Wanna know WHY Qaddafi is the NEW Boogieman?

[bvar22]

Qaddafi used to be our friend.
He was such a good friend that in 2008,
he received $26 Billion US Dollars in "Bailout" funds from the USA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x790845

But Qaddafi really Screwed the Pooch in 2009.
He suggested that Libya should NATIONALIZE their OIL.

The year before, he demanded and received a larger cut ($5.4 Billion) of the Oil Corps profits for the Libyan people.
He is now suffering the blowback from pissing off the Global Oil Corps.

Want to know how to go from "friend" to the receiving end of US Bombs and Cruise Missles?
Fuck with Corporate "Profits".

This hasn't really been mentioned in the US Media, but its true.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/01/21/businessproind-us-libya-gaddafi-oil-idUKTRE50K61F20090121?pageNumber=2

or do you think that this very quick reversal of US Foreign Policy (from $BILLIONS to BOMBS) is just a coincidence.
Remember, the US Government has admitted that CIA Operatives have been On the Ground in Eastern Libya since before the recent demonstrations.


If you are not FOR Bombing Libya,
you are with The Communists AlQaeda Saddam Qaddafi!!!

Just asking the question,
Cui Bono?

[damntexdem]

1. In 2008, Dubya was pResident; and Ghadfi was his poster boy for "reformed terrorist."

And dictators frequently suggest, or threaten, to nationalize -- as a bargaining position.

[valerief]

2. Didn't Iraq become our enemy when they started selling oil in euros? nt

[Esra Star]

26. That only got to the threat stage.

But he had been in the bad books since invading Q8.

[liberation]

64. I thought it became imperative to invade Iraq right after he had started trading in Euros

before that Iraq was just being bombed on a daily basis on the "no fly" zones.

Of course, just like Gadaffi's attempt at nationalizing oil. This is just another long line of illustrious innocent coincidences dating back to Iran's attempts at nationalizing their own oil.

[Esra Star]

77. I think you're right, although it's news to me.

Poor bastard didn't have a chance.

[ProSense]

3. The Bush administration

loved Gaddafi.

Oil companies from around the world are already in Libya.

ExxonMobil signs PSA with Libya National Oil


Why Gaddafi's Now a Good Guy (2006)

<...>

At the time, it may have sounded like the typical ramblings of the Libyan leader. But now, a year later, Gaddafi and Bush do apparently see eye to eye. On Monday, Gaddafi accomplished one of history's great diplomatic turnarounds when Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as "a model" for others to follow. Rice attributed the ending of the U.S.'s long break in diplomatic relations to Gaddafi's historic decision in 2003 to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism as well as Libya's "excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001."

<...>

[bvar22]

7. So, are you voting for "just a coincidence"?

Didn't the Obama Administration have supervision over the bailouts in 2008?


The "Banking Emergency" was another coincidence that makes me go "Hmmmm".
The Banking Emergency just happened to occur during the changeover window between administrations,
giving each the cover of Plausible Deniability.

But that was just another coincidence.

[ProSense]

11. Voting

common sense, not conspiracy.

The President just announce a plan to cut dependence on foreign oil.

Is he planning to sell oil to Libya????

[bvar22]

13. Thats another vote for "just a coincidence".

Thanks!

[RZM]

4. That explains why the bombing campaign actually began in 2009

All that footage you are seeing is actually 2 years old. They just had to wait until there was a 'humanitarian crisis' to justify the intervention and pretend the bombing was happening now.

Or something . . .

Got any evidence for this? Or just a 2009 Reuters article?

[ProSense]

6. Anything

can be turned into a conspiracy, add doubt and shake!

[blindpig]

16. It's ain't no conspiracy...

I don't think the OP implied that.

It's just business in the late capitalist world. And beyond that particular there is the great necessity of reasserting mastery in good old imperialist fashion.

[bvar22]

9. Reuters is a good source,

...and the changes in Libyan Oil Policy are public.

Have you heard of Google?
Its a good idea to look for sources outside the US Media.

[RZM]

14. I agree it is a good source

Problem is, it doesn't support anything that you are saying here, other than what was public knowledge back in 2009.

[bvar22]

"back in 2009"?

It takes a good year or so to get a NEW WAR going.
You have to bribe or co-opt a bunch of people.

You have to get the Marketing up & running.

You have to manufacture a plausible precipitating crisis.

You have to get the Pentagon to reschedule bombers, ships, and other resources.

I'm surprised they could get the bombers to Libya that quickly.

[RZM]

22. Do you have evidence that any of those things have actually happened? n/t

[bvar22]

30. DUH!

Can you name a "Military Intervention" in the Middle East or Asia in the last 60 years where "those things" did NOT take place?
"They" have NEVER told the truth when "they" wanted to Get a WAR on.

Besides, the information I posted answers the question, "Why Libya and not all those other places?"
.
.
.
.
But why quibble with details and drift off topic.

Its obvious from your responses above that you had no prior knowledge of changes to Libyan Oil Revenue in the last two years until I posted that information.

After you checked and discovered that every word I stated about Libyan Oil was indeed true,
didn't it plant even a little seed of doubt in you mind?
.
.
.
Do you really trust our government THAT much?

[tomp]

67. if it hasn't come from obama directly antisense doesn't care. nt

[Octafish]

5. It's like there's something wrong with my voting machine: I voted Democratic to end war.

Instead of a change, I get more war. What gives?

K&R. Excellent OP, bvar22. Thank you for putting it in words.

[RZM]

8. He putted it alright

Right into the conspiracy hole . . .

[bvar22]

10. Thats one vote for "Its all just a coincidence".

Its not really that hard to connect the dots here.

Dot 1)Libya demands a bigger cut of Oil Profits.

Dot 2) Libya gets bombed.

Doesn't it make you even slightly suspicious? :shrug:

Follow the Money.

[RZM]

15. Here's another set of dots

Dot 1) Ghaddafi makes noise about not following OPEC's lead on production
Dot 2) Two years pass
Dot 3) Rebels in the East challenge Ghaddafi
Dot 4) Ghaddfi begins military campaign against the rebels
Dot 5) The West intervenes

Pay no attention to dots 2-4.

[bvar22]

18. Right. I've already got your "Its all just a coincidence" vote.

That makes two so far.

[Junkdrawer]

21. "if voting mattered, it would be illegal", fr. berrigan n/t

[sasha031]

12. Dem Congressman Markey: "We're In Libya Because Of Oil

"Well, we're in Libya because of oil. And I think both Japan and the nuclear technology and Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil have both once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward," Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said on MSNBC.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/21/dem_congressman_were_in_libya_because_of_oil.html

[ProSense]

17. Markey made that statement to highlight

foreign dependency on oil. He actually supports the Libya no-fly zone:

Markey Statement on Libya

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) issued the following statement on the situation in Libya.

“President Obama is right to work as part of a broad coalition in an effort to stop the violence against the Libyan people and enforce U.N. Resolution 1973.

“The current government of Libya has lost all legitimacy. Left unchecked, Gaddafi will commit unspeakable brutalities against his own people. We will need to continuously monitor Gaddafi’s responses to the pressure brought by the international coalition and adjust the strategy accordingly. The more nations involved in this multilateral effort, the more the people of Libya will know that the movement for democracy that is spreading throughout the Middle East has global support.

“We are watching a watershed moment not only in Libya but throughout the Middle East. History is on the side of these 21st century young, educated people who are calling for the end to this 20th century oil-fueled dictatorship. Seventy percent of Libya is young people, but they represent 100 percent of the future of the country. The message to Colonel Gaddafi is clear: the entire world community is united in protecting the Libyan people. Libyans must be able to chart their own future, free from violence and intimidation.”

[leftstreet]

19. K&R

[Rex]

20. Because they went and hung Saddam?

Qaddafi was next on the list.

[Old Troop]

23. New boogieman? I still get the shakes when I jump into my Delorean.

I expect Libyan hitmen to attack me.

[Shagbark Hickory]

24. Yep. Totally plausible.

:kick:

[Nye Bevan]

25. OK. And also the house-to-house genocide thing (nt)

[Mimosa]

28. For which there was no proof, no photos, not even reports. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

52. No reports? Just fringe sources like the New York Times.

Vowing to track down and kill protesters “house by house,” Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya tightened his grip on the capital, Tripoli, on Tuesday, but the eastern half of the country was slipping beyond his control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/world/africa/23libya.html

[Shiver]

58. If you ignore all the photos, videos, eyewitness accounts and reports, you're right about that.

[Mimosa]

27. BVar, I remember when Billy Carter was hanging out with Qaddafi

Those were the days.

BTW, you know I'm going to steal this post of yours with its links and spread it around.

I've known this was about the oil even before it started.

[bvar22]

32. Help yourself.

It is information.
The more information we have, the better decisions we can make.
Jefferson said something like that.


:patriot:

[Mimosa]

35. Thanks.

Information is one thing but your style and way of putting things together is inimitable. Therefore I must 'borrow' it and give credit! :D

[slipslidingaway]

29. kick for later - thanks n/t

[eilen]

31. I'm stealing it too bvar. It's too good not to get the maximum exposure

I'll give you credit.

[bvar22]

33. Thanks...but No credit needed or wanted.

It is information.
I got it from somewhere else.
Pay it forward!

Thanks.

[spanone]

34. he was bu$h's friend. he's been a bogeyman for forty years

[hulka38]

36. The CIA would never use popular uprisings

in the ME to cobble together a hopelessly outgunned armed rebellion against Qaddafi, thereby instigating war. They're way to ethical, transparent, play by the rules and have no track record of doing any such thing.

Do I need the tag bvar?

[joshcryer]

37. This is patently false.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294913/LIBYA-POSTPONES-GENERAL-PEOPLES-CONGRESS-WALKS-BACK-FROM-WEALTH-DISTRIBUTION-AND-PRIVATIZATION-PLANS.html

[bvar22]

45. One more for "Its ALL just a BIG coincidence".

Thanks.

[PurityOfEssence]

62. Then 5 months later, he threatened the French with Nationalization and cut their cut from 50% to 27%

They were furious. Yes, he lengthened the contract period, but he almost halved what they could keep from their extraction. The longer period obviously means nothing if the possibility of nationalization is there at any moment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294570/FRENCH-TOTAL-LED-CONSORTIUMS-ACCEPT-LOWER-PRODUCTION-SHARES-IN-LIBYA.html

The article you present doesn't show anything approaching the refutation you claim. It's showing that potential nationalization was postponed and that the regime was in internal flux, not that it was staved off forever or anything of the sort.

It's like you find a document with a couple of words that fit your premise, and, without proofing the damned thing at all, you bellow righteous proof and slap down with no elaboration. The charitable assessment of this repeated tactic is that you just don't take the time, but the less trusting view is that you hope to sway the innocent by resounding slap downs. Certainly, the casual reader is often left with the impression that yet another Obama hater has been caught being wrong, whether the act that precipitated it was wicked or just clueless.

Regardless, the article I link here shows clearly that he did something 5 months later that shows he was behaving in a way that infuriated and worried France and other European countries.

[joshcryer]

68. What? It shows that Gaddafi's "nationalization" wasn't helping the people.

And oil companies don't care about the "share" that they get so much the exploration opportunities. Gaddafi expanded their exploration opportunities significantly.

It's better to get 10% share on 100 wells than it is to get 50% share on 10 wells.

[PurityOfEssence]

74. Do you understand ANYTHING? You slap down people with things that don't sustain what you claim

and then go off on inexplicable tangents with assertions that are irrational by any standard.

No, I'm not going to just bark some drive-by insult and leave with no explanation; here's the substance of this particular exchange:

The Thread Starter claims that threats of nationalization are what caused the Industrialized nations to really want Qaddafi gone: he was not a reliable partner, and was reserving the right to cut them out of the deal whenever he damned well pleased.

To counter this, with a terse slap-down and no explanation, you post an article from January 2009 that you think so conclusively proves your point that you needn't even have the respect for the readers to point it out. To many--and presumably to many of those who see you as the great champion of the innocent victims--this will serve to shout down what is a very valid and well-researched point by the thread starter. The problem is that the article does no such thing. It shows how Qaddafi wanted to go the way of nationalization--which PROVES that France and the others have a reason to be scared of him--but couldn't get it together at that point and put the idea back on the shelf. To any reader who takes the time to even skim the article, this wouldn't "prove" that he wasn't any threat to the foreign oil companies, it should show that he's a ticking time-bomb with full intentions to mess up their cushy deal at pretty much any time.

I show you an article where, 5 months after the incident you cite, he forces them to almost halve the amount of oil they can take out for their efforts, with the threat of nationalization being used to get them to sign. That's flat-out proof of him doing something corporations HATE and will do anything in their power to avoid having to face again.

Then you make a statement that is just plain absurd: "And oil companies don't care about the 'share' that they get so much the exploration opportunities." What the fuck kind of brain can come up with that balderdash? Oil companies are all about the percentage they get, and even if they get more opportunities to develop things, they're well aware that they're being set up to risk massive money to find, drill and access things that they don't get as much as they want from and which are subject to being taken away from them as soon as they put all the work into them. The money is in the exploration, drilling and setting up the wells for extraction. Greed will drive them to doing that work and risking the money even when they know that the fruit of their labor may be taken away from them immediately, BUT THEY HATE AND RESENT THIS, because they know the uncertainty.

The percentage DOES matter, and more importantly, when the threat of nationalization is sitting right there like a gun on the table, they have every reason to get rid of him. The point here is that the peril of imminent nationalization makes them want him gone, even if they have to trust some rabble or Islamists. When corporations are willing to risk throwing their lot in with revolutionaries, it REALLY SHOWS HOW MUCH THE CURRENT REGIME IS MESSING UP THEIR HUSTLE.

Your slap-down does not address the "imminent peril of nationalization" at all, your rebuttal makes no sense at all from the corporate perspective, and the general tenor of dismissal-by-pronouncement shows a disdain for the honorable curiosity and trust of the casual reader.

The number one thing corporations like is STABILITY; that's why they like dictatorships. They only go for the gamble of revolution or democracy when totalitarians don't toe the line.

Then there's the math thing: to somebody who thinks oil magically comes out of the ground upon discovery, and then doesn't cost anything to continue producing, your little exercise in arithmetic seems to make sense: if the 100 wells are all equal to the 10 wells, then they'd be getting 10% of the total production of the 100 wells, but 5% of the total production of the 100 wells if they were getting half of what 10 equal wells would get. (.1 x 100 = 10, .5 x 10 = 5) WOW! It seems like they'd be getting TWICE the delicious extra-special-light-sweet-crude--which they would--but they'd have to be running an operation TEN TIMES THE SIZE WITH TEN TIMES THE EXPENSES, WHICH ARE EVEN BIGGER WHEN EXPLORING, DEVELOPING AND COMMENCING OPERATION. They're not idiots. That would be a disaster. They would MUCH rather run 10 wells and get half the oil than have to hemorrhage money, radically expand and run themselves silly to get twice the amount of oil in the end by doing TEN TIMES THE WORK TO DOUBLE THEIR TAKE.

Where do you get this stuff? What kind of rebuttal is this? This shows the complete lack of understanding of the point being very coherently made by the Thread Starter: the issue is the VOLATILITY OF THE POSSIBILITY OF NATIONALIZATION. You slap down with a link that makes one think that nationalization really wasn't pending because he presumably put it on the shelf, but the the article you show specifically shows that it was an issue of timing, and that the intention of doing this was very real and sitting their like a coiled snake. Your article literally PROVES THE POINT MADE BY THE THREAD STARTER: the hateful concept of Nationalization was left as a very present and real threat. My rebuttal with an argument of how he actually used nationalization to radically diminish their deal is met with pure inanity.

Please put together some response to this. I love fantasy; it takes me away from the drabness of a rational world.

[joshcryer]

76. Um, the exploration costs are far far smaller than the long term pumping profits.

Far far lower. You can also recover equipment, which makes it even more lucrative.

In real dollars, the 77 percent increase in oil operating costs from 1976 to 2008 and the 22 percent increase in equipping cost (in real 1976 dollars) are dwarfed by the 274 percent increase in the oil price from 1976 to 2008. The differences are only slightly less dramatic after the 46 percent drop in oil prices in 2009. The 1976 to 2009 change in the real dollar price of oil was 103 percent compared to an equipping cost change of 7 percent (in real 1976 dollars), and an operating cost change of 54 percent.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/cost_indices_equipment_production/current/coststudy.html

The rest of your rant isn't even worth responding to.

[PurityOfEssence]

79. "Long term" doesn't exist if the threat of nationalization is always there.

The point, once again, is that they could make all the effort to get things up and running, and then have the rug pulled out from under them. They don't like that uncertainty.

So what if the profitability has gone up due to the greater disparity between the selling price and operating price? That just helps Qaddafi make what would otherwise seem like a total sucker bet be worth a shot. He knows how to play them to some degree.

They would be getting just slightly more than half of the oil they produce, and still be facing capricious nationalization at any time. This was a big factor. Are you seriously saying that this "proves" that oil wasn't a huge issue for the French here?

As for the rest of my contentions, you are incapable of forming responses to them, so you use a cheap rhetorical trick of once again pronouncing yourself correct on one small point--badly, as usual--and take that as absolute proof of your unquestioned correctness on all other points. That's a discrediting tactic, not any form of logical rebuttal.

Beneath you? As far as I can tell, nothing is beneath you, and I mean that in both senses of the phrase. (Have someone explain it to you.)

[SpartanDem]

38. If Gadaffi doesn't attack peacful protester

because remember that how this thing started, or listened to the UN's order to ceasefire then there is no intervention

[Distant Observer]

71. ARE YOU SERIOUS, Bahrain, Yemen, Ivory coast, Sudan, Burma

Those are the places with truly peaceful protests that have been oppressed or massacred

[killbotfactory]

39. No, I'm pretty sure it was the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.

[I Drink Water]

40. You're kidding, right? This happens all the time and all over the world, but why Libya and

why such a grand scale of intervention? There are worse humanitarian crisis happening. What makes this one so special?

[SpartanDem]

41. Why Bosnia and Kosovo

and not Rwanda? That there is no consistency when the world decides to intervene in these crises doesn't mean it is not worth doing or there is an ulterior motive

[I Drink Water]

42. Maybe it just me, but I don't think our motives are pure and principled when we cherry pick what

humanitarian crisis to be involved in, especially given our love of military spending, being spread out all over the globe, policing the world, and not to mention our history.

[inna]

53. there is always an ulterior motive whenever imperialistic interventions are concerned,

sorry to break it to ya

[Gravel Democrat]

59. Why Kosovo? It was a PNAC project, here's the proof

http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

Apparently some PNAC projects are better than others...

the best analysis of the 78 day non-UN approved bombing of a sovereign state to date:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/448/backing-up-globalization-with-military-might

McDonald's Needs McDonnell Douglas to Flourish

"...An article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times entitled "What the World Needs Now" tells it all. Illustrated by an American Flag on a fist it said, among other things: "For globalism to work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is....The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist-McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps." (23)..."

"..."The defense secretary is making the case that conflicts in faraway lands such as Bosnia, Korea and Iraq have a direct effect on the U.S. economy. The billions it costs to keep 100,000 American troops in South Korea and Japan, for example, makes Asia more stable—and thus better markets for U.S. goods. The military's success in holding Iraq in check ensures a continued flow of oil from the Persian Gulf," concluded the Associated Press dispatch reporting on Cohen's Seattle appearance.(25)

In today's world, TNCs, and governments running interference for them, are pushing relentlessly for an end to national sovereignty and democratic rights in order to achieve total unimpeded access to acquire investments, cheap labor and consumers in every nook and cranny of the globe. This is being accomplished particularly through mechanisms such as multilateral agreements on investment, NAFTA-type free trade agreements, and the dictates of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO)..."

Long and worth every single minute to read...

[killbotfactory]

44. The context is that it's part of the Arab Spring

And this is probably one of those times where humanitarian and economic interests coincide.

[Spider Jerusalem]

43. I'm sorry but have you even been paying attention, at all?

It certainly doesn't sound like it.

Any reversal of US foreign policy was based on discussions with allies like the UK and France and the introduction of a Security Council resolution. The UK and France led the call for intervention in Libya, through the UN Security Council, in response to Gaddafi's use of military aircraft, tanks, and artillery against civilians. This is not really comparable to Iraq; ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away.

[bvar22]

46. And another for "Its ALL just a BIG coincidence."

"The UK and France led the call for intervention in Libya, through the UN Security Council,"

Give me a break.
Without the LEAD & Permission of the USA, NOTHING happens,
but you know that.
Do you remember Tony the Poodle and "The Coalition of the bribed & extorted Willing?
Kabuki Theater anyone ?

Anyway, thanks for your input.
I posted information.
You may use it, and ask questions,
or ignore it.

I'm very grateful the I grew up in the era of "Question Authority".

[JohnyCanuck]

47. See my sig line.

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. So you haven't been following the news. Okay then.

The US was leading the call for intervention in Iraq yes but again THIS IS NOT IRAQ. I'm sorry you're not capable of seeing the difference. (Also the UK and France were calling for a no fly zone when the US was publicly saying otherwise.) Things do in fact happen without the US; Libya is much more of a pressing regional interest for the EU, lying as it does on the other side of the Mediterranean. Your evident ignorance of geopolitics and recent history makes it pretty clear there's not much point in continuing this discussion since you insist on a version of events not supported by facts.

[bvar22]

50. Do you dispute the facts reported by Reuters that I posted in the OP?

Go ahead.

I posted information.
You may use it and ask questions,
or you can ignore it and buy the Government story.
Makes no difference to me,
and it doesn't change the information I posted.

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. I dispute the conclusion you draw from them.

Especially in light of intervening events (such as the brutal repression of popular demonstrations calling for reform and democratic elections). You seem to just want to pretend that none of that has been happening.

[Mimosa]

56. I guess you believed the Saddam statue teardown too?

It was all PR to make people support the war. Bought & paid for CIA ops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXg70qJQ6O0&feature=player_embedded

[Spider Jerusalem]

60. Never said I did, and I'm not talking about Iraq, I'm talking about Libya

[hulka38]

70. Let's talk about Libya.

This is from the David Bromwich piece today The CIA, the Libyan Rebellion, and the President

The meaning of the Times report can be fully grasped only if one augments its findings with a March 26 McClatchy story by Chris Adams.

Adams sketches the career of the former chief military officer of Colonel Gaddafi's army, Khalifa Hifter, who was recently appointed to lead the rebel army. (The article does not say who appointed him.) The ascent of Hifter is a study in itself. After leading Gaddafi's disastrous war against Chad in the late 1980s, Adams reports, General Hifter (also known as Haftar, Hefter, and Huftur) retired to "suburban Virginia," where he has lived for much of the last two decades. It has been reported elsewhere that the suburb in question is Vienna, Virginia: five minutes from CIA headquarters at Langley.

NYT 4/2/11:

McClatchy 3/26/11:Libyan rebel leader spent much of past 20 years in suburban Virginia


Wow, what a coincidence! So this is simply a humanitarian mission to save the protestors and rebels, nothing more? The U.S. government is so forthright and credible on matters of ME policy that it should continue to be believed, right? And this is nothing like Iraq at all. Uh huh.

[bvar22]

73. I'm not pretending that none of that happened.

Have you read "Disaster Capitalism"?

There has to be a Precipitating Crisis.
A Marketing Phase of atrocities is absolutely necessary to "catapult the propaganda" (Bush the Lesser).
Remember, the CIA had "Boots on the Ground" for a month BEFORE any demonstrations took place in Libya.
I WONDER what the CIA was doing.

Doesn't the "information" presented in this thread cause you to have the slightest doubt?
If you choose to trust these bastards, thats your choice.
But I have seen this happen too many times over the last 50 years,
and "they" have NEVER told the truth.

Motive.
Opportunity.
A LONG documented record of greed based violent behavior with absolutely NO "Humanitarian" concern.


Oh, but THIS time is different.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberation]

65. Of course Libya being one of the main suppliers of oil to some of those European countries

means that this obviously has nothing to do with oil.

Duh!

Thank goodness we have people like you paying attention and memorizing the official narrative. Else we would be forever deceived by Occam and his damn razor.

[TorchTheWitch]

66. France and Britain specifically got a great deal of Libya's oil

as well as Gaddafi's oil money in their banks. They led the call for intervention because they were at greatest risk with a destabilized Libya. They haven't been shy about admitting it either. France even came right out and said that if the situation in Libya didn't stabilize forthwith they'd have to dip into their oil reserves. Britain was upfront in requesting Gaddafi's money in European banks to be frozen.

No, it isn't comparable to Iraq because this time it was the European countries most frantic about getting their Libyan oil and keeping those billions of dollars of that oil money that was paid to Gaddafi for it in their banks. We weren't getting any oil from Libya but our oil companies had contracts to pump it out, and we were on the verge of getting Libyan oil which is why Bush lifted the ban on the US getting any exports from Libya in the first place and suddenly became our "friend".

However, the Europeans being more desperate about Libyan oil then we are STILL makes it all about the OIL and the MONEY connected to it. "Humanitarianism" by "protecting civilians" in order to have a marketable EXCUSE to bomb Libya, oust Gaddafi and install a REALLY friendly new leader is STILL the EXCUSE that is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS is. The new INSTALLED leader of the Libyan rebels is an ex-pat that's been living in suburban Virginia for the past 20 years, the Libyan rebels don't trust him anymore then the one we INSTALLED just a few scant weeks ago, and nobody seems to know what he's been doing for a living for those past 20 years. Sound familiar?

[joshcryer]

69. Uh, Gaddafi would've shored things up within a matter of weeks.

As it stands now the oil is not flowing (what's produced now is being used internally).

[Hatchling]

49. We needed a new bogeyman for Terra! Terra!

The search for Bin Laden is such a joke (the man is most likly dead by now). So we got a new meanie to distract us (look over there!) from a new case of Disaster Capitalism.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Roomy Nostrils?

[rdking647]

57. arab banking

the arab banking corp is only 29% lybian owned the remainder is owned by kuwait ,aby duabai and othee shareholders..

[JoseGaspar]

61. Nah...

Everybody knows that if you are a Middle Eastern country and you discover oil, you have to have a king. Everywhere else in the world, kings are artifacts of another century but not in the Middle East. There, every single country with oil has a King (or Shah or Prince or Sultan or Emir - a rose by any other name). It is an amazing geophysical phenomenon and it is exceptionally powerful. Even if you never had a King before or you haven't had one in two hundred years, "poof"... a King pops up. In the Middle East, just being near an oil producing country gets you a King. And, if you happen to have newly discovered oil... well, it is certain that within 10 years, you will get a newly discovered King.

Your so-called boogie men are those who have violated nature. They are monsters by definition. They overthrew their King. The Ayatollahs, Hussein, Qaddafi... Nasser before them... how could they overthrow their Kings?

The Kings wouldn't nationalize Western companies or raise the price of oil. The Kings of the Middle East are in harmony with nature.

Is it any wonder that rebels rise up across the Middle East, waving monarchical banners and demanding the restoration of their democratically-minded, freedom loving Kings?

How can the governments of the US and the former colonial powers not be sympathetic?

[liberation]

63. This is about oil... whaaa?

That's impossible, Obama has a Nobel Peace Price!

Granted there are orders of magnitude more people dying in Africa EACH day than have been killed by Gadaffi during the revolt. But we had to start somewhere, I am sure we will get on relieving the plight of the rest of the continent one bomb at a time. You will see... I hope you're ready to apologize Mr. Obama when you're proven wrong.

[BrklynLiberal]

72. Hey, Saddam Hussein was once our friend, too.....it matters not to the corporatocracy.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

75. in '09, lockheed and rayethon asked to sell arms to him

and I believe they received permission.

[MedleyMisty]

78. I don't even know where to start on this

And it's not worth it. It just makes me sad and tired and dispirited, that people are so ignorant and paranoid.

So hey - did you know that the TNC (if you don't know what that acronym stands for, you have no business opining on Libya) made a deal with QATAR to sell the oil that they control and use the money to buy goods to help the humanitarian crisis and also perhaps weapons?

Yep, it's all 'cause we want the oil. It's not because the Libyans were inspired by the example of Tunisia and Egypt to stand up for themselves. It's not because they formed a transitional government and asked the UN for help and a no fly zone. It's not that the coalition is being so insanely careful with targeting that they held off air strikes for a few days and let Gaddafi's forces advance because the weather was bad.

And actually, Gaddafi kept all the oil wealth to himself and was never going to share it with the Libyans. Their health care is worse than ours. Their educational system is worse than ours. Their condition previous to the revolution will be ours in 30 years or so if we don't rise up too.

Which that makes me question the agenda of these conspiracy theories and propaganda, if the point is to keep us from realizing how much we have in common with Libyans and how much Gaddafi ran Libya like the GOP wants to run the US.