No Visa Free Visits to Sandro

[GQBlues]

The US didn't do it for the EU.  This disaster can be laid at the feet of Hillary Clinton, because both the  US intelligence community and the Pentagon opposed intervention in Libya.  But you can't say that she did it for the good of the EU, just as Iraq wasn't invaded by the US for the good of Iraqis.

Wrong. Try again.

Prior to the US invasion, Libya had one of the highest human development in all of Africa. Hillary was 'only' a Secretary of State. Understand the order of power in the US government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Africa

[Boethius]

I never posted anything about what was good or bad in Libya.  All I said was that US interference in Libya, Syria, and Iraq caused the refugee crisis today, and Europe is paying the consequences, rather than the US.

[GQBlues]

I never posted anything about what was good or bad in Libya.  All I said was that US interference in Libya, Syria, and Iraq caused the refugee crisis today, and Europe is paying the consequences, rather than the US.

Exactly. You're making a direct implication that the US's action in the ME as the result of the influx of refugees we see today.

Hence, I said it's best we keep unto ourselves...and we can begin by withdrawing from NATO, and then the UN. We have absolutely no business in the ME.

Qaddafi wanted to nationalize its oil even back in 2009. http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE51H0N120090218.

Just like the Iran's Ayatollah did back in 1979 and took it away from the Shah. Who do you think heavily relied on Libya's oil? When Iran tried to nationalize its oil before that, the US intervened at the behest of the UK as they relied on Iran's oil for their WW II recovery. The US in turn seated the Shah to insure continuous flow of oil to the UK.

The rest is what we have on our hands today.

[Boethius]

I don't disagree, but the US won't withdraw from the Middle East.  It is too important, geostrategically.

[GQBlues]

I don't disagree, but the US won't withdraw from the Middle East.  It is too important, geostrategically.

Too important for what exactly?

[jone]

Exactly. You're making a direct implication that the US's action in the ME as the result of the influx of refugees we see today.

Hence, I said it's best we keep unto ourselves...and we can begin by withdrawing from NATO, and then the UN. We have absolutely no business in the ME.

Qaddafi wanted to nationalize its oil even back in 2009. http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE51H0N120090218. Just like the Iran's Ayatollah did back in 1979 and take it away from the Shah. Who do you think heavily relied on Libya's oil?

While we are off topic, I think we do need an international body to combat terrorism.  I don't think the NATO framework accomplishes this.  But Europe needs to begin to pull its own weight.  I see Mutti is going to visit Washington in the near term.  Be interested to hear what she says after meeting with The Donald.    She is probably going to lose her election if she doesn't come up with something big.  So we'll see.

[Trenchcoat]

Those of you who wish to travel to Italy will now be required to use a visa.  Sorry, Sandro, one more hurdle in inviting ourselves over for a quick lunch.

While Visa free travel extends to most countries of the European Union, in coming to the US, the US has excluded Romania, Poland, Croatia, Bulgaria and Cyprus.  Yesterday the European responded by including all of the European Union as a visa required zone for US Citizens. 

This is significant because it very well could escalate in the other direction.  Western Europeans could very well be required to obtain a visa for visiting the US in the future.  However, the ESTA standard, in place now, by which Western Europeans need only fill out information online and pay around $20, seems to be working well and it would cost the US a substantial chunk of changes to change back to the Visa system.

The Visa requirement for US citizens is seen as a punative measure and is temporary, in effect for only 12 months.

See this is part of the increasing idiocy of the EU which is why I am glad that Britain is leaving the EU and why I voted that way. The EU is increasingly making poor decisions on behalf of its citizens and domineering what should be member nations rights to control. I personally do not have any more love for a politician in Brussels or in the UK but the EU is just not working for its citizens the way it should do. It wasn't too bad 15-20 years or so ago but its just being ran poorly and is a real getting to be a real hindrance to the UK. The US I have always felt has had a bit of a non-recipricol attitude to it as in they seem to expect terms what they are not always willing to give in return, but it often is not worthwhile getting into a spat over, at least not this way. Fortunately we will soon no longer be termed as West Europeans and hence hopefully avoid the VISA situation we have unfolding here. In fact it may be to our benefit in increasing trade and tourism with the US So we could actually benefit from invoking article 50 just at the right time.

[Boethius]

Too important for what exactly?

Wealth.

[GQBlues]

See this is part of the increasing idiocy of the EU which is why I am glad that Britain is leaving the EU and why I voted that way. The EU is increasingly making poor decisions on behalf of its citizens and domineering what should be member nations rights to control. I personally do not have any more love for a politician in Brussels or in the UK but the EU is just not working for its citizens the way it should do. It wasn't too bad 15-20 years or so ago but its just being ran poorly and is a real getting to be a real hindrance to the UK. The US I have always felt has had a bit of a non-recipricol attitude to it as in they seem to expect terms what they are not always willing to give in return, but it often is not worthwhile getting into a spat over, at least not this way. Fortunately we will soon no longer be termed as West Europeans and hence hopefully avoid the VISA situation we have unfolding here. In fact it may be to our benefit in increasing trade and tourism with the US So we could actually benefit from invoking article 50 just at the right time.

Correct me if I'm wrong here Trenchcoat, but doesn't your parliament at this time trying to introduce a referendum to either discard the previous vote to leave the EU, or are at least trying to attempt for a re-vote on the matter?

[GQBlues]

Wealth.

What wealth? Dead bodies?

You didn't answer my question above. Who heavily relied on Libya's oil?

[Boethius]

Most of the world's oil still comes from the Middle East, and it is mostly, though not exclusively, American companies that profit from its production.

[GQBlues]

Most of the world's oil still comes from the Middle East, and it is mostly, though not exclusively, American companies that profit from its production.

No it isn't on all points and you know it.

[Boethius]

Correct me if I'm wrong here Trenchcoat, but doesn't your parliament at this time trying to introduce a referendum to either discard the previous vote to leave the EU, or are at least trying to attempt for a re-vote on the matter?

No, they are not.  But Parliament must pass a law if Brexit is to occur, and MP's can vote as they wish.  Not all Conservative MP's supported Brexit, and most Labour MP's did not.

[Boethius]

No it isn't on all points and you know it.

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/worldwide-operations/locations

[GQBlues]

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/worldwide-operations/locations

Didn't answer my question. ExxonMobil are drilling/exploratory conglomerate. They are NOT the ultimate beneficiary of this oil.

HINT: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/01/libya-oil

[Boethius]

Irrelevant.  They are making billions of dollars from this activity.

[GQBlues]

Irrelevant.  They are making billions of dollars from this activity.

Translation: Yes, You're wrong and just don't want to admit it. Had the oil been nationalized, its citizens have total control of its oil and only a few approved, selected foreign companies can come and profit from their resource.

[JayH]

The EU needs to build a GREAT GREAT wall to keep all those Americans out!  !!!

Might I suggest the EU use a questionaire that elicits how the applicant voted -- and if they voted for the GREAT WALL builder the then need to apply for a visa.!

[Boethius]

Translation: Yes, You're wrong and just don't want to admit it. Had the oil been nationalized, its citizens have total control of its oil and only a few approved, selected foreign companies can come and profit from their resource.

Have a look at who profits from oil extraction around the world.

[GQBlues]

Have a look at who profits from oil extraction around the world.

We're not talking about the BIG WORLD, Boethius. We were specifically speaking of the Middle-East/Africa, notably Libya.

When losing an argument, you shouldn't have the need to pivot and deflect if you knew what you're talking about in the first place. You obviously did not on this issue.

[GQBlues]

The EU needs to build a GREAT GREAT wall to keep all those Americans out!  !!!...

Best you start a donation. EU is strapped of cash at this time. Please try again later.

[Gator]

There would be no significant refugee crisis in the EU today were it not for US meddling and fomenting war in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and probably Afghanistan. I actually supported Afghanistan after 9/11, but then it morphed from hunting al Qaeda to "nation building".  The latter is always a recipe for disaster.

It is so easy to blame the US IF one ignores facts and reality. 

Fact check, fact check, fact check.....

Syria - The US under Obama and Hillary did nothing when they had the opportunity to stop civil war hostilities.  I am speaking of drawing a redline and then being outsmarted by Putin into doing nothing, allowing Assad to bomb his own people.  EU should have done something in place of the US.  DON"T BLAME IT ON THE US INTERVENTION other than token arming of a few rebel groups with equipment captured in  Libya.

Libya - The US was part of the  NATO intervention authorized under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.  The world intervened so DON"T BLAME IT ON THE US INTERVENTION.

Iraq - Yes the US invaded Iraq in 2003, quickly defeated Saddam, then stayed.  The failure came in nation building.  Some form of stability was obtained but was lost when Obama withdrew too soon.  The post-withdrawal period created the most refugees due to sectarian strife.  YOU CAN BLAME IT ON THE US. 

Afghanistan- When the covert US military aid to the Mujahedeen resulted in the defeat of the Soviets in 1989, the US did nothing to help with nation building.  The Taliban soon took over most of Afghanistan.   In 2001 the US pushed the Taliban out and instead of doing nothing undertook nation building, with NATO joining in 2003.   The conflict with the Taliban continues as does nation building.  YOU CAN BLAME IT ON THE US AND NATO.

We have discussed this before, and I have corrected you before with hard facts, yet you persist in singing the same song.  Why do you not acccept facts?

Now we know why millions became refugees.  The fact that refugees spilled into Europe is not the fault of the US, the UN, nor NATO.  The fault lies in the immigration policies of certain European countries and enforcement thereof.    I understand Germany, Sweden et al welcomed the refugees.  You don't see any refugees in nearby, wealthy Saudi Arabia.


     

[Boethius]

We're not talking about the BIG WORLD, Boethius. We were specifically speaking of the Middle-East/Africa, notably Libya.

When losing an argument, you shouldn't have the need to pivot and deflect if you knew what you're talking about in the first place. You obviously did not on this issue.

It is not an "either/or".  The US has geostrategic interests in the Middle East, which include Israel, stopping terrorism from reaching the US (last two decades), and oil.  You have focused on the small picture, i.e., access to Arab oil.  But oil is a single market.  A supply disruption and ensuring America's enemies don't control that Arab oil is important so long as most of the world relies on hydrocarbons.  If that were not true, there would be no American military advisors/troops in the Middle East, and no naval port in Bahrain.

[Boethius]

Gator, there are more refugees in Lebanon and Jordan than there are in the EU.


Had the US not interfered in Syria with sanctions, freezing Syrian assets, and covert operations by the CIA before the conflict escalated, we don't know if it would have.  So yes, I do blame the US, though France, Germany and the UK also played roles.

[GQBlues]

It is not an "either/or".  The US has geostrategic interests in the Middle East, which include Israel, stopping terrorism from reaching the US (last two decades), and oil.  You have focused on the small picture, i.e., access to Arab oil.  But oil is a single market.  A supply disruption and ensuring America's enemies don't control that Arab oil is important so long as most of the world relies on hydrocarbons.  If that were not true, there would be no American military advisors/troops in the Middle East, and no naval port in Bahrain.

The genesis of this exchange were borne on the subject of 'refugees, in which you directly and solely accused the US's action in the middle-east. My riposte with you was the fact it only added to the need to walk away from NATO and the UN, as all it ever really does is give people like yourself the glee to point the finger at us anytime the sh!t hits the fan.

That exchange fell into the fact, there was little to no benefit for us to have engaged in LIBYA, even with the fact Libya never attacked any NATO member, especially the US - yet, NATO as a collective group - not just the US - attacked and bombed the crap out of that country anyway. It was a response to Qaddafi's attempt to nationalize its oil.

You want to blame these refugees on us, fine. You can do that anytime you want - but not knowing the truth behind what it is you think you know, doesn't diminish what reality says otherwise.

And like I said, the bigger insult to injury is having Obama classifying the country we just bombed to oblivion as a haven for terrorists.