179 replies to this topic

[bee]

747400, on 26 October 2011 - 06:48 AM, said:

I'm just wondering, how many people expressed sentiments such as those that have been expressed in this thread, that Gadaffi deserved some respect and a fair trial because he was a Human being, after O bin L was bumped off, in a very similar fashion? (And does anyone not reckon that the Team Six had a good old kickaround with his body?) Does anyone say that Bin L deserved some respect? If not, what's the difference? That Bin l was bumped off by the U.S., who would naturally behave in a decent and civilised fashion? Or was it just that no one dared express such sentiments, since Bin L was the Global hate Object, while for some reason people seem to think that gadaffi was actually loved by his People and it was all a conspiracy by the U.S. to get their hands on his Oil.
It doesn't seem to make sense to me.

747400, on 26 October 2011 - 08:42 AM, said:

Would you say the same about those who authorised the hit on Bin L?

you bring up some interesting points...but this thread is not about Bin Laden and we don't want

it spiralling into another 9/11 fiasco, do we.

There are more than enough of those kind of threads here already.


cheers

[bee]

el midgetron, on 26 October 2011 - 03:35 AM, said:

I can't verify every point made in the video but from what I have heard allot of it is true.

There is no doubt that Gaddafi was killed for economic reasons.

thanks for that

[Habitat]

When these dictators stop "playing the game", they are skating on thin ice, and smart bombs will start raining down. It is the 21st century version of the "gunboat diplomacy" of the colonial era, the technology has changed but the power politics haven't.

[bee]

skookum, on 26 October 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

Yeah but people are obsessed that everything is an oil war.  I was under the impression that the Middle East pump it out of the ground and then sell it to the West as well as other communist countries on a free market and make lots of money from it.  In fact it is most middle east countries soul export.  Libya has a small population and a large oil wealth yet the people lived in relative poverty whilst Gaddaffi family amassed a huge personal wealth from oil revenue.

please watch the video in the OP again....would you like all the things that Libyan citizens had when Gaddafi was leader?


here is the OP video


and I live in relative poverty compared to political leaders, bankers, heads of corporations etc...don't you?

Quote

I never understand "the Americans and Brits went in for the oil" argument.  What did we walk in pump it all out of the ground and leave?  No we bought oil from them under Gaddaffi rule and we will continue too after.  I would have thought that it is less certain about future supplies considering we have no idea what type of Government will be elected and what policies they will have.   Plus people talk of an invasion?  What invasion?  I didn't see thousands of our soldiers rushing into the country to take it over, it was a civil war.

It sure was politically engineered to look like a straight forward civil war.


underlined...not just oil itself....but the potential wealth and political clout that 'oil' gives the Middle East and Africa...?


This shows what the real reason was for Gaddafi's removal....IMO






around the 3:00 mark

"A Gold Dinar would have given oil rich Africa and Middle Eastern countries the power to
turn around to their energy hungry customers and say - sorry the price has gone up and we want
gold - some say the US and it's NATO allies literally couldn't afford to let that happen"


.

[bee]

Erix, on 26 October 2011 - 08:26 AM, said:

You seem to have forgot the history why people feared Gaddaffi, he used propaganda and fear to everyone and outside Libya.
Yet you seem to forget to mention the Arab League and don't blame them? yet it was them who asked for help and advice.
Gaddaffi didn't like NATO he liked all those communist countries that didn't like the West or were mutal.

was the Arab League complicit and jointly responsible?

Maybe...


this is a speech that Gaddafi made to the Arab League.

[bee]

Habitat, on 26 October 2011 - 10:37 AM, said:

When these dictators stop "playing the game", they are skating on thin ice, and smart bombs will start raining down. It is the 21st century version of the "gunboat diplomacy" of the colonial era, the technology has changed but the power politics haven't.

Sure looks like that....

Even when they DO 'play the game'......the tables could turn at any time!

As complexities of 'the game' change...?

[Scepticus]

Corp, on 25 October 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Turkey isn't part of the Arab League, that's why I mentioned them by name. They seem to be the main supporters of the opposition group though. And because the Arab League is divided about how to handle Syria they're never going to give the green light for military operations, which was one of the key factors for kicking off the Libyan campaign. Same with getting UN support. NATO did its very best to be open about going into Libya and getting not only local permission but also regional and world support.

I think you have misunderstood something. The Arab league gave the green light to the NO-Fly zone, they didn't give a green light to NATO. Actually they condemned NATO for stepping in.

Corp, on 25 October 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Even so there are many who condemn NATO for stepping in, saying they only wanted the oil they were already getting. Then these same people condemn NATO for not stepping in to deal with Syria. So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yes they were getting oil from Libya, but didn't have any control over it. Now they have, there's a big difference.

Corp, on 25 October 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Given the UN track record they're not going to do much of anything to stop Assad. The only military group that seems able and willing to step in on matters like this is NATO and Russia, China, and Iran aren't going to let that happen. I think the best hope for the Syrian opposition group is for Turkey to get sick of what's going on and step in. They're not Arab but they'd be more welcome than a Western power.

I couldn't agree more.

Corp, on 25 October 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Here's some topics where the Syrian protests have been talked about:

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=208086

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=202937

I got one of my Syrian friends to read Knight Of Shadows's comments. He said he felt sad for him. He said the problem with people in Syria is that they can't, or some of them can't, see how badly positioned the are. They think it's not really that bad. My friend said that if Knight Of Shadows would come to the US, he proberly wouldn't like it here but he would like it a lot more than living in Syria. I can ask my friend to join this site and maybe give some comments.

[Scepticus]

747400, on 26 October 2011 - 06:48 AM, said:

(And does anyone not reckon that the Team Six had a good old kickaround with his body?)

They wouldn't have had time for that.

Maybe after leaving Pakistan and if they did "have a good old kickaround" they still didn't record it and send it to every news station in the world. So therefor we can't have an opinion.

This is also the reason why Obama didn't puplish any pictures. Because without any pictures we can't really relate to him and have emotions.

Edited by Scepticus, 26 October 2011 - 12:20 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

So basically then, Gadaffi was not actually disliked by his own people [there's a video on YouTUbe! So that proves it!], and it was all a Conspiracy by the usual suspects to get their hands on his Oil. [   ] To construct an analogy; the coups that brought down the Communist states of eastern Europe at the end of the 80's; were they too engineered by the CIA in order to create a huge market for Western products and eventually, so that they'd become members of NATO and the EU and so help in their ambition for Global dominance? Do people not want to consider that it may have been what it said on the label, and that his own people did want to get rid of him? I wonder why that might be; is it that the intellectuals who form Conspiracy theories are actually secretly afraid of the Masses, and would prefer that the only ones who did have any power or influence were the Usual suspects who they claim to be opposed to?  Or is it just that the Global Baddie, the U.S., was involved, and so it obviously has to be a sinister plot?
And frankly, even if it was the Usual suspects, I say good riddance to the cowardly little rat.

[Scepticus]

747400, on 26 October 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

So basically then, Gadaffi was not actually disliked by his own people [there's a video on YouTUbe! So that proves it!], and it was all a Conspiracy by the usual suspects to get their hands on his Oil. [   ] To construct an analogy; the coups that brought down the Communist states of eastern Europe at the end of the 80's; were they too engineered by the CIA in order to create a huge market for Western products and eventually, so that they'd become members of NATO and the EU and so help in their ambition for Global dominance? Do people not want to consider that it may have been what it said on the label, and that his own people did want to get rid of him? I wonder why that might be; is it that the intellectuals who form Conspiracy theories are actually secretly afraid of the Masses, and would prefer that the only ones who did have any power or influence were the Usual suspects who they claim to be opposed to?  Or is it just that the Global Baddie, the U.S., was involved, and so it obviously has to be a sinister plot?
And frankly, even if it was the Usual suspects, I say good riddance to the cowardly little rat.

747400 do you wanna make a bet? (I know it's agianst the forum rules but no money is involved)

I'll bet in 20-30 years time we will look back and say what difference did it make?

Did you know that Saddam Hussein got american support under the 1968 coup in Iraq? They wanted him to be their puppy but that didn't happen.

He thanked the US for helping him to the power and asked them to please **** off afterwards. I think the same thing will happen in Libya.

[ether2]

bee, on 24 October 2011 - 10:50 AM, said:

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary !!!  


With 6 words you have sealed your political future. You have blown it.



Could the points outlined in the first video above be the real reason Gaddafi was 'removed' ???

mmm, Hilary hay, well she once said "it's not our country" this was in regards to scenarios of upriseing only in around the last year, of course people were dieing at that time. They were her remarks it was that she later stated it was "in the heat of the moment"   , no audio of this phrase but very well known to those at the top of the chain, the scenario where this was said is what makes or breaks your chances at a high level in various industries to come...

she failed and with only 4 words...

good luck

love

[Corp]

bee, on 25 October 2011 - 09:43 PM, said:

Thanks.

I feel sad for the whole of Lybia. Their country has been wrecked.

Not by Gaddafi...he built it up...but by NATO and his internal rivals for power.

Who were used as willing puppets, IMO...and what a delightful bunch THEY turned

out to be !!!


Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama might not have been the ones to actually beat, abuse, sodomize and kill him.

But THEY are responsible.

In a court of law it's not just the Hit Man that gets prosecuted, it's the one who arranged and payed for it.


I expect it will all go pretty quiet on the MSM news front now...apart from the propaganda to keep 'reminding'

the tax paying public, who payed for it all.....how BAD Gaddafi was and how RIGHT we were.


Jeeeeezus...what a world we live in !

Yes ordering live ammo to be used against unarmed protesters and vowing to kill all who opposed him clearly shows how awesome Gaddafi was.  

So what you're claiming is the France, Britain, and the US set up this whole Arab Spring protests, which is how things in Libya were set off, just so they could remove Gaddafi? That they were able to take down the Libyan military and oppress the mass majority of the population who loved Gaddafi by paying off a few thousand poorly armed rebels? Including ambassadors in non-Western countries like China? Really? Because you're kind of contradicting youreself there. You say that Gaddafi was this great and wonderful guy and then put forward a theory that would only be possible if Gaddafi was a completely worthless leader without much popular support. But I guess it's not possible for Libyans to decide they wanted Gaddafi removed. Nope they had to be mindless puppets of the Western world.

Just because you don't like NATO doesn't mean anyone who is against them is a great guy. Say North Korea doesn't like the West. They must be awesome right?

Habitat, on 25 October 2011 - 10:29 PM, said:

So the "benefit"  from this military action was what, if not oil-related ?

Stopping a possible genocide as well as getting rid of an unstable leader. Gaddafi could be friendly one minute and an enemy the next. I'm sure France and Britain are glad he's gone. But in addition Libya was the first Arab Spring protest to become over the top violent. If they had stepped back and let Gaddafi butcher people, especially since the world media was focused on Libya at the moment, they would have been condemned for allowing genocide to happen. So there was bad stuff going down, they had an opposition group that seemed to be in place to replace Gaddafi, so they said 'hey let's go with it'.

Scepticus, on 26 October 2011 - 11:57 AM, said:

I think you have misunderstood something. The Arab league gave the green light to the NO-Fly zone, they didn't give a green light to NATO. Actually they condemned NATO for stepping in.

Actually they did. When the Arab League agreed to the no-fly zone NATO members were the only ones willing and able to enforce said zone. NATO clearly said that once they got the green light from the Arab League and the UN that they would be the ones enforcing the no-fly zone. So by agreeing to the no-fly zone the Arab League was also agreeing that it would be NATO who would be running the show. The disagreement came from how the no-fly zone was enforced. The Arab League thought it would be the passive protection of population zones, while NATO took a more active role in looking for threats and destroying them. Eventually this changed into actively helping the rebels, though not nearly enough according to the fighters on the ground.

Quote

Yes they were getting oil from Libya, but didn't have any control over it. Now they have, there's a big difference.

No they don't. The new Libyan government has control over the oil and has vowed to honour all contracts that Gaddafi made to other countries. NATO doesn't even have any troops in Libya aside from a few advisors so they couldn't control the oil fields even if they wanted to. They'd need to launch an invasion to do that. The only benefit oil wise that NATO members have gotten is a promise to get special deals on oil in the future due to them helping the new government come to power. Time will tell if that promise is actually kept and if those benefits outweigh the cost of the intervention.

[Scepticus]

Corp, on 26 October 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Actually they did. When the Arab League agreed to the no-fly zone NATO members were the only ones willing and able to enforce said zone. NATO clearly said that once they got the green light from the Arab League and the UN that they would be the ones enforcing the no-fly zone. So by agreeing to the no-fly zone the Arab League was also agreeing that it would be NATO who would be running the show. The disagreement came from how the no-fly zone was enforced. The Arab League thought it would be the passive protection of population zones, while NATO took a more active role in looking for threats and destroying them. Eventually this changed into actively helping the rebels, though not nearly enough according to the fighters on the ground.

Yes the Arab League said specifically they do not want to see any NATO bombs hitting the ground. Meaning that they did not give any green light for what NATO did.
The reason why the Arab league really gave the green light to the no-fly zone in the first place, was because they was fed up with Gaddafi.  Do you know how the Arab league works? Not one in the Arab League like each other.

Corp, on 26 October 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

No they don't. The new Libyan government has control over the oil and has vowed to honour all contracts that Gaddafi made to other countries. NATO doesn't even have any troops in Libya aside from a few advisors so they couldn't control the oil fields even if they wanted to. They'd need to launch an invasion to do that. The only benefit oil wise that NATO members have gotten is a promise to get special deals on oil in the future due to them helping the new government come to power. Time will tell if that promise is actually kept and if those benefits outweigh the cost of the intervention.

Before the uprise in Libya the US didn't get as much oil from Libya as you would like to think. Not at all!

When Gaddafi was in power how much of the oil produced in Libya do you think US got?

All lawful contracts will be honored ... There's no question of revoking any contract

But after these contracts are done. 3 nations (maybe 4) will mainly get Libyas oil. The US, the UK and France. (Also maybe italy, once 1/3 of all oil in italy came from Libya, but we'll have to see what the new government really thinks of italy)

And the US oil companies will benifit the most from this. Tesoro have allready done some pretty good deals(While still fighting Gaddafi, the rebels managed to ship over 1,2 billion barrels oil to the US company Tesoro)

It annoys me that Donald Trump is not in power. He wouldn't hide behinde other reasons, he would simply say yeaa we helped because of the oil.

Edited by Scepticus, 26 October 2011 - 02:29 PM.

[ether2]

Scepticus, on 26 October 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

It annoys me that Donald Trump is not in power. He wouldn't hide behinde other reasons, he would simply say yeaa we helped because of the oil.

Lol, him in power Wt. the world would go backwards if he was in power, "what it is" boy i call him, as his favourite say'n is "what it is" this includes when of course discussing future endeavours whether it be marketing or other areas as he says "what it is" (he thinks this area is google or a calculator) well as it is stated to him regulary "what it is" stands at "what it is" at that time, the business world does not move forward with "what it is" as thats yesterdays the week before the month before the year before "ideas" ya get the idea of it, meaning in business terms do as ya did yesterday ya dead (it's a business thing)...

how he made any money based on some of his theories is beyond my brains ability to comprehend, oh wait buildings dont go down in value...

i also call him "hand be down kid"...

down worry those that recieved money handed down from "generation(s)" all good "economy" needed...

good luck

love

[Corp]

Scepticus, on 26 October 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

Yes the Arab League said specifically they do not want to see any NATO bombs hitting the ground. Meaning that they did not give any green light for what NATO did.
The reason why the Arab league really gave the green light to the no-fly zone in the first place, was because they was fed up with Gaddafi.  Do you know how the Arab league works? Not one in the Arab League like each other.

The fact remains that the Arab League approved of a no-fly zone that they knew NATO would be enforcing.

Quote

Before the uprise in Libya the US didn't get as much oil from Libya as you would like to think. Not at all!

When Gaddafi was in power how much of the oil produced in Libya do you think US got?

All lawful contracts will be honored ... There's no question of revoking any contract

But after these contracts are done. 3 nations (maybe 4) will mainly get Libyas oil. The US, the UK and France. (Also maybe italy, once 1/3 of all oil in italy came from Libya, but we'll have to see what the new government really thinks of italy)

And the US oil companies will benifit the most from this. Tesoro have allready done some pretty good deals(While still fighting Gaddafi, the rebels managed to ship over 1,2 billion barrels oil to the US company Tesoro)

It annoys me that Donald Trump is not in power. He wouldn't hide behinde other reasons, he would simply say yeaa we helped because of the oil.

The US was getting 0.5% of total Libyan oil exports. However US oil companies are irrelivant in this case because the US weren't the ones pushing for intervention into Libya. In fact they were largely dragging their feet. France and Britain, and later Italy, were the ones pushing for military intervention and they were the ones who flew the most combat missions. The US mainly provided support for the operations. Libya was a European operation not an American one and Europe was already getting 97.2% of Libya's oil exports. France was by far the most vocal and active in getting a military mission going and they were already getting about 15.7% of the total Libyan oil exports. So the only way the US is going to "control the oil" is by massively screwing over Europe, something Libya isn't about to do. So the argument that this whole conflict was about allowing the US to take over the Libyan oil industry don't hold any water.

Source: http://www.iea.org/f...facts_libya.pdf

http://205.254.135.2...s/Libya/pdf.pdf
Another source that shows US exports at 3% with named European countries making up 72% (and likely most of that 14% in 'Other'). Again Europe, who were the ones who wanted military intervention, was already getting the majority of Libyan oil. So what benefit was there to support the rebels? If they lost than kiss those oil deals goodbye. If this was truely about the oil than NATO would have either done nothing or would have backed Gaddafi. Again oil for war in this case just doesn't make sense.