French military jets over Libya

[dowling]

Can't blame him. I can't help feel a twinge of sympathy for Gadaffi now he has all of these people and their war machines lined up against him. Most of us will have a natural empathy with the underdog. As this thing drags out, more people will start of voice their concerns over what is happening even if Sky News and BBC are doing their best to cheer-lead the glorious "allies". People will start asking why they are all so keen to get in there - oil?

What was needed was decisive action. If they wanted rid of him, they needed to go in on the ground last week, all guns blazing, set the rebels up in government, get the f**k out before anyone had time to question what was going on and lap up the goodwill from the new government in the form of oil contracts. It's now beginning to look like the old imperialist powers looking to plunder someone else's natural resources. No sympathy here for them...

Are you kidding me?

What about you galls man? Can you throw any light on all this?

[johnneycool]

http://tarpley.net/2011/03/30/the-libya-rebels-a-cia-secret-army-of-al-qaeda-terrorists-anti-black-racists-and-monarchists/

More on the 'rebel's from Webster Tarpley.

[thejuice]

About 8 years too late (and how many 1000's dead) but maybe Tony Blair should go on trial in an Iraqi court. Especially since its now clear he lied to the courts about motivations for the invasion.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html#disqus_thread

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.


The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".

But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."

The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".

BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on Fire is published next week, said: "Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq's oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.

"We see that oil was in fact one of the Government's most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize."

Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion

* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."

* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."

* BP, 12 March 2003: "We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."

* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: "It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."

* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding: "We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."

[orangeman]

Tony hasn't time for that court stuff. He'smuch too busy for that.

[orangeman]

If at first you don't succeed, try, try .................... again.

BTW this masscare is being talked up as past while - when is it due to happen or is it like the WMD ?

Libya: France to send officers to aid rebels

Misrata: City under siege


Fearing massacre in Misrata


France has confirmed that it is to send a small team of military officers to advise Libyan rebels seeking to topple Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.A French government spokesman was quoted as saying that fewer than 10 officers would be sent.

Britain is sending a similar team to provide support to rebels in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Libya's foreign minister criticised the British plan, saying it would prolong fighting.

Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy promised to intensify air strikes in Libya, Reuters reported.

Inspired by uprisings in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt, the rebels have been fighting Col Gaddafi's forces since February. The rebels, based in Benghazi, hold much of the east, while Col Gaddafi's forces remain in control of Tripoli and most of the west.

Nato is currently in charge of the no-fly zone and coalition operations have been largely confined to air attacks.

On Wednesday, Libyan state television reported that Nato aircraft were bombarding telecoms and broadcasting infrastructure in several cities.

And Maj Gen John Lorimer, a spokesman for the UK Chief of Defence Staff, said that on Tuesday, RAF Tornado and Typhoon aircraft had used precision-guided weapons to attack three tanks and a vehicle-mounted artillery piece "in and around" the besieged western city of Misrata.

[Groucho]

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: Apr 22, 2011 23:56 Updated: Apr 22, 2011 23:56

DAMASCUS: Syrian security forces fired live bullets and tear gas Friday on pro-democracy demonstrations across the country, killing at least 49 people — including a young boy — making Friday the deadliest day of the uprising.

Protesters flooded into the streets after Friday prayers in at least nine major cities across the country.

The demonstrations are a sign that President Bashar Assad's attempts to quell the month-long protests with a deadly crackdown and promises of reform have all but failed.

Ammar Qurabi, head of Syria's National Organization for Human Rights, said the death toll had reached 49. He said at least 20 people were missing.

"Bullets started flying over our heads like heavy rain," said one witness in Izraa, a southern village in Deraa province, the same region where the uprising kicked off in mid-March.

The protest movement has been the gravest challenge against the autocratic regime led by Assad, who inherited power from his father 11 years ago. The uprising in Syria takes its inspiration from the popular revolts sweeping the Arab world. But there are significant differences in Syria that make the protest movement there all the more unpredictable.

The country's military structure is one key difference — unlike the armies of Tunisia and Egypt, Syria's military and security apparatus will almost certainly stand by Assad, at least for the time being. That means there could be darker days ahead as the uprising gains momentum, something that has implications far beyond Syria's borders. Damascus stands in the middle of the most combustible conflicts in the region because of its web of allegiances, from Lebanon's Hezbollah and Gulf powerhouse Iran.

On Friday, tens of thousands of people protested in the Damascus suburb of Douma, the central cities of Hama and Homs, Latakia and Banias on the coast, the northern cities of Raqqa and Idlib, the northeastern Kurdish region and the southern province of Deraa.

As the protesters dispersed, the scope of the bloodshed began to emerge.

Outside the capital, witnesses said they saw at least five corpses at Hamdan Hospital. All suffered gunshot wounds.

In Deraa, other witnesses said at least 10 people were killed when protesters marched in front of the mayor's office in Izraa. They said an 11-year-old boy was among the dead.

A video posted on the protest movement's main Facebook page showed a man carrying a bloodied boy near a building as another child could be heard weeping and shouting "My brother!"

Qurabi said the fatalities occurred mostly in Hajar Aswad near Damascus and in the central city of Homs.

The protest movement has crossed a significant threshold in recent days, with increasing numbers now seeking the downfall of the regime, not just reforms. The security crackdown has only emboldened protesters, who are enraged over the deaths of more than 200 people over five weeks.


No sign of NATO ....not enough oil I guess

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Re: Syria, Trukey should have the military capactity to carry out airstrikes on Syria if necessary, but could draw a whole world of terrorist trouble on themselves. (the terrorists probably would have little or nothing to do with Syria itself).

From what I have heard about Syria is that its a great country, pity about the government.

[Groucho]

Re: Syria, Trukey should have the military capactity to carry out airstrikes on Syria if necessary, but could draw a whole world of terrorist trouble on themselves. (the terrorists probably would have little or nothing to do with Syria itself).

From what I have heard about Syria is that its a great country, pity about the government.

same can be said about lots of countries.....including our own.

[orangeman]

Nato shite in the nest again !!!


There may be trouble ahead.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13251570

[mannix]

The Americans spend 700 billion a year on military. And about ten per cent of that amount on educating their kids.

[orangeman]

Finally, an American politician, who isn't afriad to speak his mind :



CNN could not independently confirm the reports, and NATO said in a statement Sunday that the alliance was "aware of unconfirmed media reports that some of Gadhafi's family members may have been killed."

"We regret all loss of life, especially the innocent civilians being harmed as a result of this ongoing conflict," said Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, commander of NATO's military operations. However, Bouchard said, all targets "are military in nature and have been clearly linked to the Gadhafi regime's systemic attacks on the Libyan population ... We do not target individuals."

But U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a leading supporter of the Libya campaign, called the elder Gadhafi a "murderer" and "a legitimate military target."

"He's not the legitimate leader of Libya, and the way to get this to end is to go after the people around him and his support system," Graham told "Fox News Sunday." The South Carolina Republican is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

[orangeman]

It's all gone very quiet over there -

All I'm hearing now is that the ICC prosecutor is issuing arrest warrants for war crimes.



He'll be a busy boy if he gets all the war criminals throughout the world.

[orangeman]

The International Criminal Court chief prosecutor is seeking the arrest of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi and two others for crimes against humanity.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Col Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi bore the greatest responsibility for "widespread and systematic attacks" on civilians.

ICC judges must still decide whether or not to issue warrants for their arrest.

The Libyan government has already said it will ignore the announcement.

Deputy Foreign Minister Khalid Kaim said the court was a "baby of the European Union designed for African politicians and leaders" and its practices were "questionable".

[orangeman]

Great article :


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13665963

[Evil Genius]

Great article :


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13665963

Interesting certainly, but "great"? Imo it might have been a lot better had he attempted a bit of perspective.

He refers to this taking "so long" to finish. It is a mere four months since the first stirrings of public dissent in Libya - hardly eg Viet Nam, Biafra or Kashmir.

And I don't know how many Libyans have died in those four months, but I'd be pretty confident that Gadafi would have killed many more in the first four days  had he got into Benghazi or Misrata unopposed.

Which, after the examples of Sebrenica and Sarajevo etc, where NATO forces stood idly and cravenly by, whilst thousands of innocents were massacred, would have been entirely unacceptable in a country a short boat ride from Europe.

As for the Americans deciding to avoid committing military forces, that is clearly a function of their own domestic politics. We can be pretty sure that the USA is still pulling the strings on behalf of the West diplomatically, it's just that this is being done quietly, behind the scenes, and without the (obvious) use of their own military forces.

As for his "Worse to Come?" question, of course this could develop into one almighty mess, with civil war, decades of unrest and all sorts of terrorist groups emerging etc. But the writer seems not to realise that had there not been any Western intervention, and Gadafi had clung on, that would only have been "kicking the can further down the road". That is, Gadafi has to die/get kicked out sometime and as history has demonstrated countless times in the past, the longer and more cruelly a dictator holds on to power, having "united" his country solely by repression and brute force etc, the worse the mess will be when he finally goes. Which is only what may be being witnessed eg in Yemen or Syria right now, entirely without the intervention of foreign military forces.

As for what Britain hopes to gain from this. As I've already said, Britain and France etc could hardly not get invoolved to a minimum extent (i.e. to prevent massacre). And as is often the case, once you're in, it is often impossible not to get sucked further in, since had NATO withdrawn after a month or two, Gadafi would simply have regrouped and wiped out the opposition anyhow.

Therefore the West is hoping to end the conflict sooner than it might have, with less death, destruction and division than would otherwise have been the case, in the hope that whoever does take over will be the "least worst" option, as well as being favourably disposed towards us for the help we've given in toppling Gadafi.