The Libya Deception

uprising2

phosphate wrote: »

Well....i did search, that's why i'm confused by your claim China has more invested in Libya than Russia.

Gazprom (a russian company) for example have invested billions of dollars.
As I said in previous posts, they offered to buy all oil and gas from Libya..that's a pretty big investment.

http://www.gazprom.com/production/projects/deposits/libya/

Just there in February, they bought a stake in Elephant Oil Field with Eni from Italy which has reserves of about 700 million barrels of oil, valued at $163 million.

http://www.gazprom.com/press/news/2011/february/article109011/

More than 50 international oil companies are present in the market and together with subsidiaries of the Libyan National Oil Corporation (NOC) are contributing to the country’s current production capacity of 2m b/d. NOC plans oilfield investment of some $10bn over the coming three years to increase potential production.
http://www.oilandgaslibya.com/

The below article is about sanctions on Libya leaving oil investment in Libya in Limbo, maybe an attempt with sanctions to halt all deals and allow the new regime to make new deals favoring the saviours UK, France and USA and also stopping russia's attempt to buy it all, even making US oil companies stop trading with Libya until democracy is restored, so they cant be accused of double standards, then the rebels who have set up a new national oil company will become the "Legitimate" state oil company after Gaddafi is killed accidently on purpose.
BP and a couple of others already have the deals, Russia don't for the big buy, and the rebels have stated that contracts will still be honoured, meaning BP and co will be back to plunder, 3 way deals will be done..... cheap oil for the saviours UK/France >>>>weapons sales/donations (paid with taxpayers money and oil money) to the new Libyan regime>>>>>Russia won't get to buy all the oil and gas from Libya, they didn't come to save the rebels.

2nd UPDATE: Libya Sanctions Leave Oil Cos' Investment In Limbo
Tuesday, the U.S. Treasury banned U.S. companies from dealing with 14 entities controlled by Libya's National Oil Co., or NOC. The designation prohibits U.S. parties from financial transactions with the state-owned companies, including investments and crude purchases. The European Union is set to follow suit Thursday with its own sanctions on oil companies owned by the government of Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
The U.S. designations built on earlier U.S. sanctions on Libya and followed a United Nations resolution on the country designating NOC as a state-owned entity last week.
Among the entities designated by the U.S. Tuesday, Waha Oil Co. operates concessions partly owned by U.S. companies ConocoPhillips (COP), Marathon Oil Corp. (MRO) and Hess Corp. (HES). Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY) also has interests in the country.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110323-715369.html

Richard tea

Very interesting to hear what the Russians have to say about the gaddafi air strikes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF7Ncr1vIA8

Overheal

Worth mentioning the Russians were talking with Ghadaffi about putting a Russian Naval Base in Libya; specifically to counter US presence in the region.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/00e2583c-a743-11dd-865e-000077b07658,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F00e2583c-a743-11dd-865e-000077b07658.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMuammar_Gaddafi

Richard tea

Overheal wrote: »

Worth mentioning the Russians were talking with Ghadaffi about putting a Russian Naval Base in Libya; specifically to counter US presence in the region.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/00e2583c-a743-11dd-865e-000077b07658,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F00e2583c-a743-11dd-865e-000077b07658.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMuammar_Gaddafi

FT.com articles are only available to registered users and subscribers.

Overheal

Libya to discuss hosting Russian base

MOSCOW, Oct 31 - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, starting his first visit to post-Soviet Russia on Friday, will discuss opening a Russian naval base in Libya to counterbalance US interests in the region, a newspaper reported.

Colonel Gaddafi, who last visited then Soviet Russia in 1985, is expected to discuss purchases of Russian arms and energy co-operation during his three-day trip.

enno99

The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq

http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/the-cia%E2%80%99s-libya-rebels-the-same-terrorists-who-killed-us-nato-troops-in-iraq/138/

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met late Monday with a leader of Libya’s increasingly beleaguered opposition, but did so privately and without a public statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/africa/15clinton.html?_r=1

Mahmoud Jibril

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Jibril

I dont think A humanitarian mission is top of the list with all these Jackals sniffing around

namloc1980

Overheal wrote: »

Libya to discuss hosting Russian base

MOSCOW, Oct 31 - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, starting his first visit to post-Soviet Russia on Friday, will discuss opening a Russian naval base in Libya to counterbalance US interests in the region, a newspaper reported.

Colonel Gaddafi, who last visited then Soviet Russia in 1985, is expected to discuss purchases of Russian arms and energy co-operation during his three-day trip.

Yet Russia silently acceded to the military action being taken against Gaddafi by abstaining from the Security Council vote.....go figure?

Jeboa Safari

Here's an article from 2004, its somewhat satiracal, but paints a good picture of Gadaffi and the type of man he is I think:
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7183& IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=1

April 5, 2004

There are parts of the world that should be declared Zones of Total Bull****. Take Libya. It seems like everybody who even tries to talk about the place starts lying. The latest lie is that "Libya has renounced terrorism and WMDs" because Qadafi, the little colonel who runs the place, saw what happened to Saddam and surrendered to the forces of good. Here's a typical headline I picked up off the net: "Qadafi Buckles after Eyeing Saddam in His Spider Hole."

Saying that Qadafi "buckled" just now is like saying that a sixty-year-old prostitute just lost her virginity. Qadafi's done more buckles than the Bangladeshi sweatshops that make my XL belts. Qadafi has specialized in giving in to any pressure for more than 30 years -- then taking revenge, backstabbing-style.

And saying Qadafi's "renounced weapons of mass destruction" is more crap. Officially, what he did was announce that he's giving up any plans for missiles with a range of more than 186km and weapons with a payload of more than 1,000 lb. Sounds nice, but it means absolutely nothing. Qadafi's history shows two things: first, he'll say anything, sign anything, to save his skin; second, he'll find a sneaky, bushwhacker's way to get even. Not with missiles or air-dropped bombs, but by funneling oil money to somebody who's already got a grudge against whoever's bothering him. Getting him to renounce WMDs is like getting the Mafia to sign a pledge that they won't conduct air raids. That's not how they do things in the first place, so they'll be happy to sign. Then they'll take revenge with a knife, or a silenced .22, or a car bomb.

Qadafi's army and air force never were worth a damn. The only Libyan organization that ever worked efficiently was the secret police, and they do their business mafia-style, in the dark, on the sly. If you want to see how Qadafi works, take a look at two classic cases: the US air raids in '86, and the Chad civil war.

If anybody deserves credit for scaring Libya straight, it's those F-111s that Reagan sent hunting for Qadafi's presidential tents so they could leave him a few 1000-lb calling cards. Bush and Cheney taking credit for it now is ridiculous. Next they'll be claiming they led the charge up San Juan Hill.

For you kids who're too young to remember the raids, here's a little background. First thing to realize is that Reagan was a closet peacenik, a real disappointment to guys like me who thought he'd release the dogs of war that Carter'd been keeping penned up. Most of the reason people voted for Reagan in 1980 was they thought he'd stop appeasing every anti-American terrorist bum. I remember drooling thinking about the way our fighter-bombers were going to level Tehran once Reagan got in.

But Reagan seemed afraid to hit anyplace bigger than Rhode Island. Instead of vaporizing Khomeini's hometown, he thanked the Iranians all nice when they handed back the hostages. I couldn't believe it. He wouldn't even send Stingers to the Afghan mujadedeen till the Mi-24 had practically wiped them out. And the only countries he attacked were basket cases you needed an electron microscope to find. Anybody remember the heroic invasion of Grenada? Reagan's PR flacks were strutting because our invasion force managed to overwhelm a brigade of Cuban construction workers "after a fierce firefight." It was a hard time to be an American war fan. Like Johnny Cash says, "I hung my head."

Then Reagan found an enemy that was just his style: a drama queen named Muamar Qadafi who was all talk and no guts. Qadafi took power in Libya way back in 1969 -- it was your classic coup by "idealistic young officers" -- and ever since he's used Libya as a private video shoot, where he imitates whatever's cool in Third-World attitudes at the time. Back in the seventies, naturally, he was a "Socialist" and a "Pan-Arabist." Qadafi had himself named "Head of the Revolution Command Council" and the only legal political party, which he naturally called the "Arab Socialist Union." He took over Libyan TV for speeches so long and boring they made Castro look like the 5-Minute manager. He pranced around in nomadic robes, got himself an all- girl bodyguard unit, and wrote one of those all-knowing little books that dictators like to put on their resumes. Mao had the "little red book," so Qadafi came out with his little "green book," and made it a felony for anybody not to be carrying one around at all times.

If there was anybody who was just begging to be slapped down, it was Qadafi. He declared an official "Line of Death" around the Gulf of Sidra, halfway out into the Mediterranean, and swore anybody who crossed that line was finito. So we sent a couple of fighters over it, and blew the Libyan MiGs that came to meet them right into the water. It was sweet. We did it again, and this time we blasted two of Libya's destroyers away when they steamed at us.

By this time even a sunshine soldier like Reagan was feeling pretty good about slapping Qadafi around. It was as safe as mouthing off to your own reflection in the mirror, Taxi-Driver style. So in April 1986, after the Libyans bombed a GI disco in West Berlin, Reagan sent the planes at last.

The raid was officially called Operation Eldorado Canyon. Don't ask me where they got that name. Sounds more like one of those subdivisions they're building on the dry riverbed outside Fresno.

The goal was to kill or at least scare the hell out of Qadafi. There was one complication: the Europeans, who were chicken**** as usual. Nobody but Thatcher would let their territory be used for bases or even overflight. The one leader with balls on the whole continent, and it was a woman. How do you Europeans live with yourselves? You used to BE somebody. Now look at you. Can't breed, can't fight, won't stand up for yourselves...makes me sick.

Anyway, no overflight meant our planes had to take off from England, fly over the Atlantic, through the Straits of Gibraltar, and then turn right to hit Libya -- a 6,400-mile trip. The only plane we had that could handle a trip that long and deliver any significant ordnance in a night attack was the old F-111 "Aardvark." This was already an old, old aircraft. A big, fast, smooth piece of Detroit iron that flew, kind of like a 1961 Caddy with wings. Plenty of front-seat legroom, with pilot and co-pilot sitting side by side like they were cruising Main Street.

The Aardvark, I hate to say it, didn't exactly cover itself with glory in the raid. Out of 18 F-111s that fanned out over Libya to hit terrorist training camps, ministries and Qadafi's royal tent, only four actually dropped their bombload. Eight planes had technical problems and six couldn't be sure of their targets. To sum it up, the raid was a tactical failure.

But like a lot of tactical failures, it turned into something like a strategic success -- thanks to Qadafi, w ho instead of manning the barricades and daring the Yankees to try it again, bitched out totally and begged us not to hurt him anymore. He made us look good, and proved in the process what a total pussy he was, is, and always will be. So when Qadafi crawls around kissing our feet and begs us not to hurt him, it's just him doing what comes naturally.

Qadafi's such a wimp that he didn't just "buckle" to the US and Britain way back in the 80s, but he even "buckled" to Chad, the lowliest, most messed-up country in the world. What the hell does Libya have to do with Chad, you're wondering? Well, it was like the only date Qadafi could get to the prom -- the only country even more messed-up than Libya. Qadafi started out looking east, to Egypt and Israel. He tried to unite Libya with Egypt in one big happy Israel-fighting family. The Egyptians had a good line about that merger: "It is an excellent plan. Libya has the money and we have the brains." Libya had the money because it's got oil. That's the only reason Qadafi can afford to run around embracing causes and printing his book.

The money was the only thing Egypt wanted from Libya. Sadat was way too smart to let a big-mouth flake like Qadafi in on his real plans. When the Egyptians attacked in Sinai in '73, they made a point of not telling their Libyans pal about it. Qadafi was so offended he stomped off in his high heels and sulked. If his fellow Arabs were going to be all mean to him like that, he'd find new friends. So he decided Libya wasn't so much Arab as African. Instead of Pan-Arabism, he took up Pan-Africanism, started wearing those funky dashikis and playing those little hand-harp things, talking about his "brothers" down south, Across the Sahara.

This had the black Africans laughing so hard they turned blue, because the coast of Libya used to be the world's biggest WalMart in the trade in black Africans. Introduce a Libyan to a black man and instead of shaking hands, he'll pry the guy's mouth open, check out his teeth and say, "75 dinars, not a shekel more!"
The rest of Africa was happy to take the crazy Arab's money, but they didn't really want much to do with him. So Qadafi decided to get his own little imperialist game going. The only African country close enough and weak enough for Libya to mess with was Chad.

I love that name. A country named "Chad." Sounds like somebody who lived next door to the Brady Bunch. But if Chad actually lived next to the Bradys, Greg would be roasting over a slow fire and Marsha would be standing naked on an auction block, because Chad is one of the hungriest, craziest, most desperate places on the planet. Chad has every possible birth defect you could give a country if you wanted to make sure it was going to be screwed up forever. It's in Africa, for starters. It's landlocked. It's mostly desert, with one small fertile zone down in the south to make all the desert nomads jealous. It's got the classic Sahel division between Muslim north and Christian south. It had the French in charge for most of the 20th century (I said the French were good soldiers, I never said they were good colonizers). And maybe worst of all, it was stuck due south of Libya just when Qadafi started turning his greedy little eyes in that direction.

There were so many little wars going on in Chad in the late seventies that Qadafi could pick which ones he wanted to fund. And boy, was he fickle. He started out doing the obvious thing, backing Muslims in the north rebelling against Christians in the south.

You have to feel sorry for the poor black people in southern Chad. For hundreds of years, they were nothing but livestock on the hoof for the Muslim slave-traders who'd raid south and capture whole villages to sell. Then the French come along and show them the benefits of civilization by drafting them into the French army. Next thing you know black guys who'd never been out of the village end up in the trenches at the Marne. Not many of them ever came home from that European vacation.

Then finally, the southern blacks in Chad get the one piece of good luck in history: the French get out, and since the South had the only fertile land and the only real city, they get to be on top for once. No more slave traders carrying off your kids. No more recruiting officers humming the Marseillaise while they help your son trace his name on the enlistment papers. For once, they can look forward to minding their own business, dealing with ordinary misery like drought, locusts, and every kind of tropical disease known to man. Paradise!

Well, it didn't happen, thanks to good old Qadafi. With new money and arms, the Muslim leader, Habre, made his move and captured the capital, a mud-brick hellhole called N'Djamena.

This was strictly by the book according to the rules of African warfare, which state "the worse the hellhole, the harder they fight for it."

The rest of the civil war went by the book too. The black Christian southerners fled the city, headed south to stay with relatives, and started killing any Arabs or Muslims they could find. They found about 10,000, by all accounts, chopped them up and felt better about losing their city gig. Then-and once again, this is strictly old-school, by-the-book stuff -- the winners started eyeing up each other, looking for weakness, and not even bothering to thank the foreigners who'd bankrolled them. Once he'd taken the capital, Habre wouldn't even return Qadafi's calls. In his classic drama-queen style, Qadafi flounced around his tent, sulked, and did what he always does: gave money to his ex-best-friend's worst enemy. Habre's worst enemy happened to be a Southern-Chad Black Christian Colonel named Kaougoue. Qadafi funded him anyway. So much for Islamic unity.

Then he switched his backing again, to a group of Chadian rebels who had migrated south from Libya. The idea was to lead up to annexing the northern half of Libya. So much for African unity.

When that failed, Qadafi decided to withdraw from most of Chad, but he gave himself a little going-away present, annexing a piece of northern Chad called the "Aozou Strip."

Then came the ultimate humiliation: Qadafi's army and air force couldn't even hold onto that. Habre's rebels took it from the Libyans in a battle which might've been the debut of one of the major new weapons systems of the late 20th century, the "technical." If you've read up on Somalia, you know that a "technical" is just a Toyota 4wd pickup with a big machinegun or grenade launcher welded onto the bed.

The Chad rebels used them to zoom into Aozou, blast up the Libyan garrison, and zoom out. It had Qadafi's sorry-assed soldiers pissing their pants. They brought in the Libyan Air Force, took back the town -- and then got even more faced when the Chadians sent a convoy of technicals right into Libya to shoot up an airbase 100 miles north of the border.

That was it for Qadafi. He did what he always does when somebody fronts up to him: he caved. Since then he's been very, very polite to the Chadians.

You get the picture? This is a man who has no guts and no shame. Getting him to "buckle" is nothing new, and nothing to brag about. You want to do something impressive? Get Kim Jong-Il to sing "Give Peace A Chance." Yeah -- big televised duet with Yoko. That's when I'll be impressed.

Overheal

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yet Russia silently acceded to the military action being taken against Gaddafi by abstaining from the Security Council vote.....go figure?

/shrug

With so much attention on the issue (And who only knows what public reaction in Russia) it might have been political suicide to vote against it or veto.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

/shrug

With so much attention on the issue (And who only knows what public reaction in Russia) it might have been political suicide to vote against it or veto.

Not really. the entire thing is a total cluster**** atm, they'd be entirely justified by saying this beforehand.
Also if they're that afraid of political fallout, why were they doing deals with Libya in the first place?

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

Not really. the entire thing is a total cluster**** atm, they'd be entirely justified by saying this beforehand.
Also if they're that afraid of political fallout, why were they doing deals with Libya in the first place?

What I mean to say is that the Russian people may not have so easily just watched themselves Veto a resolution that would stop a bunch of people from being killed.

Any other theories as to why they abstained

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Any other theories as to why they abstained

They simply didn't care and didn't want to vote with America?

Overheal

Lest I be further accused of "ignoring the oil argument" - can any of the Oilers - the oil truthers - please explain, what they think the US will gain from this? Now I know you all think it's all about the USA, so I'm asking specifically about the USA. I'm all too aware of politicians and pundits that agree that a) the douche needs to be intervened with and b) if it can support our economic interest at the same time, all the better.

But prior to this intervention at least, the US has not really been buying all that much oil from Libya at all. Earlier I asked (and was ignored by the Oilers) if it was a matter of taking out an OPEC member who didn't want to bring prices down, or, do you have something which may prove that there was some reason the US has not had any significant investment in Libya up to now, and let's even give you the benefit of the doubt that they will invest much more in Libya when "a pro-west dictator is installed".

If you posted that information already I may have glazed over it - but thats OK! Because people have been glazing over all those little stubborn "facts" I've been posting all week, and I've had to repeat myself quite a bit.

enno99

Overheal wrote: »

Lest I be further accused of "ignoring the oil argument" - can any of the Oilers - the oil truthers - please explain, what they think the US will gain from this? Now I know you all think it's all about the USA, so I'm asking specifically about the USA. I'm all too aware of politicians and pundits that agree that a) the douche needs to be intervened with and b) if it can support our economic interest at the same time, all the better.

But prior to this intervention at least, the US has not really been buying all that much oil from Libya at all. Earlier I asked (and was ignored by the Oilers) if it was a matter of taking out an OPEC member who didn't want to bring prices down, or, do you have something which may prove that there was some reason the US has not had any significant investment in Libya up to now, and let's even give you the benefit of the doubt that they will invest much more in Libya when "a pro-west dictator is installed".

If you posted that information already I may have glazed over it - but thats OK! Because people have been glazing over all those little stubborn "facts" I've been posting all week, and I've had to repeat myself quite a bit.

Gazprom controls about a third of the world's gas reserves and it is responsible for a quarter of Europe's supplies



Critics say that Russia is using its energy resources as a political weapon to pressure European and former Soviet countries to adopt favourable stances towards Moscow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7240462.stm

As uprising said they made a bid for all of Libyas oil and gas

So having Libyas oil and gas adds a little more weight to that stick

Not ideal for US to have its allies/coalition partners beholden to Russia for more of their energy

maybe its not about how much the USA consumes of Libyan oil but who controls it

Jeboa Safari

So why didn't Russia block them then?

HavingCrack

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So why didn't Russia block them then?

PR purposes. It just doesn't look good to say '**** the civilans, let them get killed'. Abstaining was the perfect way out, they didn't have to support the resolution but they also didn't veto it. Now they can criticise US, British and French actions in Libya to their heart's content but can't be portrayed as opposing aiding civilians. It's a win win for Medvedev and Putin.

Jeboa Safari

Not if they lose out on oil to the West like whats being put forward it wouldn't

Overheal

HavingCrack wrote: »

PR purposes. It just doesn't look good to say '**** the civilans, let them get killed'. Abstaining was the perfect way out, they didn't have to support the resolution but they also didn't veto it. Now they can criticise US, British and French actions in Libya to their heart's content but can't be portrayed as opposing aiding civilians. It's a win win for Medvedev and Putin.

I thought so too but when you're assuming Gazprom is behind it why would PR matter? You already assume the US is doing it for Oil. Thats not good for PR. So why shouldnt Russia block it, knowing full well its for Oil and **** the PR?

Cartel Mike

All about Ethics. Whos right and wrong depends alot on where you are.

Your Gadafi- Most people think your a glorified dictator and not really of sound mind. But, you've been in power for 45 years and half 'your' people want to overthrow you. You(in your own mind) have a divine right to ignore there wishes . What do you do? Answer is you crush all resistance by whatever means as fast as you can before the west get involved. Its 'your' country afterall.

Your Barrack Obama-
the most powerfull man in the world. Your advisors have told you about the potential disruption to oil ,oil prices and the importance of libya to this process. You also see a dictator who is slaughtering people to end a revolt. The world is looking at you to do something . You don't want an 'Iraq' but you don't want to be a coward who stands by watching it on tv. Do you ignore it? How do you ignore something like this? Afterall who else is, or can stop whats going on? Answer is you act . Knowing that you can't side with a Dictator of course alot of people will asume that your siding with the 'rebels' . Is blowing up a few aircraft and tanks really siding with the rebels? -Yes, Indirectly, but What else is there for it?

Your David Cameron/Sircozy- To a lesser extent the world is also looking to you. What do you do?

If im honest if im putting myself in Obama, Cameron's shoes . I'd do exactly what they have done.
And 'Oil' has little to do with it.

Putting myself in Ghaddafi shoes is more difficult . He's dillusional , he's a tyrant . Basically if i were him and under this kind of international scrutiny and pressure i'd know its only a matter of time before more of my trusted supporters turned on me.

Gaddafi may drag this out for another month but i find it impossible to see him in power beyond that. This isn't going away its well beyond that now.

davoxx

Cartel Mike wrote: »

All about Ethics. Whos right and wrong depends alot on where you are.

Your Gadafi- Most people think your a glorified dictator and not really of sound mind. But, you've been in power for 45 years and half 'your' people want to overthrow you. You(in your own mind) have a divine right to ignore there wishes . What do you do? Answer is you crush all resistance by whatever means as fast as you can before the west get involved. Its 'your' country afterall.

Your Barrack Obama-
the most powerfull man in the world. Your advisors have told you about the potential disruption to oil ,oil prices and the importance of libya to this process. You also see a dictator who is slaughtering people to end a revolt. The world is looking at you to do something . You don't want an 'Iraq' but you don't want to be a coward who stands by watching it on tv. Do you ignore it? How do you ignore something like this? Afterall who else is, or can stop whats going on? Answer is you act . Knowing that you can't side with a Dictator of course alot of people will asume that your siding with the 'rebels' . Is blowing up a few aircraft and tanks really siding with the rebels? -Yes, Indirectly, but What else is there for it?

Your David Cameron/Sircozy- To a lesser extent the world is also looking to you. What do you do?

If im honest if im putting myself in Obama, Cameron's shoes . I'd do exactly what they have done.
And 'Oil' has little to do with it.

Putting myself in Ghaddafi shoes is more difficult . He's dillusional , he's a tyrant . Basically if i were him and under this kind of international scrutiny and pressure i'd know its only a matter of time before more of my trusted supporters turned on me.

Gaddafi may drag this out for another month but i find it impossible to see him in power beyond that. This isn't going away its well beyond that now.

not biased in the least ... :pac:

uprising2

Libyan Rebels Advance on Key Oil Refinery at Ras Lanuf
TRIPOLI, Libya — Libyan rebels pushed past the oil town of Brega on Sunday, moving toward the major refinery at Ras Lanuf in the second day of a counterattack aided by allied airstrikes against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces.
If the rebels were able to retake Ras Lanuf — the peak of their progress in the early weeks of the uprising — it would mean they had two of Libya’s most important refinery complexes under control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/africa/28libya.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Libyan rebels to start oil exports soon
He said the rebel government had agreed an oil contract with Qatar, which would market the crude, and that he expected exports to begin in "less than a week".
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/1119163/1/.html

On paper it should be easy to substitute Libya's 1.7-million-barrel a day production, which meets only two per cent of worldwide demand.

Oil hyper-power Saudi Arabia has even offered to pump enough to match the Libyan shortfall.

But oil markets worry about quality as well as quantity.

Libya's low-sulfur "sweet" crude is much prized for being easy and cheap to refine into petrol.

Much of Saudi Arabian crude is lower quality and more difficult to refine.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/1119065/1/.html

Overheal

Cartel Mike wrote: »

All about Ethics. Whos right and wrong depends alot on where you are.

Your Gadafi- Most people think your a glorified dictator and not really of sound mind. But, you've been in power for 45 years and half 'your' people want to overthrow you. You(in your own mind) have a divine right to ignore there wishes . What do you do? Answer is you crush all resistance by whatever means as fast as you can before the west get involved. Its 'your' country afterall.

Your Barrack Obama-
the most powerfull man in the world. Your advisors have told you about the potential disruption to oil ,oil prices and the importance of libya to this process. You also see a dictator who is slaughtering people to end a revolt. The world is looking at you to do something . You don't want an 'Iraq' but you don't want to be a coward who stands by watching it on tv. Do you ignore it? How do you ignore something like this? Afterall who else is, or can stop whats going on? Answer is you act . Knowing that you can't side with a Dictator of course alot of people will asume that your siding with the 'rebels' . Is blowing up a few aircraft and tanks really siding with the rebels? -Yes, Indirectly, but What else is there for it?

Your David Cameron/Sircozy- To a lesser extent the world is also looking to you. What do you do?

If im honest if im putting myself in Obama, Cameron's shoes . I'd do exactly what they have done.
And 'Oil' has little to do with it.

Putting myself in Ghaddafi shoes is more difficult . He's dillusional , he's a tyrant . Basically if i were him and under this kind of international scrutiny and pressure i'd know its only a matter of time before more of my trusted supporters turned on me.

Gaddafi may drag this out for another month but i find it impossible to see him in power beyond that. This isn't going away its well beyond that now.

Pretty spot on.

I don't think this is an Iraq, I don't think there is major fabrication here. It wasn't a war entirely motivated by XYZ. I'm willing to believe oil concerns played some role in the decision but, if Libya had remained in peaceful protestor state, you would not have seen any intervention. And not just some police brutality, but full campaign to do some roach patrol.

With regard to Bahrain the gulf states involvement there really throws a wrench into discussions on whether to intervene: you'd be intervening directly with Saudis. That sort of intervention would not bring stability to Bahrain, imo, it would just lead to a much larger war involving Saudi Arabia and several other states.

Overheal

Furthermore even when you dont consider the humanitarian issue and focusing purely on financials, when you have to consider the billions this is already costing us, and that we're already more than $14 trillion in debt, I can understand why we would need to pick and choose your battles to situations that have the potential to not significantly impact the debt. If the United States took it upon itself to overthrow every wrongdoing in the world (even with the full backing of the UN and the US), I have no doubt - ironically - that our debt would soar into the tens of trillions of dollars. at 60 trillion dollars in debt we would actually owe the world more than the world's annual GDP, more money in the world, rather than the world owing the United States for playing any version of World Police. Stick that in your collective pipes for a few minutes..

whiterebel

HavingCrack wrote: »

PR purposes. It just doesn't look good to say '**** the civilans, let them get killed'. Abstaining was the perfect way out, they didn't have to support the resolution but they also didn't veto it. Now they can criticise US, British and French actions in Libya to their heart's content but can't be portrayed as opposing aiding civilians. It's a win win for Medvedev and Putin.

As far as they were concerned it was to stop the Libyan Airforce bombing civillians. When it became obvious it turned into a "bomb the sh*te out of the Gadaffis" mission, they weren't long objecting.

Jeboa Safari

whiterebel wrote: »

As far as they were concerned it was to stop the Libyan Airforce bombing civillians. When it became obvious it turned into a "bomb the sh*te out of the Gadaffis" mission, they weren't long objecting.

They're not that stupid, they knew well what it entailed.

uprising2

This interview with General Wesley Clark with Amy Goodman took place on March 2nd 2007. He explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.
I'm sure you all know who Wesley Clark is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7hMj2NKTc

Overheal

Interesting, the biography you supplied said he retired from service on May 2, 2000. How could he have possibly known what the Bush Administration was planning to do?

More likely what the document was that he saw was a contingency plan. In the aftermath of the attacks the pentagon was widely known to have reviewed virtually all of it's contingency plans, some of them being years (and decades) out of date working on obsolete data. The pentagon by it's nature has a plan in place to go to war with anyone. In this specific case it sounds like a contingency to conduct those wars in a span that could fit inside of a 2-term president.

uprising2

Overheal wrote: »

Interesting, the biography you supplied said he retired from service on May 2, 2000. How could he have possibly known what the Bush Administration was planning to do?

Listen to the first 20 seconds again, "I went down stairs to say hello to some of the people who "USED" to work for me".

The Secrets Clark Kept

What the General Never Told Us About the Bush Plan for Serial War

Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general who is one of 10 candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, has written a new book that is just arriving on bookstore shelves. Called Winning Modern Wars, it’s mostly about the Iraq war and terrorism—and it is laced with powerful new information that he held back from the public when he was a CNN military commentator during the Bush administration’s preparations for the war.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-09-30/news/the-secrets-clark-kept/

digme

uprising2 wrote: »

This interview with General Wesley Clark with Amy Goodman took place on March 2nd 2007. He explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.
I'm sure you all know who Wesley Clark is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7hMj2NKTc

that's scary.

uprising2

digme wrote: »

that's scary.

No thats the truth, just shows the type of humans that control the majority, megalomaniacs, deluded evil bastards.