bush_cheney2004 Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 So what if it is about oil. Oil is a big deal, the biggest deal on the planet. The only reason the planet can sustain a population of nearly 7 billion is oil. Economies would collapse without oil, people will starve because enough food can't be produced or transported. All the things society depends on that rely on the hydro carbon molecule to exist would disappear. Oil is huge. Well stated...oil matters...oil is worth dying for. Some rubes don't like that idea, even as they benefit and live their lives with ....oil. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bjre Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 Well stated...oil matters...oil is worth dying for. Some rubes don't like that idea, even as they benefit and live their lives with ....oil. So, be honest, remove all beautiful mask of "human rights", "freedom", "democracy", it is just about robbery, state pirate. Maybe the difference of nowadays and middle age is that now politicians want some beautiful words before they do ugly things. Quote "The more laws, the less freedom" -- bjre "There are so many laws that nearly everybody breaks some, even when you just stay at home do nothing, the only question left is how thugs can use laws to attack you" -- bjre "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Wilber Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 So, be honest, remove all beautiful mask of "human rights", "freedom", "democracy", it is just about robbery, state pirate. Maybe the difference of nowadays and middle age is that now politicians want some beautiful words before they do ugly things. It's about access and supply not theft. Those countries get world price for their oil regardless of who is running them. Your problem is you can't make the connection between all the things oil makes possible in your life and the things you say you stand for. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 So, be honest, remove all beautiful mask of "human rights", "freedom", "democracy", it is just about robbery, state pirate. I just did....it's not robbery...the oil doesn't really belong to anyone without force of some kind. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 It may not be about the oil, like Iraq was. This time like Afghanistan it is more or less of a take over for strategic reasons. Part of a long term plan. Libya provides a good staging ground for the UN and western powers who want to take more of a foothold in Africa. A perfect storm if you will of countries around Libya going through crisis, and when you have that, you have no one really to come to the aid of Libya. This is all part of a bigger plan yet. A good staging ground? All you need for that is a carrier or two, no need to conquer swathes of worthless desert. Quote
William Ashley Posted March 26, 2011 Author Report Posted March 26, 2011 And why do the powers 'want a foothold' in africa? Lots of African elections this year, like 20, and the middle east is having coupes . Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted March 26, 2011 Author Report Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) And why do the powers 'want a foothold' in africa? Lots of African elections this year, like 20, and the middle east is having coupes . This leaves Russia Asia and South America outside of Nato. Take out the arab issue, russia becomes nuetered... North Korea is hot... after the muslims are dealt with Iran will be an easy go (perhaps with another republican president if Bo's ratings drop more than their current resting place at 30%) and Venezuela left without its OPEC friends. Boom - china is rising.. need to pick off the little people and dominate the oil more. Oil is China's means of wealth so it lowers china's margin by increasing oil prices. Oddly Libya supplied a lot of oil to Italy, probably the most effected NATO nation around. Syria has 50,000 protestors being fired on right now... this is a definate pick, not about protestors rights. Edited March 26, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted March 26, 2011 Author Report Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Libya to be over by Independence Day. US/Nato invisions 90 day operation. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Nato-leads-Libya-ops-sees-90-day-mission/articleshow/7791005.cms Edited March 26, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted March 26, 2011 Author Report Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) French press is reporting over 100 killed and over 400 injured "22h10. Les raids de la coalition ont fait au moins 114 morts et 445 blessés en 4 jours, selon le ministère libyen de la Santé qui n'a pas précisé la proportion des victimes civiles dans ce bilan. Selon Khaled Omar, un responsable du ministère, 104 personnes ont été tuées à Tripoli et dans sa banlieue et 10 à Syrte, ville natale de Mouammar Kadhafi, à plus de 600 km à l'est de Tripoli. Un premier bilan provisoire donné jeudi par le porte-parole du régime, Moussa Ibrahim, avait fait état d'«environ 100 morts» parmi les civils." http://www.leparisien.fr/intervention-libye/libye-les-raids-de-la-coalition-ont-tue-114-personnes-25-03-2011-1376611.php It is called an "intervention" in France http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/libya-government-over-100-civilians-killed-in-coalition-fire-94246 Edited March 26, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) US is purporting that in order to defend civilians it is allowing the war to advance to Tripoli (the most populus place in Libya) and other major population centers that they are bombing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12877319 Nato will implement all aspects of the UN Resolution. Nothing more, nothing less," he added."We are already enforcing the arms embargo and the no-fly zone, and with today's decision we are going beyond. Edited March 28, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted April 7, 2011 Author Report Posted April 7, 2011 The US is considering sending some (more) feet on the ground in Libya to help "resolve" things (re overthrow the government and install a new "regime". http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jKPQeVqCnBG1qGx3b1ng4ph-1olA?docId=6493808 Quote I was here.
Handsome Rob Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 No, the Rebels had been active for sometime. They were organized and felt this was the best time to move to take over the oil fields and press forward in hopes of a popular revolt. Some bit, and many many many more didn't. Most of this is the work of France behind the scenes. And it may blow up in their face. Although I don't agree that there is proof of meddling in another back yard, I do agree that France has a greater role that is currently reported, and will be exposed. Would have been a perfect opportunity for WikiLeaks if it wasn't wasted on a political agenda. Quote
Handsome Rob Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 Libya supplies less than 1% of the world's oil. They aren't that important. Your post is real tinfoil hat territory. 85% of it goes to Europe, might not be a knockout punch but could be a heck of a speed bump at a really bad time. countries like Italy, France, and Spain relied on Libya in 2010 for as much as 22 percent, 16 percent, and 13 percent of total crude consumption, respectively – a supply not easily replaced on short notice. Europe receives over 85 percent of Libya's crude exports. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0223/Europe-rethinks-dependence-on-Libyan-oil Quote
bloodyminded Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 Although I don't agree that there is proof of meddling in another back yard, I do agree that France has a greater role that is currently reported, and will be exposed. Would have been a perfect opportunity for WikiLeaks if it wasn't wasted on a political agenda. If they have an "agenda,' what would exposing France's alleged role have to do with cleaning that matter up? At any rate, wikileaks are not investigative reporters; they publish information that is sent to them. Nothing sent, nothing published. Not their fault. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
RNG Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 85% of it goes to Europe, might not be a knockout punch but could be a heck of a speed bump at a really bad time. countries like Italy, France, and Spain relied on Libya in 2010 for as much as 22 percent, 16 percent, and 13 percent of total crude consumption, respectively – a supply not easily replaced on short notice. Europe receives over 85 percent of Libya's crude exports. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0223/Europe-rethinks-dependence-on-Libyan-oil You are correct that small disruptions in source can cause large short term price volatility. The fundamentals, however are still solid and the rest of the world can presently absorb the loss of Libyan oil within a month or so. But it is Russia more than Saudi which has significant potential. And we really need the Kitimat LNG plant and synthetic crude terminal. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Saipan Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 85% of it goes to Europe 85% of Lybian oil goes to Europe but Europe supply comes largely from OPEC. Quote
William Ashley Posted April 14, 2011 Author Report Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13074189 More meetings to do more... $120bn of Libyan assets had been frozen abroad under international sanction ""financial piracy" to channel any of the money to rebels"as rebel leaders have proposed. BanKiMoon:" more than half of Libya's population of six million might eventually require humanitarian aid." really. The absense of food and water in the war zone isn't deserving of humanitarian aid yet? and Canada http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canadian+jets+nearly+missions+Libya/4609666/story.html It is sort of funny the Governor General was in Italy when all this unfolded... Edited April 14, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
RNG Posted April 14, 2011 Report Posted April 14, 2011 85% of Lybian oil goes to Europe but Europe supply comes largely from OPEC. True, but of little significance. And Libya is in OPEC Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
William Ashley Posted April 14, 2011 Author Report Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/201141435431450806.html "allies" decide to do more... who else is still on that list of axis of evil? # SatireWire created an oft-quoted article which had Libya, Syria, and China in the "Axis of Just as Evil"; Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia in the "Axis of Somewhat Evil"; and Bulgaria, Indonesia, and Russia in the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really as Just Generally Disagreeable". Applying for a new axis were Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda, who wished to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics". Additional axes were Canada, Mexico and Australia in the "Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America"; and Scotland, New Zealand and Spain with the "Axis of Countries That Want Sheep to Wear Lipstick". Finally, there was the "Axis of Countries Whose Names End in 'Guay" with one of the members (Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay) possibly filing a false application.[18] On May 6, 2002 future United States UN Ambassador John R. Bolton gave a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil". In it he added three more nations to be grouped with the already mentioned rogue states: Libya, Syria, and Cuba. The criteria for inclusion in this grouping were: "state sponsors of terrorism that are pursuing or who have the potential to pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or have the capability to do so in violation of their treaty obligations". The speech was widely reported as an expansion of the original axis of evil. "All means must be made available" Edited April 14, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted April 14, 2011 Author Report Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) To avoid civilian casualties we need a few more precision fighter ground-attack aircraft for air-to-ground missions Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Anglo+French+plea+more+strikes+Nato+partners/4613849/story.html#ixzz1JWxeCZqW Edited April 14, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted April 15, 2011 Author Report Posted April 15, 2011 (edited) " there is a growing need for precision attack aircraft to avoid civilian casualties " http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/975400--canadian-military-decisions-on-libya-on-hold-until-after-election-harper http://www.themarknews.com/articles/4737-two-wars-and-no-election-debate Edited April 15, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Bob Posted April 15, 2011 Report Posted April 15, 2011 True, but of little significance. And Libya is in OPEC To France and Italy, Libya's oil exports are of huge importance. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
William Ashley Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Posted April 18, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8457639/David-Cameron-refuses-to-rule-out-role-for-British-ground-forces-in-Libya.html British Ground forces? But who would go in, didn't they get rid of the Royal Marines to save money? I bet Cameron is kicking himself now, eh... Really ghastly to think he could have killed two sea birds with one stone.. (disgusting thought) Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted June 30, 2011 Author Report Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/06/2011629234644934286.html France has openly stated they are air dropping weapons to "the transitional council" Why Italy and Germany are sitting this one out? http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Eb9RAAAAIBAJ&sjid=C1UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4924,1512163&dq=en Edited June 30, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted June 30, 2011 Author Report Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) France is a fair game says Russia http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Russia-France-May-Have-Violated-UN-Arms-Embargo-on-Libya-124786989.html "French ambassador to the United Nations Gerard Araud said Wednesday the arms drop complies with a separate Security Council resolution adopted in March, establishing a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians. He says the French weapons are meant to defend Libyan civilians from attack by Gadhafi's forces." Must be the French Version it says arming ground forces with weapons like machine guns and antitank weapons helps inforce a no fly zone. Looks like this one is being stretched quite a bit. I think the definition of NO FLY ZONE needs to be looked at, I don't know of many flying people or tanks out there. I stand corrected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winged_tank What I do find confusing is in addition to the communications equipment and body armour the british are sending they are also sending " 5,000 high-visibility vests." Is this to cleraly mark civillians with or clearly mark the combatants with? wonder if they are "tagged" all the uniforms etc.. None the less the france thing isn't anything the CIA didn't admit to do also. Russia didn't seem to raise the issue of the US breaking the UNSEC resolution earlier. This gets more problematic when the people they are suppose to be supplying isn't getting them? Who is getting them if it aint the people they are trying to supply? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-refutes-france-weapon-supply-20110630,0,7205368.story Perhaps russias point is stronger than beleived? Maybe france is arming Gaddafi? By the looks of it I think it may be the CIA covert operatives (non nationals) (assets) that are being armed by france. None the less what is the reaction from Canada that their ally in the "war" is breaking the UNSEC rulings? I love this line it is gold "Whoever gave us these arms should come here and tell us where he put them," said Col. Mokhtar Milad Fernana. "Council diplomats say that Russia, China and India, however, are among the council members who disagree with the idea of arming the rebels and are convinced that it is a breach of the arms embargo" This is very distressing if NATO is suppose to be imposing a No Fly Zone "Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Thursday the alliance has no involvement in the French arms drop." If the planes wern't shot down were there engagements or is NATO letting planes fly in the west... It seems that if planes not cleared by NATO for operations were operating there, there is a bit of an air coverage issue for NATO. If they flew out of Europe woulndn't NATO know, or does france have planes that are stealth to NATO radar and other air sensors? It may be cliche but does this mean that there are national planes conducting missions in Addition to the NATO led operation? Did france request approval from the UN secretary general? Frances position is that resolution 1973 cancels resolution 1970. This basically means that the UN effecitvely has "occupied libya" since it is performing the function of government. (that in governance of the civilian population) however ANY country in the world can do whatever it wants in libya right now if that were the case. That is a bad premise. 1973 states "It further decided that all States should deny permission to any Libyan commercial aircraft to land in or take off from their territory unless a particular flight had been approved in advance by the committee that was established to monitor sanctions imposed by resolution 1970 (2011)." "n tightening the asset freeze and arms embargo established by that resolution, the Council this evening further detailed conditions for inspections of transport suspected to be violating the embargo, requesting States enforcing the embargo to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they were taking towards implementation." "demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;" However in Arming civilians are you preventing abuse by turning them into militants. It seems that the means to end the issue is to arm every civilian then damage to civlians can't be caused cause they are all militants GENIUS.. must understand the French mind. "“Recalling paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya," Key line there is :additional: rather than new measures or change our mind and drop the arms embargo and supply weapons to unarmed militants geesh arming the protestors seems a brilliant way to reduce civilian casualties see above. Wow arming the red cross and red cresent and medics may reduce aid agency deaths too.. French logic is just plain transparent. Oh and the Senate might authorize strikes in libya... http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hBM-_S-QI0R21krgcF2ZIsKL3pxQ?docId=CNG.d86ceec20706af0a574a3d87e2ba3a1c.491 Looks like things are heating up Edited June 30, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.