Another view on Libya

[TBF]

Cuba declares that nothing can justify the murder of innocent people. The Foreign Ministry demands the immediate end to NATO bombings, which continue to claim lives, and reiterates the urgent need to permit the Libyan people to find a peaceful negotiated solution, without foreign intervention, in exercise of their inalienable right to independence and self-determination, to sovereignty over their national resources, and to the territorial integrity of that brother nation.

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/cuba/cuba-refuses-to-recognize-the-transitional-national-council-in-libya-1213-2.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ml2day-recent+%28Welcome+to+MLToday.com

[Amonester]

1. "will only recognize a government established in Libya in a legitimate manner"

Woah... I guess we'll have to wait for after the results of the elections in Libya?

In return, maybe the then newly elected government of Libya will recognize the freely elected government of Cuba... :shrug:

[joshcryer]

3. Gaddafi's coup was apparently a legitimately established government.

[Amonester]

7. I don't know, but is there a "Tahir Square"-like place in Havana?

If so, maybe someone's getting 'nervous' and if not, well...

History's lost on many, it seems.

[joshcryer]

20. Cuba is going the way of the USSR, 500k people got a business license, and another 1.5 million...

...are slated to get one in the coming years. The entire government hegemony is collapsing in Cuba. It's USSR 2.0.

[EFerrari]

24. It really is. This is the same thing the Cuban government always says

when the United States and their European allies decide to "spread democracy" on some unfortunate country.

[TBF]

8. Did the article suggest that? Nope, the only suggestion is that the African nations manage

themselves - something that the oil companies - um, I mean NATO - is unwilling to let them do.

[TheWraith]

11. Again, the lies about oil.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that the NTC has agreed to honor all pre-existing oil contracts made by Ghaddafi's government?

Do you or do you not acknowledge that Libya under Ghaddafi already sold oil to the west?

[TBF]

15. If an African nation wants to sell something, fine. It's when NATO

decides they can do better themselves and takes over the nation that we have to worry - oh, I'm sorry, I mean support the "rebels".

[joshcryer]

23. Hahaha, how has NATO taken over the country?

[joshcryer]

22. I am pretty sure the Libyans control their destiny and won't allow NATO imperialism to have a say...

...in the future role of their country.

[Distant Observer]

141. This blood-drenched country take-over was orchestrated and executed by FOREIGN POWER AND MONEY

Both from the air and on the ground. A lot of evidence is in that British and French special force orchestrated air and ground attacks destroy loyal forces and towns.

[EFerrari]

29. I saw a clip the other day that reported Gaddafi was developing

a pan-African telecommunications system. The report was that the European companies that provided cell and internet service stood to lose 500 million dollars a year.

The same report talked about an African IMF, also funded and organized by Gaddafi. The usual suspects were not very happy about that, either.

[white_wolf]

32. Of course they weren't. It all comes down to money. nt

[joshcryer]

36. I'm sure that African despots would've loved Gaddafi building a telecommunication system given...

...his utter disregard for the http://gizmodo.com/5835940/international-tech-companies-helped-gaddafi-spy-on-libyans">privacy of individuals.

Gaddafi made sure his http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2091711,00.html">security culture pervaded the society.

Yeah, I'm glad he didn't get to do this to the rest of Africa, myself.

[TheWraith]

41. Uh huh. And we invaded Iraq because of Petroeuros, right?

I'm sure it couldn't be anything like, Ghaddafi was a violent dictator who finally pushed his people too far.

The conspiracy theory nonsense can be tiring.

[sabrina 1]

45. No, it couldn't considering we were his BFF since the early

20s. Did he change? Was he not always a brutal dictator? I love the history revision and the amnesia about our old friends once we decide they are not our old friends anymore:



Wait! He was a good guy then. Something must have happened! :eyes:

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

55. Gosh, clearly a polite handshake at a UN event means they swore perpetual loyalty!

I'm sure that the change had nothing to do with Libyans rising up and Ghaddafi attempting to massacre them.

[joshcryer]

58. It was G8. Obama actually ate at the same table as Gaddafi.

It's a picture commonly used to bash Obama though there's no evidence Obama even had any formal discussion with Gaddafi at all.

Hillary did meet with Saif though, with regards to terrorism related stuff, now we know it was because Libya was doing CIA rendition.

[sabrina 1]

60. Qadaffi was doing nothing he had not been doing all the while

he was our best friend. Not a thing. There were plenty of uprisings against him, the West supplied him with weapons to help him stay in power. You appear not to know much about our relationship with Qadaffi. But then he made a mistake and threatened the West's interests in Libya. That is why they are no longer his friends.

How do you feel about our relationship right now with Karamov? Should we wait to stop him from killing his own people until he threatens to stop us from operating our military bases in his country? He is a brutal dictator, we know it, yet we continue to support him. In fact, at least Qadaffi did some good things for Libyans, but Karamov? Boiling people in oil, committing genocide against his own people. Still, he is our 'friend' because he cooperates. What will you say one day if he too, like Qadaffi, decides to stop cooperating and we go after him too? Will we forget that he was always a brutal dictator? Because we did not care, in fact we USED Qadaffi's secret prisons to torture people in, about his treatment of his own people.

We did not intervene in Libya to protect anyone, we did it because he threatened the interests of the West.

Nearly everyone in the world knows this, but as usual, Americans are still blind to the facts, as they were regarding the Iraq War. The West does not do anything unless it is for their own interests. They never have, so to think that this one time they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, despite all the evidence that shows that to be false, is just ludicrous.

Sub-Saharan immigrants are being brutally attacked, women raped, and many have been killed in Libya by the rebels. Why is NATO not protecting them?

[joshcryer]

62. Oh, I agree with that, we intervened because Libya was looking at a very long, protracted civil war.

Lots of oil assets would've been destroyed, Libya's oil would've been taken off the market for years. Tunisia and Egypt and probably other African states would've been largely affected because long civil wars lead to long resource battles. So stability was probably the primary reason for acting.

But really, you're speaking from two sides, on one hand Gaddafi didn't cooperate with us, on the other hand the west was allied with Gaddafi because he was our best friend. Yet you provide no evidence how he stopped cooperating with us and in fact the evidence shows that Gaddafi was cooperating with MI6 and the CIA as little as a week before Tripoli fell.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

71. Nobody has insulted you, you're the one calling other people blind.

We're pointing out that you're creating "facts" which don't actually exist in reality.

Gosh, we spent decades NOT bombing Libya? So suddenly, being friendly with dictators becomes a GOOD thing when it's convenient for wanting to attribute everything the US does to "evil western imperialist colonial running dog lackyism"?

[sabrina 1]

75. They are not my facts. They are reported facts and historical

facts. Ignore them as you wish, it's not my problem.

It was NEVER a good thing to support Qadaffi. I was outspoken against the 'new relationship' with Qadaffi when it was announced, it was so clear why it was happening. And continued to be opposed to it, which is why initially I supported the Libyan people's rebellion. Same thing in Egypt and Tunisia, two more of our dictator friends. And I was glad to see them go.

What were YOU doing back then?? You really have a bad habit of talking about things you know nothing about. I have been consistently opposed to the US foreign policy of supporting dictators.

I don't see anything from you though regarding those poliicies. I will repeat because you don't seem to remember facts too clearly. I ALWAYS OPPOSED the US 'new relationship' with Qadaffi. I found it despicable and said so, over and over again.

What I do NOT support, are Imperial wars. Our history of these relationships doesn't change. First, over the objections of human rights organization among others, we support and finance and arm dictators, then when they decide to go off on their own, we back coups against them, we invade their countries and it never ends.

This story is just one more in our long history of supporting dictators. Which is one reason why I opposed it and still oppose, and still oppose the Imperial Wars which are always sold then on the sudden realization that whoever the latest former friend is 'is a brutal dictator'. The lies, the pretense that they did not know, it is despicable, I refuse to support any of it.

[joshcryer]

73. Who do you think instigated it?

I completely agree that it was instigated. The Arab Spring was instigated by the information age, by the internet, by western backed oppression. When http://www.france24.com/en/20110216-libya-violent-protests-rock-benghazi-anti-government-gaddafi-egypt-tunisia-demonstration">Fethi Tarbel was arrested on Feb 15th, days before the popular protests began, it was instigated. On Feb 17 http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/871A467F-6874-4D2B-B512-AE3850189202.htm?GoogleStatID=9">live bullets were being used to disperse protests and 6 people died. In the ensuing days http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13785053">thousands were killed, mostly unarmed protesters.

Your narrative is very insulting to a whole society, to be frank, and is at its heart counter-revolutionary.

[TheWraith]

9. Apparently also the coup that put Castro in power was too. nt

[Amonester]

12. I can disagree on the 'coup' word, because it was a revolution.

But that revolution should have led to free elections, IMHO.

Still waiting...

[joshcryer]

27. Yep, they had a militant revolution, but there was no democracy. In Libya there will be elections.

Free elections, where women get an equal vote.

[white_wolf]

13. Despite the abuses of Castro's regime.

It was not a coup,but a revolution. The Batista regime was as brutal as any. A coup is a much smaller affair than a revolution.

[malaise]

148. Yep it was

and it was recognized by the same people who are now bombing it into accepting their new goons - but who cares once the West has stolen the oil fields

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. nato no longer bothers holding up the humanitarian fig leaf artifice with this bombing campaign

It just a bald face both guns blazing oil seeking blow job.

[TBF]

6. I agree - it's alarming. nt

[TheWraith]

10. There's so much insanely wrong with everything you just said, I have no idea where to start.

Seriously... get your head out of the echo chamber, starting with the fact that the NTC is honoring all of the oil contracts Ghaddafi's government made.

[TBF]

14. Of course they are honoring them now -

and then when they expire they will negotiate whatever they want (and with whomever they want). Good lord.

[joshcryer]

18. They won't expire until 2033, haha, so silly. The oil will be mostly gone by then.

Vision 2030 for Libya outlines moving Libya away from an oil economy because they don't have a lot of it (2% global production).

[TBF]

43. Simple google searches prove you wrong on the oil -

it is expected to last for decades (of course I would agree with you that once Shell gets in there no telling ...)

http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/LY/resources.html

[joshcryer]

44. Uh, that's 26 years worth of oil at 3m bbd. ie, "mostly gone" in 21 years (2032).

They'll have "5 years of oil left" when the oil contract expires. :rofl:

Jesus.

[TBF]

142. You need to read the article - not just make up numbers. nt

[joshcryer]

46. Here, talks about Libya's oil production and the desire to ramp up to 3m/bbd:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Libya

I'm sure Total (French oil company) would love to get more than 10% of the profits from pumping the oil. But the Libyan people aren't renegotiating the contracts. :rofl:

[white_wolf]

16. Whenever the western imperalist nations try to "spread democracy" in poor countries I know

they have some plan to exploit the people they are supposedly helping. It happens all the time, I don't expect this time to be any different.

[joshcryer]

19. I'm not sure how imperialism can play a role in future Libyan society given that there are no...

...occupying forces and that all of the past contracts are not going to be renegotiated, so there will be Chinese contractors back there, French oil workers back there, etc, as far as that is concerned the influence of the west is highly mitigated.

[TheWraith]

30. You don't know WHAT they're doing, or HOW they're doing it...

...but gol darnit, you KNOW they're up to something nefarious!

:eyes:

[white_wolf]

31. Sorry, but historically the West has always caused problems.

Especially the U.S. it is why we are so hated.

[joshcryer]

33. When NATO is gone in a few months it's be interesting to see what they come up with.

What new Emmanuel Goldstein will be invoked for the Two Minutes Hate, I wonder?

No contract renegotiation, so New Libya won't be any more "beholden" to imperialists than Gaddafi was.

No military bases, so New Libya will be doing better than they would under Gaddafi since Gaddafi was planning to allow http://www.france24.com/en/20081031-gaddafi-offers-host-russian-naval-base-libya">a Russian naval base.

Meanwhile Gaddafi http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294913/LIBYA-POSTPONES-GENERAL-PEOPLES-CONGRESS-WALKS-BACK-FROM-WEALTH-DISTRIBUTION-AND-PRIVATIZATION-PLANS.html">walked back his promises to redistribute the oil wealth to all Libyans, and the http://www.scribd.com/doc/62823350/Libya-Draft-Constitutional-Charter-for-the-Transitional-Stage">NTC Draft Constitution enumates that all Libyans, "The State shall further guarantee the fair distribution of national wealth among citizens, and among the different cities and districts thereof." (Article 8.)

It is laughable how people continue to misrepresent the Libyan people even after their boy Gaddafi is ousted.

[The_Casual_Observer]

35. Yes, we'll see just how well your utopian Libya works out after

nato stops fighting bombing for the utopians, if in fact they ever stop.

[joshcryer]

37. Nah, I fully expect Libya to be slandered by the left for years.

Even after they've reformed things and even after each and every Libyan gets the wealth redistributed to them, even after they have female politicians. It will be a long time before the left recognizes the Libyan Revolutionaries. I hope it's sooner rather than later, because if the left leaves a void the right wingers will simply come in and monopolize on it.

[The_Casual_Observer]

38. Would that be before or after another round of assassinations?

[joshcryer]

39. I was surprised Younis the torturer was allowed to last as long as he did.

Unfortunate that he was executed extra-judicially but it was predictable. I'm sure there will be more of Gaddafi's regime undergoing similar circumstances. The question is whether it will lead to unrest and civil war and all that. I predict that it most certainly will not. And I have been predicting this as long ago as March 23rd.

I have yet to be proven wrong.

[The_Casual_Observer]

48. Assasinations & proxy wars sometimes are the price you pay for

a utopian future I guess. I suppose it's a good start in the that direction.

[joshcryer]

49. I hope you don't weep for Younis.

[Amonester]

59. +1

I wonder when some of the left will cure their Iraq=oil-so-Libya=oil_2 apparent psychosis (although, I kind of 'understand' the 'origins' of it), and if in case it's not just apparent, they will be able to recover fast enough before that void is filled.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

40. Thanks for proving you have no actual evidence to back up the word-salad paranoia.

Just throw "imperialist," "capitalist," "oil," and "bombing" around a bit more. Maybe it'll sound like a point.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

54. You just GAVE the reason for NATO's involvement

and you don't even realize it. Qadaffi was about to DISHONOR those agreements, he was about to keep more of the profits for Libya. Now, as you so helpfully pointed out making the case for those who have tried to open your eyes, the NATO countries will get what they wanted. Once he announced his intentions to cut profits to Western Oil Cartels, he was doomed. Thanks for making the point.

Btw, what is NATO doing in an African Country? What right do they have to be there? Did Libya attack a NATO country? Was Libya a member of NATO?

Do you know what NATO's function is supposed to be? Can someone point out where in its charter it says it can step outside of its membership and interfere in other regions, unless one of its members is being attacked?

Oh wait more than one of its members were, in their view, being attacked. France stood to lose the most by Qadaffi's threats. I guess that could pass for a NATO country being under attack.

[TheWraith]

56. Right. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Again, it amazes me how you can just be so certain that the timing had NOTHING to do with the fact that Ghaddafi had basically announced his intention to slaughter a rebelling city of several hundred thousand people. NOTHING AT ALL. So instead you come up with imaginary scenarios where it's really secretly NATO trying to steal the oil. Care to provide some proof of that? Actual proof I mean, from a credible news source, not whatever bullshit WSWS.org made up out of thin air today, and not some conspiracy theory blather from Russia Today, aka "no conspiracy theory too stupid to put on air."

This is the kind of shit that makes Dems and liberals look ridiculous and stereotyped, and undermines legitimate complaints about real foreign policy issues.

[sabrina 1]

61. And that claim has been debunked. Where did you get that

information, that he was about to slaughter a whole city? Like the babies in ovens etc. From the same propaganda machine. Why do YOU think the 'rebellion' was timed right after he threatened the interests of the West?

Why is NATO not protecting the Black African immigrants from rape and murder by the rebels? There is no longer any doubt about what is happening to them, but where is NATO if they care so much about civilian lives?

[joshcryer]

64. What the fuck? You are actually going to say that Gaddafi had no intention of attacking Benghazi?

Please tell me you're not saying that. What do you think he was going to do to Benghazi?

[sabrina 1]

70. No, I am not saying it.

I am merely repeating what other credible sources are now saying. What he would have done in Benghazi is what he always did in those areas when there were uprisings. Did NATO go there to help out before? No? Of course not, because then he was their friend.

[joshcryer]

78. Name *one* popular uprising in Libya. Gaddafi never faced this before and he straight up said...

...he was going to cleanse Benghazi (and it would've affected every eastern city, not just Benghazi). It's one thing for a http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/06/28/libya-june-1996-killings-abu-salim-prison">prison to rise up, it's another thing entirely for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z41kQvx4uKw">21 cities to rise up.

http://www.pogar.org/countries/theme.aspx?cid=10&t=2">The Oppressive Laws of Gaddafi's Libya
The government grants the right of association to official institutions by virtue of Law 71 of 1972, which regulates associational activity in Libya. Law 20 of 1991 on the Promotion of Freedom sanctions the death penalty for anyone whose continued existence would lead to the disintegration of Libyan society. The Code of Honor of March 1997 institutes a system of collective punishment for wrongdoing, whereby families, towns and municipalities are held responsible for the actions of individuals in their midst and are subject to punishment such as the dissolution of the local People's Congress or the denial of government services, including utilities, water, infrastructure projects. Associations engaging in political activity are illegal in Libya. Further, political activity is defined by Articles 2 and 3 of Law 71 of 1972 as any activity based on a political ideology contrary to the principles of the Al-Fateh Revolution of September 1, 1969. The Law on Publications, No. 76 of 1972, as modified by Law 120 of 1972 and Law 75 of 1973, govern the operation of the press, reserving all rights to publish.

I'm sorry, but I've never seen you post on source, much lest a credible one, so until you can back up your allegations, I am going to take what you say with a grain of salt. Please inform me if you think you know the truth.

[sabrina 1]

83. I have posted plenty about all these countries, long before you

discovered them. I have been writing about these subjects on blogs for over eight years. I don't waste time with you on sources, because your mind is made up. I realized after spending years arguing with Iraq War supporters, that it was a waste of time. When someone wants to believe something, nothing is going to change their minds. Even now with the fact that Iraq is no democracy, that we have installed a puppet, despite the pretense of elections, war supporters still insist we went there to liberate them. So I'm no, I'm not wasting time on research on this.

It's your right to believe this is going to be different from all our other Imperial wars. I wish I did, but I don't.

[joshcryer]

85. You don't have sources, I don't believe that you have sources, you are not truthful.

If you had sources it would be trivial for you to post them. You do not have them. What you are writing is not true. Your text is filled with falsehoods.

[sabrina 1]

92. I have been on news sites writing about

these countries since before I came here to DU in 2004. Do not call me a liar, aside from being against the rules you have no idea what I have done. I have written about and followed South America, Africa, including Libya and the ME since at least 2001. I have had friends in these regions also, who are in a position to know a lot more than you or I eg.

I opposed this country's collaboration with Qadaffi from the minute it became public. I oppose our current collaboration with all the other dictators we are supporting right now, and I don't have to wait until it becomes big news to do so. You, I presume, opposed the Iraq War. If you did, then supporting this one makes zero sense.

Your sudden discovery of this one country is nice, but you're way late to this story which began way before Feb of this year.

I will write about Libya when I am ready. I have other issues I am currently focused on. I learned long ago that when someone is deeply committed to a belief, there is no point in trying to dissuade them. Believe what you want, I am not trying to change your mind.

[joshcryer]

100. It would be trivial of you to post one single source, you won't do it because you're untruthful.

I will be happy to be wrong and would happily apologize if you were to show me that you were being truthful, but since you are not, that will not happen. Dishonest people cannot change my mind about anything, because I have the full facts at my disposal. I don't hide my head in the sand and read only reports that I like, I read all reports from all sides, covering all sorts of various viewpoints, even vile reports from WSWS (it is good to know what those dishonest people write). I've consumed tens of thousands of reports. At least 10 thousand, in the past 6 months. I've written entire novels defending the Revolution with truthful fact-based reporting that isn't limited to vile slanders without substantiation.

[sabrina 1]

I do not respond to people who call me a liar.

Good night.

[joshcryer]

127. I did not call you a liar, I said the claims you made were dishonest.

I will retract that if you can show me that in fact your claims were honest.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

67. NTC denounced it, worked hard on it, and HRW and Amnesty both said it wasn't systematic...

...and that Gaddafi's side did it far worse (Gaddafi killed thousands of Black African's by loading them on to leaky boats at gunpoint, and by forcing migrants to fight or be executed).

[sabrina 1]

72. They have no voice, they are mostly afraid to be out in the open.

But human rights groups have been there and have interviewed many of them, and all tell the same stories. Human rights groups have made reports so it's not like NATO doesn't know their situation. HR groups have been reporting on these atrocities since last March. And it was those reports that first started me wondering about what I was supporting.

Just one of many such reports hereL

African women say rebels raped them in Libyan camp

JANZOUR, Libya — When the sun sets on the refugee camp for black Africans that has sprung up at the marina in this town six miles west of Tripoli, the women here brace for the worst.

The rebels who ring the camp suddenly open fire. Then they race into the camp, shouting "gabbour, gabbour" — Arabic for whore — and haul away young women, residents say.

"You should be here in the evening, when they come in firing their guns and taking people," one woman from Nigeria said Wednesday as she recounted the nightly raids on the camp. "They don't use condoms, they use whatever they can find," she said, pointing to a discarded plastic bag in a pile of trash.

As she spoke, other women standing nearby nodded in agreement.

There is no way to know how many women have been raped here, where hundreds of Africans have settled in and around the boats of a marina. No one keeps statistics in the camp, and foreign aid workers say they are prohibited from discussing the allegations on the record. International Red Cross representatives say only that they have spoken to rebel leaders about "security concerns."

Not the kind of 'people's revolution' I wanted to continue to support. And NATO appears to be busy securing the oil fields.

[joshcryer]

74. So you think isolate incidences represent the revolutionaries as a whole?

That's a fairly myopic view.

[sabrina 1]

77. They are not isolated.

The problem is systemic. They need to be rescued, many of them have been trying to get out, but have had their savings stolen by rebels and now have no money to leave. They need help to get out, but NATO is otherwise occupied. I guess they forgot what their mission was, to protect civilians. There have been brutal murders, lynchings and rapes. It is now NATO's duty to do something about this. It's been reported for months, since at least March of this year and no one knows how many are dead and/or missing. It is shameful and doesn't bode well for the future.

[joshcryer]

80. That is patently false.

Amnesty http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/libyas-new-rulers-to-probe-war-crimes-allegations/story-e6frf7lf-1226137026310">acknowledged the alleged atrocities were of a "smaller scale" than those carried out by Gaddafi's regime, which it says may be responsible for crimes against humanity.

[fast lane]

95. So that makes it ok?

How quick we are to forget about human dignity when the "good guys" are doing it.

By the way, would you care to compare these atrocities you ascribe to Gaddafi's forces to that of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan? I think you'll find that your "smaller scale" will then be put in proper context.

[joshcryer]

97. No, it doesn't, and I never justified it. The poster is saying it is systematic, that is untruthful.

I never said it was OK or justified. It is not systematic. There's a big difference between systematic oppression and isolated incidences that are harder to deal with. You wouldn't fault all of New Orleans for the crimes of a few there, would you? Well, that's what this poster is doing.

[fast lane]

103. Then don't explain it away

The rebels are engaging in criminal brutality as we speak. Whether you call it "systematic" or not makes no difference, for any action gone unaddressed is tantamount to systematic behavior. I would most certainly fault, say, NYPD for not punishing cops who shot to death an unarmed non-white man. We're seeing similar things go on in Libya and no one is doing anything about it. If we're being honest, we'll call it what it is: oppression.

http://news.yahoo.com/libyan-rebels-round-black-africans-130723394.html

Furthermore, NATO forces (the ones who saved the rebellion from utter defeat) have been committing terrible atrocities across the region for the better part of 10 years. The Libyan rebels are perhaps forgetting the importance of the company they keep.

[joshcryer]

105. I'm not, I'm saying it's being addressed. Read the link I posted, why don't you.

And stop focusing on some isolated acts that are almost impossible to control. I suppose the French Resistance was unworthy of resisting because they killed a few Nazi's, too. I suppose DU hero Castro was unworthy for executing a good portion of Batista's men after they were captured, too.

It's horrible but doesn't merit bashing the entire revolution based on the acts of a few. It simply doesn't. This is borderline islamaphobia.

[fast lane]

107. The passive voice speaks volumes

"Some isolated acts" of racist thuggery that have not been addressed also speak volumes about who the rebels are.

The French Resistance killed Nazis. The Libyan rebels are brutalizing black Africans. That you are trying to compare the two is stunning.

[joshcryer]

109. Did you still not read the link? It's being addressed.

It is unfortunate that racism is http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/12/1015087/-Racism-in-Libya?via=user">long a part of Libya's culture. It is a testament to the fact that Gaddafi wasn't really a Pan-African anti-racist, but instead himself http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/19/1007296/-Helter-Skelter:-Qaddafis-African-Adventure">fomented racism in his own country.

Some Libyan rebels are brutalizing some black Africans, yes. It is against the wishes of the NTC and is being addressed.

[fast lane]

112. Very reassuring

"It's being addressed"..."It is unfortunate"

The words might be nice, but the actions aren't.

The dominance of relatively conservative elites and the absence of countervailing pressures skewed the politics of the rebellion. We hear of "the masses", and "solidarity". But masses can be addressed on many grounds – some reactionary. There are also many bases for solidarity – some exclusionary. The scapegoating of black workers makes sense from the perspective of elites. For them, Libya was not a society divided on class lines from which many of them had profited. It was united against a usurper inhabiting an alien compound and surviving through foreign power. Instead, the more success Gaddafi had in stabilising his regime, the more the explanation for this relied on the claim that "Gaddafi is killing us with his Africans".

A further, unavoidable twist is the alliance with Nato. The February revolt involved hundreds of thousands of people across Libya. By early March the movement was in retreat, overseas special forces were entering Libya, and senior figures in the rebellion called for external intervention. Initially isolated, they gained credibility as Gaddafi gained ground. As a result, the initiative passed from a very large popular base to a relatively small number of armed fighters under the direction of the NTC and Nato. It was the rebel army that subsequently took the lead in persecuting black workers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/30/libya-spectacular-revolution-disgraced-racism

This is what imperialist clients get you.

[joshcryer]

116. Two week old articles in such a dynamic situation doesn't tell the full picture.

The article I posted to you is less than a few hours old, it represents the actions that the NTC is taking.

[fast lane]

118. But promises for an "investigation" tell everything

I can't help but agree, actually, that tells us a great deal. How many "investigations" into imperialist crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan amounted to more than cynical PR?

Add into this the fact that, from the Guardian article, those engaging in these atrocities are not some rag-tag group but the main of the rebel army.

[joshcryer]

120. I think you've already made up your mind and won't accept a positive outcome.

So why try to convince you of one? I think that certainly that there will be a of people getting away with it, probably the bulk. The question to me is, are they putting a stop to it in a country that had had a tyrannical leader for 42 years who fomented racism every chance he got? If so, that's already an improvement.

[fast lane]

123. Recent events tell us that this is a negative outcome

Imperialism has invested in a client state in Libya, and through this it now controls the country. This client, not surprisingly, is engaging in racist thuggery at its first opportunity. This is a victory for NATO imperialism...and we can hardly deem that an "improvement" of any caliber.

[joshcryer]

128. You have established none of that.

Everything imperialists want, they're not getting.

[fast lane]

131. It's already been established

The imperialists wanted Gaddafi gone without any of their own casualties; they got that. The imperialists want a reliable client that's indebted to them (very much unlike Gaddafi); they got that. The imperialists want to get money from oil in Libya; they're getting that.

[joshcryer]

134. Correct. But they're not getting more than what Gaddafi was giving them.

And the Libyan people are going to have a much better society for it.

[fast lane]

140. Except a reliable client state

through which they can consistently control the country and its resources. You call an imperialist-backed puppet government a "much better society", but history and especially current events across the world show us otherwise.

[Amonester]

110. It could be said that (some) Black Africans killed (brutalized)...

Libyans as Qaddafi's hired (but not paid) mercenaries too.

But no mention of it in your own passive voice ^^^^^^^^

[fast lane]

114. See here

the "(some) black Africans are mercenaries" line is IMO an empty one, and a very slippery slope at that.

"I cannot speak for the west of the country, in Tripoli, where reports of mercenaries being used are widespread, but of all the people interviewed by Human Rights Watch so far, we have not identified one mercenary," Mr Bouckaert told The Sunday Age.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/africans-targeted-as-rebels-hunt-mercenaries-20110305-1bivv.html

[Amonester]

76. Very sad. Heartless scums also like to rebel, using guns and all that.

But the heartless scums who did/do that are just a tiny minority in the big picture, and the recognized NTC do not condone what they do/did.

Confusing both would be like comparing gang rapers with the majority of good youngsters out there who like to party (without raping anyone).

Why would you not acknowledge that reality?

[sabrina 1]

79. It's been happening since the beginning.

So, it's not as if it is isolated. There is a lot of hatred, not confined to a 'tiny minority' for Black Africans in Libya and it is not going to go away, and so far, nothing much, if anything, has been done about it. I don't have much hope that there will be.

As for the NTC, I have little faith in them at all. A brutal murder already of one the leaders of this 'rebellion' isn't too encouraging about the future. This is just another Iraq. Exactly what the original rebels said they did not want. But once they took money and weapons from Western Powers, whatever made them think they would ever be independent again? I think the first protestors, the real Libyan people, knew that, but they were quickly pushed aside by the West's people. Again, just like Iraq. We always have someone ready to take over. Same old story.

[joshcryer]

81. Wow, your dishonesty knows no bounds.

Start citing sources.

Who "quickly pushed aside the first protesters"? 400 were killed in Benghazi in one day. As soon as they protested they violated Gaddafi's oppressive laws.

http://www.pogar.org/countries/theme.aspx?cid=10&t=2">The Oppressive Laws of Gaddafi's Libya
The government grants the right of association to official institutions by virtue of Law 71 of 1972, which regulates associational activity in Libya. Law 20 of 1991 on the Promotion of Freedom sanctions the death penalty for anyone whose continued existence would lead to the disintegration of Libyan society. The Code of Honor of March 1997 institutes a system of collective punishment for wrongdoing, whereby families, towns and municipalities are held responsible for the actions of individuals in their midst and are subject to punishment such as the dissolution of the local People's Congress or the denial of government services, including utilities, water, infrastructure projects. Associations engaging in political activity are illegal in Libya. Further, political activity is defined by Articles 2 and 3 of Law 71 of 1972 as any activity based on a political ideology contrary to the principles of the Al-Fateh Revolution of September 1, 1969. The Law on Publications, No. 76 of 1972, as modified by Law 120 of 1972 and Law 75 of 1973, govern the operation of the press, reserving all rights to publish.

[inna]

133. no, our dear Josh, that's a personal attack - and a pure projection on your part, so typically

"no bounds", indeed :shrug:

[inna]

139. utterly vile attack, too. Sabrina1 happens to be one of the most widely respected and

well-informed posters, and her reputation is impeccable. Unlike, um, never mind.


You do owe her an apology.

[Amonester]

84. So, IOW, you would have 'prefered' to let qadaffi slaughter thousands

of innocent human beings in Benghazi, to show them who's the boss (once more), and that he, his sons, and their inner circle of accomplices just stay in power sucking off the Libyan people's natural resources until there would be none left, and then what?

Is that what you would have prefered? If not, what else would you have proposed?

[joshcryer]

86. "What he would have done in Benghazi is what he always did ... when there were uprisings."

No biggie.

FYI over 2000 people were killed before NATO got involved.

[Amonester]

87. I knew that, thanks to the Libya threads, Josh.

:thumbsup:

The "Iraq psychosis" has really been "catastrophic" and I can only hate the bush (I & II) regimes even more for it.

[joshcryer]

88. Yeah...

...I just wanted to quote the poster you were responding to, in their own words. Can you imagine? Golly gee, he always did that, so what, right?

Holy fucking shit.

edit: btw now you know why I do it. I personally would've preferred to be ambivalent but man, it's just impossible when you're surrounded by dishonesty.

[Amonester]

91. The question would have remained: and then what? What?

I really hope the Libyans will be well governed by the government they will choose to elect, because 25 years of reserves will come and go fast.

They have to diversify their economy in a way that will allow their country to survive long after that. They better "get their sh*t" together fast, and that includes proper education programs...

[joshcryer]

102. Gaddafi was sending Libya on a one way trajectory, when the 2030 vision was rejected...

...the people knew that Libya was doomed if they didn't spend the oil money wisely, to help the people and to build up the country. Saif, Gaddafi's 'successor' or 'heir apparent' backed the reforms at first, but he sidetracked. Gaddafi saw this shit coming, had he done what he promised he'd do, he'd probably still be in power. But for 3 years the country festered, and nothing got done.

[sabrina 1]

89. He was not going to slaughter them, as I said, that was Western

propaganda and has been debunked by several very credible people. He certainly would have killed some people as we do eg, if they rise up against the government, but the 'slaughter' story was another Western 'babies in the ovens' story. He had put down many uprisings in the past in those regions, in fact we helped him do it, to the same people. Were you screaming about it then? No? Because when we do it, it's okay. He pissed them off, now he's not their friend anymore, just like Noriega, Saddam, and others.

Why didn't you support the War in Iraq, assuming you didn't? Weren't you worried about all the atrocities Saddam was committing against his own people? Bush was telling us, so were the major News Media about all the atrocities that the Iraqi people were going to be and were subjected to. Wasn't Bush right to go in and rescue them? Freepers were right, we were there to liberate them, if we had not done so, he would have slaughtered many more than he had already. Why was the left opposed to that war? Remind me again.

If you support this Imperial intervention, then you must have supported Iraq and now Yemen and next Iran and Pakistan and Lebanon and all the others on the PNAC list. Libya was on that list and the Neocons pushed this intervention too.

What do you think about Uzbekistan? Why are we not rescuing those people who are in far worse shape than the Libyans were? Where is your outrage over that situation? Especially since we are SUPPORTING their dictator! Wiill you NOT support AFTER he upsets us, will you only then decide he's a bad guy? Why were you not outraged at Qadaffi years ago? I was.

I do not support Imperial wars, because they are NOT about the people, they are about resources and we will kill as many, if not more, we have certainly outdone Saddam in Iraq, than Qadaffi could dream of, if they get in our way. You go ahead and support if you wish, I do not.

[joshcryer]

90. How do you explain the siege of Misrata, which was "legal" by his collective punishment law?

How do you explain Zawiya where the disappeared still haven't been accounted for, but some http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027465/Libyan-rebels-mass-grave-150-civilians-slaughtered-Gadaffi-forces.html">mass graves have been found?

The idea that you think Gaddafi was "not going to slaughter them" is a new low, by all accounts. It flies in the face of the disproportionate force that Gaddafi used in the cities which rose up against him.

[sabrina 1]

94. He knew by then he was dealing with an invasion by foreign forces.

That made it a war. Any government has a right to fight an armed insurrection backed by foreign forces. I don't know why you have to ask that. What did you expect him to do? Hug them? They wanted war, they asked for help from the world's biggest War Machine and they got it. Not the original protestors, they were pushed aside long ago, as they said, for 'strangers who had not lived in Libya for decades'. Those are the people I worry about. But they will have no role in the running of Libya.

[joshcryer]

96. Had he stepped down there would have been very little bloodshed.

I guess http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G9LmGuljAs">these people aren't the "original protesters." Again, it is hard for me not to believe you are simply making stuff up.

When 400 people die in one day and you have a law that says anyone who protests gets executed, what do you do? Do you sit down and let them execute you or do you fight back? It is amazing how you are using these talking points that are in effect throwing the entire revolution under the bus.

Would you also defend Batista's actions against Castro who also rose up against his tyrannical leader? I guess we already have http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1934026&mesg_id=1934836">that answer, actually. :rofl:

[sabrina 1]

122. You don't get it do you?

I do not support Imperialist invasions of any country. I support the people changing their governments if that is what they want to do. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't, but if it's their country it is their business.

Castro was Cuban. There was no NATO plotting to overthrow Batista, the West was in love with him. The Cuban Revolution was a Cuban Revolution and the dictator lost. I don't see any comparison between the two at all.

The Libyan Revolution is a Western takeover of Libya's resources which Libyans from now on will NEVER, just like Iraq, be free to control. If they try, as Qadaffi did, they too will be gone. The current 'government' is led by people who are unknown to the majority of the Libyan people. Who elected them? And any elections will be controlled from outside. No ordinary Libyan with foolish ideas about how best their resources should be used, will have a chance of running, let alone be elected. See Iraq.

The country's future is being discussed in Europe, by Sarkozy, Berlusconi et al, and the last thing on any of their minds is, the Libyan people. Their eyes are on the prize, they paid for it, and the Libyans are now indebted to them. Humanitarian bombs are expensive.

[joshcryer]

126. The Libyan Revolution is by Libyans for Libyans.

The imperialists have little say and you're just going in circles. If the imperialists had their way, for example, they would ban Sharia law like they did in Turkey with the military junta there which cost hundreds of thousands of lives. If the imperialists had their way, they'd renegotiate oil contracts. If the imperialists had their way, they'd build military bases.

But nope, that's not how it is.

But you are moving the goalposts, so Gaddafi was was justified in attacking his own people because NATO got involved? If NATO didn't get involved it'd be OK?

Well golly gee. That's exactly what I've been saying all along, but you rejected it. You have basically admitted that NATO's involvement is the reason to turncoat.

[fast lane]

130. Doesn't fly

a.) The imperialists have tons of say, their "say" is the only reason the rebels are in Tripoli at this very moment.
b.) Afghanistan, under the control of the imperialists, has Hanafi law (a portion of Sharia Law) enshrined in its so-called "constitution".
c.) Military bases are unnecessary when bombing from Europe does the trick.
d.) It's interesting how you rationalize France, Britain and the US attacking Libyan people but demonize Gaddafi's forces.

[joshcryer]

132. There were a total of three airstrikes in Tripoli on August 20, so that is false.

Afghanistan was a country that did not undergo popular uprising.

The international community will condemn the United States if it continues bombing Libya once NATO leaves (which ultimately makes little sense, NATO will be gone in a few months tops).

[fast lane]

138. Care to tally up all the strikes since March 19?

Make sure to include those special forces teams on the ground.

Afghanistan had as much of a "popular uprising" as Libya has. In place of the Northern Alliance we have the NTC. The end result is the same: NATO controls a new country through its clients.

The international community condemned quite a few US actions, but to no avail. And furthermore, NATO already has its preferred team in Tripoli already...the likelihood of needing to make airstrikes is remote because of their installment of a puppet government.

[blindpig]

146. Of course...Qatari special forces led Libyan attack on compound

Qatari special forces led Libyan attack on compound

Arab emirate emerges as major backer of new Libya as world awaits Gaddafi's final showdown

While Foreign Secretary William Hague and former British Army chief Gen Sir Michael Jackson were busily promoting the argument that the Libyan people had taken Tripoli on their own, it has emerged that foreign forces played a significant role in yesterday's storming of Col Gaddafi's compound.

At one stage, Nato commanders had to ask the rebels to hold back from the compound while the RAF launched a final missile attack on Gaddafi's HQ.

And, according to The First Post's defence expert Robert Fox, members of the Qatari special forces, trained by Britain, could be seen clearly directing the final assault on the compound.

The Arab emirate of Qatar has already emerged as a major supporter of the new Libya, arming the rebels over recent months and playing host today to an international conference which will see a billion-dollar-plus fund started towards the rebuilding of war-torn Libya.

more.....

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/83509,news-comment,news-politics,qatari-special-forces-led-libyan-attack-on-colonel-gaddafis-tripoli-compound

I think the terms both 'freedom' and 'fighters' might be questioned.....

[Amonester]

98. I did not support the bushes warS in Iraq (the first one too).

And since the second one happened also because of the first one (which was a G.H.W flip-flop, and a 10 Million RW Public Relation firm's contract, BTW), all that alCIAda BS and 9/11 criminal act wouldn't probably have happened either.

bush/cheney/rumsfeld launched the follow-up based on constant LIES and FEARMONGERING the AMERICAN PEOPLE through their complicit M$M 24/7. Don't tell me you don't know that. And THOUSANDS of US Troops (and other countries troops) were SENT to DIE there, or be maimed for LIFE. Where is the comparison with Libya in that?

And still, the question for the Libyan people would have remained: AND THEN WHAT? (When gaddafi's clique would have sucked all their oil out?)

Can you answer it?

[joshcryer]

82. Correct: Libya's new rulers to probe war crimes allegations

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/libyas-new-rulers-to-probe-war-crimes-allegations/story-e6frf7lf-1226137026310">Libya's new rulers to probe war crimes allegations
LIBYA's new rulers promised to investigate allegations of "serious abuses" including war crimes as their position was consolidated when the World Bank recognised them as the official government.

The National Transitional Council was responding to a report released Tuesday by London-based human rights watchdog Amnesty International that accused the fighters who brought down the Kadhafi regime.

The NTC acknowledged "a small number of incidents involving those opposed to Gaddafi" and vowed to investigate Amnesty's allegations.

...

In a statement issued in its eastern bastion of Benghazi, the council's executive committee said it "strongly condemns any abuses perpetrated by either side". "The NTC is firmly committed to human rights and the rule of law, both international and local," it said.

[Amonester]

63. You mean, he was about to keep more of the profits for...

Qadaffi and sons (mostly)?

And NATO is there because the UNITED NATIONS Security Council did, in fact, vote for it (until the recognized NTC asked for its assistance).

[joshcryer]

65. Correct.

Gaddafi http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294913/LIBYA-POSTPONES-GENERAL-PEOPLES-CONGRESS-WALKS-BACK-FROM-WEALTH-DISTRIBUTION-AND-PRIVATIZATION-PLANS.html">walked back his promises to redistribute the oil wealth to all Libyans.

It is one reason that the Revolution happened to begin with. Libya was getting billions in oil revenue yet people were still living in poverty (yes, Libya ranks higher than other African states, but it is below even the best Latin American states, which is what is so appalling about that defense of Gaddafi; for all intents Libya should've been having high standard like other oil rich Arab states).

[Starry Messenger]

4. k&r

[white_wolf]

5. K&R!

[AngkorWot]

17. Is this the same Cuban government that came to power via violent revolution?

[EFerrari]

21. This is the same Cuban revolution that has been under attack by the US government

for the last fifty years. Yes, they know all about infringements of sovereignty.

[AngkorWot]

25. That poor, poor Cuban government.

:nopity:

[EFerrari]

26. Why "poor"? They've outlived all their would be assassins.

Looks to me like they won. :)

[joshcryer]

28. And the same Cuban government who is privitizing once again, giving out perpetual land leases...

...for resorts, and welcoming cruise liners with casinos.

[sabrina 1]

47. Yes, against a Dictator. I thought we were FOR revolutions

against dictators these days? Or is it only dictators we don't like any more? Do you know what the Cuban Revolution was about? Unfortunately Bush Sr. like the dictator Castro overthrew so we have never forgiven him.

[Claudia Jones]

53. huh?

The US government came to power via violent revolution.

[white_wolf]

50. What I want to know is why does an anarchist support military intervention by imperialist nations?

I hope you have a better reason than the "fight for freedom" excuse, because I'm rather sick of hearing the Right use it.

[joshcryer]

57. I don't, I merely believe in a peoples right to self-determination.

My view is exactly that of Andrew Flood: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/andrewnflood/gaddafi-libya-anti-imperialism-democratic-revolution

My view is that exactly. No deviation. And you will not find one quote with me cheering NATO.

What do you think would have happened to Libya had the intervention not happened? Ideally the Arab League or the African Union could've intervened, that would've at least not been as tainted with the two minutes hate of "imperialism." Either way there would've been a war against Gaddafi's Russian armed imperial military (he has invaded several African countries in the past). Either way it would've been long, protracted, and bloody.

The bad thing about NATO isn't that NATO is imperialist, the bad thing about NATO is NATO's involvement sullied the lefts view of the Libyan Revolution, to a point of utter blindness toward the total revolutionary spirit that exists there. I started the Libyan Revolution threads because I saw it coming a mile away. NATO, one word, pow, gone. Under the bus.

NATO can be as imperalist all they want, Libyan self-determination and control over their own destiny is what matters. If they refuse NATO bases, they are rejecting NATO's imperialism. If they refuse occupation troops on the ground, then they are rejecting imperialism. Again, and again, and again, people here have claimed that the Libyan people would have troops on the ground. When Misrata was besieged by 4 months and hundreds of Libyan fighters were dying every day one of the Misrata council members said that they wanted to ask NATO for ground troops. The left blogosphere in general used that as proof that there would be NATO occupying forces, but within a few days the TNC sent in fighters from Benghazi to help them. I predicted that they wouldn't allow those troops, because it would jeopardize everything that they were fighting for (Gaddafi was pro-imperialism).

It would be immoral to not respect a given persons self-defense, even if that means using violence. It pains me every day that NATO had to be the moniker which that self defense came, but I will not apologize for defending, and siding with the revolutionaries, even if they are a moderate islamic state and I am for secularization and against state religions among many other things.

[Amonester]

68. Ditto. n t

[fast lane]

93. Then why do you cheer

those who have thrown their lot in with NATO? You admit NATO is imperialist and yet you are in support of its allies.

[joshcryer]

99. Because they are anti-imperialist, they won't allow ground troops, or bases.

They're not renegotiating oil contracts, and they are going to redistribute the oil wealth to all Libyan's.

As yet the Libyan revolution has surpassed all of my expectations.

[fast lane]

101. That's all proof to the opposite

Ground troops and bases are unnecessary because NATO air power has shown itself a sufficient game changer in Libya. They're not renegotiating oil contracts because NATO doesn't want to, the major powers are quite happy with the agreements they had (and have) in place. I'd be interested to know the specifics of this "redistribution", but regardless, oil wealth was already being "redistributed" under Gaddafi, so that's a wash at best.

This is no revolution, this is a rebellion that survived and took power only by the grace of NATO's bombs. That's all you need to know to understand who answers to whom.

[joshcryer]

104. No, the oil wealth was not redistributed. Unemployed got a stipend, but the vast majority...

...got nothing. So you had a choice, either work, and get nothing, or not work, and get a stipend. It was a very regressive policy. Gaddafi promised to redistribute the wealth ala an Alaska wealth sharing program (everyone gets a fixed shared amount of oil wealth regardless), but he backtracked.

Total would've loved a contract renegotiation (hell, they probably were behind the http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/libya-oil">fake contract that was discovered), they only get 10% of the revenue from any oil well that produces. And they get the largest, some oil companies only get 3% or something like that. The Libyan National Oil Company comes out with close to 90% of all revenue from oil pumped by foreign companies. The fact that they're not renegotiating the oil contracts is obvious, of course, and anyone with sense could've predicted it. Gaddafi got a good deal, it'd be stupid as fuck to renegotiate.

Meanwhile NATO will be out of the country in a few more months, tops. Once NATO is gone any virtual pressure that the west has would disappear very quickly.

[fast lane]

106. That's not really true

Libya had the highest living standards in all of Africa for some time, IIRC, much of it drawn from oil revenues. The line that Libyans under Gaddafi had "nothing" is unfounded rhetoric.

Sure, in the abstract they might have wanted to renegotiate, but that's quite another thing. To renegotiate now would have severely undermined any rebel claims of not being under the thumb of western powers. If they are to renegotiate, now would be the most inopportune time from the imperialist perspective: NATO's invasion is a long-term investment in the control of Libya, they don't want to jeopardize that now.

NATO doesn't need to be "in the country" to control it. At present, bombing runs from Europe are enough to dictate terms to all of Libya, and with their hand-picked rebels on the ascendancy there's no reason to be there.

[joshcryer]

108. That's setting the bar awfully low, highest standard in Africa, midway in Arab League.

So now you move the goalposts and claim that they'll renegotiate sometime in a magical future when doing so would be, quite literally, political suicide. They get 90% of revenues, it makes no good business sense to renegotiate. They saw the deal was good and they made it clear from early on that they wouldn't renegotiate. Now, they might bring in new firms to do exploratory drilling, but because Libya has sweet crud that is very cost effective to extract, they're not going to start giving away free money to the west.

As Gilbert Achcar says, you http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/24/the_1_billion_dollar_question_who">can't control Libya by remote control, so I'll just dismiss that argument outright. It's not happening.

[fast lane]

111. The bar sits far higher than your prognosis

of "nothing". And Libya under Gaddafi would compare quite favorably to NATO success stories such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti.

No, my point has always been that the oil companies are fine with the agreements they had and have. The rebels owe their victory to the powers of NATO, they have no imaginable leverage to say "no, we want this agreement instead of this one", and that being the case, their imperialist backers don't want to make them commit the political suicide you speak of. What we're seeing is imperialism ensuring the stability of its new client.

I didn't mention remote control, but with NATO bombs against a force with little air power you can control quite a bit. The rebels, dead in the water before their NATO cavalry came over the hill, are proof positive of this.

[joshcryer]

113. I used to think the victory was NATO's but it's become clear to me that the rebellion...

...would've continued regardless. I think all NATO did is help destroy Russian provided armaments that Gaddafi the imperialist had stockpiled, and shortened the civil war by a few years, if not stopped the emergence of many instability inducing elements. As I said as much up thread, though (post #62).

Otherwise I remain unconvinced that NATO or the west has much bargaining power, though as far as goodwill, they've likely earned a lot of it.

[fast lane]

115. That's contrary to the reality of the matter

The rebellion was dying, about to be defeated. NATO bombs saved it from complete collapse. You've stated this yourself. Thus, NATO owns this rebellion, and with that it controls Libya.

[joshcryer]

117. Where have I "stated this"? I think Misrata is the example you'd be looking for.

It'd have become a long insurrection that would've lasted years.

[fast lane]

119. Here

What do you think he was going to do to Benghazi?

That's part of you saying that NATO bombs were necessary to protect the rebellion.

Let's face facts: the rebellion was dying, and NATO saved it with warplanes. Who owns whom? Recent events answer that question with complete clarity.

[joshcryer]

121. No, I've been on the record saying that Benghazi likely would've migrated to Egypt.

The bulk of the population, thanks to Gaddafi's collective punishment laws, would've migrated to Egypt, couldn't risk persecution. Benghazi then would've been like Misrata, insurrectionist rebellion for months upon months. It's likely that Gaddafi would've put it down, for the most part, in both Misrata and Benghazi, but he would've been fighting a protracted FARC-like insurrection for years, if not decades (FARC has lasted decades, but they've also had drug money to keep them going).

NATO ended a protracted civil war that likely would've interrupted Tunisia and Egypt's revolutions with IOM's estimates of 3 million projected migrations had NATO not intervened.

[fast lane]

124. You said it yourself

NATO decided the issue. NATO saved the rebellion from the fate that was obvious to everyone. The rebels, therefore, have no leverage here.

Making a connection to Colombia is useless. Environmental factors alone would ensure no such similarity.

[joshcryer]

129. I think the urban environment in Misrata suggests otherwise, particularly the western mountains.

Otherwise I have no doubts the Libyan people will make contracts with the west in the future, so they're forever doomed by the left critique of their society, even if violence drops and everyone has free health care and free money from the oil revenue, etc. Even if women vote and they have women politicians, etc.

[fast lane]

136. You can think so if you wish

But the fact remains that comparing mountains of Libya to Colombian jungle is inexplicable.

Even if that were the case (which it isn't), NATO saved the rebels from that, and so they hold all the chips. And while you malign the "left critique" you miss the fact that Libya is now in the chains of imperialism thanks to the actions of NATO and their new rebel clients. Remember, occupied Afghanistan has female politicians, too...but like most politicians there, they're imperialist puppets, and politically convenient ones at that.

[fast lane]

125. Self-delete

[Distant Observer]

143. This is blatatly false information. Libya social welfare index was higher that UK before war

it was one of the lowest in the world pre-Gaddafi even though Libya's Oil production was in full swing because the only benefits to Libya was small fees paid directly to the Sunussi Dynasty for a permit for the "use" of the Wheelus oil fields (In 1959 the US was paying $4 m to King Idris for the permit.)

[blindpig]

151. No shit.

That would get a dope slap from Bakunin.

Anarchism ain't what it used to be, for the last hundred years at that.

[leftstreet]

51. K&R

[joshcryer]

135. OK, I'm done responding guys.

I know people sign up to engage me for whatever reason and that I am repeatedly engaged by a small group, but yeah.

[TBF]

144. Unbelievable narcissism -

I posted this OP as an alternate view on the hostile takeover of Libya (my view - YMMV) - not as a way to engage you personally. Do you see your username anywhere in the OP?

We have all seen your propaganda so this is an alternative. You may not like that but there it is.

[blindpig]

147. He ain't got nothin' but NATO propaganda.

And who worked hammer &tongs on whose thread?

[Whats_Happening]

137. You harp on "sovreignty" --- it is to laugh --

Firstly, because it has become the most convenient of shibboleths for every little tinpot dictator -- the principle maintains the idea that as long as one particular murderous sociopath and his family and cronies can dominate their own particular nation out of terror, the rest of the world should stand by as he murders his own people, out of an idea of "sovreignty" --

And Secondly, because, look at Gaddafi's history! Muammar has NEVER respected the sovreignty of other states!

Let me quote from the oft-maligned wikipedia --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Foreign_affairs


(Gaddafi meddles in Sudan and Chad) --

"In 1971, when Muslims took power in Sudan, he offered to merge Libya with Sudan.<84> Gaafar Nimeiry, the President of Sudan, turned him down and angered Gaddafi by signing a peace settlement with the Sudanese Christians.<85> Gaddafi took matters into his own hands in 1972, organizing the Islamic Legion, a paramilitary group, to arabize the region.<86> He dispatched The Islamic Legion to Lebanon, Syria, Uganda, and Palestine to take active measures to ensure Islamic control. The Islamic Legion was highly active in Sudan and Chad, and nearly removed the Toubou population of southern Libya through violence.<87> Through the 1970s and 1980s, Gaddafi led an armed conflict against Chad, and occupied the Aouzou strip."

(Gaddafi meddles in the internal political affairs of Egypt) --

"The disappointment and failure Nasser faced for his lost Six-Day War motivated Gaddafi to better coordinate Arab attacks on Israel.<92> Beginning in 1972, Gaddafi granted financial support and military training to Palestinian militant groups against Israel.<93><94><95> He also strengthened his unity with Egypt, and in 1972, convinced Anwar Sadat to share the same flag and join a partial union with Libya. Gaddafi had offered a fully-unified state where Sadat would be president and he would be defense minister. Sadat distrusted Gaddafi and refused. Gaddafi was further disappointed with Egypt's political system, as he spoke to Egypt's Arab Socialist Union and was suggested "a partial merger, in order to allow time for thorough and careful study". Gaddafi quipped back, saying "There's no such thing as a partial merger."

(Gaddafi sends troops to fight against Tanzania when that nation fights against Gaddafi's good friend, Idi Amin) --

"Gaddafi had close relationship with Idi Amin, whom he sponsored and gave some of the key ideas, such as expulsions of Indian-Ugandans.<121> When Amin's government began to crumble, Gaddafi sent troops to fight against Tanzania on behalf of Amin and 600 Libyan soldiers lost their lives.<122>"

(Gaddafi supports a particularly unsavory Ethiopian dictator) --

"Gaddafi also financed Mengistu Haile Mariam's military junta in Ethiopia, which was later convicted of one of the deadliest genocides in modern history.<123>"

(Gaddafi built a school for extra-Libyan insurrection, and a bunch of its alumni ended up as coup winners in various African countries) --

"Gaddafi ran a school near Benghazi called the World Revolutionary Center (WRC). A notable number of its graduates have seized power in African countries.<124> Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso and Idriss Déby of Chad were graduates of this school, and are currently in power in their respective countries.<125> Gaddafi trained and supported Charles Taylor of Liberia, Foday Sankoh, the founder of Revolutionary United Front, and Jean-Bédel Bokassa, the Emperor of the Central African Empire.<122><123>"

--- Wow! We can even blame Gaddafi for fucking Bokassa!



Honestly, just keep reading Gaddafi's wikipedia entry --

here's a few further random highlights --

"Gaddafi intervened militarily in the Central African Republic in 2001 to protect his ally Ange-Félix Patassé from overthrow"

"Gaddafi supported militant organizations that held anti-Western sympathies around the world.<138> The Foreign Minister of Libya called the massacres "heroic acts".<139> Gaddafi fueled a number of Islamist and communist militant groups in the Philippines, including the New People's Army of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. The country still struggles with their murders and kidnappings.<37><138><140><141><142> In Indonesia, the Organisasi Papua Merdeka was a Libyan backed militant group. Vanuatu's ruling party also enjoyed Libyan support.<140> In Australia he attempted to radicalize Australian Aborigines, left-wing unions,<143> Arab Australians,<143> against the "imperialist" government of Australia.<45><45> In New Zealand he financed the Workers Revolutionary Party<143><144> and attempted to radicalize Maoris.<140>"

"He financed the Nation of Islam"

"and (he also financed) Al-Rukn, in their emergence as an indigenous anti-American armed revolutionary movement.<148> Members of Al-Rukn were arrested in 1986 for preparing to conduct strikes on behalf of Libya, including blowing up U.S. government buildings and bringing down an airplane; the Al-Rukn defendants were convicted in 1987 of "offering to commit bombings and assassinations on U.S. soil for Libyan payment."<148> In 1986, Libyan state television announced that Libya was training suicide squads to attack American and European interests. He began financing the IRA again in 1986, to retaliate against the British for harboring American fighter planes.<149>"

Plus, there was that whole Lockerbie thing. :eyes:

And despite all this, you try to claim that we must support Gaddafi out of a sense of SOVREIGNTY?

It is to laugh!

[TBF]

145. Did I say we should support Gaddafi?

No, the point is that the Libyan people should pick their own rulers (as opposed to NATO doing it).

Welcome to DU.

[bvar22]

149. Freedom Bombs aren't FREE!

There is a hefty price attached,
namely:

*the OIL,
(Gaddafi had demanded and received a larger percentage of the Oil Profits ($5.4 BILLION Dollars),
and in 2009, had proposed Nationalization of ALL Libyan Oil.)
http://www.infowars.com/in-2009-gaddafi-proposed-nationalizing-libyas-oil/

*the resources and domination of Sub-Saharan Africa
(Gaddafi continually used Oil Profits to block the IMF's predatory "lending" in Africa.)

*The destruction of the Pan Africa Movement,
(Pan Africa = Africa FOR Africans, NOT Global Absentee Corporations)

*Opening the Africa gate to the IMF & the predatory Global Banks

The plan for Libya is the same as the plan for Iraq,
a Free Market HELL with the IMF and the Global Corporations owning everything.

” For all his dictatorial megalomania, Gaddafi is a committed pan-African - a fierce defender of African unity. Libya was not in debt to international bankers. It did not borrow cash from the International Monetary Fund for any "structural adjustment". It used oil money for social services - including the Great Man Made River project, and investment/aid to sub-Saharan countries. Its independent central bank was not manipulated by the Western financial system. All in all a very bad example for the developing world.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html

Anyone familiar with the history of US Military Interventions in the Middle East already knows this fact.
The US does NOT do Military Interventions for "Humanitarian Reasons."

The facade of a "No Fly Zone" and "Bombing to protect civilians" quickly collapsed
as Western Disaster Capitalists (including the US Military) used the opportunity of the Arab Spring to join an ongoing CIVIL WAR,
and used their military might, including Aggressive Air Power and covert "Boots on the Ground", to topple a government that had obstructed their Monetary Interests in the region.

Next Step, install a corrupt Pro- Western Puppet Government,
and Let the Looting BEGIN!


I'm surprised how many bought the WAR Propaganda so soon after Iraq!
They didn't even bother to change the marketing.
They just scratched out "Saddam", and penciled in "Gaddafi".
<in hysterical voice> "Saddam "Gaddafi is a vicious DICTATOR who kills his own people!!!"

(Lots of "vicious dictators" in this World.
Some of them even have oil.
I wonder who is next on The List for some Freedom Bombs?
Venezuela?)



If you're not FOR the New WAR in Libya,
you're WITH The Communists AlQaeda The Terrorists Saddam Qaddafi!!!


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[TBF]

150. I want your sig line on a bumper sticker -

"You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses."

Damned straight & thanks for posting.