UK: Misunderstanding stymied SAS mission to Libya

UK: Misunderstanding stymied SAS mission to Libya

news.yahoo.com

The unnamed opposition spokesman told Northern the group made "a big mistake coming in with a helicopter."

Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, spokesman for the rebels' national council, said eight people with British passports were arrested, including one who claimed to be a British diplomat. He said the group had been detained "because they came into the country unofficially without previous arrangement."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.newsmax.com
www.reuters.com

Something just doesn't make sense for me. Why are the UK and US interested in creating an oil shortage which will undoubtedly lead to a premature collapse of the dollar? Earlier, we were shrugging off the fact that some Arab leaders are even accusing the US of stirring up the trouble in the first place. Now it is blatantly clear that the UK and US are supporting Libya's revolution. It is plainly obvious then that they had something to do with all recent similar uprisings.

And don't patronize me with supporting civilians. If thousands of protesters stormed the White House, the US would use force. Count on it.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Support for yes. Instigated no.

The UK has oil interests in Libya. That much is not in doubt.

If the unrest in the other countries had not spilled over into Libya we would quite happily be continuing the previous arrangement with the Gadaffi regime. Its been repressive for decades, discreet repression that doesn't get on the news is no impediment to business.

The moment he started butchering people with heavy weapons that was off the table. Its not politically acceptable for the EU/USA/UK to be seen to openly support this kind of behaviour.

So, we turned on him politically. Thats a rift that wont be forgiven and the government knows it. All the previous re-setting of relations is undone. Therefore, Uk govt must do a deal with the replacing regime and assist them into power.

Business is business. Politics is an extension of business. War is an extension of politics.

Simples.

reply to post by justwokeup


As much UK interests might not be in doubt, As I understand it OXY the American producer extracts only 16,000 barrels (of the 250,000) a day, while BP extract almost zero... BP arrived not only very late into Libya, but also under very cloudy skies.

So neither the US or the UK has as much at stake as the European Oil Producers, and as I understand Italy has the most at stake, while Spain is already beginning to feel the pinch, as I Believe 7% of their supplies coming from Libya.

So while we might have future interests, there seems no need for Britain (or the US) to poke our noses into this, unless there is a greater game at stake, i.e stabilising, or even destabilising oil prices.

Originally posted by CodeRed3D
Something just doesn't make sense for me. Why are the UK and US interested in creating an oil shortage which will undoubtedly lead to a premature collapse of the dollar? Earlier, we were shrugging off the fact that some Arab leaders are even accusing the US of stirring up the trouble in the first place. Now it is blatantly clear that the UK and US are supporting Libya's revolution. It is plainly obvious then that they had something to do with all recent similar uprisings.

And don't patronize me with supporting civilians. If thousands of protesters stormed the White House, the US would use force. Count on it.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 7-3-2011 by CodeRed3D because: (no reason given)

Yes US hated mubarak and wanted him out and Tunisia revolution was all planned in the white house. You nailed it man! And sure thousands of protesters storming the white house would get them shot especially when it wouldve been easier to just vote the president out or just protest peacefully.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Oh, i dont know. It seems they were taking the commitment seriously. Its a long term game.

www.bp.com...

If Gadaffi stays in power that deal will surely fall through. Perhaps to the benefit of China. While our involvement may not be sensible for the man in the street it surely is for BP.

Its another three years before the man in the streets opinion matters again.

reply to post by justwokeup


I do understand what you mean, however I think the deals with Russia and India might be slightly more palatable to BP.. and right now piddling off the Russians could cost them a whole lot more..

I would say on the surface of it, that BPs got better deals elsewhere than the ones in Libya especially the deep water ones..

So I still feel that Britain standing back, not taking sides and keeping stum would have been better for Both Britain and BP especially if they wanted to keep the Libyan deals alive..

However, I as they seem to be proactive, I do wonder what game is being played here, as the other European countries have more to lose than Britain or BP in Libya.

reply to post by CodeRed3D


Saddam Hussein was our dude, regardless of his actions until....he nationalized Iraqi oil production and the multinational oil companies lost profit. Now things are back to "normal" for the oil companies.

Libya sends a lot of oil to Israel. Egypt sends a lot of natural gas to Israel. I suppose as long as the new sheriffs of both these countries keep the flow up to the right folks, then all covert military activities and political shenanigans will have been worth it.

Of course we will just sprinkle the narrative with a few "freedoms", "end of tyranny", "demonstrate restraint", and of course "human rights". It's all good.