idiots.

That's such a broad statement, Cracker, exactly who are you referring to as idiots?

[BlueTiki]

That's such a broad statement, Cracker, exactly who are you referring to as idiots?

I'm going to wager Cracker is first refering to the author of the paper. C'mon . . . with a name like 'Subhash'? This doesn't work for either breakfast or smoking.

And the tired song of "oil". Let it go. However, if one would argue precious and scarce minerals and metals; I'll agree. Lose the oil argument. Petrochemical lubricants are easily replaced by natural and abundant fats. Liberal fags know these things - start telling the masses.

Cutting defense spending to balance budgets . . . yeah, folks . . . that's why the US is involved in Libya. With the decrease in European countries' defense spending, the US, ONCE AGAIN, fills the financial void.

And the tab on Libya to date? Almost $1 billion. Stimulus!

I guess that's why we couldn't pay our SS recipients . . . Libya entitlement.

However, since we're there, how 'bout sending us some of that oil to cover the costs?

That's why we're there.

[username]

IT ISN'T ABOUT OIL.

Actually, I didn't initially say it was about oil. I said our involvement there was self-serving.

I hope it is at least. Ten years later and considering the loss of life and the gazillions of dollars spent, I'd like to think that it was in the U.S. best interests to be there.

Free camel rides for everybody.

[Cynical Ninja]

Its not about oil its about an oil pipeline.

[Cracker]

You people are idiots.

That's such a broad statement, Cracker, exactly who are you referring to as idiots?

The "It's all about the oil!" people. That is just stupid as shit and I'm tired of hearing stupid-assed grown people, who should know better, pulling it out at every opportunity. Our boys are not dying over there so you fuckers can fill up your tank. It's fucking offensive.

Self-hating apologists live in a fucked up reality if they don't understand people are DYING so they can live in safety and freedom and so other peoples can have a shot at a decent life.

I just wanted them to know how fucking stupid they are for hearing that somewhere, believing it, and repeating it. I expect more from adults. If they don't understand war and why we go, just shut the fuck up and get back on Facebook.

[username]

Poor Cracker.

[Maggot]

Ron Paul would not put up with all this bullshit.

[Lady Cop]

they beheaded him in effigy.

[Lady Cop]

Former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is dead, reported Al-Ahrar, a National Transitional Council TV station. It didn't cite a source and the news couldn't be independently confirmed.

NATO said its aircraft struck two pro-Gadhafi military vehicles in the Sirte vicinity Thursday."These armed vehicles were conducting military operations and presented a clear threat to civilians," Col. Roland Lavoie said.

Earlier revolutionary fighters said they had captured Gadhafi, Libyan television said Wednesday, citing the Misrata Military Council. That report could not be independently confirmed. A National Transitional Council military spokesman told CNN that reports of Gadhafi's capture are only rumors. See the full story

Abdurahman Bousin added that it's doubtful that Gadhafi was even in or around his hometown of Sirte.

Fighters loyal to the NTC took control of Sirte Thursday, the council said. CNN's Dan Rivers is in Tripoli where massive crowds are cheering and honking their car horns. Many are shooting into the air in celebration.

[Update 8:07 a.m. ET] The State Department can't confirm reports about the capture or killing of Moammar Gadhafi, a spokeswoman said Thursday.

[Update 7:32 a.m. ET] A "big fish" has been captured in Libya, but a spokesman for the new rulers couldn't say for sure whether it was former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

[Cynical Ninja]

The BBC say rebel forces have captured him in whats left of his home town.