France, Britain seek exit from Libya

AFP ^ | 27 July 2011

[TigersEye]

Yes, we now agree that NATO countries went to war for oil.

[TigersEye]

The point I was trying to make is that Nato is not intervening to grab Libya’s oil per se,...

I never said they did.

[Vanders9]

Putting the word 'fulsomely' in there pretty much makes that statement a lie.

OK, consider the statement suitably modified.

Apparently that blunt clue wasn't enough to enlighten the space between your ears either.

You mean you don't take any prisoners?

[Vanders9]

Why would Hillary advance the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood? She doesn’t strike me as the type who would be happy in a Burka. Or is it a case of making what she can now and “apres nous le deluge”?

[TigersEye]

Why would she publically kiss Suha Arafat? Why would she groom the daughter of a radical Islamist scholar since the early '90s? Why would she recommend this Libyan action to the UN Security Council?

Hillary has been a Marxist since her college days when she represented a Black Panther and wrote a glowing thesis on Saul Alinsky. She is far deeper into the destruction of our Constitution than 0bama is. Decades deeper.

[TigersEye]

You mean you don't take any prisoners?

I have no room to keep them or food to feed them.

[Vanders9]

But its an important distinction to make, because this "blood for oil" charge is one that leftists make all the time, and by that they mean neo-colonialist seizing of a nation's economic property. But that is not true. Nato isn't in there to steal Libya's oil. It's in there to ensure that all the oil continues to flow, and that's a totally different spin.

Whether NATO is going about it the right way is another question entirely.

[Vanders9]

You could try giving them payroll rather than bayoneting them.

[TigersEye]

But its an important distinction to make, because this "blood for oil" charge is one that leftists make all the time, and by that they mean neo-colonialist seizing of a nation's economic property. But that is not true.

It might be important for you to parse it so you can feel good about going to war for it. It's a distinction without a difference. We are there, the U.S. and Britain, killing people to get cheaper oil. No other reason. If it makes you sleep better knowing we aren't physically taking possession of the oil (never been an important consideration in any case, it's always about the price) then you believe that.

[TigersEye]

Assuming ‘payroll’ is a British euphemism for ‘paycheck’ I can’t see any possible reason to do that. Bayoneting gets the point across better anyway.

[Vanders9]

Not all muslims are marxists, and for sure not all marxists are muslims. In fact about the only thing they have in common is their hatred of liberal democracy (I use liberal here in its classical sense). Do you suppose Hillary is stupid or confident enough to think she can use radical Islam as a tool to impose Statism in the US?

[Vanders9]

It might be important for you to parse it so you can feel good about going to war for it. It's a distinction without a difference. We are there, the U.S. and Britain, killing people to get cheaper oil. No other reason. If it makes you sleep better knowing we aren't physically taking possession of the oil (never been an important consideration in any case, it's always about the price) then you believe that.

Its not important for me, but it is important for others. People - voters more pointedly - are likely to be much less supportive of outright theft than they are of ensuring supply.

[TigersEye]

Yes, without a doubt she is and has shown herself to be a tool for that agenda many times. Their common cause was clearly exposed by the ground efforts of MoveOn.org in fomenting the riots in Egypt.

When you're a loyal spouse to a cheating husband who trades cutting edge ICBM guidance tech and cutting edge multiple warhead tech to the ChiComs for a measly couple of hundred thousand dollars in illegal campaign contributions what level would you not stoop to to destroy capitalism and the Constitution?

[Vanders9]

sorry, I meant “parole”. Its late here.

[TigersEye]

You’re the one making that argument. I see no moral or ethical difference in killing to manipulate prices and killing to steal outright.

[TigersEye]

LOL Parole has a lot better chance than payroll.

[Vanders9]

I am. And I continue to make it. Distinctions like that matter (at least politically anyway).

[TigersEye]

Karmically it doesn’t matter except for the added issues of deceitfulness that outright theft doesn’t have. Murder for gain is murder for gain.

[Vanders9]

I disagree. If you take something, you have it and someone else does not. If you just ensure its supply, it means THEY still have it. There is a difference there, (as well as the deceit of pretending you arent fighting for something).

And you could be hard and say why not go to war for oil? After all, the rise of Western Civilisation, its continued survival, and its hopes and dreams of flourishing are almost completely dependent on a ready supply of the stuff. And people have fought over resources for time immaterial - turf, living space, food, mates. Its nothing to be ashamed of - all living things do that. The only distinction we have is the sheer scale in which we go about it.

[TigersEye]

Suit yourself. Murder is murder.