Oh memories, I remember when the Libyan revolutionaries had all the support in the world

[joshcryer]

It was a mere month ago when almost no one criticized the "rebellion." A mere handful or two of us have stuck with Libya even as everyone else turned its back. Some people turned their back on Libya early on, when they dared ask for help from the international community. Others showed their colors when Libya actually got that help from the international community.

Truth is I have no idea how Libya will turn out, but I have faith in the Libyan people and I have faith in the Arab Spring. I believe that ultimately the same things that caused the eruption in Tunisia and Egypt happened in Libya and that ultimately the results will be the same. There's no room for conspiracy talk there for me because when the conspiracies are vetted they come off as insincere deflecting for the wider reasons that those have abandoned their support for the Libyan people (or more implicitly came out against the Libyan revolutionaries).

One conspiracy invokes Al-Queada to "prove" that there are "elements" of Al-Queada presence, but you look at the source which purports to show that most foreign fighters in Iraq came from Libya you find that it is http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf">in fact wrong. In some reports Egypt was second-most provider of fighters in Iraq, but I looked in vein to find people debasing Egyptian protesters for that unfortunate information.

Another conspiracy invokes the oil companies and uses selective quoting in a Wikileaks source to "prove" that Gaddafi was shafting the oil companies. When you read the actual report Gaddafi extended the oil contracts almost a http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294850/EUROPEAN-OIL-COMPANIES-EXTEND-CONTRACTS-IN-LIBYA-1.SBU.html">quarter century, and gave the oil companies new field development opportunities (ie, new leases to exploit more of Libya's oil).

And of course, then there's the neocon PNAC conspiracy, whereby somehow the neocons were responsible for the whole shebang (though never stated, of course, it's all implied, to get people to doubt the Libyan revolutionaries)! Yet when the wikileaks cable came out that implied that the http://wikileaks.ca/cable/2008/12/08CAIRO2572.html">US actually planned the Egyptian uprising, I didn't hear a peep from very many about this conspiracy.

I'll continue to ardently support the Libyan revolutionaries and those who rose up against a tyrant. Libya is not much of an exception in the Arab World. In fact, I'd argue that Libya is going to be an example of how these states really turn out when tyrants don't give up, given Yemen and Saudi Arabia. If it does turn out that Egypt and Tunisia were the exceptions and Libya was the rule, it will be a very sad day indeed.

Because when people turn their backs on the Saudi protesters and the Yemeni protesters I will only cry. But I will stand strong and support any peoples who rise up against tyrants. "Legality" be damned.

[Riftaxe]

1. First of all, neither side in this conflict is pure

And i hate to admit it but i fear President Obama's stance on this conflict is politically motivated.

I really do not have enough information on the *rebells* to come to any confirmed conclusion, all i can really say is i hope khadafi falls.

But i will add i am 100% against Amerecian women and men putting there lives on the till for europe in this instance.

[joshcryer]

3. No one said anyone was pure. We supported the Egyptians but they still harrassed women...

...protesters, still stoned someone voting, still burned Christian churches down (I believe that last one was psyops / tricked). That doesn't mean we stopped supporting them as a whole.

[Riftaxe]

10. I more then believe the coptics got burned

they are a very strict minority of monophysities there, so even more a thorn in the side of islam(I expect no more rationality from the muslims, but truely they burning their own in a historic sense).

And in the end nothing happened in Egypt, the military was in control, and remains so. I admit it was one hell of a Public Relations campaign, but nothing there has changed. Which is why Israel, had not even bothered to enhance border guards.

[joshcryer]

16. Nah, the constitutional refrendum in Egypt opened up a lot of future political possiblities.

That's ultimately what the protesters wanted, along with Mubrack ousted (he actually offered to implement their changes but they refused and wanted him ousted).

[Tx4obama]

24. Also, the 30 year state of emergency rules/curfew was lifted too, right? n/t

[joshcryer]

28. Yeah, I had a good link but I'm crapped out right now. :(

Got to do some more posts in the revolution thread.

[Tx4obama]

6. I think that the 8,000 dead protesters & the photos/videos out of Libya had a lot to do with it

Below are graphic photos of LIBYANS that were killed on the orders of Gaddafi BEFORE the UN's no-fly mission

WARNING VERY GRAPHIC - Photos of dead Libyan protesters below - WARNING VERY GRAPHIC

http://yfrog.com/h4oacietj

http://yfrog.com/h7ucplxj

and video of the burnt soldiers that refused to attack citizens:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x556426

Over 8,000 protesters have been killed so far - all of their blood is on the hands of Gaddafi.

[bobbolink]

63. I won't look at the pictures, but I thank you for posting thhis, and for remding us all of the

carnage.

I am in tears, but I appreciate so much that you have posted this.

Thank you....:cry:

[Tx4obama]

2. And don't forget about the protesters in Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Cameroon, & Bahrain too. n/t

[joshcryer]

5. Apologies, I did not mean to imply that, I was speaking about the Arab Spring generally.

Right now Yemen is the most concerning to me because Saleh is being an asshole and not stepping down, we'll see how it goes, I hope he steps down very soon.

[Tx4obama]

8. Huh? There is nothing to apologize for. I was just adding them to your OP's last sentence :) n/t

[Riftaxe]

11. Tis a bit harsh but 8000

dead bodies is nothing to some regimes that we completely ignore. I am not arguing against that every man, woman and child are unique. And i dearly would love a non violent solution.

[bobbolink]

64. I was brought up to understand that two wrongs do NOT make a right.

And there are many reasons why some of them have not received the same help. It has been posted many times, and I am too distraught right now to argue.

There was an exciting possibility of a non-violent action, but it would have been illegal for the US to do it. Again, it was in the daily threads, and it would have been good if you had been there to avail yourself of that information.

[Riftaxe]

7. I dearly wish President Obama

would first, acknowledge why the granddaughters and grandsons he is putting on the line for this conflict are there.

Then I wish he would explain why this conflict is more worth of the genocides that America has ignore for the last 40 years.

ATM: i can only console myself that the UN has not dispatched the Dutch, who are proud to sit on military resources instead of defending innocents against genocide.

[Tx4obama]

9. President Obama has already said why he has sent bombers there for the no-fly zone

it is because Gaddafi came out on TV and said he was going to kill all the people in Benghazi.

When a dictator comes out on TV and says he is going to annihilate the 2nd largest city of a country something has to be done!

[Riftaxe]

22. The inconsistency disturbs me quite a bit

Mostly via radio but through television itself most of the slaughter on a scale you are not prepared to imagine in sub saharan africa have been announced.

Which leaves questions, why now, and why them instead?

[joshcryer]

30. The international community didn't have a mechanism to stop wholesale slaughter.

Questions of sovereignty were always raised.

Until R2P was invented, in light of, in fact, those slaughters in Africa.

[Joe the Revelator]

61. Only you and John Bohner haven't found the answers to those questions.....

Be careful the company you keep.

[JuniperLea]

74. You expect him to have done something about the atrocities...

Of the last 40 years? Rubbish... rubbish to even mention it.

[highplainsdem]

4. Great post, Josh! K&R!

[joshcryer]

12. Thanks. As I said, when hair dressers take up arms, they're not rebels, they're revolutionaries!

[The Magistrate]

13. Well Put, Sir

On balance, it is better this sea change continue on than that it be halted.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. One can have sympathies with them and still be against intervention

Many, many people here express just that.

Many, many influences are at play. The Neocons ARE giddy in their covens about this. Oil IS a huge issue. There ARE fundamental Islamists hoping to get a foothold. It's a heady brew of all sorts of influences. Some of the defecting military and government figures are opportunists to varying degrees.

The world is an analog smear of iffy and jumbled influences, and not accepting that will condemn one forever to depression, anger and the self-pity of being betrayed or being the only one not cynically tainted to the marrow.

That's it. It's really like that. Embracing the messiness of life is the only way to hold steady before the wind and be able to tack when necessary.

Most people here really believe what they believe, and even though those beliefs put them at acrimonious odds with each other, those beliefs mostly stem from a sense of fairplay, even though their interactions are often anything but.

Libya is less than one tenth of one percent of the world's population right now, and that should give one pause when actions there could precipitate a true global crash and series of revolutions that could kill numbers I bear not think about, much less speculate in text.

Don't forget to stop and curse the flowers, too, and seek out an old friend or acquaintance who's rattled right now--like any sane person should be--and just chat.

[joshcryer]

17. I assure you that your continued characterization of the revolutionaries as armed rebels hardly...

...constitutes "sympathy."

[TorchTheWitch]

47. why do you seem to believe "rebel" is a dirty word?

A rebel is a description of someone in rebellion against their government. And that's exactly what these people are. They can and should bear the term proudly. Revolutionaries are basically the same thing. Essentially, the terms are equal. So, why is it that you seem to believe the term "rebel" is some kind of insult? It isn't and never has been.

[joshcryer]

51. Yes, I have actually used the word when revolutionary doesn't fit in the subject heading...

...or I'm too lazy to type it out. I personally do not find "rebel" offensive at all. It's the context in which the word is continually used. Just tonight someone wrote that they're "not revolutionaries at all" and that they have "no idea what they want." As if revolutionaries have to always know what they want outside of some sea change that they believe will happen if they act in some way.

What I do find offensive is the argument, the continuing argument, that "armed rebellions" don't deserve help from the outside because a state has a sovereign right to protect itself from internal armed rebellions. The responsibility to protect, which UN states have agreed to, says that sovereignty falls when you are killing your own people internally. Does that mean the end to civil war? Of course not, because it's damn near impossible to get the UN to agree to such a thing.

Should it? I really think so, in a civilized world, sovereignty should end when tyrants are killing people en masse.

[PurityOfEssence]

71. If the justification for action was "protecting revolutionaries", I wouldn't feel a need to redefine

Over and over and over and over we're being told that this is ONLY to protect huddled masses yearning to breathe free who are being "machine-gunned", "bombed" and "shelled by artillery". The fully intended depiction here is of the brutal Hun bayoneting Belgian Babies on the way to execute Nurse Cavell.

Qaddafi is a wacko, but he's a military man. As such it would be absolutely shocking if the 70 military vehicles destroyed from the air were destroyed because they were in the process of or on the way to the deliberate killing of civilians. They are trying to put down an armed revolt. Helping an armed revolt is NOT WHAT THIS IS BEING SOLD AS, and I loathe heartstring-tugging LIES used by ANY faction to get its way.

My posts are well qualified with reminding that I feel that Qaddafi's a skunk and that the people have my sympathies.

We thought we were going to do this on the cheap. We thought we were going to get our way and the historic sweep of popular uprisings would, as Rumsfeld likes to say, take care of unfinished business. It didn't work out like that, and that's that.

Sovereignty and respect for it are the premises for nations and peoples to attempt a world government, and this is a private, domestic affair within a country.

Beyond that, to a certain degree, the validity of an uprising is somewhat demonstrated by its success. If EVERYONE is against the regime, it would be gone.

I had truly thought that Qaddafi might well be the Ceaucescu of this set of upheavals, and I was actually looking forward to it. Seeing him sent packing would be a good thing for humanity, but that didn't happen.

If we're going to intervene for regime change, it should be asked for as such and a case be made. If we're going to do that by avoiding our laws, distorting the real intent and misrepresenting those whom we are aiding, then I'm ashamed of our government for the undertaking and of a mind to see that it is stopped.

(edited for grammar)

[TheKentuckian]

73. EVERYONE is a damn lofty super-majority to expect.

An iron fisted sort with military superiority and even a small percentage of the population can hang on for years and decades. Such a person might even be secure enough to set up an order of succession.

Your measure of validity is essentially a rearview mirror and giving the spoils to the victor, I register that as a cop out and worthless in the midst of events except to say they haven't won so they must be illegitimate or some such gobbledygook.

[joshcryer]

77. That doesn't bother me one damn bit, because I know for every armed rebel there are a half dozen...

...or more unarmed "rebels" on the front lines. It's very hard to classify them as "enemy combatants" when all they're doing is following the rebellion and trying to keep the peace. You look at the early on battles for the airports you don't see tens of hundreds of rebels, you see a couple of dozen at most among a few hundred "onlookers" if you will.

One problem that the "keep the peace" pilots are having is that their rules of engagement explicitly say "don't shoot civilians." The pilots have already said that it's very hard to determine who is to be shot at or not because the "rebels" are surrounded by hundreds of civilians.

If you're a civilian and you're in with a group of rebels, does that automatically make you an enemy combatant? I find that highly suspect reasoning, to be honest. The civilians are supporting the rebels but they themselves are not fighters.

I do agree with you that they're keeping their regime change concept low key and they're playing both sides with regards to the cease fire (the rebellions aren't going to respect it and if the Gaddafi-side doesn't they get hit). But I'm perfectly fine with that as it's highly unlikely China or Russia would happily allow regime change to be voted for in the UNSC. It is still amazing to me that they allowed R2P to be invoked given that both of them vetoed R2P in Burma in 2007. They don't give a shit about R2P, and it's likely that neither does the UK or US, but if you set international precedent they'll have to fall in line eventually. There's a reason states like freaking Norway are completely on board, they want the western powers to concede to an international sovereignty rule that says if you kill your own people you are in trouble. That means no more civil wars, ultimately.

[Riftaxe]

21. +1

[meow mix]

34. bs

nice you can tell yourself that though lol. explains a lot

[bobbolink]

65. Exactly. People who kill abortion doctors assure themselves that they are right, too.

:cry:

[Runework]

15. OIL

"Another conspiracy invokes the oil companies and uses selective quoting in a Wikileaks source to "prove" that Gaddafi was shafting the oil companies. When you read the actual report Gaddafi extended the oil contracts almost a quarter century, and gave the oil companies new field development opportunities (ie, new leases to exploit more of Libya's oil)."

here's the ACTUAL OIL POLICY OF LIBYA, here, does this sound favorable?-

"Libya's 93% TAX RATE ON OIL PRODUCTION makes production not especially profitable, Gheit said"
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/6863374

that's not rumor, ok? that's policy. you can check it anywhere.

Chevron and other companies gave up on Libya last year because of the hassles and the fact that they werent given plum land.

Ive previously posted wikileaks (via reuters) that Qadafi was attempting to get an additional billion and a half dollars out of the oil companies to cover money he paid to the west in compensation


some more food for thought-

"Of significance, China plays a central role in the Libyan oil industry. The China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) had until its repatriation a Chinese workforce in Libya of 30,000. British Petroleum (BP) in contrast had a British workforce of 40 which ahs been repatriated.

Eleven percent (11%) of Libyan oil exports are channelled to China. While there are no figures on the size and importance of CNPC’s production and exploration activities, there are indications that they are sizeable.

More generally, China’s presence in North Africa is considered by Washington to constitute an intrusion. From a geopolitical standpoint, China is an encroachment. The military campaign directed against Libya is intent upon excluding China from North Africa.

Also of importance is the role of Italy. ENI, the Italian oil consortium puts out 244,000 barrels of gas and oil, which represents almost 25 percent of Libya’s total exports. ( Sky News: Foreign oil firms halt Libyan operations, February 23, 2011).
Among US companies in Libya, Chevron and Occidental Petroleum (Oxy) decided barely 6 months ago (October 2010) not to renew their oil and gas exploration licenses in Libya. Did they have advanced knowledge of the insurrection? (Why are Chevron and Oxy leaving Libya?: Voice of Russia, October 6, 2010). In contrast, in November 2010, Germany oil oil company, R.W. DIA E signed a far-reaching agreement with Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC) involving exploration and production sharing. AfricaNews – Libya: German oil firm signs prospecting deal – The AfricaNews,

The financial stakes as well as “the spoils of war” are extremely high. The military operation is intent upon dismantling Libya’s financial institutions as well as confiscating billions of dollars of Libyan financial assets deposited in Western banks."

[joshcryer]

19. I linked the cable, it does show that they get a low share, I did not dispute that.

But overall the shares are still worth contracting over, and the real money is in expanded oil rights (the more area you cover the less area a competitor can cover).

[Runework]

31. More on Libya and Oil deals

"But overall the shares are still worth contracting over, and the real money is in expanded oil rights (the more area you cover the less area a competitor can cover)."

I present this-
However, a cable from U.S. Ambassador Gene Kretz to the State Department on June 4, 2009, made public by WikiLeaks, shows that more recently Libya was able to force foreign oil firms, especially France’s Total, to agree to take a much smaller percentage of the oil and gas yielded from their wells, under threat of renationalization.

Kretz wrote, referring to Libya’s National Oil Corporation: “The renegotiation of Total’s contract is of a piece with the NOC’s effort to renegotiate existing contracts to increase Libya´s share of crude oil production. … Each consortium will take 27 percent of oil production, down from the 50 percent take they had under the previous agreement. For gas, the consortium will take a 40 percent share (down from 50 percent), which will be reduced in the future to 30 percent. For the Mabruk field, which is located in the Sirte basin and produces some 20,000 barrels of oil per day, the new production share is 73 percent for the NOC, 20.25 percent for Total and 6.75 percent for StatoilHydro.” (“06.04.2009: French Total-led consortiums accept lower production shares in Libya” — WikiLeaks document published in Aftenposten)


hmm-again, from link in other post-

"Libya's 93% tax rate on oil production makes production not especially profitable, Gheit said, estimating that the unit profit/barrel of production was well below the company's average at about $6-$7/b. "Pound for pound the impact on earnings is less than 5%" for the US companies, Gheit said.

In commentary earlier this week, Barclays analyst Paul Cheng said "even at $100/b Brent, we estimate the companies are making only about $5.5/b."

-

"Chevron and Occidental have not extended their five-year oil and gas licences in Libya, a senior executive with Libya's NOC state energy firm told Reuters. Other companies whose licences were not extended included Australia's Woodside Petroleum and Abu Dhabi-based Liwa Energy (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mubadala Development Company), NOC Exploration Director Hadj Fitouri said in an interview."

[joshcryer]

32. What you "presented" was an exercpt from the wikileaks cable *I* posted. It's selective quoting.

And it's bullshit because Total (the French oil company) was happy with the deal. The selective quoting ignores the contract extension for 21 years, it ignores that they get expanded leases, it ignores a whole lot of shit. That is in fact the "conspiracy" I was talking about.

[Runework]

39. nope, they are different cables

The cable you posted was not the one I quoted. different dates and authors (june 4 and july 28).

here's something else interesting-

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/09/09/whats-going-on-in-libyan-oil-politics/

"As Libya became more and more aggressive about clawing control from international oil companies, and the rhetoric of Mr Gaddafi became more nationalistic, Mr Ghanem found himself in an increasingly uncomfortable position of having to smooth relations between the two."

[joshcryer]

43. My bad, I posted the wrong cable, I intended to post that one, must've messed up:

http://dazzlepod.com/cable/09TRIPOLI438/1/

See paragraph 5:

4.(SBU) Each consortium will take 27 percent of oil production, down from the 50 percent take they
had under the previous agreement. For gas, the consortium will take a 40 percent share (down from 50
percent), which will be reduced in the future to 30 percent. For the Mabruk field, which is located
in the Sirte basin and produces some 20,000 barrels of oil per day, the new production share is 73
percent for the NOC, 20.25 percent for Total and 6.75 percent for StatoilHydro. The contract's
expiration date has been extended from 2027 to 2032. For the offshore al-Jurf field, which produces
45,000 barrels of oil per day, the new share is 73 percent for the NOC, 20.25 percent for Total and
6.75 percent for Wintershall. Natural gas produced at al-Jurf will be split as follows: 60 percent
for the NOC, 30 percent for Total and 10 percent for Wintershall. The al-Jurf contract has been
extended from 2017 to 2032.

5.(C/NF) Comment: The new production share percentage accepted by Total and its partners is still
considerably larger than those obtained by other IOCs in renegotiating their existing contracts. It
is also larger than the production shares of companies who won contracts in the most recent EPSA-IV
bid rounds. The new agreement still guarantees Total, Wintershall and StatoilHydro longer access to
existing Libyan reserves and further field development opportunities, with the potential of
increasing oil production. An interesting potential corollary is that al-Jurf is reportedly the
field from which Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi, periodically obtains oil
lifts, which he sells to finance his various activities. It is not clear whether those allotments
have come from the production share of the NOC or Total (Saif has strong ties to senior French
business and government figures). If his take has been coming from Total's production share, there
could be a reduction in the number of lifts he is consigned and a TRIPOLI 00000438 002 OF 002
corresponding decrease in his bank account's bottom line. The timing is particularly bad, coinciding
with other recent setbacks for Saif al-Islam that include the March cabinet shuffle that did not
favor his reform efforts, his brother's successful visit to Washington (viewed as a threat to his
perceived primacy on the U.S.-Libya account) and the recent nationalization of his al-Libia
satellite television channel. End Comment. CRETZ

The original source completely leaves those important bits out.

[Runework]

48. just look at actual profits

here's Barron's analysis of some companies

"Libya represents about 11% of 2011 production for Marathon, which on face value appears to be very significant. However, we point out that Libya has very high tax terms (93% income tax rate) and thus the cash-flow impact will be much lower. We estimate that the cash-flow contribution from Libya in 2011 is about $150 million, or only 2% of Marathon's 2011 cash flow of $6.8 billion. On an NAV basis, Libya represents about 3% of total NAV (including potential exploration upside).

Libya represents about 5% of 2011 production for Hess, while on an NAV basis, it represents about 3% of overall NAV (including exploration potential). We estimate the cash-flow contribution from Libya to be about $70 million in 2011, which is roughly 2% of overall firm cash flow. Similar to our comments above on Marathon, the cash-flow contribution is much lower than suggested by production levels. We highlight that the large offshore Block 54 for Hess is in the appraisal phase but the market currently assigns limited value to this discovery, given that commercial terms were not finalized."

yah...these mega oil companies just sit around twiddlin their thumbs, not thinking about how much more they could earn...ok......

[joshcryer]

49. Yeah, the Libyan people are going to just renegoitate terms that are detrimental.

NOC controls 90% of the oil. The commercial interests have like 10% of the total oil.

Libyans aren't going to renegotiate terms that are detrimental because Gaddafi razed their cities.

They need to rebuild.

[TorchTheWitch]

53. since when is any oil company happy with a deal if

they have an opportunity for a far better one? And since when is any oil company happy with a deal that was made with a roaring nutter who now despises them, will piss on those deals and make new deals with other countries who will be happy to make them?

You're missing the big picture here. The West have found themselves to be no longer a "friend" of Gaddafi. Gaddafi is no longer a controllable nut. The unrest in Libya has made Gaddafi rip roaring pissed off at the West and if he stays in power highly unlikely to continue being such a "friend" concerning the oil the West has been getting from Libya and all those lovely oil billions Gaddafi has been keeping in Western banks. Not only does the West (European nations in particular who get nearly all of Libya's oil exports) MUST have a stable Libya to keep that oil and it's billions flowing, and they can no longer deal with Gaddafi when it comes to those highly lucrative deals... Gaddafi is no longer being their "friend". Therefore, it is required by the West that Gaddafi must go and a new leader installed who is going to be another "friend" to the West when it comes to these oil deals. And there is no possible way the West will risk the new leader being perhaps even less of a "friend" than Gaddafi - there's no way on God's earth the West is going to wing it and hope for the best that Libya will pick their own leader who will be as "friendly"... their economies and energy consumption DEPEND on it. So, the West is intervening militarily to not only get rid of the nutter Gaddafi who is no longer a "friend", they're going to make damn sure that whoever takes his place is going to be REALLY "friendly" to the West for FAR better oil contracts and even more billions to fill Western banks.

Now, how is it than anyone can believe that the West is going through all this for sweet humanitarian reasons considering their absolute need to have a stable Libya with a really friendly leader or their economies would collapse and they would immediately have to look elsewhere for their energy consumption requirements?

Clue: This has absolutely fuck all to do with any humanitarian concerns.

[joshcryer]

54. This is so wrong I dunno where to begin. The west normalized relations with Gaddafi.

He was letting them have oil exploration leases. Tens of thousands of western contractors were in Libya. Things were looking good for the west. Old boy Bush had no problem negotiating with a terrorist.

There's no evidence to suggest that the Libyan Revolutionaries are going to allow the west to give them a bad deal on oil leases or on future oil prospects. The oil refineries are still largely intact, the wells, intact. Now, let's say that Gaddafi, as a last sense of desperation, bombs them, like Saddam did as he retreated from Kuwait. Then you might have an argument that the west would be "willing" to rebuild for much better negotiated oil deals. That still would not subvert the fact that it's still a revolution.

Say the Saudi's have a rebellion in due course. Will the same people be making the same arguments? Probably so, because oil subverts the will of the people somehow, oil totally changes the dynamic to these people. Yet the reality is that these people have been living under tyranny for a very long time, generations, they don't want the regimes anymore, and they likely will use the oil revenue that the regimes are pocketing for the people as a whole, because that's one aspect that will give them the freedom that they are looking for.

Gaddafi is, at this moment, shelling cities around Libya (Zintan and Misrata). Shelling, indiscriminately. Because the people in those cities dared raise a flag against Gaddafi. When the forces intervened there were tanks, armored vehicles, and mercenaries moving in on Benghazi (preceded by several days of shelling), the only outcome of that situation is wholesale slaughter. In Misrata shooters have taken places upon many of the buildings downtown and are shooting, indiscriminately, anyone who leaves their home. I'm sorry, but you are sorely mistaken if you think that Gaddafi is playing nice with his war machine. There's a reason Benghazi had a mass exodus before the NFZ came in to place. People were afraid for their lives, and rightly so.

Anyone following this situation would know that this is very reminiscent of the Iraqi uprising where over 100k people were slaughtered for rising up against Saddam.

[TorchTheWitch]

56. what is it that you aren't getting here???

WAS. Key word - WAS. Libya WAS giving nice deals to Western countries for oil and kept the billions for selling it the West in Western banks. GADDAFI IS NOT LONGER THE FRIEND OF THE WEST. Therefore, those nice oil deals are suddenly in jeopardy - Gaddafi is no longer a controllable nut, no longer a "friend" and no longer willing to provide the West with those nice oil deals and keep all his billions in Western banks. The West DOES NOT FUCKING CARE that he was a shitty evil dictator which is amply evidenced by the West being his "friend" in order to get those oil deals. The West has NEVER had a problem being the "friend" of a shitty evil dictator as long as they were getting something from said shitty evil dictator as even a cursory look at history proves. The ONLY reason the west in now getting militarily involved is because the West MUST have a stable Libya with a controllable leader willing to continue providing those nice oil deals or their economies and energy needs fall right into the toilet.

Even the briefest research of history and in particular the history of the last 40 years it is utterly clear what is going on here, why it is, and why the West doesn't give shit one about countries slaughtering their civilians by the truckload when they don't have resources needing protection/exploitation.

It's so damn simple.

[joshcryer]

58. OK, I get you, of course Gaddafi is no longer an option.

And I won't dispute that having a nice puppet would be an option.

But I don't think the Libyan people are keen to let that happen. There will be real elections in Libya, possibly the first real elections in any newly formed state in a long time (where the figure being elected may well be someone who is a nobody or someone with very little power overall).

[The Magistrate]

23. You Might, Sir, Want To Give Your Source For That Last Bit

The 'food for thought' could do with some nutritional labeling....

[joshcryer]

29. Google tends to find such things with ease:

http://drpinna.com/libya-and-the-oil-cartels-power-groups-16864

Just search for a paragraph of a given article.

[The Magistrate]

38. Not A Man Of Sound Judgement, Sir

Dr. Pinna says:

Obama is a fair basketball player. He and his wife are both tall. They could form a doubles team and take on the Republican Representatives and their wives who are blocking his plans to socialize America.

http://drpinna.com/our-hard-working-president-17202

[Runework]

40. alright, scratch that then

there's enough other material at least to make people pause, given history, the trillions of dollars at stake and geopolitical concern over energy...I mean come on, are we naive?

[The Magistrate]

41. And A 'Birther', Sir, It Seems....

http://drpinna.com/the-obama-phenomenon-11579

Obama supposedly was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and a white American mother.

This is so supremely atypical that many Americans do not believe it happened. The fact that the original birth certificate is kept hidden adds to the distrust.

True birth certificates are identical in the entire civilized world. They are hand written and the doctor who delivered the baby signs his name and the time and date of delivery. If Obama had one of these, it would have been published.

[Runework]

42. ok, ignore that excerpt then

read this instead

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/09/09/whats-going-on-in-libyan-oil-politics/

[The Magistrate]

46. That Contains Nothing Worth Shooting A Buzzard Over, Sir....

[joshcryer]

44. Nice Finds. I Find That A Website That Looks Like It's From The 90s Isn't Worth Persuing Further.

But your efforts are well appreciated. :)

[The Magistrate]

45. That is An Old-Style Site, Sir?

Not very up to date on such things myself....

[Runework]

18. iraq war?

"I'll continue to ardently support* the Libyan revolutionaries and those who rose up against a tyrant"


Ok, Kurds and Shiites in southern Iraq wanted to be free of Saddam, that is undeniable, right?.

So Im going to have to assume you supported bush's Iraq war? and if not, please tell me what the difference between the two is? It can't be the UN aspect because youve already said "legality be damned".

So, did you support the Iraq war? and if not, please be explicit what the hell the difference is


(*Im assuming by support you mean Us military intervention)

[joshcryer]

20. I did not support GWBs undeniably illegal war.

I would have supported a push in Desert Storm to help the Iraqi uprising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

Almost 200k people died in that uprising.

[Runework]

25. uh, sorry, contradictions...

so , um , what?

you supported papa bush's war then? except for the fact it didnt go far enough? hmm you wanna go on record as supporting bush sr's war?

why not gws then? so what there was a lag in time, they were still getting rid of a tyrant, no? one who would slaughter them if they tried to rebel again, that is undeniable, and the kurdish and shiite groups in the west advocated the intervention and his overthrow.

you call the war "undeniably illegal", after saying "legalities be damned"...I think you're caught in a mess of contradictions here.

[joshcryer]

27. Yes, it's illegal to lie to US congress. It's also illegal to take up arms against a government.

In respect to the Libyan people, they took up arms against their government, which was illegal, but I still support them for that, because they wanted to overthrow their US propped tyrant.

Saddam had invaded Kuwait, the UN mandated that he leave, the US bombed the fuck out of him, the Iraqi's rose up because they thought the war was still on, Saddam killed them.

[bobbolink]

66. Josh, I am sorry you are being put on the hot seat like this, while you are grieving and hurting.

This is NOT peace, and I am so impressed with your ability to keep calm in the face of this barrage.

:yourock: :pals:

[druidity33]

55. Top 10: Why Libya is not Iraq...

by Juan Cole.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html

:)

[Waiting For Everyman]

26. That wiki cable is interesting, I hadn't seen that before.

I couldn't agree with you more (but that isn't news).

Outstanding post.

[meow mix]

33. K&r

[cali]

35. you won't find any posts of mine ardently supporting them

or not. I simply didn't know enough to do that and still don't. Can't stand Kaddafi, but beyond that I just don't know and support for the rebels or non-support isn't the point of my criticism of our military action.

[joshcryer]

36. Fair enough.

I was speaking in the blogosphere and progressive sphere in general, DU not excluded of course (honestly after day 2 or 3 of the NFZ it went exactly as I expected and there are only a handful of posts exclusively bashing the revolutionaries now).

[meow mix]

37. luckily DU is just a psyco ward.. and not at all representative of america

thank goodness for that

[slay]

50. It's not that I don't support the revolutionaries - but why do WE have to be world police - and ONLY

when oil is involved? Darfur anyone?

That is what I have a problem with. That and we can't afford it. End Afghanistan if they want to start up this shit - at least there would be a purpose here other than just pure war profiteering - even though that is always a large part of any war. ugh.

I wish the Libyan people the best, and I'm actually for going in there - if declared through congress - AND only if we end the other wars. 11 years in Afghanistan - longer than Vietnam. That is fucking expensive! And 8 years in Iraq. What have we become? :cry:

[joshcryer]

52. You do realize that the UN resolution invoked the Darfur inspired R2P right?

They felt that Benghazi was to be razed and Gaddafi himself had claimed that he would do so.

I believe we should leave Afghanistan and Iraq immediately, nothing is gained in either country by being there.

[MedleyMisty]

57. Thank you for this post

Here's a cool article I found, written by people who were actually in Libya with the revolutionaries.

http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/15842.pdf

[joshcryer]

59. The intrim council reaffirmed their desires to have a secular democratic state.

I think it's going to happen.

In a few weeks if not a month or two.

Not sure I can keep updating for months but we'll see.

[Raksha]

68. I read the article, and it's an excellent summary

of the circumstances that led to the uprising. The fact that it was an remains a struggle for liberation is in danger of getting lost in anti-imperialist rhetoric. Thanks for the link.

[seabeyond]

60. back to the oil. the exploration of oil already planned is now on hold and up for grabs

what was secure is not anymore. so really, the european countries are risking more now, than if they kept gaddafi

[joshcryer]

62. Indeed, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's why they want their contracts "fulfilled."

They want the leases that they have already got. They can always renegotiate shares, they can't easily renegotiate leases. (Because if some company has put down exploration wells you can't rightly dig 'em up, and there will be lawsuits and so on and so forth.)

[tabatha]

69. Phew - you have a lot of energy to keep

responding to the counter-arguments. Good post.

[Runework]

72. You sure?

Conoco's stock is up....

"There's little reason to believe that Gaddafi wouldn't selectively target U.S. oil company assets for partial nationalization. Though U.S. oil companies lobbied Congress to have Libya excluded from a U.S. terrorism compensation law, Libya ended up shelling out $1.5 billion last October to settle all claims by U.S. citizens for damages caused by past state terrorism. "

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/libya-gaddafi-oil-biz-energy-cx_ch_0122libya.html

[Runework]

75. Total's stock is up

lol

[Raksha]

67. K & R - I'm with you, Josh.

"But I will stand strong and support any peoples who rise up against tyrants."

We KNOW what Gaddafi is. Those of us who have been following these threads have had documented evidence of it for a month. There is no way I can NOT support the Libyan people.

[JoeyT]

70. I'm not sure if I support the intervention or not.

There's a huge amount of information that has to be taken in all at once. And it grows as fast as you can read it.

I'll say that IF everything we're being told is true, then I support the decision to help the rebels. Of course if all the reasons we're being given are true, we should be helping rebels in other countries next since the same reasons apply to them.

I do doubt there's some grand conspiracy at work. If the reasons are other than stated, it's going to be purely motivated by transparent self-interest. e.g. He got too crazy and they were afraid he might flake out and refuse to sell us oil.

[Scurrilous]

76. K & R

:thumbsup: