Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil

[yurbud]

We could use this kind of craziness here.

Most Americans don't even realize we give our oil away for a song or that we are even entitled to any income from the oil sucked from under our public lands.

"Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production," said the Libyan leader.

These statements have worried the main foreign companies operating in Libya: Anglo-Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, U.S. ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips, the Spanish Repsol, Germany's Wintershall, Austria's OMV , Norway's Statoil, Eni and Canada's Petro Canada.

In 2008, the Libyan state oil company, National Oil, prepared a report on the subject in which officials suggested modifying the production-sharing agreements with foreign companies in order to increase state revenues. As a result of these contract changes, Libya gained 5.4 billion dollars in oil revenues...

***

"Do not be afraid to directly redistribute the oil money and create fairer governance structures that respond to people's interests," Gaddafi said in a Popular Committee.

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/25-03-2011/117336-reason_for_war_oil-0/

[RZM]

1. Pravda? Really?

A quick glance of their headlines should tell you all you need to know of their reliability as a news source.

[dziendobry]

2. I agree

I have to agree with you above. It was not about the oil. It was about maintaining the dictatorship. He already controlled all of the resources in the country. All of the wealth.

Regards,
Kredyty Hipoteczne

[aquart]

4. Disagree.

It was only peripherally about oil. It was about cementing alliances with the Arab Spring leadership to make sure not that much changed for us. The young, vocal leaders of the Arab Spring wanted intervention in Libya. I follow a bunch on Twitter. They have huge followings and they were very vocal about what they wanted.

This was about PR.

[yurbud]

8. I emailed this story to Greg Palast for his opinion since he has done respected work on Iraq's oil

[Aryo]

12. Good move to send this to Palast

He knows how to get to the bottom of stories like this. A real journalist in a sea of teleprompter readers and Operation Mockingbird operatives.l

[emilyg]

9. Dobranoc.

[LooseWilly]

13. What do you have against Russian News?

I just went to Pravda, and here's a sample of headlines: (http://english.pravda.ru/)

•Radioactivity of saltwater near Fukushima 7.5m times the legal limit
•Obama to rekindle passion and energy of his 2008 campaign in 2012
•Fighter jets escort British jetliner to Athens after security alert
•Three space explorers heading to International Space Station
•Wreckage of Air France Airbus 320 that crashed in 2009 found in Atlantic Ocean

—Well... that tells me loads about their reliability... ???

Those look like the headlines I'd expect from the BBC, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT, or any other news source I might think of.

I'm "sure" that you'll elucidate for all who might be viewing exactly... what we're supposed to glean of reliability from those headlines?

(And please, feel free to post your Hoover Institute links with your response... because if you post no links I'm just gonna google your answer+Hoover Institute... so I have some context to reply to. :))

[RZM]

15. Here are some more pravda headlines

'Third World War to begin During Winter Games in 2014'

'After Tulip Revolution, Kyrgyzstan's future hopeless'

'Could Russia keep Alaska?'

'World goes back to pre-war condition of 1939'

'Air France unsafe at any price, wreckage, bodies found'

'Latin America on brink of war'

'USA moves towards Caliphate'

[LooseWilly]

17. I had to use google to find the stories you mention... so those are hardly a representative sampling

If we're going to just randomly search for wacky stories, let's see what we can find in The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01world-t.html

The Final Days

By BENJAMIN ANASTAS
Published: July 1, 2007
Steven from Arizona — a caller on “Coast to Coast AM” late one night in February — had slipped into a future reality and caught a glimpse of the devastation that was coming when the supervolcano under Yellowstone erupted. James in Omaha, on the other hand, was worried about the likelihood of a magnetic pole shift, while Rod from Edmonton had recently spoken to a member of the Canadian Parliament about the global-warming crisis and couldn’t believe what he had heard.

“We’re coming to an end time beyond anything that anybody has ever imagined,” Rod said with a trembling urgency. “The scientists right now, they’re not even studying the real causes. The Kyoto treaty and CO2 have nothing to do with anything.” {...}

Media outlets will often print/broadcast stories that are just plain "wacky"... and in the editorial mindset doing so is not so much a statement that the media outlet "believes" that the "wacky" is true... but rather the fact that there are believers in said "wacky" is itself news.

Given my personal experience of your posting history, however, I suspect there is another reason, besides your superficial headline objection, why you might seek to denigrate Pravda. I decided to repeat a previous experiment— I googled your premise + Hoover Institute and came up with an interesting Pravda article which questions the "History" propounded by the Hoover Institute.
(http://english.pravda.ru/history/11-05-2010/113332-war_victory-0/)

A US historian of the renowned Hoover Institution says that the Red Army would not have been able to defeat Nazi Germany if the US Air Force had not performed its heroic daytime raids on European objects in 1942-1943. The historian forgot to mention that the raids became possible only because most of the German fighter aviation was operating on the Eastern Front.

One may come to as many unfounded conclusions as possible, but facts remain facts. Facts and numbers say that it was the Soviet Union that played the decisive role in the destruction of Nazism. One shall remind that there were 607 Nazi divisions destroyed on the Soviet-German front, which was three-quarters of the whole fascist army.

...

What is the point of historical lies?

“Some of those who write such things want to attract attention to themselves. However, many deliberately intend to slander the USSR and Soviet warriors for political reasons. They want to belittle the role of the USSR in the defeat of Nazism and even justify Nazism at some point,” Russian historian Alexander Dyukov said.

Surely, it couldn't be stories like this, which undermine the "Scholarship" of the Hoover Institute, which really cause you to object to Pravda?...

[RZM]

18. I didn't need to use google

I perused the Pravda site for about 5 minutes. All the stories I picked are recent and certainly are a representative sampling of the kind of reporting they do.

I don't agree with the assertions you posted about WWII either. Certainly the Western Allies drew off fighter strength that the Nazis needed in the East but that didn't decide the war. Same goes for other Allied contributions. Lend-lease was important, but not decisive. Allied landings occupied German troops, but only after the Soviets were already winning . . . and so on and so forth. My personal belief is that the Soviets probably could have won without the Western Allies at all, though it would have taken longer, it would have been bloodier, and perhaps wouldn't have resulted in total victory.

You're starting to bore me, btw.

[LooseWilly]

19. I wouldn't've needed to use google either, if you'd provided links.

Surely you don't expect anyone to spend 5 minutes, or more, searching around a website for something you are trying to use as evidence?

Instead, I thought I'd spend about 1 minute poking around the NYT for something comparable. (And, here's the link, so no one has to spend 5 minutes searching: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html?src=hp1-0-P#styles)

As Days Grow Longer, So Do Hems SECTION E - PAGE 1
By RUTH LA FERLA
Seeking Sobriety in Brooklyn SECTION E - PAGE 1
By MATT HABER
A Collector of People Along With Art SECTION E - PAGE 1
By GUY TREBAY
Skin Deep: A More Grown-Up Look for a Minimalist Time SECTION E - PAGE 3
By SIMONE S. OLIVER
Critical Shopper: Put Your Money Where Your Taste Is SECTION E - PAGE 4
By JON CARAMANICA
Front Row: Clothes as Old as They Are SECTION E - PAGE 4
By ERIC WILSON
Crib Sheet: The 10 Things to Talk About This Weekend SECTION E - PAGE 5
By HENRY ALFORD
All-Night Sendoff for a Clubland King SECTION E - PAGE 6
By BEN DETRICK
Trading Up: This Championship Season SECTION E - PAGE 9
By DAVID COLMAN

Well well... it's a good thing the NYT doesn't "sink" to the level of Pravda, what with such hard hitting news stories as Seeking Sobriety in Brooklyn... or Skin Deep: A More Grown-Up Look for a Minimalist Time...

Your headlines "prove" only that the audiences of the two outlets have a different set of tastes when it comes to the frivolous. If you'd've provided links, to help establish context, that might've become clearer with less work.

Is that what's "boring" you? Not having your assertions accepted as gospel simply based on your having asserted them?

As to your interpretation of the other Pravda clipping, are you now opining that the Hoover Institute "scholarship" is flawed? Are you, in fact, agreeing with the Pravda clipping?

Your conclusion: "My personal belief is that the Soviets probably could have won without the Western Allies at all, though it would have taken longer, it would have been bloodier, and perhaps wouldn't have resulted in total victory."

Pravda's conclusion: "It goes without saying that the support from allied troops made the victory happen sooner and preserved many lives. However, it is obviously an exaggeration to say that the Red Army would not have been able to defeat Hitler."

Well, well—how can you be bored now? You've just agreed with Pravda!

Congratulations, comrade, on having seen the light... ;)

[RZM]

21. Pravda isn't the only place you'll see that argument

It's pretty much consensus among historians who study WWII in the east. But sure, I do agree with them on that.

The Pravda headlines I selected and yours from the NY Times are different animals. Yes, the Times has some frivolous crap in it, but I don't get the sense anything you showed was wrong. I don't doubt that hems are getting longer and that there are people in Brooklyn who are seeking sobriety.

But I don't think that WWIII will start in 2014, nor do I think that Latin America is on the brink of war, nor that the Libyan intervention has much to do with Ghaddafi's plans for his country's oil.

[LooseWilly]

25. Again with the no links or any other sort of support for your assertions?

Your insistence on trying to conceal the context is increasingly convincing me that you are here for spin, not discussion.

Very well... allow me to do your work for you.

You don't think that WWIII will start in 2014? That would be your dismissal of this silly astrology article (http://english.pravda.ru/society/anomal/25-03-2011/117328-third_world_war-0/) Let's pull a quote so everyone who doesn't want to have to repeat my work chasing after your lazy "scholarship" won't be so burdened.

According to Globa, this year can be compared to 1939 - the year preceding WWII, from the point of view of astrological data.

The participants of the meeting also unveiled the date for the beginning of Third World War. The new war is said to begin in March of 2014, during the Olympic Games in Sochi. It is also possible that the war may start five days after the Games end. Globa did not say in which country exactly the war would begin. He only said that the African revolutions would slowly be moving towards Russia. Massive protests will eventually spark in Central Asia, the astrologist said. According to Globa, such events are happening because of the Black Moon. NATO attacked Libya the day when the Black Moon allied itself with the sun. When the Black Moon allied itself with Uranus, the Japanese earthquake occurred.

{etc.}

It's an eye-catching headline, for a story about astrological predictions... that you spent 5 minutes searching the site to find. Upthread I posted a link to a NYT article about the Mayan calendar 2012 is the end of the world story. Unless you would care to provide some reason to think that Pravda takes this story any more seriously than NYT took the 2012 end-of-the-world story... I'm gonna lump them together as just, what was your term? "Frivolous crap"?

Next? Latin America on the Brink of War—http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/05-04-2011/117457-latin_america-0/ ... Let's get a sample of this one.

A threat of wars on the Latin American continent has been markedly increasing. To put it mildly, uneasy relations of Venezuela and Colombia may become one of many. This includes historical ones that for some time were considered frozen.

Now relations between Bolivia and Chile have worsened due to the fact that the latter refuses to provide the first traffic corridor to the Pacific Ocean. Bolivia has lost its corridor back in the late 19th century, having suffered a defeat by one of the best armies in South America - Chilean one. {etc.}

... I don't know what your problem is with this article. Did you read it? It seems like a reasonable examination of tensions in South America. This article isn't "frivolous crap"... it's news with a perhaps overly eager eye-catching headline. Nevertheless, it's real news. If you don't think so, please provide some substantiated argument for why it isn't.

And... you don't believe that Libyan intervention has much to do with Ghaddafi's plans for his country's oil?... well, the OP article provided some arguments for why it does have to do with his plans for his country's oil... and your unsupported assertion that it doesn't isn't swaying... and your attacks on the media outlet, Pravda, have also not been swaying... so—have you got any other theories or evidence or documentation that might be swaying? Maybe a link to a spot of scholarship from the Hoover Institute?... something?...

(I will give you credit though... I agree completely with your transliteration of Ghaddafi's name.)

As to your willingness to admit that you are in agreement with Pravda... I salute you. The fact that you acknowledge that Pravda's account is "pretty much consensus among historians who study WWII in the east" is heartening... but I feel obligated to point out that it is, according to Pravda's article, at variance with the perspective advanced by the Hoover Institute. That said... I can't help but submit to you that you are now among the vast ranks of opiners who deem the perspective advanced by the Hoover Institute to be fallacious... and I would ask you to consider ceasing and desisting any future citing of said Institute as if it were "scholarship".

[provis99]

20. that IS some bad scholarship, dude.

607 Nazi divisions 'destroyed' on the Eastern Front? The Germans never had more than 300 divisions on the Eastern front IN TOTAL. Russians like to exaggerate.

[RZM]

22. I'm sure this guy would know the exact number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz

607 does sound like a lot. But if you count all of the Axis deaths, MIA, prisoners, and wounded on the Eastern Front, you are getting up to 600 divisions worth of men, though many of those were I'm sure replacements in existing divisions - whether that means those were 'destroyed' or not really doesn't matter, I guess.

The Soviets did the lion's share of the fighting, that's for sure.

[LooseWilly]

24. Nonsense... the Germans had 1000s of divisions on the Eastern front...

—As long as you're not going to provide any evidence to support your assertion, I'll just go ahead and make an assertion that amuses me too, also without evidence.

My assertion is more recent, hence more right. I dare you to actually provide some documentation to counter it. :+

[provis99]

26. number of German divisions by date and front.

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=7288

Now piss off.

[truth2power]

28. LooseWilly...Do you notice how the poster has managed to divert your attention

from the subject at hand by involving you in an argument over the merits of Pravda?

Funny how that works. Suddenly we're not talking about nationalizing oil.

[yurbud]

16. Of course they have some goofy human interest stories too, and our networks would NEVER run those

:sarcasm:

[dotymed]

27. Hell, look at our MSM....

It IS hard to believe Qaddafi would really help the poor of his country.....much like America.

[aquart]

3. I thought it already was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oil_Corporation

Libyan oil is listed as state owned.

[DJ13]

5. Libya has been trying to push OPEC away from the dollar as the trading currency

If they had been successful the dollar as the worlds reserve currency would have been in jeopardy.

[bhikkhu]

6. Libya nationalized its oil industry decades ago

as I understand it, Libya (under sanctions) ran the whole operation on its own for many years. After 2006 when sanctions were lifted, it did the customary thing to expand production - it licensed some fields to foreign companies to operate under terms. Here he was just talking about renegotiating the terms, which in itself is nothing unusual.

[Old and In the Way]

7. I want Joe Biden's secret energy meeting minutes released!

[BlueMTexpat]

10. Fail ... as some posters have already pointed out,

Libya's oil was nationalized when Gaddafi first came to power. It's easy enough to check.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[jakeXT]

14. It was because of the low oil price brought on by the financial crisis

Gaddafi says looking at oil firm nationalization

"Oil maybe should be owned by national companies or the public sector at this point, in order to control the oil prices, the oil production or maybe to stop it," he told the students. "We may refuse to sell it at this very low price."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/01/21/businessproind-us-libya-gaddafi-oil-idUKTRE50K61F20090121



Even Limbaugh says it's oil, but then he twist it and lies that Exxon isn't a US company.
All to make it a European issue.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-limbaugh-on-libya-its-not-a-humanitarian-mission-its-about-european-oil/

[classysassy]

23. Another Oil War?

Tell the American citizens the truth,it's about Libya's oil,we want that black gold and we are going to get it.More of our young men and women are going to be placed in Harms Way because the Oil criminals want to steal Libya's oil."Oh what fools we mortals be ".