cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 12:41 pm
@Builder,
I think that's going to become the gold standard for wealth in the future; fresh water.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 02:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Once again I have learned something I dident know. I thought our rich were interested in the oil. I dident know about the water. Do we get a dog in this fight or did we just give the French a free ride again. Vietnaum?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 02:50 pm

If we did this for OIL,
then I hope that thay hurry up and bring it all over here.
I have not seen a tea spoon of it yet and prices r UP.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 03:16 pm
I wasn't aware of any of this. The aquifer is huge. Libya info from page 13
http://www.warem.uni-stuttgart.de/docs/module/download537ME/NubianSandstoneAquiferSystem.pdf

Quote:
The Great Man-made River Project (GMRP)
of Libya
• In the mid of the 1980’s, work started on the world biggest
engineering project (‘eighth wonder of the world’)
• Objective of the project: deliver water from Libya’s aquifers
underlying the xeric regions to the countries big cities on the coast

Project subdivided into 5 phases: end of phase I inaugurated in 1991, last phase
completed in 2005
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 03:24 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
A majority, 85%, of Libya's export of its high-quality, low-sulfur light sweet crude go to Western Europe, but oil experts say the country currently is producing only 10%-15% of its normal 1.6 billion barrels a day.
"To reach the maximum of 1.6 million barrels per day, before the revolution started, that could happen anytime between a year or two years from now," Manouchehr Takin of the Centre for Global Energy tells CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/19/world/africa/libya-oil-gas-exports/index.html

That is one-two years IF the security situation firms up and IF the tribes agree on how to split the profits, both are long from a sure thing. I have seen others say that realistically it will take three years, that the oil leaders are being overly optimistic.

Quote:
But international oil companies have yet to assess oil fields in the south and west, which produce most of the nation's oil. U.S. companies that were active in Libya before the war, including Hess Corp. and Marathon Oil Corp. have not returned workers to the country.

Nuri Berruien, the head of the national oil company, told The Associated Press earlier this month that most of the damage appears to be from corrosion. Some older oil fields, such as those of the Sirte basin, require water or natural gas injection to maintain pressure in the reservoir, and that has not been done for more than six months.

Two important oil terminals, which are needed to export oil, are said to be severely damaged, but another is said to have suffered little damage. Also, looters have made off with essential oil field equipment such as power generators, pumps and trucks.

And there are other issues. Many of the country's most experienced and senior oil engineers are seen by workers as Gadhafi loyalists. At one field, workers are refusing to work until these top engineers are removed


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/libyas-path-oil-riches-remains-treacherous-14789673?page=2

Most of what we know about the shape of the infrastructure comes from on site personnel whom are beholden the the rebel political leadership such that is is, and they have shown zero interest in honesty. The one year to full production is a wild guess, and we have gotten nothing started yet and likely will not for months as the tribes try to build a government, install security, and decide how the split the loot.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 05:16 pm
Frightening video from a British journalist trapped in Libya for five days of the NATO invasion.

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/10/war-libya-war-africa-enfr
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 10:19 am
If this was all about oil, I guess NATO is going to split it down three ways with lesser oil profits going to the other nations according to their war contributions. Obama has been criticized by the right for leading from behind and even accused of prolonging this war by not getting more involved. The right now wants to sweep in a rebuild Libya saying Libya will reimburse.

Republicans Push for U.S. Role in Rebuilding Libya


We got into this coalition effort led by NATO of which we are a part because Gaddafi threatened to wipe out the protesters. The protesters turned militant to try and protect themselves. The Arab league asked for a no-fly zone and NATO complied. The opposition or rebels as they were termed, didn't always do everything right. In fact there have been stories of inhumane actions. Who really knows how it all ended or how it will end up? Probably not too good if the news reports I have been reading are correct. Nonetheless, the initial facts remain the same.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 01:41 pm
@Builder,
Seriously, what did you find frightening about this video?

This woman would have us believe that

1) Gadaffi was an enlightened ruler, beloved by his people
2) Conditions in Libya were superior to anywhere else in Northern Africa and the Middle East
3) Democracy has failed in the West
4) The West has embarked on a new wave of imperialism that not only targeted Libya, but is targeting Syria, Iran, and Venezuela
5) The rebels who may or may not have lynched black skinned Gaddafi mercenaries were NATO "ground forces"
6) The people she spoke with, who had nothing but good things to say about Gaddafi and Libya, were not influenced by the presence of Gaddafi's secret police or part of and beneficiaries of the Gaddafi tribal network.
7) The roughly 5 million Libyans who opposed the Gaddafi regime didn't know a good thing when they had it, or had been bought off by Western Imperialists
8) Al Jazeera is a tool of Western Imperialism
9) The Arab Spring was incited by Western Imperialists

And these are only the preposterous claims I can recall from listening to the video.

Let me get this straight:

Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy are the bad guys while Gaddafi, Assad, The Iranian Mullahs and Chavez are the good guys?

How does an intelligent woman develop such a loathing for her people, her nation and her civilization that she is able to elevate bloody handed murderers to sainthood simply to enable her to criticize anything and everything that the West does?

It's frightening alright, but not for the reasons I suspect you find it to be so.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 04:56 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
We have the same thing happening in the US called politics. The conservatives continue to advocate for more tax cuts for the rich, so they will create jobs.

Funny, how that works!
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 05:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I have no idea what you are talking about.

How is what this woman is saying similar to US politics?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 05:34 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Some people have blinders on that ignores the over-all consequences of what they want.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 03:05 am

Someone added the tags:
"Obama is a murderer
Obama kills again"

I gotta say:
he effectively avenged Pan Am Flite 1O3.
In doing so, he was within his Constitutional authority
as commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces
and the war power.

I have never supported Obama
and I will vote for a better candidate in 2012,
but his choice of action reflected credit upon himself for that successful vengeance.

In this particular regard: he did a good job.
He did it without a boots-on-the-ground infantry invasion of Libya, so no one got hurt.





David
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 11:57 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
1) Gadaffi was an enlightened ruler, beloved by his people

By a hefty majority, yes.

2) Conditions in Libya were superior to anywhere else in Northern Africa and the Middle East

Superior to the US of A and Australia as well.


3) Democracy has failed in the West

Certainly has. Voting is meaningless. Money talks, and bullshit walks.


4) The West has embarked on a new wave of imperialism that not only targeted Libya, but is targeting Syria, Iran, and Venezuela

In time, yes to all of the above.

5) The rebels who may or may not have lynched black skinned Gaddafi mercenaries were NATO "ground forces"

The "rebels" were paid mercs. What NATO did with them has not been proven either way.

6) The people she spoke with, who had nothing but good things to say about Gaddafi and Libya, were not influenced by the presence of Gaddafi's secret police or part of and beneficiaries of the Gaddafi tribal network.

The "tribal network" was nowhere to be seen. This was filmed after the NATO bombing and invasion of an unoccupied city.

7) The roughly 5 million Libyans who opposed the Gaddafi regime didn't know a good thing when they had it, or had been bought off by Western Imperialists

"Roughly" being the key word here. Fifty thousand paid mercs with pockets full of coin and an arsenal can be quite convincing to a desert dweller. Where do you get this figure from?


8) Al Jazeera is a tool of Western Imperialism

Al Jazeera TV is worth a look. Do you have it at thome?

9) The Arab Spring was incited by Western Imperialists

You tell me. I didn't see it. Was in remote west Kimberley at that time. One radio station, and no TV.

Let me get this straight; Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy are the bad guys while Gaddafi, Assad, The Iranian Mullahs and Chavez are the good guys?

Birds of a feather, flock together. The former are picture postcard boys of the corporate machine. The latter are free-thinking visionary radicals.

As for the rest of your post, I could honour it with a response, but you seem to have built a rather successful fortress around what you use to think with, so I'll leave you with this question of mine, Finn.

Does anyone who doubts the MSM and their propagandist writers immediately fall into a derogatory genre in your mindset?
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 12:08 am
Finn, does this look like the actions of a leader of democracy to you?

http://www.channel4.com/news/pm-under-fire-for-heading-middle-east-arms-delegation

'During his trip to the Middle East, Mr Cameron has been travelling with 36 business leaders, among them the heads of BAE Systems, Thales UK and QinetiQ.

With the region in turmoil due to anti-government revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Libya, he has come under fire from the Scottish National Party, which is tabling a Parliamentary Question on British arms sales to these countries. The Campaign Against Arms Trade has also criticised the visit.

SNP Foreign Affairs spokesman Angus Robertson said: "Amid violence and unrest across the Middle East and North Africa, it is extraordinary that the Prime Minister has embarked on a tour promoting arms sales - particularly when questions remain over whether the UK sold the weapons and riot control equipment being used against demonstrators by various regimes."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 12:09 pm
@Builder,
We also did the same in Iraq; they had less crime when Saddam was their leader. We barged in with our military might and killed tens of thousands of their people, and left their country in shambles; their terrorist activities increased.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 01:53 pm
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

1) Gadaffi was an enlightened ruler, beloved by his people

By a hefty majority, yes.

Gaddifi's dictatorship speaks for itself in terms of his "enlightenment." I can find no legitimate proof of the claim that a hefty majority of Libyans loved him, can you? I suppose you believe that Saddam securing 100% of votes in his one man election proved he was beloved as well.

2) Conditions in Libya were superior to anywhere else in Northern Africa and the Middle East

Superior to the US of A and Australia as well.


Now that's simply nonsense that you cannot objectively prove.

3) Democracy has failed in the West

Certainly has. Voting is meaningless. Money talks, and bullshit walks.


More nonsense

4) The West has embarked on a new wave of imperialism that not only targeted Libya, but is targeting Syria, Iran, and Venezuela

In time, yes to all of the above.

What Empire now controls Libya that will, in time, control these other nations. There can't be an imperialistic wave without an Empire. What proof do you have for this claim?

5) The rebels who may or may not have lynched black skinned Gaddafi mercenaries were NATO "ground forces"

The "rebels" were paid mercs. What NATO did with them has not been proven either way.

Paid by whom? Again, where is your proof? Were the rebels in Egypt, Tunisia, and Bahrain paid mercs as well?

6) The people she spoke with, who had nothing but good things to say about Gaddafi and Libya, were not influenced by the presence of Gaddafi's secret police or part of and beneficiaries of the Gaddafi tribal network.

The "tribal network" was nowhere to be seen. This was filmed after the NATO bombing and invasion of an unoccupied city.

The entire region is driven, in large part, by tribal ties. If you are a member of the same tribe as the dictator, the chances are pretty good that you have benefited from that connection and are quite fond of the dictator. It's not a coincidence that he made his last stand in his tribal center. If the Libyan secret police ever abandoned Gaddafi, we can't know when it might have happened, but there was a long history of secret police activity and the jailing and disappearance of dissidents. Even at the end, people within any city which Gaddafi controlled had to be wary if only through force of habit. It was never without serious peril to complain about Gaddafi to foreign journalists - even if they themselves swooned over the brutal lunatic.
7) The roughly 5 million Libyans who opposed the Gaddafi regime didn't know a good thing when they had it, or had been bought off by Western Imperialists

"Roughly" being the key word here. Fifty thousand paid mercs with pockets full of coin and an arsenal can be quite convincing to a desert dweller. Where do you get this figure from?


I get the number from the video. At one point the woman decries the fact that 1.4 million Libyans who supported Gaddafi were never talked to by the media. The entire population of Libya is 6.4 million and so simple math tells you that, according to this woman, roughly 5 million people didn't support the dictator.

8) Al Jazeera is a tool of Western Imperialism

Al Jazeera TV is worth a look. Do you have it at thome?

We can view Al Jazeera English online. Not sure if it's available in among the 1000 TV channels I can get on my TV

That's not the point, the woman claims Al Jazeera is (or at least was in terms of Libya) a tool of Western Imperialism. Do you believe that to be the case?

9) The Arab Spring was incited by Western Imperialists

You tell me. I didn't see it. Was in remote west Kimberley at that time. One radio station, and no TV.

And yet you know so much about Libya. In any case, it's not me making the claim, it's the woman in your video.

Let me get this straight; Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy are the bad guys while Gaddafi, Assad, The Iranian Mullahs and Chavez are the good guys?

Birds of a feather, flock together. The former are picture postcard boys of the corporate machine. The latter are free-thinking visionary radicals.

You must be at heart a fascist.

As for the rest of your post, I could honour it with a response, but you seem to have built a rather successful fortress around what you use to think with,

What a pathetic dodge. Respond or not as you see fit, but I hardly consider a reply from you to be an honor.


so I'll leave you with this question of mine, Finn.

Does anyone who doubts the MSM and their propagandist writers immediately fall into a derogatory genre in your mindset?

Not at all. I have little faith in the MSM myself, but even less in the entirely unsupported propaganda spouted by fascist left-wingers who worship blood handed tyrants as visionary revolutionaries.



0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 01:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Regardless of whether the effort was successful or not or whether or not for a period of time the average Iraq's life was more perilous than it had been, even you (I hope) wouldn't claim Saddam to have been the enlightened ruler beloved by the vast majority of his people or that he was a visionary revolutionary.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 02:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Sorry if I implied that! I was just saying that sometimes the cure is worse than the ailment. I'm not sure how one values "freedom," but we killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's for the "freedom" that now has more violence than when Saddam was the "leader." Most Iraqi's probably felt safer under Saddam than the subsequent results.

Singapore has many restrictions against their citizens, but they are happy as a people in their restrictive environment.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 03:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Sorry if I implied that! I was just saying that sometimes the cure is worse than the ailment. I'm not sure how one values "freedom," but we killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's for the "freedom" that now has more violence than when Saddam was the "leader." Most Iraqi's probably felt safer under Saddam than the subsequent results.

Singapore has many restrictions against their citizens, but they are happy as a people in their restrictive environment.


It's a point well taken that sometimes the cure is worse than the ailment, but as far as Iraq goes, I think we have to leave it to the Iraqi people to decide whether or not the cure was worth it.

It does come down to the value of freedom, and I can't measure it for anyone but myself, but we do know that throughout history, many people have given their lives in what they believed to be the pursuit of freedom. Clearly, quite a few people are not content to merely be alive for the moment.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 04:17 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
True; the value of freedom is in the eye of the beholder.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.1 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:32:05