Toasted Dolphin

Egg wrote:

Mur wrote:Mummar has pissed off DC plenty of times...so I would not be surprised if that was part of it.

But I can justify spending the money to protect corporate interests....when the USA is broke.

Probably the plan is to install someone friendly to the USA.....I mean...come on now.

Lots of Western corporate dollars tied up there

Do western oil companies own the refineries and such over there? Do you know?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ ... VI20110222

Hey...just my opinion....I don't claim to be an expert on anything.....but given USA history.....our military gets involved when there is some type of strategic value.

Rarely is just about humanitarian value.

I agree with this, it ain't about thurr humans.

But there may be other things there besides oil. Blue gold, black gold.

It might also be about geostrategy, funnelling cash into a war slush fund and buying time for the dark powers.

just US companies


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ ... Y820110222


Once the Colonel is gone...expect our participation to way up

You get me?

Quackii was bad for business

I bet the next guy is business friendly
======================

European?

Check out wikileaks...haha

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikilea ... 1.SBU.html

Pana wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ ... VI20110222

Beat me too it

According to Jim Rogers, China's future is strong. He only worries about water.

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/pr ... ?id=468323

Libya's water source is a big deal.

Water is a renewable resource...oil isn't

Mur wrote:Water is a renewable resource...oil isn't

Fresh water is going to be the next big commodity. There are too many people.

I started studying China about eight years ago. At that time, the stuff I was reading was citing 30% of China's clean drinking water sources were polluted. It's a country with little environmental controls.

Going back to Libya. Do you think some of the reasons for the military intervention had more to do with some of the stuff Ghaddafi was doing over the last few years? I don't know much of the recent movements there but I remember last year Ghaddafi was thinking of nationalizing more oil companies and was complaining that the price controls on oil were too low...setting the stage for trying to sell the oil for more. And then it would be all connected back into OPEC. Perhaps Mur could speak more about that end of things.

Pana wrote:I started studying China about eight years ago. At that time, the stuff I was reading was citing 30% of China's clean drinking water sources were polluted. It's a country with little environmental controls.

Going back to Libya. Do you think some of the reasons for the military intervention had more to do with some of the stuff Ghaddafi was doing over the last few years? I don't know much of the recent movements there but I remember last year Ghaddafi was thinking of nationalizing more oil companies and was complaining that the price controls on oil were too low...setting the stage for trying to sell the oil for more. And then it would be all connected back into OPEC. Perhaps Mur could speak more about that end of things.

If that's the case, they'd want him out. It's one of the biggest reasons they want into Iran. They nationalized the oil.

Here:

WASHINGTON | Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:08pm GMT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said on Wednesday his country and other oil exporters were looking into nationalizing foreign firms due to low oil prices and suggested Tripoli might not stick to OPEC production quotas.

Speaking via a satellite link from Libya to students at Georgetown University in Washington, he called the current price of oil "unbearable."

Oil was around $44 a barrel on Wednesday, less than a third of the price in July of $147.

"We would not adhere to OPEC's regulations because our livelihood depends on oil," Gaddafi said, without providing any details of how Libya might not stick to the oil producing organization's quotas.

Last month, Libya told oil firms to cut output by 270,000 barrels per day from January 1, more than the curb it needs to make under an OPEC deal to pump less.

Gaddafi, who decides Libya's oil policy, referred to recent Libyan newspaper reports over nationalization because of the dipping oil prices.

The reports, including in the main state paper widely seen as the mouthpiece of Gaddafi, said this week the Basic People Congresses, Libya's top executive and legislative bodies, should vote to nationalize oil firms when they meet in the next few days.

"Oil exporting countries may move toward nationalization because of the rapidly declining prices. This is put on the table and is being discussed seriously," Gaddafi said through an interpreter.

"Oil maybe should be owned by national companies or the public sector at this point, in order to control the oil prices, the oil production or maybe to stop it," he told the students. "We may refuse to sell it at this very low price."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/01/2 ... 1F20090121