I suspect that this will definitely not come as much of surprise to many here on ATS, but this interview with McClatchy's Kevin Hall describes the
correlation between oil interests (both private and national) and the invasion of Libya.
It appears that the situation in Libya is but a continuation of the cold war... an attempt to curb Russia's energy power. Being the world's biggest
energy producer, with both oil and natural gas gives Russia a huge advantage in the Grand Chess Game.
What is particularly interesting in the interview is the direct connection between the countries' political leader and the oil companies. Italy's
Berlusconi has direct ties to Italy's ENI (the company with the largest stake in Libya) and Putin has a major role in Russia's Gazprom. If we are to
extrapolate this to the Bush administration's direct links to the oil industry, it sure seems to be a factor in using war as a tool to increase
control of black gold.
On this particular tangent, pay close attention when the discussion touches on the proxy pipeline war between ENI/Gazprom vs. Western oil interests,
and the strategic importance of Afghanistan in contouring Russia to export Caspian oil. Again, many here on ATS have suspected, since the beginning,
that the invasion of Afghanistan had little to do with capturing bin Laden, and a lot to do with geopolitical strategy and pipeline routes.
Once again, G.O.D. (guns, oil and drugs) really so seem to make the world go round.
Thanks Billmeister for sharing this. It is always wise to review the mountainous geography of present known energy reserves that dot the Caspian and
Baku fields that are under pressure to meet southerly demands of competing superpowers and nation states in the immediate future. As best I recall
recent facts, Italy obtains 30% of its energy needs from Libya with a smaller proportion going to France and Germany. What really disturbs me is the
overt aggression heaped on Libya over a contrived, foreign supplied and funded so-called rebel group that quickly has turned into an outright
assassination hit squad mafia style. This by the supposed arbiters of free speech, democracy, and civil rights. Gadafi's son was given a VIP tour of
the port of Houston barely 2 weeks before we started bombing the 'no-fly' zone. When the rabid demonizing attacks of the colonel's brutality on his
people started circulating , I soon wondered what reasons could they have to complain about: Libyans get free health care and education, including
overseas, and share in oil royalty revenues, housing is provided and if you get married a lump sum payment helps you get started with your family
life. The highest standard of living in the Arab world doesn't jive with the cover story of why we invaded.
Through this action, I just don't see how Nato can dictate any moral authority on anyone, much less to issue arrest warrants. The world going
rogue in a hand-basket.
Indeed, it is a sad day when an organization like NATO can justify an all-out offensive campaign.
Once again, the holier-than-thou humanitarian reasoning is being spread across the media as a justification, yet the extremely violent repressions in
Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen are being ignored. There couldn't possibly be a correlation to the contracts between the monarchies and the oil
industry. (sarcasm, of course)
As to the economic status of Libya, here is a very interesting summary of the recent economic reforms that Gaddafi had undertaken and its effects on
Libyan's quality of life.
A recurring theme of modern history seems to appear, the IMF demands that a socialist country open up its markets to privatization thereby exporting
the countries wealth to certain corporations while lowering the citizen's quality of life.
If I were any more cynical, I would say that the western goal is to ensure that a successful socialist government cannot be allowed to exist. The same
cynic in me would claim that the socialist tendency of Islam is the real enemy being fought.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.