Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Butterfly]

[rollo]

I was shocked!! Shocked to hear that other countries such as Britain and Russia might possibly have intelligence agencies. If this is true, it might even be possible that they are involved in Libya. Far easier to blame it on the C.I.A. I know but just throwing out a far fetched idea.

[Space Bar]

[Space Bar]

I'd appreciate it if someone could answer this question: for 40-odd years, Libya had an internationally recognized government. How did it suddenly overnight become "illegitimate"?

[Butterfly]

[Space Bar]

[Kuros]

Yeah, I mean if Butterfly weren't on board for this, I probably wouldn't be. He actually speaks from authority, and on Libya even more than bucheon bum. He's not of the Chomsky-Margolis American-centric school of protest, which states that all you need to know is that America is involved, and you can make your decision.

Dutch Brig. Gen. Mark Van Uhm: I think with the assets we have, we're doing a great job

[Butterfly]

[rollo]

maybe I am wrong but I think the British had the biggest investments in the oil fields. So before the C.I.A. I would look at the Brits. But the Russians and the Chinese both have interests in the country. A forest of mirrors. The C.I. A. just gets all the publicity. Of course France and Italy also want to play there
But this whole thing has the feel of an indigenous movement. Butterfly thank for your insights gained from experience.

[Kuros]

[rollo]

So it is possible that Germany and Italy are stirring up trouble. Hell yes it is about oil. No one would live there if there was not for the oil. the rebels and the governmenti are not fighting to see who will control the huge sand resource.

[ZIFA]

[Butterfly]

[Ya-ta Boy]

^

There is entirely too much common sense and not anywhere near enough free associating about secret groups with nefarious intent in that for me to pay it any serious attention.

[wintermute]

Butterfly and Ya-Ta, I do not disagree with your positions. Democracy is preferable to a dictatorship. The people of Libya, like all people, should have a say in how they are governed and be free to conduct their lives as they see fit.

I think you would agree that this is a lose-lose situation for the Libyan people, and the international community as a whole. Ghaddafi stays, and he is forced to crack down on his own country to maintain control, and is pissed off at the rest of the world. He goes, and it creates a power vaccuum in which various groups will jockey for positon, and a benign, progressive democracy is only one of many possible outcomes.

EDIT - Added for clarity: So what are we really arguing about here? I don't think we established any common ground from which to debate our differences of opinions. I'd like to 1) break it down a bit by looking at the assumptions we have based our arguments on and 2) open up another dimension of discussion - the role of international bankers.

In situations like these none of us knows what is really going on. We can really only guess based on the gathered fragments of information that our current world view sensitizes us to.

Instead of automatically investing energy in identifying with and defending any one particular viewpoint, I think a more rational approach is cultivate the ability to view any situation from multiple paradigms.

For example, one paradigm might include the the assumptions:
- the US/NATO governments generally act on moral principles and are generally honest when justifying their actions.
- democracy an important goal, and sometimes it requires force to remove entrenched obstacles to it.

Another might be
- Oil is such an important resource that countries will lie, manipulate, and go to war in order to gain favorable strategic advantage with respect to it.

Another might be
- There exists a cartel of international bankers who seek to unite the world under one financial system, and under their control.
- They control countries through control of the money supply or through debt.
- Any country with an independent financial system is an obstacle that sooner or later will have to be overcome and brought into the fold.
- They have read "7 habits of highly successful whatnots" and are therefore PROACTIVE!

As an exercise, why don't the participants in this thread take a 'snapshot' of their current paradigm, and list all the assumptions it is based on.

So lets say the news item "Rebel forces create new Central Bank and national oil company" briefly crosses our awareness. The three paradigms above might give us three different responses: "Oh, good for them. They'll be back on their feet in no time", "Hmm, so there is likely to be a bit of reallocation of oil", and "So the international bankers are mobilized and taking a close interest. Interesting."

Personally, I find the third example above to be the most useful when trying to understand what is going on. So do some others:

http://www.opinion-maker.org/2011/04/libya-all-about-oil/