Posted on 09/11/2009 5:33:29 PM PDT by Pan_Yan
Sir – As a long-term employee in the oil and gas industry, having worked in various locations around the world including Libya, I would like to pose a few points for all and sundry to ponder.
When I worked in Libya several years ago many locals were, at that time, quite adamant that Mr al-Megrahi would someday return to Libya – they have been proved right.
Some went as far as to say they were sorry for the death of non-Americans on the doomed flight, but not necessarily for the American fatalities.
Within the oil and gas industry wherever you go the Americans are very rarely the “flavour of the month”. They are considered by several nations as, domineering, gung-ho, patronising and wanting to be the “World Police” with everyone considered to be subservient to them. They, along with our own government, do not seem able to accept that modern Western style democracy will not work and will never be accepted in the majority of these culturally different countries, no matter how it is tried to be enforced.
At the time of working in Libya, no Americans were allowed into the country for any involvement within the oil and gas industry (Canadians were ok).
However, when the trade doors were opened a few years ago, the Americans were quickly on the ground with their dollars and this had a knock-on effect on British and European ex-pat contracts and wages, effectively reducing some contractor wages by 30-40 per cent, in some cases literally overnight, if contracts were up for renewal.
With reference to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, I simply find it difficult to believe that all politicians are expressing shock horror at the reception Mr al-Megrahi received on his return to Tripoli.
Are they so naive that they did not expect this? What about the advice from their so-called Arab/North African /terrorist experts who, if they have had any extensive practical exposure to these cultures, would have been able to advise the UK governments that this would be the case on his release and return?
The man is a national hero in the eyes of the average Libyan and always has been considered as such.
There is a lot of noise coming from across the water about the release of the Lockerbie bomber and what restrictions some Americans would like to see imposed on the UK, Scotland in particular, but nowhere have I seen or heard any suggestion that America should withdraw all its labour force and cancel trade, particularly oil and gas contracts, with immediate effect, with Libya.
Hypocrisy or what??
Might ...if oil importers spoke for the rest of America. They don’t. Nor are many politicians speaking for Americans in this regard. It’s the press that raised the question of whether the UK released that terrorist in return for oil, and Americans reacted with justifiable anger, just as the British should.
We should let these tribes and factions kill each other without our involvement. The biggest mistake we made in World War II was pandering to the Soviets. Rather, we should have given them just enough aid to defend themselves from the Nazis, but not enough to head westward. Only help countries that ask for and want our help, like Israel, Poland, South Korea, etc. Get out of Muslim countries as much as possible.
OK by me.
Then, as a well known guy once said, "we begin bombing in 5 minutes"
I can see your point, but I can also see why we have to be some places. I know that 'isolationist' is a dirty word to many people, but hell, do we have to be involved in everyone's business?
It is fine with me that the Middle Eastern oil bearing countries want to stay in the Islamic thurgracy funk, IF they would just stay over there and leave everybody else alone.
But they won’t do that! They think they need to get rid of the world’s infidels so THEY can dominate. Their religion DEMANDS it!
As far as me and mine, we are very happy campers right here in the US doing our ‘thang’, but when these extremist radicals come over here thinking they’re going to kill me and mine...then they’re going to have to understand that I’m going to come knocking on THEIR door, and I will do my best to make them decide that they don’t want to bother me and mine, or, I’ll just install a system that won’t tolerate their thugracracy!
My patience with these thugs and murderers is hanging out of my last finger, and I still think the best thing the US could’ve done 3 days after 9/11 was to get our own to safety and get them out of there and just drop a big load on the whole freaking place! It is a breeding ground for rabid dogs, and I wouldn’t shed one tear over it!
I’d have plopped a huge Old Glory right in the middle of it, raised huge monuments to the dead Americans for them to ride their camels by each morning on the way to work, and then I’d have handed them all a copy of our Constitution and said, this is the law of the land, welcome to the Union #51!
That's nothing. The al-qaeda terrorists in Gitmo are heroes in the eyes of Obama, the ACLU, and the Congressional Democrats and they get released all the time.
This simply verifies for me the lie "we can't blame all or even most of all muslims for the killer bent among some muslims."
Seems to me if not actually willing to participate in mass murder, mosr muslims are willing to cheer it on and celebrate every mass murder incident.
That's the greater hypocrisy in my view.
On the issue of hypocrisy via American official angst over the release of the Lockerbie bomber, my own belief is that the public matter is another Obama lie. I believe the truth is that his private conversations with PM Brown have assured Brown that the official angst is for American public consumption only.
Wimpy, overpaid, slow Scott socialized loser giving a dig to higher energy, challenge motivated Americans.
Even though I doubt that the release of a terrorist by the British causes Obama all that much angst, I’m not sure either he nor Brown can really afford more bad publicity. Brown is getting trashed over there about this even though it has been page 2 over here.
“But they won’t do that! They think they need to get rid of the world’s infidels so THEY can dominate. Their religion DEMANDS it!”
- And lest we forget, give thanks to the Almighty for our superior nukes to take care of their “demands”. :)
And from my perspective that is the biggest problem in most of these third world hell holes. They are completely unable to solve their own problems because some "civilized" country is always willing to supply arms to the next strongman, or undermine any real reformers by cutting off trade, withholding money, or helping them so much their own industries can't compete. If they existed in a vacuum with no outside interference maybe they would develop into a working society. Or kill each other off. Either way.
George Washington was an “isolationist.”
Smears unfortunately are not only on the Left.
RE: “Wimpy, overpaid, slow Scott socialized loser “
“...the Americans were quickly on the ground with their dollars and this had a knock-on effect on British and European ex-pat contracts and wages, effectively reducing some contractor wages by 30-40 per cent...”
Overpaid by about 30-40%, it appears. At least he was.
Muslims think we are over there, (are we? that’s the 64k question) so they can justify what they do.
G. Washington warned against foreign entanglements.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
It's amazing how far we have strayed from the good advice Washington gave us.
For sure, but our big nukes have not left land in over 64 years of these terrorists running loose...they’ve just stood as guardians, and they were only used the last time someone attacked the homeland and killed some 3,000 soldiers at Pearl Harbor.
We just lost 3,000 in the heartland of the country, I sure think we could’ve spared one of them in this instance. :)
I am not a historian but it amazes me the writing ability of Washington.
I do not know I have ever heard a speech in my own lifetime that compares with Washington or Robert E. Lee. Maybe I agree with him too much to be objective.
Dear God, how we need a man or woman like GW. I know this is 2009, not 1797, but surely these same common sens principles need to be the basis of our foreign policy.
I hope Sarah Palin reads these speeches. It seems that so very few do.
Yes, I know, the Conservative party MPs are using the situation to their best advantage RIGHT NOW, in as much as they hope to unseat Brown in the next national elections.
But, it would not have surprised me if the scenario that played itself out with Brown in office would actually have NOT seen a different result if Cameron had been at Downing Street instead.
I think the cow-towing to Arabs in particular (must not appear “Islamphobic”) and to oil-producers (nations with oil to produce) is a shared, bi-partisan “national interest” view of both of Britain’s major parties; and one that I think they are willing to make compromises of principle on, if doing so appears to help assure those needs will be met by contracts that are secured sooner rather than sought later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.