• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

No Fly zones over Libya?

T
I am also pretty sure that foreign military intervention almost never state that killing the enemy leader is an objective and is always careful to maintain the possibility for him to step down and flee. I think the second Iraq war may qualify, but this does not make it a rule nonetheless.

In that particular case, the US explicitly told Saddam to leave Iraq just before they invaded. He was told what was going to happen and how to avoid the worst.

It's usually better to give the enemy a way out. That way they are less likely to fight to the last. It doesn't always work, but it's worth a shot.

McHrozni
 
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/03/jihadis-who-killed-americans-get-us-support-libya

Jihadis who killed Americans get U.S. support in Libya

By: Byron York

There's no question that the rebels Americans are currently fighting for in Libya include in their ranks jihadis who in recent years traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill Americans. The only question is whether that worries you or not.

Take Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebels in the fighting for Adjabiya. His hometown, Darnah, has produced many jihadis, and after the Sept. 11 attacks al-Hasidi traveled to Afghanistan to fight the "foreign invasion" -- that is, the U.S. military. … snip …

Now al-Hasidi and his allies are moving toward Tripoli, which would not be possible without the military power of the United States. The men who devoted so much energy to killing Americans are now thankfully watching Americans kill for them.

… snip …

So what should the United States do about Libyan fighters who went to Iraq to kill Americans? And Libyans who went to Afghanistan to kill Americans? And Libyans who recruited them and helped them with their travels? Should we be hunting those people down? Or should we be fighting on their behalf?
 
Please elaborate. Privatizing what and for what purpose(s).


So that the Libyan people can join the free market utopia of financial and economic stability that has been such success for the West.


(President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that "Iraq remains
a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East" and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US, "military intervention" is necessary.")

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There's no business like war business
 
I know. It is the point of mine.
The morality and legality of the intervention in Libya is very important to me.

Well of course, to me too. But the intervention in Libya is not akin to Kadhaffi assassination, which AFAIK is not considered and is merely a fantasy scenario brought up by some.

McHrozni:
In that particular case, the US explicitly told Saddam to leave Iraq just before they invaded. He was told what was going to happen and how to avoid the worst.

As I said elsewhere, I had the recollection that the media reported about bomb strikes specifically aiming Saddam Hussein (stories like those). Your memory and mine are not mutually exclusive, though. Telling to the press on day one (if my article is correct) that Saddam Hussein was a target sounds to me like a colossal blunder though.
 

Your article have only three mentions of the world "oil", none of them giving me the details of the cunning scheme you speak of.

Please elaborate on
i.e privatization of Libya's oil industry.

Surely, you have a general idea of what will be "privatized"? And the purpose of this privatization? That's quite a specific claim you make here.

So that the Libyan people can join the free market utopia of financial and economic stability that has been such success for the West.

Because the Libyan oil industry is not part of this as of today? Are you sure?
 
Last edited:
As I said elsewhere, I had the recollection that the media reported about bomb strikes specifically aiming Saddam Hussein (stories like those). Your memory and mine are not mutually exclusive, though. Telling to the press on day one (if my article is correct) that Saddam Hussein was a target sounds to me like a colossal blunder though.

I think we're both correct - Saddam was offered and option to flee just before the strikes began and when he didn't, he was made a target, I seem to recall that as well. Seeing how Iraq war turned out, telling Saddam was a target didn't matter much, since he was only able to offer negliable resistance and was captured and executed well before the most significant problems began.

McHrozni
 
I think we're both correct - Saddam was offered and option to flee just before the strikes began and when he didn't, he was made a target, I seem to recall that as well. Seeing how Iraq war turned out, telling Saddam was a target didn't matter much, since he was only able to offer negliable resistance and was captured and executed well before the most significant problems began.

McHrozni

I think it was a blunder, not for the Iraq war itself, but as a precedent. I fail to see what real advantage could have be gained by killing him, the military odds being overwhelmingly in favor of the USA and its allies.
As I said here and in another thread, heads of state are not official targets and there is a very good case for this. I doubt that the Saddam Hussein precedent will be carried on, but still...
 
Last edited:
It's safe to assume that the desired outcome is a further bloating of the war industry (including juicy "reconstruction" projects) and a Libyan regime that is amenable to "International Markets". i.e privatization of Libya's oil industry.


Ho ho ho. Another fail.
 
Your article have only three mentions of the world "oil", none of them giving me the details of the cunning scheme you speak of.

What "cunning scheme"?

I posted the link for general interest rather than in response to your post. Among other things, it reminds us that water is another resource over which wars are fought.

Libya is the strategic Saharan Gateway to Central Africa, where the US wants to counter Chinese influence.

Please elaborate on
i.e privatization of Libya's oil industry.


Surely, you have a general idea of what will be "privatized"? And the purpose of this privatization? That's quite a specific claim you make here.

Libya's oil money, The NOC (ranked 25 among the world’s Top 100 Oil Companies) and the 100% state-owned Central Bank of Libya (CBL). Currently, Libya owns and issues its own money. That's not good for international, free-market finance!

The purpose: To serve the interests of global money.

International companies have found it difficult to do business with Libya:

One Year After Nationalization Threats, Libya Now Desperate For Oil And Gas Investors


Because the Libyan oil industry is not part of this as of today? Are you sure?

I was under the impression that Libya had nationalized its oil fields. Maybe I'm wrong.

Like Venezuela, Libya pursues socialist policies rather that free-market ones, investing oil profits in free health care and education systems, as well as supporting projects in other African countries.

Most of Libya's oil prospects remain unexplored as a result of past sanctions and disagreements with foreign oil companies.

"Winners of Libyan exploration acreage are determined largely based on how high a share of production a company is willing to offer NOC. Whichever companies offer NOC the greatest share of profits is likely to win. In addition, oilfield developers initially bear 100 percent of costs (exploration, appraisal, training) for a minimum of 5 years, while NOC retains exclusive ownership."source
 
Last edited:
Libya's oil money, The NOC (ranked 25 among the world’s Top 100 Oil Companies) and the 100% state-owned Central Bank of Libya (CBL). Currently, Libya owns and issues its own money. That's not good for international, free-market finance!

So what does the NOC do exactly. Maybe the quote you have at the end of the article might help us give us an hint there:
"Winners of Libyan exploration acreage are determined largely based on how high a share of production a company is willing to offer NOC. Whichever companies offer NOC the greatest share of profits is likely to win. In addition, oilfield developers initially bear 100 percent of costs (exploration, appraisal, training) for a minimum of 5 years, while NOC retains exclusive ownership."

Who do you think are the "winners of Libyan exploration" and "oilfield developers"?

According to this small Reuters article, the foreign oil companies produce 460.000 bpd, out of the 1.3m Libya usually do.
Foreign oil companies as of today, thus accounts for a third of Libya production.

"On behalf of the NOC.". Indeed, but then again, I was under the impression that it was the same in all oil countries: you have to be awarded the right to exploit a land that the country owns, by definition, and as such only a public office or company can grant it. Well, last I checked, they were doing the same thing in current Iraq: the Ministry of Oil, which have absorbed the former National company, grants oilfields very much like Libya: on the basis of the profit/price that oil companies offers them. Joint ventures between the national company and foreign oil companies are also common.

By the way: who owns Saudi Aramco?

International companies have found it difficult to do business with Libya:

One Year After Nationalization Threats, Libya Now Desperate For Oil And Gas Investors

Really? Weren't you the one who posted a link about the BP deal with Libya for 900m$? How many foreign companies are operating in Libya, do you think?

I cannot help but to notice in the article you cite the following:
The head of Libya’s National Oil Corp., Shokri Ghanem, has his eye on expanding gas exploration and production in a bid to raise exports to Europe, as well as privatizing oil refineries and the petrochemical sector

The government of Muammar Gaddafi has relied on foreigners to scout for new wells and bolster current production
(...)
Libya’s national oil company chief has talked about the need for foreign investments


Gaddafi was very willing to "privatize" the damn thing, and they want foreign money and companies to come and exploit the oil, because NOC and Libya were aiming at seriously increasing their production and exports. Exports, by the way, that were already heavily sent to Western Europe.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=LY

I was under the impression that Libya had nationalized its oil fields. Maybe I'm wrong.

The very article you link to has "Nationalization threats" in the very title. So obviously...

Like Venezuela, Libya pursues socialist policies rather that free-market ones, investing oil profits in free health care and education systems, as well as supporting projects in other African countries.

Beautiful.
Or maybe they also invest it in Oilinvest/Tamoil.
Tamoil is a former Lebanese company that Libya bought completely, and who happens to operate a large number of oil activities (refinery, gas stations, etc...) in Europe, mainly the Netherlands, Germany, Swiss and Italia, country where they help mounting supporting projects as well.

You may know the name, because it was featured at one point on the shirt of the famous football club of Turin, the Juventus (you know, belonging to Agnelli family). Tamoil signed a deal potentially over 100m €, that was called off when the Juventus was involved in a major scandal. All in the name of socialism.

What's even funnier, is that back in 2007-2008, Libya was very much willing to sell two thirds of the share of Tamoil (which belong to sovereign funds, the NOC, etc...). For 4 billion dollars, to Colony Capital, a famous americanprivate equity firm. Please note that the Carlyle Group (yes, the very one) was among the bidder.

The deal did not went through ultimately. But it does not change the fact that Libya was very much willing to privatize its "foreign" oil interests.

Libyan sovereign funds are also active in other foreign investments. They were the biggest shareholders (over 7%) in italian major bank Unicredit.

Most of Libya's oil prospects remain unexplored as a result of past sanctions and disagreements with foreign oil companies.

Don't worry, since the sanctions were lifted off, they were clearly trying to make up for the lost time.
 
Last edited:
Libya is the strategic Saharan Gateway to Central Africa, where the US wants to counter Chinese influence.

I don't know if you know much about the history of that part of the world but one of the absolute lessions is that for some reason you want acess to Central Africa (and you generaly don't there is a reason the europeans tended to stick around the coast) you don't do it by sailing across the sahara.

No if the US wanted millitry influence in that area it would join the french in the DRC or ivory coast. Or they could go for their traditional allies of Liberia. Alturnatively if that absolutely must overthrow a dictator in the process then Equatorial Guinea is a good choice. About as centeral as you can get and with a population of only 676K they can probably be bribed into being democratic. Libya on the other hand has about the strategic significance of a banana.


Like Venezuela, Libya pursues socialist policies rather that free-market ones, investing oil profits in free health care and education systems, as well as supporting projects in other African countries.

No one objects to oil rich states spending money on things. It's what they all do. If it is spent on things other than nuclear weapons that is considered a pluss. Supporting projects in other African countries is again not considered a significant problem. Well not since the african union ended up in south africa.
 
And just to further clarify my former post: Yes Libya does indeed have a state owned company that manages oil assets. And so does Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Koweit (and much like Libya, they own a foreign subsidiary, Q8), Nigeria, and probably all oil countries out there. That does not make the oil production "nationalized".

Difficulty to strike oil deals is not exclusive to Libya, it also happens here (guess we'll have to invade them... again). Negociations over the share that oil companies give to the country that owns the oil is a staple of the industry since... well pretty much forever.

So, to sum it up:
- Libya was certainly not adverse to increase the share of foreign investments (esp. to american and european corporations) and to go towards privatization of assets.
- Since the embargo was lifted (not to mention the commerce restriction from the USA to Libya that were lifted even later), foreign oil companies share in Libyan production is on the rise and there were no sign of it slowing down, since Libya intended to double the production, something that cannot be achieved without foreign oil companies.
- I fail to see the radical difference between how Libya oil industry is organised and all of the other countries of the region.
- Libya oil industry has a foreign subsidiary which seems to be virtually equivalent to what all Western big corporations do, engaging in sponsoring or financial markets.
- Lybian oil is in its very large majority already heading towards western countries.
 
Last edited:
Laeke, your comments seem to confirm my original statement that the desired outcome of NATO's military action is indeed the privatization of Libya's oil industry. As in Iraq, private companies have found themselves out-bidded out by State-owned companies, which are prepared to accept the low returns offered by the governments. The Pentagon doesn't like this. It favors the enemies of it hegemonic dream, such as China and Russia. What the Pentagon fears most is independent countries which do not cooperate with the the US-favored international banking system.

However, you omit to say anything about the 100% state-owned Central Bank of Libya. It is the flow of Libya's oil money that international finance seeks to control more than the oil itself.

What is your preferred explanation for the Pentagon's willingness to spend hundreds of millions of dollars bombing Libya?
 
Last edited:
Good old American boys look like they are on another turkey shoot.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42334849/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Or else they have suddenly found a group of civilians in urgent need of protection in the middle of the desert.

Sad but not surprising that it should be President Hopey-Change that should so comprehensively pee on the UN Security Council in a way with George W Bush would never have dared.

China, Russia, Germany, Brazil and India, take your golden shower. Smile and say thank you.



Edit: My mistake, it looks the jets here were French as Sarkozy tries to bomb his way to reelection.

Edit again: Actually it could be anybody doing the bombing - the rebels call every plane French as it avoids having the cognitive dissonance of having to accept help from Israel's #1 supporter.

Perhaps this will all change when NATO takes over and the French are having a last hurrah - or perhaps it won't. My assumption of why Turkey and Germany have been so keen to get NATO involved as they see it as one way in which France, USA and Britain may be forced to respect the UN - but I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Laeke, your comments seem to confirm my original statement that the desired outcome of NATO's military action is indeed the privatization of Libya's oil industry.

I certainly find your interpretation of the facts we currently have in this thread interesting.

As in Iraq, private companies have found themselves out-bidded out by State-owned companies

Really? I did not see what support this. Almost all the major foreign actors currently in Libya are private. Their share are on the rise and is certainly more important today than it was at the end of the embargo. Libya has stated that it awaited billions in foreign investments. And so far, private foreign companies are the ones providing it.
 
Last edited:
What "cunning scheme"?

I posted the link for general interest rather than in response to your post. Among other things, it reminds us that water is another resource over which wars are fought.

Libya is the strategic Saharan Gateway to Central Africa, where the US wants to counter Chinese influence.



Libya's oil money, The NOC (ranked 25 among the world’s Top 100 Oil Companies) and the 100% state-owned Central Bank of Libya (CBL). Currently, Libya owns and issues its own money. That's not good for international, free-market finance!

The purpose: To serve the interests of global money.

International companies have found it difficult to do business with Libya:

One Year After Nationalization Threats, Libya Now Desperate For Oil And Gas Investors




I was under the impression that Libya had nationalized its oil fields. Maybe I'm wrong.

Like Venezuela, Libya pursues socialist policies rather that free-market ones, investing oil profits in free health care and education systems, as well as supporting projects in other African countries.

Most of Libya's oil prospects remain unexplored as a result of past sanctions and disagreements with foreign oil companies.

"Winners of Libyan exploration acreage are determined largely based on how high a share of production a company is willing to offer NOC. Whichever companies offer NOC the greatest share of profits is likely to win. In addition, oilfield developers initially bear 100 percent of costs (exploration, appraisal, training) for a minimum of 5 years, while NOC retains exclusive ownership."source

Stop digging. You failed. They lease sectors to the E&P companies the same as the UK govt does, it is just that oil money goes to the NOC instead of direct tax revenues to the govt coffers like the UK.

The state companies cannot drill the required way for most of the new wells so have to go to outside companies anyway.

Try looking around the world at other countries like Brazil and Mexico with their NOC's. This is utter nonsense you are posting.
 
Laeke, your comments seem to confirm my original statement that the desired outcome of NATO's military action is indeed the privatization of Libya's oil industry. ?
Jane, Colonel Q has already privatized it.

Open your beady little eyes, eh?
 
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.c...a-fighters-heading-to-libya-from-afghanistan/

The Daily Beast reported:
As the battle for the future of Libya continues, the excitement is almost palpable among Libyan-born al Qaeda fighters and other Arabs hunkered down in Pakistan’s remote and lawless tribal area. According to Afghan Taliban sources close to Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group, some of the 200 or so Libyans operating near the Afghan border may be on their way home to steer the anti-Gaddafi revolution in a more Islamist direction.

“We have heard a number of fighters have already departed from the tribal area,” says an Afghan commander who is linked to the powerful Haqqani network, a North Waziristan-based organization that shelters many al Qaeda fighters.
Others may be on their way. “Libyans and Arabs seem to be getting ready for departure and are eager to go home and fight,” says the Afghan source. “I’ve heard that some fighters are saying goodbye and giving thanks with kind words to their (Pakistani) tribal friends who have been sheltering them.”

… snip …

According to the Afghan commander, al Qaeda fighters can’t believe their good luck that U.S. and NATO aircraft—the same forces that have dropped bombs on their heads in Afghanistan and Pakistan—are now raining down ordnance against Gaddafi.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom