 | Lehman: more socialising the losses of the rich | The Oil Drum: Europe | 7th ASPO International Conference: Barcelona |  |
38 comments on World Oil Exports [02] Libya
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
38 comments on World Oil Exports [02] Libya
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Writerman
What this guy did with his country, I guess is up to him and his people. But he sponsored and supported the blowing up of a civilian aircraft. Is this any different, except in scale, to Osama Bin Laden's activities ? It is astonishing, and morally disgusting, that the West has decided to kiss and make up.
But then Gaddafi has loadsa-oil, so that makes everything OK.
Maybe if Bin Laden takes over Kuwait in 10 years time, it'll be kiss and make up, too.
"......he sponsored and supported the blowing up of a civilian aircraft."
that is right, the cia would never sponsor the blowing up of a civilian aircraft like for example the cuban olimpic team. or assasination of a foreign leader or the bombing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the search for wmd's.
damn, i hate it when these discussions turn political.
Two wrongs don't make a right...
which two wrongs are you talking about, i think i listed three individual incidents. how 'bout hundreds of thousands of wrongs don't make a right ?
Yeah, but two wrong-doers kissing and making up is hardly a surprise, is it?
It is far from clear whether Libya was actually involved in the Lockerbie bombing. The US initially blamed Iran, but it then became more convenient to blame Libya. Libya was offered lifting of sanctions if they admitted to doing it. The evidence in this case was extremely dubious.
Many people believe it was revenge from Iran for the US shooting down an Iranian plane.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/777974.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_theories_of_the_bombing_of_Pan_...
The Gander air crash is more likely the Iranian response to shooting down their Flight 655 in 1998. Most people don't dispute Libya's involvement in Pan Am 103, if for no other reason than their shielding of the perps.
The one thing that always goes unoticed in these types of discussions is remebering which side of the line you are one. There are tons of "wrongs" on both sides, but all countries deal with their own self interests. In this case, both Libya and the US figured out it was in their self interest to kiss and make up, just like it was in their interest to antagonize each other in the 80s. From watching the Euro news, it looks like Qaddafi's son has long term plans to actually democratize the country and he is gaining his father's ear in all affairs. Slowly of course, to allow the institutions and ideas to develop otherwise it would be chaos like Russia in the 90s.
"Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage." Robert Heinlein
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Gander air crash - the only hit I got in Google was a crash in 1985 which the US and Canadian authorities denied was anything to do with terrorists; and it was 3 years before Flight 655 (in 1988).
Whilst most people don't dispute Libya's involvement, that doesn't necessarily mean they were involved - and many people do dispute that the perpetrators were actually Libyan, which is why I took issue with comments stating this as fact. Most people only know what they have read in the MSM.
Hinson,
That's an astute comment. Historically yesterdays 'terrorist' usually evolves into tomorrows 'statesman', and both labels are inaccurate. I remember Thatcher once called the sainted Nelson Mandela a terrorist in the House of Commons!