We have made counter points, you just fail to seem to join the dots half the time.
I have.
That's not what I said, they were negotiating before hand... maybe for oil. But not necessarily going in for it now. Stop twisting my words.
Although, to further counter this point, I asked a few friends at school today who are planning to join the army, navy etc.... not one of them wanted to join to defend 'Queen and country' they want to join because:
- They want to shoot guns
- They want to polish boots (This made no sense; but whatever, you have to be pretty weird to want to join anyway)
- One wanted to join because they'll pay you through university
- One actually wanted to join for the sole purpose of securing oil from middle eastern countries, no joke, they were actually serious about this.
So stop making this nonsense up that they only join for defence purposes. And as I understand it, so far our presence in Libya is currently relatively risk free anyway.
If you look at the ratio of the number of soldiers in Iraq, and the number of soldiers in Iraq you'd actually see that they're more likely to be run over and Iraq is this 'massive' disaster.
If someone says they have WMDs they don't say it because they don't intend to use it.
[QUOTE=-:Undertaker:-;7043345]So oil interests, as I keep saying.
I doubt that the global governments would be going in on the sheer chance that some good Libyan oil is found.
I said that you did not have enough points to prove a correlation, not that you didn't have enough pictures to prove your current ones. And as I have said before, without public support, the best they can do is pretend to get along.