Chess Scotland Noticeboard

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

With reference to the earlier geo-political debate regarding the American influence on world affairs (their just in it for the oil) I guess Andrew and Steve expect the USA to be sending in the GIs any day now? After all there really is oil in Libya.

Thoughts?

If the situation were to deteriotate underwhat circumstances should USA/NATO/UN intervene with force? Or not all?

AMcHarg · Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:38 pm Post subject:

No thanks, don't want to see more of our soldiers going to die in foreign lands, not for oil or anything else that might be a 'suitable' reason. Exclamation

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

I am asking for predictions because the impression one got in the previous discussions was that it was easy to make such decisions and that the American's actions were always predictable.

AMcHarg · Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:07 pm Post subject:

AMcHarg · Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:19 pm Post subject:

I don't think America will do anything about Libya, the public would not support it. They are already fighting two wars ('on terror') so they won't stretch to another one. That's not to say that if the opportunity arose for a strategic boming of Gadafty then they wouldn't take it, they might.

I think you got the wrong impression from the previous discussions, certainly on my part. Much of what I said was playing on general public perception and done tongue-in-cheek. The main points I was making was that while it may seem wrong to suggest that 'it was just about oil', it may well be wise to consider why people think that.

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

"I deny it all my lord it was said 'tongue in cheek' " ploy. Come on we wont start an arguement with that girlie attitude.

Laughing

AMcHarg · Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:16 am Post subject:

Paul Denham · Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:58 am Post subject:

America to stay out of it initially at least overtly in terms of military.
America to get heavily involved rebuilding Libyan army capability - as it seems they were deliberately weakened over the last 4 decades.
America to get heavily involved or stay heavily involved in supporting their oil infrastructure.
America to help the new regime (if its stable) to expand said oil/gas industry such that they offer genuine prosperity or the prospect of it to your average Libyan and make the new regime to appear or to be progressive in terms of quality of lifestyle for Citizens of Libya.

David Cameron to be seen walking the streets of Tripoli in next 2-3 weeks as he did in Cairo, if it stays as stable/euphoric as Egypt did.

Massively Massively in the Western World's interests to be friends to both the new Egyptian and I expect new Libyan administrations.

I commend the following Daniel Yergin book to anyone interested;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Prize-Epic-Quest-Money-Power/dp/0671799320

I see he has a sequel out soon too.
_________________
It is said that life is too short for chess but that is the fault of life, not chess

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

"David Cameron to be seen walking the streets of Tripoli in next 2-3 weeks as he did in Cairo, if it stays as stable/euphoric as Egypt did. "

Haven't the Libyans not suffered enough? Would this not be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Mike You must have noticed that the Americans and their puppets in London are choosy about which countries they choose to invade. History has proved that Afghanistan has always been a difficult country to invade .
Why have they allowed a tyrant such as Mugabe to survive in Zimbabwe, a country where they have seen the type of inflation not seen since in Germany in the 1920's . Why has the a certain previous PM not apologised for lying about WMD and why has the current PM not taken action on this.
I have a somewhat cynical view towards the current crop of politicians and I will speak out it is called free speech

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

Alex McFarlane · King Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 413

I think every arbiter in Scotland. Very Happy

And seeing my post number maybe that comment should be consigned to the (Dusty) Bin

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

Steve

AMcHarg · Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:29 pm Post subject:

Jim Stevenson · Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:41 pm Post subject:

re. Zimbabwe: Thirty years of the most cynical, systematic, policy of blood curdling atrocities might strike even the most committed pacifist / non- interventionist as a mitigating factor for regime change Sad

But then again, there is little 'economic value' for the west in doing so. That country was bled dry long before Mugabe feasted on the scraps. Moreover, military invasions of (even recently '-ex') Commonwealth states has never been a feature of the government's foreign policy. Wink

HughBrechin · Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:08 pm Post subject:

There are ... connotations ... to large quantities of British troops marching into African capitals that our leaders have been fairly keen to avoid for the last four decades (the French, for whatever reason, have suffered significantly less from such qualms, as it happens). Sierra Leone was an exception, but that was back in the halcyon days of Blair's liberal interventionism. Doubt it would happen now - and it was in a horribly conflict-ridden 'failed state': Zimbabwe still functions after a fashion.

Apart from anything else, Mugabe holds multi-party elections (very unfair ones, but they happen, which puts him in a category with a good few other leaders) on a semi-regular basis and enjoys genuine support among at least a fair proportion of the population. He's a deeply unpleasant leader, but he's not a straight-down-the-line autocrat like Saddam Hussein was.

One point is that Africa is a phenomenally resource-rich continent (apparently the DRC's natural resources are worth about $24 trillion, which is well into wow territory). Zimbabwe's got some pretty sizeable mineral reserves (diamonds, platinum and stuff), it's just that they're mostly being cornered by Western companies at the moment anyway.

The other complicating factor with Zimbabwe is that one of Mugabe's remaining sources of support is that people respect the way he stands up to the former colonial overlords, and British governments who fulminate against him only plays into his hands domestically. I don't think invading would have gone down well at all, the most successful charge ZANU-PF make against the MDC is that they're UK-backed stooges and installing them in power after an invasion wouldn't do wonders for long-term stability. Pretty sure government policy at the moment is just to hope he snuffs it as soon as possible.[/b]