• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gaddafi's useful idiots.

bikerdruid said:
do burma and north korea have oil?
call me cynical, but i think that is the difference.
Click to expand...

You might be of that opinion, but I doubt there was any thought process involved. :rolleyes:

Please explain the procedure necessary to secure a UNSC resolution authorising an intervention in Myanmar (Burma). Keep in mind China will veto it, so solve that, first. Have them ejected from UNSC or something, I don't know, it's your problem. If you can't, admit you've been proven at least one critical differance exists that has nothing to do with oil.

McHrozni
 
funk de fino said:
Seems you saw nothing on the news at all in the early days. Just went to a few woo sites after the fact.
Click to expand...
I'm a historian by training - sometimes we look after the fact. I'm just not grasping your obsessions with only getting your info only from same day cable news broadcasts and nothing else. I don't have TV even if I wanted to do it that way.

So what did you mean by "new cast to watch?" That made no sense to me. Are you okay?

I have no heroes in the news media and do not use twitter. You were not mentioning the black men were you? "Probably bad" is an understatement. It is why no-one takes your stuff seriously.
Click to expand...

I meant the racist, Islamist, terrorist factions of the rebel fighters. They call foreigner based on skin color all the time (or did in the early days when ethnic cleansing was more useful), and I did once. With a question mark (that is I wondered), and I didn't kill anyone over it. There's something else at work in how they got cable news credence, with everyone saying African mercenary, and I get ridiculed by the likes of you.

Explain yourself better or bug off, 'cause you make no sense yet. And you aren't on the news anyway, so by your own formula, I should tune you out.
 
Also, on why Libya as opposed to North Korea or Myanmar is being attacked. Oil's got to be a factor. And size and power, of the nation and its friends, as McHrozni adds. Libya has oil, few friends, and a tiny population of about 6,000,000. They're an easy target. We're seeing the bully mentality at work. (again, in part - there's never one answer only).
 
Caustic Logic said:
Also, on why Libya as opposed to North Korea or Myanmar is being attacked. Oil's got to be a factor. And size and power, of the nation and its friends, as McHrozni adds. Libya has oil, few friends, and a tiny population of about 6,000,000. They're an easy target. We're seeing the bully mentality at work. (again, in part - there's never one answer only).
Click to expand...

How much oil has NATO stolen so far?
 
Caustic Logic said:
Also, on why Libya as opposed to North Korea or Myanmar is being attacked. Oil's got to be a factor. And size and power, of the nation and its friends, as McHrozni adds. Libya has oil, few friends, and a tiny population of about 6,000,000. They're an easy target. We're seeing the bully mentality at work. (again, in part - there's never one answer only).
Click to expand...

If oil were a factor, why not quietly stay out of it? How has prolonging the conflict and reducing the chances of a decisive conclusion improved the belligerents' access to Libyan oil, either now or in the future?

Or do you mean "easy target" literally? Because last time I checked, NATO had plenty of bombing ranges at home, conveniently free of civilian casualty PR disasters and day-long sortie flights.
 
@ Funk de Fino: I realized later by "new cast," you meant "news cast," which is pretty obvious, though an old term I forgot about. Fine, another thing to make fun of me - not noticing you were saying the same old thing - basically "watch the news, accept as-is, and STFU, CT nut."

You might also want to take this advice to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the French groups that wrote this report, Cherif Bassiouni's UN mission, and others who've gone on fact-finding missions to Libya. Made-up after the fact woo nonsense. If you can't find your facts on a BBC or al Jazeera broadcast, you're a nutter. It was all figgered out as it happened, and we don't need no history re-writers.

Is that about it?

QUOTE=Virus]How much oil has NATO stolen so far?[/QUOTE]

I never used the word steal, and it's only half-appropriate. "NATO" doesn't put it in a bag and walk away. But they serve the interests of theire home governments, who serve the interests of their oil companies.

Obviously the oil stays in the ground - of a country - with a leadership that decides the terms under which it's extracted. That's the part that's pretty well decided will change, and one of the few things the top rebel TNC leaders have in common is a known speciality in free-market economics, privatization, hostile takeovers, etc., earned in the US and UK mostly.

But why regime change? See below...

theprestige said:
If oil were a factor, why not quietly stay out of it? How has prolonging the conflict and reducing the chances of a decisive conclusion improved the belligerents' access to Libyan oil, either now or in the future?
Click to expand...

In the short term, it's driven prices up, which helps some but hurts economies in short and mid-term, etc. (as I gather). So they take a hit, tap into the reserves to ease the pain. Why? Is there some big gain to offset it?

Yes. The main point is questioning the bolded part. To keep access like the West has had, in experimental form since 2003, indeed no disruption would be easiest. But it's more than just access itself, it's the quantity, quality, nature, and context of that access that also factor in. These are big reserves we're talking about, close, potentially important, and every downside is multiplied by that scale.

What are the problems? Perception of working with or abetting a dictatorial and terrorist regime. Being forced (or attempted to be) by Tripoli to give a cut back to cover their expenses settling the Lockerbie case. That's context. The more important economic factors, per the Wall Street Journal ("no love lost")

"Libya has gone from the world's most exciting oil-exploration hot spot in 2005 to another geologically, politically and fiscally risky also-ran," says Charles Gurdon , a North Africa expert at Menas Associates, a consultancy.
[...]
Libya kept its crown jewels off limits to foreigners. The huge onshore oil fields that accounted for the bulk of its production remained the preserve of Libya's state companies. Yet without advanced foreign technology to improve oil-recovery rates, output at these big fields gradually declined, by as much as 6% a year in some cases.
[...]
Politics continually intruded, particularly in 2009, the year the Scottish authorities released Abdel Baset al-Megrahi , the Libyan imprisoned for his role in the bombing of a passenger jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, on compassionate grounds. The Canadian government expressed disapproval at the hero's welcome Mr. Megrahi received on his return to Tripoli. Shortly afterward, Libya told Petro-Canada, a Canadian company, to halve production from its Libyan fields. Libya said the reduction was needed to make sure Libya was in compliance with OPEC quotas. But other companies weren't targeted, analysts say.
[...]
Gradually, foreign oil companies' interest in Libya faded. When Libya offered them the right to bid on exploration tracts in December 2007, half of the blocks attracted no bids.

A clutch of companies left Libya as their five-year exploration licenses began to expire, among them Chevron Corp., BG Group PLC and Australia's Woodside Petroleum Ltd.
Click to expand...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-wests-oil-firms-no-love-lost-in-libya-2011-04-14

The bolded are among the things you can expect look to change under the new government. Not that it's a motive for war, or a motive to be too trusting of flawed rebel reports that takes us there. It's just a predictable and very positive side-effect. ;)

And lest anyone say it must be about more than oil, of course it is. There's also water privatization (GMMR), nipping pan-Africanism and keeping the continent safe for AFRICOM (same link covers this), privatizing the massive state services currently (or 'til recently) enjoyed by most Libyans, opening up the state-owned and debt-free central bank, and perhaps most important setting an example for other would-be challengers of Western hegemony.


Anyone have a direct response to the points raised in my post #104?
 
Caustic Logic said:
Also, on why Libya as opposed to North Korea or Myanmar is being attacked. Oil's got to be a factor. And size and power, of the nation and its friends, as McHrozni adds. Libya has oil, few friends, and a tiny population of about 6,000,000. They're an easy target. We're seeing the bully mentality at work. (again, in part - there's never one answer only).
Click to expand...

If the west was after easy oil, aiding Quackdaffi would be the most prudent course of action. Why wasn't that pursued? Please come up with something plausible and specific.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
If the west was after easy oil, aiding [the dude] would be the most prudent course of action. Why wasn't that pursued? Please come up with something plausible and specific.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

I did. See above. He was keeping too much back for the people of Libya, refusing access to most of it, tossing out strange terms they weren't happy with, and companies were giving up and leaving. They'll get interested again as soon he's gone.

That "oil interests would have us do nothing" canard is getting real old and thin, but everyone seems to buy it anyway. Anything to convince oneself there logically cannot be any ulterior motives here, in the one alleged gov't massacre of 2011 we're hell-bent on punishing to oblivion...
 
Caustic Logic said:
I did. See above. He was keeping too much back for the people of Libya, refusing access to most of it, tossing out strange terms they weren't happy with, and companies were giving up and leaving. They'll get interested again as soon he's gone.

That "oil interests would have us do nothing" canard is getting real old and thin, but everyone seems to buy it anyway. Anything to convince oneself there logically cannot be any ulterior motives here, in the one alleged gov't massacre of 2011 we're hell-bent on punishing to oblivion...
Click to expand...

If I add a condition that the explanation must not be based on fiction, will you see that as moving goal posts?

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
If I add a condition that the explanation must not be based on fiction, will you see that as moving goal posts?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

On top of completely missing the explanation when asking for an explanation, I would consider that silly move akin to trying to hide the goal posts under a paper napkin. Do you have any proof Mr. Chazan's article, published in the Wall Street Journal April 15, is a work of fiction?
 
Caustic Logic said:
I'm a historian by training - sometimes we look after the fact. I'm just not grasping your obsessions with only getting your info only from same day cable news broadcasts and nothing else. I don't have TV even if I wanted to do it that way.
Click to expand...

Yet you continue to deny tings that have been shown in the early days on news casts. If you get to the party late and the drink is gone.........

So what did you mean by "new cast to watch?" That made no sense to me. Are you okay?
Click to expand...

News cast.

I meant the racist, Islamist, terrorist factions of the rebel fighters. They call foreigner based on skin color all the time (or did in the early days when ethnic cleansing was more useful), and I did once. With a question mark (that is I wondered), and I didn't kill anyone over it. There's something else at work in how they got cable news credence, with everyone saying African mercenary, and I get ridiculed by the likes of you.
Click to expand...

Never been to Libya have you?

Explain yourself better or bug off, 'cause you make no sense yet. And you aren't on the news anyway, so by your own formula, I should tune you out.
Click to expand...

Ho ho. Fly in the ear eh?

I see you are back on the oil nonsense as well. Too funny.
 
Caustic Logic said:
I did. See above. He was keeping too much back for the people of Libya, refusing access to most of it, tossing out strange terms they weren't happy with, and companies were giving up and leaving. They'll get interested again as soon he's gone.

That "oil interests would have us do nothing" canard is getting real old and thin, but everyone seems to buy it anyway. Anything to convince oneself there logically cannot be any ulterior motives here, in the one alleged gov't massacre of 2011 we're hell-bent on punishing to oblivion...
Click to expand...

This is complete nonsense. I work in the oil industry and have done so in Libya. You are utterly clueless on this.
 
funk de fino said:
This is complete nonsense. I work in the oil industry and have done so in Libya. You are utterly clueless on this.
Click to expand...

Oh, well gosh. If you say so, with bland unexplained expertise, and with your other advice being so sterling (CNN writes our history, watch it and STFU, go to Libya or STFU about it, etc.), I take back everything I said...

Do I really need to add the "not!"?

So this thread was supposed to be about useful idiots. I get the useful part, those who criticize the war against Gaddafi, or even express direct support for his government's resistance to it. But how do you smart folks decide which of those people are "idiots?"

Please focus on easy, truistic answers - "they say stupid things," etc. Don't admit that it really comes down to their disagreeing with your own shallow, news cast-informed opinions... idiocy that's useful to NATO.
 
Apparently when he said he was a historian, what he really meant was that he's not a historian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom