What did we get out of toppling Ghadaffi?

[the other mike]

Wrong.

My advice to surada is to research his statements BEFORE he makes them. He is frequently mistaken on things that are easily researched.

I lived in Libya across the street from the US Embassy and a block from the Palace. I knew Abdullah Tariki his oil minister who hated Americans and insisted on prematurely nationalizing Libya's oil business. I knew the brass at Tobruk and Wheelus and how much they cared about Libya... and I'm not a he.

You saw the western show in Tripoli.
That is not really Libya, in my opinion
The Pharaohs of Egypt were not Arab like the rest of Egypt was and is.
From the triangular skull shape, they most likely were Berbers, like Qaddafi.
And the Berbers have been living in the hills of Southern Libya for thousands of year, likely an Egyptian colony, and ruled by tribal elders.
Qaddafi was just their chosen puppet.
He had no source of power on his own, could not have lasted a day if not for him being the one picked for public appearance.

Nor do I think Libya was premature in nationalizing its oil.
It does not have that much, and western nations are holding their own oil in reserve, waiting until the rest of the world runs out, and the price of oil starts to greatly accelerate. We only have about 40 years worth of oil left.

Tripoli was a false flag op.

 

[Rigby5]

Obama supported the overthrow of the Egyptian leader and his replacement was a Muslim Brotherhood nutcase that was overthrown himself a bit later by the Egyptian military.

The problem with overthrowing guys like Qadaffi, Saddam, Assad, etc., is that, usually, the guy that takes over thereafter are even worse, particularly to the U.S.

The greatest failure of U.S. middle-east policy is arguably that of Jimmy Carter. He sacrificed the Shah and the regime that took over was and is even MORE oppressive than was the Shah. Most importantly, they are HOSTILE to the U.S., our allies and fund all sorts of terrorist activities.

I don't think Libya moves the needle much. Obama decided that Qadaffi had to go. What Obama didn't think or, perhaps, care about, was how taking out Qadaffi would give other leaders hesitancy to abandon their own WMD's.

Obama pretty much FUCKED up everything he touched. That's what happens when you put an ideologue into power.

Wrong to blame the Ayatollah on Carter.
Carter was in conflict with the Ayatollah and attempted the failed attack on Iran, Operation Eagle Talon.
That was not Carter's fault, but the military for trying to land planes in the desert at night.
The problem in Iran was taking out Mosaddegh in 1953. It was illegal and bloody, and the Iranians will never forgive us.

Taking out Qaddafi was illegal, bloody, and the Libyans likely won't forgive us either.
We forced them to accept being rules by al Qaeda and ISIS, which really makes them angry at us.

 

[the other mike]

We only have about 40 years worth of oil left.

Really ? And you can back up this claim.

 

[Rigby5]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

Ghaddafi was pretty much done before we intervened. He no longer had control of nearly all the country. The final straw was when it became apparent he was going to just kill anyone in the coastal cities that did not bend the knee. So the coalition slaughtered his military convoy and smoked him out of Tripoli. The Libyans did the rest.

The Libyans loved Gadaffi.
You're either misinformed or lying.

Agreed.
The only people in Libya against Qaddafi were the Egyptians, Palestinians, Syrians, rebels and out casts in Benghazi.
Qaddafi was a dictator, but what the people expected, wanted, and created stability and prosperity.
Now that Qaddafi is gone, everything is in ruins.

 

[the other mike]

These people had a business in Libya ....they were there and lost all their money when it went down. Now the CIA is threatening and harassing them for telling the truth.

Who are James and Joanne Moriarty? Our story intro | libyanwarthetruth.com

libyanwarthetruth.com

 

[Rigby5]

We only have about 40 years worth of oil left.

Really ? And you can back up this claim.

Crude Oil in America: How Much Do We Really Have and How Long Will It Last? | The Motley Fool

Despite a sharp increase in U.S. crude oil reserves, we may not have as much oil as some believe.

www.fool.com

.

{...
Crude Oil in America: How Much Do We Really Have and How Long Will It Last?
Despite a sharp increase in U.S. crude oil reserves, we may not have as much oil as some believe.

The surge in U.S. crude oil production over the past few years and overwhelmingly positive outlooks for continued output growth have inspired an almost unprecedented sense of complacency that our nation's energy woes are over for good.

Domestic crude production reached its highest annual level since the late 1980s last year and could hit its highest all-time level by 2016, according to some projections. But before you rush off and buy the biggest SUV you can find, you may want to take a closer look at the cold, hard facts about how much crude oil the U.S. really has and how long it will last.


U.S. oil reserves highest since 1970s
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate (a type of ultralight crude) rose by about 4.5 billion barrels, or 15.4%, last year to 33.4 billion barrels. That's the highest level since 1976.

The main reason behind this rapid growth in reserves is the explosion of activity in Texas' Eagle Ford shale and Permian Basin and North Dakota's Bakken shale. Basically, improvements in drilling technologies made it economical to exploit previously inaccessible resources within these fields.

The fact that domestic reserves are the highest they've been since the late 1970s is certainly reason for optimism. These reserve additions aren't due to luck, but rather due to heavy investments in technology made by U.S. energy companies over the past several years. Without those technological improvements, it wouldn't have been possible to economically harvest these reserves.


How long will these reserves last?
Now for the less cheery news. At the current pace of drilling, these reserves aren't going to last for more than a decade or two. Let's do the math. Last year, annual crude production averaged just under 7.5 million barrels per day, which comes out to a little over 2.7 billion barrels for the year. Assuming we deplete reserves by 2.7 billion barrels each year, current reserves would run dry in less than 13 years.

Of course, that calculation is very simplistic because it assumes production will remain constant and we won't add any new reserves. Still, the point I'm trying to drive home is that even though U.S. oil production now exceeds every other country except Saudi Arabia and Russia, the size of our reserves is much smaller.

Currently, we rank 12th among the top 20 countries by proven crude oil reserves. That places us just ahead of China and Qatar, but below Libya and Nigeria. By contrast, Russian oil reserves are estimated to be 80 billion barrels, while the Saudis claim they have some 270 billion barrels remaining.

Technology holds the key
Now here's what could completely change things: technology. Just as technological progress has helped boost our recoverable oil estimates in recent years, it should continue to do so in coming years. Consider the Bakken, for instance. Currently, the play is estimated to contain total reserves of 150 to 900 billion barrels, according to Continental Resources, a leading Bakken driller.


While only 3.5% of these total reserves are currently recoverable using existing technology, technological progress could improve that recovery rate significantly and, with it, the volume of recoverable reserves. According to Pete Stark, senior director and advisor for upstream research at research and consulting firm IHS, further technological advances could boost Bakken recovery rates to as much as 12%-16% within a decade. That would provide a big boost to proved reserves.

The bottom line
There's no denying that the shale boom has been a remarkable game-changer for U.S. hydrocarbon production, as well as for our nation's trade balance and geopolitical leverage. But shale oil won't last forever; in fact, shale oil production could peak in as little as five years given the higher decline rates associated with shale wells.

That's why it's important to keep things in perspective and realize the shale boom isn't a panacea to the nation's -- or the world's -- most gripping challenge: our addiction to fossil fuels. It's merely a bridge that extends the amount of time we have to develop sustainable forms of energy that can power our planet without emitting massive quantities of carbon dioxide, raising the global temperature, and harming our environment.

...}

While we found ways to frack shale to get more oil, that is a short blip and will soon fade.
We have far more coal than oil, about 400 years worth instead of 40.
And coal can be turned into oil.
Germany did it during WWII.

 

[the other mike]

You want the real dirt on Libya, listen to these two.

 

[the other mike]

We only have about 40 years worth of oil left.

Really ? And you can back up this claim.

Crude Oil in America: How Much Do We Really Have and How Long Will It Last? | The Motley Fool

Despite a sharp increase in U.S. crude oil reserves, we may not have as much oil as some believe.

www.fool.com

.

{...
Crude Oil in America: How Much Do We Really Have and How Long Will It Last?
Despite a sharp increase in U.S. crude oil reserves, we may not have as much oil as some believe.

The surge in U.S. crude oil production over the past few years and overwhelmingly positive outlooks for continued output growth have inspired an almost unprecedented sense of complacency that our nation's energy woes are over for good.

Domestic crude production reached its highest annual level since the late 1980s last year and could hit its highest all-time level by 2016, according to some projections. But before you rush off and buy the biggest SUV you can find, you may want to take a closer look at the cold, hard facts about how much crude oil the U.S. really has and how long it will last.


U.S. oil reserves highest since 1970s
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate (a type of ultralight crude) rose by about 4.5 billion barrels, or 15.4%, last year to 33.4 billion barrels. That's the highest level since 1976.

The main reason behind this rapid growth in reserves is the explosion of activity in Texas' Eagle Ford shale and Permian Basin and North Dakota's Bakken shale. Basically, improvements in drilling technologies made it economical to exploit previously inaccessible resources within these fields.

The fact that domestic reserves are the highest they've been since the late 1970s is certainly reason for optimism. These reserve additions aren't due to luck, but rather due to heavy investments in technology made by U.S. energy companies over the past several years. Without those technological improvements, it wouldn't have been possible to economically harvest these reserves.


How long will these reserves last?
Now for the less cheery news. At the current pace of drilling, these reserves aren't going to last for more than a decade or two. Let's do the math. Last year, annual crude production averaged just under 7.5 million barrels per day, which comes out to a little over 2.7 billion barrels for the year. Assuming we deplete reserves by 2.7 billion barrels each year, current reserves would run dry in less than 13 years.

Of course, that calculation is very simplistic because it assumes production will remain constant and we won't add any new reserves. Still, the point I'm trying to drive home is that even though U.S. oil production now exceeds every other country except Saudi Arabia and Russia, the size of our reserves is much smaller.

Currently, we rank 12th among the top 20 countries by proven crude oil reserves. That places us just ahead of China and Qatar, but below Libya and Nigeria. By contrast, Russian oil reserves are estimated to be 80 billion barrels, while the Saudis claim they have some 270 billion barrels remaining.

Technology holds the key
Now here's what could completely change things: technology. Just as technological progress has helped boost our recoverable oil estimates in recent years, it should continue to do so in coming years. Consider the Bakken, for instance. Currently, the play is estimated to contain total reserves of 150 to 900 billion barrels, according to Continental Resources, a leading Bakken driller.


While only 3.5% of these total reserves are currently recoverable using existing technology, technological progress could improve that recovery rate significantly and, with it, the volume of recoverable reserves. According to Pete Stark, senior director and advisor for upstream research at research and consulting firm IHS, further technological advances could boost Bakken recovery rates to as much as 12%-16% within a decade. That would provide a big boost to proved reserves.

The bottom line
There's no denying that the shale boom has been a remarkable game-changer for U.S. hydrocarbon production, as well as for our nation's trade balance and geopolitical leverage. But shale oil won't last forever; in fact, shale oil production could peak in as little as five years given the higher decline rates associated with shale wells.

That's why it's important to keep things in perspective and realize the shale boom isn't a panacea to the nation's -- or the world's -- most gripping challenge: our addiction to fossil fuels. It's merely a bridge that extends the amount of time we have to develop sustainable forms of energy that can power our planet without emitting massive quantities of carbon dioxide, raising the global temperature, and harming our environment.

...}

While we found ways to frack shale to get more oil, that is a short blip and will soon fade.
We have far more coal than oil, about 400 years worth instead of 40.
And coal can be turned into oil.
Germany did it during WWII.

You never specified the US...but thanks.

 

[Rigby5]

Dude...that was a Bush Baby....all the way.

It's Bush's fault that Obama decided to take out Gaddafi?

Obama didn't "take out" Gaddafi. Not like Bush took out Saddam.

Saddam was the first domino.

Boy were we stupid.

Actually Obama did take out Qaddafi.
Under the urging of Hillary, we attacked Qaddafi's forces moving towards Benghazi, and wiped them out.
It was a massacre of tens of thousands of people.
There was no one left to defend Tripoli, so then Benghazi radicals moved in using captured weapons from the dead, and assassinated Qaddafi.
The difference is that unlike with Saddam, we had no troops on the ground.
We helped al Qaeda and ISIS do it instead.

 

[Rigby5]

We only have about 40 years worth of oil left.

Really ? And you can back up this claim.

Crude Oil in America: How Much Do We Really Have and How Long Will It Last? | The Motley Fool

Despite a sharp increase in U.S. crude oil reserves, we may not have as much oil as some believe.

www.fool.com

.

{...
Crude Oil in America: How Much Do We Really Have and How Long Will It Last?
Despite a sharp increase in U.S. crude oil reserves, we may not have as much oil as some believe.

The surge in U.S. crude oil production over the past few years and overwhelmingly positive outlooks for continued output growth have inspired an almost unprecedented sense of complacency that our nation's energy woes are over for good.

Domestic crude production reached its highest annual level since the late 1980s last year and could hit its highest all-time level by 2016, according to some projections. But before you rush off and buy the biggest SUV you can find, you may want to take a closer look at the cold, hard facts about how much crude oil the U.S. really has and how long it will last.


U.S. oil reserves highest since 1970s
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate (a type of ultralight crude) rose by about 4.5 billion barrels, or 15.4%, last year to 33.4 billion barrels. That's the highest level since 1976.

The main reason behind this rapid growth in reserves is the explosion of activity in Texas' Eagle Ford shale and Permian Basin and North Dakota's Bakken shale. Basically, improvements in drilling technologies made it economical to exploit previously inaccessible resources within these fields.

The fact that domestic reserves are the highest they've been since the late 1970s is certainly reason for optimism. These reserve additions aren't due to luck, but rather due to heavy investments in technology made by U.S. energy companies over the past several years. Without those technological improvements, it wouldn't have been possible to economically harvest these reserves.


How long will these reserves last?
Now for the less cheery news. At the current pace of drilling, these reserves aren't going to last for more than a decade or two. Let's do the math. Last year, annual crude production averaged just under 7.5 million barrels per day, which comes out to a little over 2.7 billion barrels for the year. Assuming we deplete reserves by 2.7 billion barrels each year, current reserves would run dry in less than 13 years.

Of course, that calculation is very simplistic because it assumes production will remain constant and we won't add any new reserves. Still, the point I'm trying to drive home is that even though U.S. oil production now exceeds every other country except Saudi Arabia and Russia, the size of our reserves is much smaller.

Currently, we rank 12th among the top 20 countries by proven crude oil reserves. That places us just ahead of China and Qatar, but below Libya and Nigeria. By contrast, Russian oil reserves are estimated to be 80 billion barrels, while the Saudis claim they have some 270 billion barrels remaining.

Technology holds the key
Now here's what could completely change things: technology. Just as technological progress has helped boost our recoverable oil estimates in recent years, it should continue to do so in coming years. Consider the Bakken, for instance. Currently, the play is estimated to contain total reserves of 150 to 900 billion barrels, according to Continental Resources, a leading Bakken driller.


While only 3.5% of these total reserves are currently recoverable using existing technology, technological progress could improve that recovery rate significantly and, with it, the volume of recoverable reserves. According to Pete Stark, senior director and advisor for upstream research at research and consulting firm IHS, further technological advances could boost Bakken recovery rates to as much as 12%-16% within a decade. That would provide a big boost to proved reserves.

The bottom line
There's no denying that the shale boom has been a remarkable game-changer for U.S. hydrocarbon production, as well as for our nation's trade balance and geopolitical leverage. But shale oil won't last forever; in fact, shale oil production could peak in as little as five years given the higher decline rates associated with shale wells.

That's why it's important to keep things in perspective and realize the shale boom isn't a panacea to the nation's -- or the world's -- most gripping challenge: our addiction to fossil fuels. It's merely a bridge that extends the amount of time we have to develop sustainable forms of energy that can power our planet without emitting massive quantities of carbon dioxide, raising the global temperature, and harming our environment.

...}

While we found ways to frack shale to get more oil, that is a short blip and will soon fade.
We have far more coal than oil, about 400 years worth instead of 40.
And coal can be turned into oil.
Germany did it during WWII.

You never specified the US...but thanks.

Well Saudi, Iranian, and Russian oil will last a little longer than US oil, but every one will run out within 100 years or so.
Our use keeps accelerating.

 

[surada]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

 

[surada]

Dude...that was a Bush Baby....all the way.

It's Bush's fault that Obama decided to take out Gaddafi?

Obama didn't "take out" Gaddafi. Not like Bush took out Saddam.

Saddam was the first domino.

Boy were we stupid.

Actually Obama did take out Qaddafi.
Under the urging of Hillary, we attacked Qaddafi's forces moving towards Benghazi, and wiped them out.
It was a massacre of tens of thousands of people.
There was no one left to defend Tripoli, so then Benghazi radicals moved in using captured weapons from the dead, and assassinated Qaddafi.
The difference is that unlike with Saddam, we had no troops on the ground.
We helped al Qaeda and ISIS do it instead.

How inventive.. There was no massacre of thousands.. Tripoli was already controlled by the rebel presence from the East. AQ and ISIS were not a factor in Libya, but ALL dictators claim its the "outsiders" who want to overthrow the government... Assad says the same thing.. Heck, the US made that claim during the civil rights struggle.

Remember, Gadaffii took credit for the social programs developed by Idris from 1953 to 1969.. Sound familiar?

 

[K9Buck]

Dude...that was a Bush Baby....all the way.

It's Bush's fault that Obama decided to take out Gaddafi?

Obama didn't "take out" Gaddafi. Not like Bush took out Saddam.

Saddam was the first domino.

Boy were we stupid.

Actually Obama did take out Qaddafi.
Under the urging of Hillary, we attacked Qaddafi's forces moving towards Benghazi, and wiped them out.
It was a massacre of tens of thousands of people.
There was no one left to defend Tripoli, so then Benghazi radicals moved in using captured weapons from the dead, and assassinated Qaddafi.
The difference is that unlike with Saddam, we had no troops on the ground.
We helped al Qaeda and ISIS do it instead.

How inventive.. There was no massacre of thousands.. Tripoli was already controlled by the rebel presence from the East. AQ and ISIS were not a factor in Libya, but ALL dictators claim its the "outsiders" who want to overthrow the government... Assad says the same thing.. Heck, the US made that claim during the civil rights struggle.

Remember, Gadaffii took credit for the social programs developed by Idris from 1953 to 1969.. Sound familiar?

With your history of erroneous claims, nobody should take your word on anything.

 

[K9Buck]

every one will run out within 100 years or so.

You don’t know that.

 

[surada]

Wrong.

My advice to surada is to research his statements BEFORE he makes them. He is frequently mistaken on things that are easily researched.

I lived in Libya across the street from the US Embassy and a block from the Palace. I knew Abdullah Tariki his oil minister who hated Americans and insisted on prematurely nationalizing Libya's oil business. I knew the brass at Tobruk and Wheelus and how much they cared about Libya... and I'm not a he.

You saw the western show in Tripoli.
That is not really Libya, in my opinion
The Pharaohs of Egypt were not Arab like the rest of Egypt was and is.
From the triangular skull shape, they most likely were Berbers, like Qaddafi.
And the Berbers have been living in the hills of Southern Libya for thousands of year, likely an Egyptian colony, and ruled by tribal elders.
Qaddafi was just their chosen puppet.
He had no source of power on his own, could not have lasted a day if not for him being the one picked for public appearance.

Nor do I think Libya was premature in nationalizing its oil.
It does not have that much, and western nations are holding their own oil in reserve, waiting until the rest of the world runs out, and the price of oil starts to greatly accelerate. We only have about 40 years worth of oil left.

Did you know Tariki? He was out for vengeance. He hated the US. He damn near killed Libya's oil business.

Libya has hardly been explored for oil. You don't know what you're talking about. LOLOL.. The Western nations are NOT holding their own oil in reserve.. They weren't drilling because the ppb was too low. Jeez.

 

[surada]

Dude...that was a Bush Baby....all the way.

It's Bush's fault that Obama decided to take out Gaddafi?

Obama didn't "take out" Gaddafi. Not like Bush took out Saddam.

Saddam was the first domino.

Boy were we stupid.

Actually Obama did take out Qaddafi.
Under the urging of Hillary, we attacked Qaddafi's forces moving towards Benghazi, and wiped them out.
It was a massacre of tens of thousands of people.
There was no one left to defend Tripoli, so then Benghazi radicals moved in using captured weapons from the dead, and assassinated Qaddafi.
The difference is that unlike with Saddam, we had no troops on the ground.
We helped al Qaeda and ISIS do it instead.

How inventive.. There was no massacre of thousands.. Tripoli was already controlled by the rebel presence from the East. AQ and ISIS were not a factor in Libya, but ALL dictators claim its the "outsiders" who want to overthrow the government... Assad says the same thing.. Heck, the US made that claim during the civil rights struggle.

Remember, Gadaffii took credit for the social programs developed by Idris from 1953 to 1969.. Sound familiar?

With your history of erroneous claims, nobody should take your word on anything.

I've just had an interesting life. Living in Libya and Esso Libya was just part of that.

 

[Dale Smith]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

Where is the gold that would have backed the Dinar? What happened to it???? They imported on average 26 percent of their food. You are an idiot and a liar that still sucks the dick of the Barrypuppet and the Hildebeast.

 

[surada]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

Where is the gold that would have backed the Dinar? What happened to it???? They imported on average 26 percent of their food. You are an idiot and a liar that still sucks the dick of the Barrypuppet and the Hildebeast.

LOLOL.. Dinars are gold coins and Libya has had gold dinars forever.. Like Arabia has the gold Sovereign.

Libya imports 90% of their food. Where did you live in Libya?

 

[Dale Smith]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

Where is the gold that would have backed the Dinar? What happened to it???? They imported on average 26 percent of their food. You are an idiot and a liar that still sucks the dick of the Barrypuppet and the Hildebeast.

LOLOL.. Dinars are gold coins and Libya has had gold dinars forever.. Like Arabia has the gold Sovereign.

Libya imports 90% of their food. Where did you live in Libya?

Show me the link where Libya imports 90 percent of their food......

 

[surada]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

Where is the gold that would have backed the Dinar? What happened to it???? They imported on average 26 percent of their food. You are an idiot and a liar that still sucks the dick of the Barrypuppet and the Hildebeast.

LOLOL.. Dinars are gold coins and Libya has had gold dinars forever.. Like Arabia has the gold Sovereign.

Libya imports 90% of their food. Where did you live in Libya?

Show me the link where Libya imports 90 percent of their food......

I'll provide several links.
Did you live at Wheelus?

A Plan for Libya - TIME
content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2058158,00.html

Mar 21, 2011 · But refugees are only part of the potential humanitarian disaster. Libya imports 90% of its food, much of it through a handful of ports on the Mediterranean …