My latest intel says more likely close to 100 $ p/b. Could be more if environmental issues of this type of mining become more apparent. Other than that it is justified to say that, considering limited production in Libya, oil is not the issue at stake here. It is the fact that if Kadhaffi survives, this is THE signal to other autocrats in the region that more suppression and slaughtering your own people is the recipe for staying in power. Which in itself contains a whole array of risks that is the multiple of those involved in getting at least something done.
So, all in all, the risk of doing nothing is substantially higher than intervening. Which is indeed a risky process with an unsure outcome. If it were we would be on another planet. Only one rather important code should be adhered too: a lasting and consequent support for democratisation, human rights, a free press etc. and a constant pressure on dictators. Which obviously includes those who used to be our allies like Saudi-Arabia and the likes. No more shitty talk about "strategic interests" and "stability" and no more of this unfounded talk about Islamic jihadists coming to power. This "better the devil you know" approach has to stop for once and for all.
Quite the contrary, because Col Gadaffi has been happy to sell oil for many years now. If oil where to be the point the west better keep things as they are...
Maybe we should refresh Michael Moore's memory : the Lockerby bombing , bombing of the Berlin disco, the time Gadaffi was endorsing terrorism until he ran out of cash ? And that leaving Gadaffi in place could well mean a return to that era ???
Just a quicky for those opposing intervention: In what alternative way could the Libyan population that -contrary to the situation in Iraq- showed a massive support for democratision, be saved from being slaugtered. Like the shi-ites were slaughtered in the 1st Gulf war after uprising and not being helped by the west. And remember: military intervention is never without risk, and although the outcome might be unsure, we can be rather sure what the outcome would have been or will be if Ghadaffi is not stoppped. The collective memory of the Libyan people will not forget by whom they were left alone. The fact that the West did not intervene in Darfur or Rwanda shouldnt be a reason to look the other way this time too. If we're serious about supporting democratisation, let's do something. And by the way: the countries opposing this intervention all have their own agenda's for doing so, which agenda's have very little to do with the interest of the Libyan population. One does not need to be a cynic to see that. It could well be that we end in up in a sort of Kosovo-like scenarion. Well, that would still be a million times better than another decade of Gadaffi rule, wouldn't it ?
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
My latest intel says more likely close to 100 $ p/b. Could be more if environmental issues of this type of mining become more apparent. Other than that it is justified to say that, considering limited production in Libya, oil is not the issue at stake here. It is the fact that if Kadhaffi survives, this is THE signal to other autocrats in the region that more suppression and slaughtering your own people is the recipe for staying in power. Which in itself contains a whole array of risks that is the multiple of those involved in getting at least something done.
So, all in all, the risk of doing nothing is substantially higher than intervening. Which is indeed a risky process with an unsure outcome. If it were we would be on another planet. Only one rather important code should be adhered too: a lasting and consequent support for democratisation, human rights, a free press etc. and a constant pressure on dictators. Which obviously includes those who used to be our allies like Saudi-Arabia and the likes. No more shitty talk about "strategic interests" and "stability" and no more of this unfounded talk about Islamic jihadists coming to power. This "better the devil you know" approach has to stop for once and for all.
Quite the contrary, because Col Gadaffi has been happy to sell oil for many years now. If oil where to be the point the west better keep things as they are...
Maybe we should refresh Michael Moore's memory : the Lockerby bombing , bombing of the Berlin disco, the time Gadaffi was endorsing terrorism until he ran out of cash ? And that leaving Gadaffi in place could well mean a return to that era ???
Just a quicky for those opposing intervention: In what alternative way could the Libyan population that -contrary to the situation in Iraq- showed a massive support for democratision, be saved from being slaugtered. Like the shi-ites were slaughtered in the 1st Gulf war after uprising and not being helped by the west. And remember: military intervention is never without risk, and although the outcome might be unsure, we can be rather sure what the outcome would have been or will be if Ghadaffi is not stoppped. The collective memory of the Libyan people will not forget by whom they were left alone. The fact that the West did not intervene in Darfur or Rwanda shouldnt be a reason to look the other way this time too. If we're serious about supporting democratisation, let's do something. And by the way: the countries opposing this intervention all have their own agenda's for doing so, which agenda's have very little to do with the interest of the Libyan population. One does not need to be a cynic to see that. It could well be that we end in up in a sort of Kosovo-like scenarion. Well, that would still be a million times better than another decade of Gadaffi rule, wouldn't it ?