"No Blood For Oil"? Multiple Transnational Oil Corporations Have Been In Libya Since At Least 2004

[Turborama]

Those who say, "It's ALL about the OIL!" seem to forget, or maybe don't know, that since 2004 and up until the civil war erupted multiple transnational oil corporations were on 'friendly' terms with Gaddafi and many of them had already set up shop in there.

As you can see below...

Map of Libya showing oil fields under exploration by BP.
The oil giant struck a $900 million deal with Gaddafi's Libya in 2007.
Illustration/BP.

=snip=

...this article is not about the violence now sweeping the North African country, nor is it about the reign of Gaddafi, rather, it is about those who have helped sustain him. As world leaders and the international press rush to condemn Gaddafi, few mention the support his government has received from Western oil companies since 2004, http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-17/world/us.libya_1_britain-and-libya-commercial-sanctions-trade-sanctions?_s=PM:WORLD">when the U.S. and the United Kingdom lifted commercial sanctions against Libya. One oil giant that invested heavily in Gaddafi’s Libya was BP (British Petroleum).

In May of 2007, BP signed an agreement with Libya worth $900 million. The deal was signed in Sirt, Libya, by BP’s then chief executive Tony Hayward and the chairman of the National Oil Company of Libya, Shokri Ghanem. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the time, Tony Blair, attended the signing. The official BP web site published a report detailing the agreement, even publishing a special online edition with the unintended prescient title of “Libya Rising.” A jubilant Tony Haywood would utter the following at the signing, words that should haunt BP until the end of time:

“We are delighted to be working with the National Oil Company of Libya to develop their natural resources for domestic and international markets. Our agreement is the start of an enduring, long-term and mutually beneficial partnership with Libya. With its potentially large resources of gas, favourable geographic location and improving investment climate, Libya has an enormous opportunity to be a source of cleaner energy for the world. This is a welcome return to the country for BP after more than 30 years and represents a significant opportunity for both BP and Libya to deliver our long term growth aspirations. It is BP’s single biggest exploration commitment. The agreement reached today is a great success for Libya, the NOC and also for BP.”

=snip=

BP is not the only foreign oil company in Libya; U.S. corporations like http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2009/07/17/Exxon-Mobil-achieves-milestone-in-Libya/UPI-60041247858411/">Exxon Mobil, http://www.oxy.com/Our_Businesses/oil_and_gas/Pages/og_mena_libya.aspx">Occidental Petroleum, http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/about/worldwide_ops/country/africa/pages/libya.aspx">Conoco Phillips, http://www.marathon.com/Global_Operations/Exploration_and_Production/Libya/">Marathon Oil, http://www.gulfoilandgas.com/webpro1/MAIN/Mainnews.asp?id=2412">Hess Corp., and Halliburton all run profitable operations there. European nations are also well represented by Eni SpA (Italy: the largest foreign producer), Total S.A. (France: one of the six largest oil companies in the world), OMV AG (Austria), Repsol YPF SA (Spain’s largest oil company), Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands), Statoil (Netherlands), BG Group (U.K.), Wintershall (Germany). China’s largest oil producer, CNPC, also drill for oil in Libya. Most if not all foreign companies are shutting down their Libyan operations for the moment. The chief executive for Eni said that his company will cut production “because of difficulty loading the tankers to export the oil,” inconvenient difficulties like Gaddafi’s army mowing down the Libyan people with machine gun fire.

Full article with more embedded links: http://art-for-a-change.com/blog/2011/02/libya-bp-lacma.html

There's no guarantee that the revolutionaries will want transnational oil corporations setting up shop AGAIN in their country. They might actually even want to own their oil industry.

[Arctic Dave]

1. Oil was being produced but not on favorable terms for the oil corps.

If MG was such an asshole why were we doing business with him.


Shades of saddam?

[Turborama]

2. "not on favorable terms for the oil corps"? Where do you get that info. from?

If you read the article in the OP and followed the links within it you'd see that everyone seemed quite happy with the way things were going.

Anyway, corporations do business with assholes all the time. Surely you knew that?

[Arctic Dave]

5. 18 years in the oil industry and being third generation in it

I'm pretty sure i know what kind of asshats the oil industry produces.

Right now Libya charges 98% tax on the oil produced. Any other time it may irrelevant but with the industry wide attack on oil taxes leaves me a bit skeptical.

[Turborama]

9. Right now we've just got your word for it. Links please.

As I said, corporations deal with assholes all the time.

Whether you've spent 18 years in the oil industry or not.

All they care about is business.

[Arctic Dave]

10. Have emailed Sen Wielechowski's office to find were he got his slide from.

Seems to be huge ta do about the numbers. Will post as soon as informed.


I will email Shannon Moore to get actual show he was on.

[joshcryer]

14. Do you have a screenshot of the slide?

[Arctic Dave]

17. Was on TV. Search "Moore up North" maybe you will be luckier then me.

Will post info asap.

[Catherina]

36. See post 35. Posted the slide and show for you Dave. n/t

[Arctic Dave]

73. Thank you Catherina.

[Catherina]

76. I appreciated you bringing it up and looking for it. I had no idea n/t

[joshcryer]

43. Now that we have the slide (and its source!) we now know that is patently false!

It is referring to government take as a whole, since the Libyan government is 90% nationalized already and only in recent years did they open the country up to foreign countries, it's highly fucking misleading and false.

NOC has 100% the oil. Gaddafi gives contracts to foreign companies. NOC has 85% of the oil. Those foreign companies pay off their development costs for exploration. Then they give up a portion of their costs, thanks to the wikileaks cables, for extended contracts and more exploratory options.

Wow. Every single one of these attempts is disgusting!

The report: http://www.albertaroyaltyreview.ca/panel/final_report.pdf

[Turborama]

83. I thought that graph was a bit odd

Thanks for explaining why it was.

BTW have you got a link to that particular cable?

[joshcryer]

88. Read here:

4 and 5: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294570/FRENCH-TOTAL-LED-CONSORTIUMS-ACCEPT-LOWER-PRODUCTION-SHARES-IN-LIBYA.html

The key part is:

The new agreement still guarantees Total, Wintershall and StatoilHydro longer access to existing Libyan reserves and further field development opportunities, with the potential of increasing oil production.

So yes, the companies get a smaller share of the oil, they get a larger share of the exploration leases! Until 2032!

[Turborama]

89. So, they had their feet under the table AND were happy enough to sign up a 1/4 century deal?

Thanks again.

[sabrina 1]

15. Turborama, the Wikileaks cables

on Libya revealed that Qadaffi used them, the Oil and other western businesses to pressure the west for things he wanted, but they would have difficulty explaining to their citizens. Such as Nuclear Power. The release of the Lockerbie bomber, that one was hard, but the Brits wanted the contracts, and they got him what he wanted.

He was not reliable or acted that way. Eg, as the cables reveal, when his sone was arrested in Switzerland, he went berserk and ended all flights to that country, withdrew over five billion dollars from a Swiss Bank and asked the UN to divide Switzerland into three separate countries and give them away to other countries.

Iow, if someone got him upset, he would throw away all business deals. Doing business in Libya, while they made money and were willing to do it, was extremely difficult.

However, if the U.S. thought that the revolutionaries might not even want the Multi National Oil Corps there, or there was a chance of that, they would definitely intervene.

Just read that the U.S. has been training 'insurgents' in Libya for 30 years and that many believe that operatives may be among the revolutionaries.

The U.S. wanted regime change in Libya since the eighties.

I think this whole situation is far more complex than we originally thought.

[Turborama]

18. I forgot about the Wikileaks cables

Thanks for reminding me, I'm going to look them up.

You're right, it is extremely complex.

I just don't buy the "It's all about the oil!" thing.

It's waaay too simplistic.

[Catherina]

34. Where did you read that?

"that the U.S. has been training 'insurgents' in Libya for 30 years and that many believe that operatives may be among the revolutionaries."

It makes sense having read just two of the many wikileak cables on Libya and Benghazi last night so I don't doubt you but I'd appreciate the source if you have it handy. Professor As'ad AbuKhalil aka Angry Arab has interesting comments up (as usual) today. Each individual entry was tweeted earlier today. There are more, I'm still reading.

Sunday, March 20, 2011
Protests in Saudi Arabia
"Several protesters were arrested in Saudi Arabia on Sunday at a demonstration demanding the release of thousands of prisoners, held captive for years without trial. They were among dozens of men and women who tried to push their way into Riyadh's interior ministry building, which was fortified with up to 2,000 special forces and 200 police vehicles, according to the Associated Press news agency."
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 9:34 AM

Aljazeera's deception (and its Muslim Brotherhood sympathies)
Aljazeera has barely covered the massive demonstrations in Morocco today, although it has aggressively and extensively covered much smaller demonstrations in Syria. It is quite noticeable.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 9:32 AM

Aljazeera and the Counter-Revolution
Comrade Joseph has reminded me of the unprecedented praise by Hillary of Aljazeera weeks ago. It now should be better understood. IT was an early indication that the station has joined the US/Saudi/Israeli counter-revolution.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 9:20 AM

Al-Arabiyyah TV
I try as much as I can to follow Saudi propaganda outlets, like Al-Arabiyyah TV (the news station of King Fahd-s brother-in-law) as crude as they are. So I tuned to Al-Arabiyyah for the news cast. They are really unwatchable. They started by asking an Arabic speaking British military spokesperson to weigh in. They followed with an English speaking US State Department spokesperson. It is 9:13 and not one Arab commentator has appeared. Stay tuned: some prince may show up to speak on behalf of Arab protesters.

PS I changed the channel. They are still talking to the American spokesperson. She is asked only technical questions: what was the mood of the pilot bombing Libya, and what was he wearing? I am now watching the 24-hours news and rumors about Libya, better known as Aljazeera.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 9:13 AM

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

[sabrina 1]

80. Hi Catherina,

Actually, it was said by a woman on RT, whose name I did not catch, first name airc, was Sarah.

Should have corrected 'read' to 'saw'. She said it casually, as if it was a well-known fact.

I love the Angry Arab. Saudi TV sounds a lot like Fox, can't blame him for finally tuning it out.

Re Morocco, I was thinking about that last night and intended to check out what was going on there as we don't hear much about it. Al Jazeera may simply be over-worked they are in so many places now. Can't see why they would not want to cover Morocco.

Somalia, Algeria, Iraq, and although we rarely hear about them, there are often demonstrations in Afghanistan and lately, in Pakistan. I commend Al Jazeera for having reporters on the ground in as many places as they do. And I just saw that four of their reporters are missing in Libya. Hope they are safe, they've already lost one sadly.

[Catherina]

35. Here's the slide Arctic Dave was talking about

You can download all the slides here http://stoptheoilbailout.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/aces-powerpoints.pptx but that's the only one on Libya

Video of the show here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ3tQKzYUfQ

The actual report is dated September 2007 http://www.albertaroyaltyreview.ca/panel/final_report.pdf

...

“Refudiating” the premise that Alaska’s tax climate is just too unstable and confiscatory to promote investment and economic growth, take note that the very companies spinning this line are currently investing in Russia, Libya (!) and other, significantly less stable regimes, with tax rates in the 90% range:

...

This might explain why a brand new player has entered the scene under ACES, making a big announcement just yesterday.

Spanish oil major Repsol announced it had acquired a 70-percent stake in several exploration blocks in Alaska, where it plans to invest around 550 million euros.

...

http://losangelesonlinedaily.com/latest-national-news/the-mudflats/

[joshcryer]

4. That's ludicrious, the terms are set before acting, they would not have...

...set up shop if they didn't think the terms were fair.

[Arctic Dave]

6. Taxes change as often as contracts. No strange occurrence.

Everything has a sunset.

[joshcryer]

7. Got a cite for this?

[Arctic Dave]

8. Which part?

[joshcryer]

13. The big bad taxes affecting multinationals.

[Arctic Dave]

16. The oil corps are spendings millions of dollars in Alaska right now

to change the tax structure. That is just here, not mentioning all the other oil producing states.

Probably means nothing to you though.

[joshcryer]

19. No, I use common sense, they make these contracts to cover that in advance.

They say "Hello country, we'll build oil derricks at this fixed rate, and you won't mess with us."

Gaddafi was completely on board 100%.

[Arctic Dave]

20. Contracts are subject to change. All contracts.

Will look up tax structure changes for last couple of years for oil producing states.

[joshcryer]

21. New Libya Corporate Income Tax - Law No 7 of 2010 - 20% flat rate.

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/libya/libya_tax_regime.asp

[joshcryer]

22. Looks like it's been in place actually since 2004.

http://pages.ghattour.com/index.asp?documentid=9

These companies were aware of it and agreed anyway.

Still need a cite to believe what you're saying.

[Turborama]

24. Thanks Josh

For this link and the one below. Seems like an open and shut case on that one.

I'm genuinely curious to see what Dave comes up with as he seemed really certain.

[joshcryer]

26. Apparently there's a wikileaks cable going around being selectively quoted..

...trying to lie that the companies got reduced profits from these fields. What the lying article doesn't mention is that the cables show that in fact while the shares were reduced they were extended and the exploitation level was increased (ie they could explore more areas). It's a joke.

[Turborama]

31. I haven't seen it

But I have seen a lot of instant Libya "experts" scrambling around trying to pin all manner of highly speculative conspiracy theories on the reasons behind the intervention, even though they haven't been paying attention until the news told them to.


Personally, I still have faith in human nature and am glad that Gaddafi and his brutal psychotic dictatorship is going to be finally finished in the not too distant future. I will never forget the 1st time I saw the poor guy in the wheelchair (27 seconds in): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ0KQABYXgE

When Gaddafi says "No mercy", he means it. He doesn't even know what mercy is.

[joshcryer]

45. Yes, it's all speculative slander, from neocons, to terrorists, to oil grabs.

All of which are true, didn't you know!

But the fact is that the countries who are benefiting the most (France, the UK) got very good deals under Gaddafi's regime and they're really misleading the information that they're posting. People really can't think for themselves these days, it's amazing.

[Turborama]

91. As I wrote in another OP I posted recently.

Conspiracy theories are fun and facts are boring.

[Arctic Dave]

71. Corporate tax is not the same as oil tax.

That's like state tax is the same as federal or county.

[Aerows]

32. Contracts become void, too

...in the event of a major disruption in a country, such as a civil war.

It's clear to most people oil is the reason why we are there, and that it has nothing to do with humanitarian reasons.

[Turborama]

33. No, it's not clear to "most people". Most of Infowars, probably.

But not "most people".

[Aerows]

37. Nice try, but I don't buy Alex Jones tripe

I do, however, know something of financial markets and contract terms. Feel free to dispute that there are clauses to end contracts on the basis of major, unforeseeable disasters and outbreaks of war.

I look forward to hearing your explanation that financial and business contracts are conspiracy theory.

In fact, I'm eager to hear you explain that it is a myth.

[Turborama]

54. Yes. We can now safely assume that any of these countries who's oil corporations had contracts...

...have had their contracts voided already.


Here's a complete list of attendees at the Paris summit:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero
German Chancellor Angela Merkel
Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper
Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk
Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou
Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg
Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme
British Prime Minister David Cameron
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte
Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa
European Council President Herman Van Rompuy
European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari
UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh
Moroccan Foreign Minister Taieb Fassi Fihri


However, this doesn't prove that "It's clear to most people oil is the reason why we are there, and that it has nothing to do with humanitarian reasons."

[Aerows]

68. My pointing that out isn't

...worthy of calling my comment an "infowars" "conspiracy theory", either.

I made a blunt comment, and yes, ultimately oil is a factor. Is it the only factor? Perhaps not, and I did speak too strongly, but it IS a factor.

That doesn't make me a "conspiracy theorist" but rather a person attempting to figure out the truth based upon the facts available.

[Turborama]

75. Your climb down from that statement is accepted and appreciated

Thanks for being more reasonable.

Figuring out the truth based on the facts available is what a lot of us try to do all the time.

Of course, oil is a factor. Libya has it, lots of it, and it's not just going to sit in the ground.

However, this "it's all about the oil" thing is waaay too simplistic a theory to be taken seriously in such a complex situation.

[Aerows]

70. Oh, BTW -

thanks for owning up that there is a factual basis in what I stated before. It's easy for that to get lost in the heat of arguments, and the claims that contracts don't change were obviously not rooted in fact.

[joshcryer]

59. Which is why BP is demanding that their contract be recognized.

[Aerows]

72. And can be disputed in court...

...and probably will be by the insurance companies if any of their wells become damaged. It will certainly become under negotiation if the output cannot be provided, which it likely won't after the bombing.

They will HAVE to dispute the terms and nullify it in the event of being unable to provide supply. They would be idiots if they did not, since it would impact their suppliers and the people they have contracts with to refine it. BP would be sued if they didn't.

[HEyHEY]

41. Not only that...HE'S KILLING PEOPLE

Do these fucktards completely forget that? This isn't Iraq. Had Gaddafi just not killed people this wouldn't have happened.

[Aerows]

42. The rebels have planes and anti-aircraft artillery.

It's very difficult to paint them as "peaceful protesters" at this point. I'd sincerely like to know who is arming them. That's an important part of the puzzle here.

[HEyHEY]

44. They had A plane. And they weren't violent until Gaddafi started killing them

[Aerows]

47. They certainly have anti-aircraft artillery

Again, who is arming them? When you are at the point where you can blow planes out of the sky, that isn't exactly defenseless.

[Turborama]

48. Who's arming them now? Egypt. However, when this all started a month ago defectors

were opening up the armories.

They've had pilots defect and bring their planes with them, too.

There's no mystery about that.

Anyone who has been paying attention would have known about it.

Latest news about who's arming them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4776037

[Aerows]

66. Thanks, I was wondering

That sets my mind at ease, because I've heard everything from Iran to Saudi Arabia.

The MSM isn't exactly forthcoming about the fact that they are armed at all, so I do hope that you realize that I am not being critical of you per se, but the amount of information we are getting.

And I am paying attention, my friend, but there is a lot of misinformation being flung around - it makes sense to be skeptical when there are that many conflicting stories.

[Turborama]

81. I meant paying attention since this all started over a month ago

When this started last month there were a lot of soldiers defecting and opening up the armories. There were a lot of videos and articles about them at the time.

Here's some footage of the airfield that was taken over...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaAcUW1sj7E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXUtOEDbjzI

News article about the training: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4753447

[HEyHEY]

49. Half of the men at roadblocks have guns tonight according to reuters.

[joshcryer]

52. Please watch any video coming out today. Half of the people in the streets are fucking unarmed.

[Aerows]

46. All contracts in global business...

...have indemnity clauses to render the contract void in the event of unforeseeable disasters or outbreaks of war.

Should we hold Japan liable for not being able to deliver IPads because of the tsunami? Of course not. It's the same situation here - civil war nullifies terms of contracts.

Libya was ignored until an oil refinery was destroyed and production halted. That's when things got serious.

I encourage you to investigate global contracts and the terms upon which they can be renegotiated or rendered void.

[wordpix]

27. "shades of Saddam"? It looks that way. Oil corpos decide they don't like Saddam or Gaddafi

and call on the troops to get rid of these guys. Then they couch the whole affair in terms of a humanitarian effort to save the rebels---in Saddam's case, it was to save us from WMD--- and we don't even know who the rebels are.

[KittyWampus]

29. DU'ers with a preconceived bias can literally come with ANY line of rationale

It's scary.

[Arctic Dave]

78. Yes it is.

[RZM]

3. The logical response of the anti-interventionists

would be to decrey Ghaddafi as an oil company stooge and demand his ouster.

Unfortunately that's not happening.

[David__77]

11. No blood for geostrategic control.

This is not about the national security of the US.

[Turborama]

12. Maybe you'd like to start a thread about that?

This one's about oil.

[David__77]

23. It's about the rationale for the war being waged against Libya.

I was tangentially agreeing with you. Oil is peripheral as far as Libya is concerned. The reason the aggression was launched against Libya was to establish strategic hegemony in the region as a whole.

[wordpix]

28. I'm afraid you're right. The more I read about the Libya misadventure

the bigger picture is emerging that the oil corps and various governments are getting nervous about oil disruption as the unrest spreads throughout the ME. We could be entering another WWIII without realizing it. But I'm sure the war profiteers are elated.

[sarcasmo]

25. There to protect the oil not the people. It's a sick, sick, sick world.

[Turborama]

30. I hope they don't mind me doing this, but Ikonoklast made a v. important point in a deceased thread

And I'd like to resurrect it here, as I think it argues the point I made in the OP very well...

Ikonoklast (1000+ posts) Sun Mar-20-11 11:12 AM

Response to Reply #20

35. And what guarantees that a new government won't contract with PetroChina?

You assume a great deal.

Any new government put in place by the Libyan people may be entirely hostile to any company that had proir dealings with Qaddafi, and kick them all to the curb.

Funny how no one here said things like that about Egypt.

[EFerrari]

38. The guarantee that China won't be the beneficiary?

Is that the point you mean?

How would any Chinese businessman get into Libya if we control the ports?

I'm half kidding but only half.

[HEyHEY]

50. CHina has BILLIONS in money there, largest out of all of us.

35,000 nationals were evacuated from Libya!

[EFerrari]

57. That's right. I remember that.

But the US, France and the Brits will never allow there to be a power vacuum in Libya. It's not going to happen.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

40. What ever government that is set up by the US etc won't allow that to happen.

The oil rights will be given away immediately, just like with Iraq.

[HEyHEY]

51. Well, CHINA got the first oil contract in Iraq

As well their libyan interests involve building a railroad.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

53. And how much money does the US owe China?

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

61. Not handing it over, giving some of it away.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

39. Who said that the US & friends allow the revolutionaries to win in the long run and take control of

the government and oil interests? The government is going to be created to be very friendly to the oil companies. If you don't believe that, there's a bridge about 60 miles south of here in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

[Turborama]

56. If you think the revolutionaries are going to allow France, Britain et al to set up their government

...for them, I've got a farm in Zimbabwe I'd like to sell you.

[joshcryer]

58. +1, completely debasing the revolutionaries.

They're terrorist neocon oil grabbers. :puke:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

63. And do you know who the rebels are? Pray tell....... BTW..they seem well

armed, don't they?

[joshcryer]

67. Nope, maybe 1 in 10, 2 in 10 have weapons.

Watch ANY video of street protesters and COUNT the people with WEAPONS.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

69. You're talking about street protestors, not miliary action which is happening. How about the fighter

jet that was piloted by a "rebel"? If only 1 or 2 out of 10 have weapons, how could they get as far as they have?

[joshcryer]

74. Get as far as they have? They lost 6 cities in 3 days! Have you not been following this!

WTF!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

79. Just in time for the "calvary" to intervene. Why don't you know who the rebels are and what their

plans for Libya are? Someone here on DU has an article saying that they are Muslim extremists. I read an account in the Washington Post saying they were lawyers and educators, etc who want a parliamentary form of government (if you changed Libya for Iraq, it read like the propaganda before the Iraq War). I read another account saying they are backed by the CIA...which probably goes hand in hand with an article from March 1st saying that the rebels were very well armed and could take Tripoli. They don't have to worry about that now, do they?

[joshcryer]

85. Yes, the people saying they're Muslim extremists have no evidence, they're spreading FUD.

That FUD comes directly from the mouth of Gaddafi. I've already had one of them cut me down for pointing out their FUD.

[EFerrari]

60. But doesn't that happen all the time?

Didn't the US basically pick the last Australian PM?

[Turborama]

77. No.Revolutions deposing brutal dictators who've been in power for 42 years don't happen all the time

Although, it does seem to be fashionable this year, which a great thing to see.


:hi:

[EFerrari]

82. I meant TPTB picking governments.

But you're right. This year must have some kind of special celestial alignment going!

:)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

62. Mark my words. Bookmark this page and if I'm wrong, I'll gladly apologize.

[Turborama]

64. You do the same, and likewise.

It's in my Journal & turned into a PDF for safekeeping.

[joshcryer]

65. I'm going to "journalize" my posts, too.

[Turborama]

84. Cool

When?

I'm still waiting... ;-)

[joshcryer]

86. OMG been up 48 hours. :(

I'll get to it. :P

[Turborama]

90. I know the feeling

I've been on 3 hours a night for the past couple of months myself.

Have you had any sleep yet?

[Runework]

87. Dogs of War

old movie w/ christopher walken, reminds me of this