Affentitten Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I'm just saying that it's not totally altruistic. Mainly I am refuting SO's idea that removing Gadaffi would be a bad thing as far as the oil people are concerned. Britain and France (Britain especially) has the most historic interest in Libyan oil. It was BPs significant assets and contracts there that Gadaffi nationalised back at the start of his power. You can just imagine the corporate lawyers circling. The French are slighly newer on the block but they have made a lot of headway following their own reconciliation with Gadaffi over the UTA bombing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I actually had not known BP had historic assets there. I knew they do now. For myself, I really wonder why, only some months ago, Gadaffi was, if not "a good guy" to western eyes, or perhaps a "changed guy"..but definitely has not been seen as so awful, for some years now...then suddenly he is the devil incarnate...makes me think that either when they were saying he was not so bad, they were lying, or else, there really is something else involved suddenly, especially since we do not really know anything about the rebels...IMHO..it is one thing to defend civilians, another thing to in essence be flying CAS for one side in a civil war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 ...in military matters they are clueless on the exact details. They have a long, long history of calling any weapon capable of automatic fire (even if it was firing single rounds at the time) a "machine gun". Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 And the news that American aircraft are attacking Tripoli is far more important than the specific model of jet dropping the bombs. Then why not say just that? Not to pick on the BBC, almost all news outlets are as guilty or worse. But when they identify a specific model, it sounds like they are trying to sound all informed about who is doing precisely what. And when they still get it uproariously wrong, it just makes them look like twats. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Britain and France (Britain especially) has the most historic interest in Libyan oil. I thought it was Americans who were spearheading oil exploration and production in Libya back in the '50s and early '60s. Of course, I suppose it's possible that they could have been American engineers working for British companies. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Oh, everybody was there. But I believe BP had the biggest chunk. What Exxon etc had in Libya was nothing compared to what they had elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oil_Corporation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.