US(and a bunch of other places) vs Libya, GO!
- Thread starter SovietSecrets
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well... yeah, you're right in the last part, about Americans being mad. And again, this is because we have China here. If we broke from china (slowly of course) and made our own products, we (Americans) would be more used to the idea, since it would bring more jobs in, and create more money to spend.thelonewolf266 said:
What China does is it floods the market with cheaply priced goods, meanwhile in their own country they sell it for an outrageous price to make up for the loss the producing company takes. There's a term for it, I just forget what it is.
Because of this, the Yuan (the Chinese currency) is severely low in value, so what China wants to do is raise that (because the US [and most of the world]'s economy is crappy right now [though the US is showing signs of bouncing back. We're offcially out of the recession, and right now its just getting people back to their jobs and reducing the unemployment. If we can get rid of Unions, or at least take away some of the power, then we can boost the manual labor stuff that China does for us and give those jobs to Americans), which means that its going to have to start raising its price on exported goods. So they're banking on the hope that the US will see no other alternative and continue to buy from China.
HOWEVER: If China went to war against the US, tehy're not going to export, and the US wont Import. The US does have the means to make the stuff china does for us in the US (Steel and plastic especially. Pittsburgh [where I live] would raise once again to a huge manufacturer of Steel, and a number one exporter, like it was back in WW2). China doesnt have that much outside of the US and their allies to trade to and make a profit. Sanctions from US allied country, or Western Countries, would largely destroy China's economy (and their will to fight a war). So the US citizen loses the ability to complain when the realize THE GUY THAT TRADED TO US, IS NO LONGER TRADING TO US!
tl;dr China's Domestic Economy is Garbage, but their foreign is incredible. Take away the latter, the former wont support and makes the country crumble. Its much hte same as those Oil rich countries that like to say with them, the US would collapse, when really without the US, they would collapse.
The US isnt THE driving force behind this one. Sure, they're one of them, but this is France and Britain. Actuallly, this is really the UN (mainly) but specifically France and Britain. Both of whom do enjoy Oil too.Bobbity said:Did anyone not see this ages ago? The Libyans have oil, and that's motivation enough
Anyway, it's probably just going to make things worse for Libyans in the short term. Let's hope the long term benefits to the people of Libya outweigh the short/mid term suffering.
It'd be really nice if the US could stop going to war with everyone though, and just be happy with peace for once.
/edit
I don't think this is going to be as bad as Iraq, because the people are already in rebellion, and once the current Libyan government is gone, the violence will hopefully die down pretty quickly.
The title (and perception) needs a complete overhaul to accurately assess the situation.
AccursedTheory said:
Interesting reads. Might try and find the original source, if its on Wikileaks. The Guardian is usually good for presenting things as they are, but its still a newspaper, and therefore EVIL!Littlee300 said:
Anyway, one of those articles does say that China would act to prevent a "third party" interfering militarily with the Korean Reunification. This may not mean that China and N. Korea are best buds, but it still supports my point that interfering with North Korea would aggravate China, whether it is in their best interests or not.
Still, I fancy having a read of the original source. Don't suppose either of you fine gentlemen have a direct link? Perhaps you, Mr Google?
If it was in their best interests, or if they stick to their declaration on the Reunification of Korea (ie, any foriegn party that militarily involves itself with Korea shall feel Chinas WRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATH!) China would probably use force. They have the largest standing army in the world, might as well use it!Nouw said:
In all seriousness, it depends on the circumstances of any intervention. If there was a large scale rebellion in N. Korea (unlikely, because of the MASSIVE amount of indoctrination),it could possibly end up like Libya, with China abstaining from the vote. If it could be seen as American Imperialism, it is much more likely that China and America could meet in battle.
EDIT: America owes China an incredible amount of money. They both rely on each other, economically. Someone else (with a much better understanding of economics than me) posted slightly earlier.
Yeah, China and the USA seem pretty dependent on one another. Also i don't think China would step in their relation with NK are pretty poor.Nouw said:
OT: I am glad for the involvement. Even if benghazi if taken i think that Gahdaffi is done for anyway. The rebels will carry the day in one form or another. Libya would probably be leveled though.
It is, and thats so the US will buy from China (because the exchange rate is cheap, and over values the US dollar. I did mention that in my post. Thats why China needs to start raising it now, because there's a push for the US to manufacture more Domestically, and not rely on Foreign. If Unions lose their power, then this will go a long way closer to happening, and China will lose much of its income, because if the US starts making things like Steel, and then exporting them (because US steel is much higher quality then Chinese) China will lose partners all across the globe, and go back to a a second world (or at worse third world) country.Baradiel said:
Hitting NK will start WW3 without a doubt but people sometimes dont tend to think things through, series of events: North vs South Korea fight, US gets dragged in due to our alliance and that we have thousands of US troops in the south, when the U.S gets dragged in NATO gets dragged in because "an attack on one is an attack on all", China wont stand for this and backs the North like they have done before, China's allies also attack and thus ww3, good job.
This is the easiest way to deal with all of these problems. Unfortunately, people with morale standards seem to believe mass extinction as a bad thing. (anyone else realize that the world's population started to skyrocket once the medical fields became advanced and the world decided it wanted to protect everyone)2xDouble said:
http://subdude-site.com/WebPages_Local/Blog/topics/environment/enviro_worldPopGrowth_charts.htm
the fact that the worlds population is basically exploding, a few mass exterminations could possibly help make our resources last longer. not that its likely to every happen.
*finds thread on recent developments in Libya*
*comes up with well reasoned analysis of situation*
*goes to end of thread and finds conversation has totally shifted focus*
Foreign policy is fun stuff. I wish more people gave more thought to it than a single glance reaction. I'm glad the community here is generally better than that.
Edit: Gah, ninja'd several times over.
*comes up with well reasoned analysis of situation*
*goes to end of thread and finds conversation has totally shifted focus*
Foreign policy is fun stuff. I wish more people gave more thought to it than a single glance reaction. I'm glad the community here is generally better than that.
Interesting article, seems well reasoned. China seems to be operating more and more on realpolitik (albeit fairly responsible realpolitik) than anything that's suggested in their founding principles (it's almost as if they're becoming responsible or something), so it wouldn't surprise me if China's favor for a united Korea went beyond favor for either the North or South. Still, I have to wonder how receptive the South would be to any serious political pressure from China, given the increasingly nationalistic and hawkish stance their government seems to be taking.Littlee300 said:
Edit: Gah, ninja'd several times over.
Firstly, there are only 7 countries going in, the US, the UK and France. It would have been easier saying that that instead of proclaiming "THE US... and some other places". indicating that somehow the US is more important. And considering the French were the first in, if anything it would be France and other places.EcksTeaSea said:
.Lopsided Weener said:
The issue is that Gaddafi does not have a legitimate government in the first place, coming to power through armed coup (as far as I am aware, someone correct me if I am wrong) and that any claims he may have had to legitimate authority went out the window when he began using open and illegitimate coercion against peaceful progresses exercising their human and democratic rights.
So long as we don't go arming the rebels things are looking OK. Gaddafi's a jackass, and bombing his army balances things out for the rebellion, and makes life easier for the average citizen. So long as no foreign troops even move in, there shouldn't be any issues like Iraq.
No. Gaddafi was using jets on civilian protests long before and 'rebellion' arose. He saw the troubles in neighbouring countries, saw a rise in popular opinion for regime change, and decided he would stay in power at all costs, or take everyone else down with him. He is a grade A asshole - he's not even an elected government, just a dickhead with guns. Why are you defending him?Lopsided Weener said:
"I understand he fired on peaceful protesters, but..." there is no "but" to that. Step back and think for a second about what that implies. I simply can't comprehend this sort of an attitude.
Finally, no one's "going in" - just bombing the shit out of him to STOP HIM ASSAULTING CIVILIANS WITH AN ARMY. No ground forces; just aerial support to the home-grown rebellion.
If his government was truly illegitimate then why were western governments still willing to treat his government as legitimate before all of this? I believe there's videos of Tony Blair and other European nations welcoming Gaddaffi with open arms only a few years ago.Cpt Corallis said:
I understand what you're saying, and maybe good will come of this, but there's numerous other examples where ruthless dictators have committed crimes far worse than this and nothing has been done. You don't see the UN enforcing no fly zones over the Democratic Republic of Congo do you? The only reason we're intervening is because it's in the interest of some other nations, and not in the interest of the people. (However in this case their interests coincide.)
I doubt it somewhat as the Arab League gave full support to the UN over the no fly zone.GotMalkAvian said:
Also, can everyone stop calling this a "war" that the USA started? It was a joint British-French initiative at the behest of the Libyan rebels. Last week, The British government was criticised by Washington over "loose talk" about the possibility of a no fly zone. I'm not saying that the US will have no part in the operations in Libya. They undoubtedly will, my point is simply that a lot of US politicians were not champing at the bit for another round in the middle east.