Poll: DELETED_74993

[Firestar_3x]

Yes we did until The East of Libya decided to start a fight with the West and we had to pull out all our oil workers.

Are you forgetting the phone calls over skype from Britains in Libya begging to be brought home?

Yes i know, I’ve been following this since day one since i know people who fled the country.

So then, do you want to go down the line of discussion which involves us talking about protecting our investment in Libya after our people have been shot at?

 

[Danthus]

So then, do you want to go down the line of discussion which involves us talking about protecting our investment in Libya after our people have been shot at?

Wouldn't that just prove it has nothing to do with protecting civilians, after all we have no interests in Zimbabwe so we left them to it, but the Yemen lets us conduct anti Al Qaeda operations so we turn a blind eye.

Oh and Saudi Arabia buy lots of weapons and jets from us.

 

[ColdAsIce]

Yes i know, I’ve been following this since day one since i know people who fled the country.

So then, do you want to go down the line of discussion which involves us talking about protecting our investment in Libya after our people have been shot at?

Lost your own argument by agreeing we are taking a bigger interest in this situation due to our investments in the oil that Libya has.

 

[sanaxe1]

It has been confirmed by a few sources and now also Al Manara, Khamis Gaddafi has died today, as a result of burns

 

[Firestar_3x]

Lost your own argument by agreeing we are taking a bigger interest in this situation due to our investments in the oil that Libya has.

Invading a country to take something which you don't have access to is totally different to protecting interests in a country you already have access to those assets.

Also i said at no point that protecting out own interests was the sole intent of this action, nor did i state previously that oil played no part in this.

 

[Firestar_3x]

AGI)Tripoli- Libyan government sources denied opposition reports of the death of Khamis Gaddafi as 'a nonsensical piece of news'. Khamis is the sixth son of the Colonel and is commander of the 32nd Brigade. Eyewitnesses also denied news reported by Al Arabiya of bombardments of the capital in the early hours of this morning. A journalist present in the city reported that there was no anti-aircraft fire, that traffic in Tripoli is still moving and that life is carrying on as normal.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You don't know that the one pictured was destroyed by a jet or not.

It was destroyed by a jet as it was part of the convoy of tanks bombed by the French.

The SA-8 is a much greater threat than AAA or shoulder mounted SAMs (MANPADS). It has it's own aquisition and tracking radars meaning if it has a supporting long range radar attached to the unit it could attain threats hundreds of km away. Upgraded missiles also increases it's operational ceiling to well within that what our jets operate. Regardless of whether the pictures suggest otherwise, that kit is a serious air threat. To jets, AAA and MANPADS pose a very tiny threat in contrast.

Like I said before it is unlikely that Libya has upgraded systems since they were under sanctions for so long. The older systems have been compromised for many years. The South Africans captured at least one complete Cuban SA8 system during the 1980s and many of these systems were available for examination by the US and UK after the USSR fell apart.

The Libyan air force is in poor condition and most likely is its air defence system.

Even during its height in the 1980s the French and US air forces had more or less entire air supremacy against a fully functional Libyan air force and air defence force.

In fact MANPADs and AAA have shot down more NATO and US aircraft in the last few years than systems like the SA8.

 

[Cosimo]

So Simulatorman, who is naive now.

Well, so now we know that Libya has only 3-5% of the world's proven reserves and you’re spouting a pile of "War is good for business. Oil is the trophy of US-NATO led wars.” meaningless facts which prove nothing at all.

Sure the west is going to bust their balls (not really) for that small amount. I’ve yet to see a US-NATO was which has walked away with any oil. So it appears that all you’re doing is trying to bring the old unproven we’re after the oil, anti US propaganda up again.

I guess the naive ball is in your court.

 

[dirtydog]

Well, so now we know that Libya has only 3-5% of the world's proven reserves and you’re spouting a pile of "War is good for business. Oil is the trophy of US-NATO led wars.” meaningless facts which prove nothing at all.

Sure the west is going to bust their balls (not really) for that small amount. I’ve yet to see a US-NATO was which has walked away with any oil. So it appears that all you’re doing is trying to bring the old unproven we’re after the oil, anti US propaganda up again.

I guess the naive ball is in your court.

With global supply as tight as it is, the amount is not as small as you think.

And supply will only get tighter as world demand increases and existing fields continue to deplete at a faster rate than new fields come online. Do you think the Western powers don't know this. Their whole foreign policy is based on it.

 

[RDM]

With global supply as tight as it is, the amount is not as small as you think.

And supply will only get tighter as world demand increases and existing fields continue to deplete at a faster rate than new fields come online. Do you think the Western powers don't know this. Their whole foreign policy is based on it.

But the oil was already flowing and flowing in the right direction, so if it is "all about the oil" then why didn't we just let Gadaffi get on with it?

 

[Firestar_3x]

With global supply as tight as it is, the amount is not as small as you think.

And supply will only get tighter as world demand increases and existing fields continue to deplete at a faster rate than new fields come online. Do you think the Western powers don't know this. Their whole foreign policy is based on it.

We have more proven oil reserves now than we did at the end of 1989.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Well, so now we know that Libya has only 3-5% of the world's proven reserves and you’re spouting a pile of "War is good for business. Oil is the trophy of US-NATO led wars.” meaningless facts which prove nothing at all.

Considering that 3-5% is MORE then DOUBLE Americas oil.

Sure the west is going to bust their balls (not really) for that small amount. I’ve yet to see a US-NATO was which has walked away with any oil. So it appears that all you’re doing is trying to bring the old unproven we’re after the oil, anti US propaganda up again.

I guess the naive ball is in your court.

I suggest you check out these 2 links and follow up on the research links at the end of the articles.

http://www.minorityperspective.co.u...roves-libyan-no-fly-zone-and-military-action/

http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2011/03/08/the-wests-battle-for-libyas-oil/

 

[LateX'Dog]

But the oil was already flowing and flowing in the right direction, so if it is "all about the oil" then why didn't we just let Gadaffi get on with it?

Gadaffi said that America, UK and France could go do one with regards to there oil.

The reason why he told them to do one, is down to the rebel groups being funded by American and UK interests.

Plus Gadaffi nationalised the oil and that doesn't fly well with corporate interests.

 

[Firestar_3x]

Considering that 3-5% is MORE then DOUBLE Americas oil.

Americas total proven oil reserves at the end of 2009 are 73.3 thousand million barrels.

Libya has 44.3 Thousand million barrels.

 

[dirtydog]

We have more proven oil reserves now than we did at the end of 1989.

The most important factor is daily production rates. The rate at which you can get it out of the ground and to market. The world currently uses in the region of 90m barrels a day IIRC. And also IIRC global 'spare capacity' is only in the single figures of million barrels a day. Capacity is therefore very tight and even a relatively small producer like Libya can therefore have a disproportionate impact on the markets.

 

[Firestar_3x]

Gadaffi said that America, UK and France could go do one with regards to there oil.

The reason why he told them to do one, is down to the rebel groups being funded by American and UK interests.

Plus Gadaffi nationalised the oil and that doesn't fly well with corporate interests.

No, he said he wanted people from Europe to come back and run the oil fields, if they didn't he would get someone else to operate them.

He said all this during his tv speach on tv last Thursday iirc.

 

[dirtydog]

Another factor is that Libya's oil is the best stuff - the highest demand stuff, the light sweet crude for refining into petrol.

 

[Firestar_3x]

The most important factor is daily production rates. The rate at which you can get it out of the ground and to market. The world currently uses in the region of 90m barrels a day IIRC. And also IIRC global 'spare capacity' is only in the single figures of million barrels a day. Capacity is therefore very tight and even a relatively small producer like Libya can therefore have a disproportionate impact on the markets.

True some more numbers, End of 2009, North America has a yearly production rate of 658 million tons, Libya is 77.1 million tons.

 

[dirtydog]

End of 2009, North America has a yearly production rate of 658 million tons, Libya is 77.1 million tons.

Yes and? (or are you just agreeing)

 

[LateX'Dog]

Americas total proven oil reserves at the end of 2009 are 73.3 thousand million barrels.

Libya has 44.3 Thousand million barrels.

Global Research: “Operation Libya” and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa: March 9, 2011

Libya is among the World's largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, more than twice those of the US.

Go and read this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23605