View Full Version : Relations With Libya


il sogno
05-16-2006, 10:09 PM
We've restored diplomatic relations with Libya. A country with a leader that played an instrumental role in the downing of Pan Am flight 103. Shall we discuss?

Oh and by the way, it's a country rich in oil and American oil companies stand to make beaucoup bucks. And Halliburton too.

U.S. to Restore Diplomatic Ties With Libya

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer Tue May 16, 4:14 AM ET

WASHINGTON - American oil companies stand to gain in competing for access to oil reserves in Libya by the restoration of normal diplomatic relations and the removal of Moammar Gadhafi's regime from a U.S. list of terrorism sponsors.

The diplomacy that led to the renewal of ties with the North African country, which were severed in 1980, could also serve as an example to
Iran, Bush administration officials say.

"It could be a model," Assistant Secretary of State David Welch said Monday, citing Libya's decision, under the weight of sanctions, to abandon its nuclear and other weapons programs.

American oil companies were banned from operating in Libya for 18 years — until
President Bush in 2004 lifted most restrictions on doing business in Libya.

{snip}

Another control being lifted, he said, was one imposed by energy legislation enacted last summer. It barred shipment abroad of devices that could be part of a nuclear program that companies like Halliburton normally use to explore for oil.

"That potentially was going to shut down U.S. companies' ability to explore for oil," he said.

Libya produces about 1.6 million barrels of oil a day. Four big American companies, Occidental Petroleum, ConoccoPhillips, Marathon Oil and Amerada Hess, for some 20 years have held leases on Libyan oil and gas reserves.

{snip}

As the administration turned a page with Libya and struggled to find a way to halt what it insists is an Iranian nuclear program, the State Department took a significant step against Venezuela, also a major oil producer.

Long at odds with the leftist government in Caracas, the department gave notice it was banning arms sales to Venezuela as well as financing for such purchases.

It declared Venezuela was not cooperating with efforts to counter terrorism. U.S. officials said Venezuela was not being classified as a state sponsor of terrorism. But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack expressed concern about Venezuela's close relations with Iran and Cuba, both of which are classified as state sponsors of terror. .


This is an Associated Press article. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_libya_18)

bigbill
05-17-2006, 12:03 AM
They are strategically positioned South of the Straights of Gibraltar which is a major shipping lane for oil and other products in and out of the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East. Knowing that they are not a state sponsor of terror and establishing diplomatic ties will lessen the stress of this important shipping route. And they have oil.

I would like to discuss more, but I just got home from a Luau and am dead tired.

Snakebit
05-17-2006, 05:06 AM
I can't find fault with having diplomatic relations with any country. It does give an avenue for discussion and a way to talk government to government to resolve differences. If we pressure governments to change and they begin to comply, why should we not recognize that and try to move the process forward? It seems to me that the alternative is continued animosity, fear on both sides and the possibility of military confrontation.

mohair_chair
05-17-2006, 06:58 AM
You can't be mad forever. It makes sense to have diplomatic relations with all countries, even the ones you don't like. As of now, there are only four countries in the world that do not have diplomatic relations with the USA: Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea.

KendleFox
05-17-2006, 07:29 AM
Who cares to give Reagan & Bush just a little bit of credit here?

atpjunkie
05-17-2006, 08:42 AM
this is decades after Reagan and Bush. You could argue this has to do with W's flexing in the ME or it could have to do with a leader, tired of being isolated from the world with an emerging economy and a bit of civil unrest wanting to modernize, realized it's better to join us than fight us. (us I mean the western World) Khadafi is a lot like Saddam a brutal dictator but a modernist at heart. He realizes going the Islamic fundie route is short sighted and sees all the plus columns for joining the west. It also will help his people which will help keep him in power. Shrewd business, survival sense. This is the 'patience route' that some of us are referring to. This is the route that Iran was heading in before we squandered that opportunity by invading Iraq. We'll get more converts being the shining beacon of opportunity, blue jeans and big screens than our present democracy at gunpoint. Arabs are capitalist/ traders by history and culture, all we have to do is show them the opportunity for everyone in our route to better themselves and change will slowly, internally come. Instead we tried to rush it via the gun and like Lenin's rush conversion of Russia, is doomed to failure.

Gripped
05-17-2006, 09:09 AM
this is decades after Reagan and Bush. You could argue this has to do with W's flexing in the ME or it could have to do with a leader, tired of being isolated from the world with an emerging economy and a bit of civil unrest wanting to modernize, realized it's better to join us than fight us. (us I mean the western World)

Khadaffi is getting old and wants to have a legacy. His 'fossil' water project is one of the main projects to this end. He needs western investment (and oil sales) to fund his grand projects. So most of the credit goes to Khadaffi. However, lets not discount very good negotiations taht went on over a number of years. The most fruitful, I understand, spanned the Clinton AND GW Bush years.

Iraq didn't turn Khadaffi. However, I'll give props to both Bubba and Junior for getting this done.

il sogno
05-17-2006, 10:03 AM
They are strategically positioned South of the Straights of Gibraltar which is a major shipping lane for oil and other products in and out of the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East. Knowing that they are not a state sponsor of terror and establishing diplomatic ties will lessen the stress of this important shipping route. And they have oil.

I would like to discuss more, but I just got home from a Luau and am dead tired.
You really ought to take it easy on the poi. :p

il sogno
05-17-2006, 10:10 AM
You can't be mad forever. It makes sense to have diplomatic relations with all countries, even the ones you don't like. As of now, there are only four countries in the world that do not have diplomatic relations with the USA: Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea.
I was too tired last night to get into this (getting up at 6 am to watch the Giro) but here's my point. Kaddaffi did far worse things to the US than Saddam did. We have forgiven him and have now restored diplomatic relations with him. We are also going the diplomatic route with Iran and No. Korea.

I mean why did we not take this approach with Saddam? It would have saved us 2400+ American lives, 100,000+ Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars and would have elevated our diplomatic standing in the world.

KenB
05-17-2006, 10:19 AM
Who cares to give Reagan & Bush just a little bit of credit here?

For what? For bombing Lybia and shooting down some fighters? Odd that they deserve credit for taking that approach but when Clinton did the same, he was seen as weak. Oh, and Ronny Raygun missed his target too, as did Bush 1.

Give me a break. :eek:

Bocephus Jones II
05-17-2006, 10:37 AM
Who cares to give Reagan & Bush just a little bit of credit here?

no.....

mohair_chair
05-17-2006, 10:56 AM
Why do you hate America?

Dave_Stohler
05-17-2006, 03:53 PM
I even have a jingle for their first ad campaign:

Libya, oh Libya
Have you seen Libya?.................