Article

2011-04-14 Africa North

Libya all about oil, or central banking?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2011-04-14 03:44|| || Front Page|| [11124 views ] Top

#1 Interesting thesis.

Daffy had to go because he was threatening to remove the USD and to a lesser degree the Euro as the world's reserve currencies.

Posted by phil_b 2011-04-14 06:02|| 2011-04-14 06:02|| Front Page Top

#2 So it is interest-free loans that has made Libya the socialist paradise that it is:

[Libyans] are entitled to free treatment, and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 US dollars) of financial assistance. Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe, and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture. The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink, and are very religious.

So why would our very own socialist-in-chief want to attack them? I'm confused!

Posted by Bobby 2011-04-14 06:15|| 2011-04-14 06:15|| Front Page Top

#3 Why did the ComChi attack Vietnam? Socialism is about coveting. The Eastern European states were just not in shape to resist the Soviets [though the Hungarians gave it a try] ability to 'liberate' their resources and materials. The old meme 'no blood for oil' was simply one more Freudian projection of the left.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-04-14 08:44|| 2011-04-14 08:44|| Front Page Top

#4 And here I thought it's about human rights.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-04-14 11:43|| 2011-04-14 11:43|| Front Page Top

#5 Obviously better thought out and researched than my comments on the David Cameron article.

But I still wonder if it has something to do with migration. At any rate, I never believed for a minute that it was to avoid a humanitarian crisis. There must be something they're not telling us.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-04-14 12:49|| 2011-04-14 12:49|| Front Page Top

#6 You can find people pushing the whole "we went to war to keep them from dropping the dollar" conspiracy theory about every war we've been in in the last twenty years and every war we're going to be in in the next fifteen.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-04-14 12:59|| 2011-04-14 12:59|| Front Page Top

#7 "And here I thought it's about human rights."

Silly you, grom. ;-p

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2011-04-14 13:07|| 2011-04-14 13:07|| Front Page Top

22:59 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:49 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:46 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:42 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:02 Frank G
22:01 Willy
21:47 Barbara Skolaut
21:40 tu3031
21:20 newc
21:19 Frank G
21:18 newc
21:15 newc
20:51 Frank G
20:50 Bill Clinton
20:40 Frank G
20:26 Rambler in Virginia
19:47 Barbara Skolaut
19:43 tu3031
19:38 Nimble Spemble
19:23 Chemist
19:11 Chemist
19:02 Bright Pebbles
18:50 Thing From Snowy Mountain
18:33 Zebulon Thranter9685