[freeuser]

(11-23-2014 03:16 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

I was in Libya earlier this year. While Tripoli is a boring city, it was not too insecure then. I got to see the Roman ruins outside the city, too.

I was surprised at the amount of construction that was abandoned. Whatever his faults, Ghaddafi was building a lot of housing when he was brought down. Now those places are just bare concrete and rusting rebar. That and the recent chaos made me question the utility of overthrowing him.

I once read that Libya had by far the highest Human Development Index of all Africa (I know they have oil, but so do Angola and Nigeria and look at their HDI). Makes one wonder why they went after Gaddafi in the first place. I know he was a ruthless dictator, but look at the suffering and bloodshed taking place without him. It´s sad to say, but Libya was much better off with him.

[ralfy]

The issue has to do with the petrodollar and issues concerning peak oil. That might explain false flags concerning Iraq and hostility towards Iran.

[Rutting Elephant]

^ people still believe in peak oil?

[bojangles]

Obama has destabilised and destroyed many countries without actually going to war. Libya is one of them as are Syria and Ukraine.

[N°6]

(11-23-2014 07:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

^ The US is currently selling their own citizens down the drain too, it's not just limited to any one part of the world.

Correct.

The problem in Libya and other African and ME states is not Islam nor is it the American or British people. It is an Anglo-American élite, allied with world Jewry that has, since WW2, barely stopped bombing civilians across the world.

How many US citizens voted in the recent mid-term elections? 38% to return 90+% senators? What is Obama's rating? This should say it all.

[Soothesayer]

Why should I care what happens in Libya?

... as long as it STAYS in Libya. Everything in that country is cancerous.

[zidhai89]

(11-24-2014 07:50 AM)freeuser Wrote:  

Makes one wonder why they went after Gaddafi in the first place.

Because he was a murdering dictator who was turning tanks and the airforce on his own people. If we want to critcize the West's foreign policy we could go on all day but Libya was one of the few things they did right.

[Sonsowey]

^Libya was the country in Africa with the highest living standards. Then armed rebels started fighting their leader. The U.S. helped them. Now they have torn the ckuntry apart.

So what the hell are you talking about?

[KC4]

Gaddafi was a necessary evil. As same with asaad and hussein. They did horrible things but they had control. By putting out one village they managed to save control over 9 others from spiralling out of control

[Praetor Lupus]

(11-24-2014 04:24 PM)zidhai89 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 07:50 AM)freeuser Wrote:  

Makes one wonder why they went after Gaddafi in the first place.

Because he was a murdering dictator who was turning tanks and the airforce on his own people. If we want to critcize the West's foreign policy we could go on all day but Libya was one of the few things they did right.

From looking at the state of the country, I'd wager that most people are considerably less safe than they were under Gaddafi. It looks like lots of people are willing to kill their fellow Libyans rather than just one man. Meanwhile, the infrastructure of a formerly rich state is absolutely fucked.

By what possible measure can you call that 'one of the few things they did right'?

[ralfy]

(11-24-2014 09:42 AM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  

^ people still believe in peak oil?

It's not a matter of faith as global crude oil production peaked back in 2005 and per capita production back in 1979.

[ralfy]

(11-24-2014 04:24 PM)zidhai89 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 07:50 AM)freeuser Wrote:  

Makes one wonder why they went after Gaddafi in the first place.

Because he was a murdering dictator who was turning tanks and the airforce on his own people. If we want to critcize the West's foreign policy we could go on all day but Libya was one of the few things they did right.

Likely because of plans to move away from the petrodollar. Saddam did the same, and Iran is doing so currently.

[zidhai89]

(11-24-2014 04:55 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

^Libya was the country in Africa with the highest living standards. Then armed rebels started fighting their leader. The U.S. helped them. Now they have torn the ckuntry apart.

That's great but there are huge flaws with saying that it had 'great living standards'. I'm aware the surveys state that but the reality is also that despite huge unemployment among the local populace there was a foreign work force of around 1 million. Per capita income might have been the highest but it was concentrated among the elite with 1/3'rd of the population below poverty line. Corruption was stated to be worse than Egypt and Tunisia which were the bedrocks of the Arab spring.

The rebels for the most part in the beginning like their counterparts elsewhere came asking for changes. It was the colonel in all his pomp who forced their backs against the walls when he blamed it on 'foreign devils'. (His words not mine). Can you really take someone seriously who talks like that? At this point NATO was nowhere in the scene and where reluctant to get involved.

Of course our Colonel then got overtly aggressive and turned his army on his own people including the airforce. Recall the incident where a couple of Libyan pilots flew to Malta for sanctuary. Since his army defected he then imported African mercenaries. At this point the opposition were unarmed and untrained facing the colonels western supplied army machinery. It was a moral obligation to level the playing field which NATO did to great effect. Keep in mind that the French played a leading role, the same French who told the Americans to fk off in Iraq. Petrodollar warfare really wasn't in the picture at all and of course Libya is small fry in the global oil markets.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but standing by and watching would have been equivalent to another Bosnia or Rwanda.

[Sonsowey]

Libya was not Denmark. No surprise. That fact does not justify taking down their state and turning it into chaos.

Hindsight is 20/20 but after Iraq and Afghanistan it was pretty obvious what would happen when the U.S. decides a country needs regime change. Total chaos, violence, civil war. Many people pointed this out, it was not hard to see.

Standing by and doing nothing is precisely what we should have done in Libya and Syria. Instead we feel compelled to fund radicals who inevitably become our enemies.

Now ISIS is in Libya. Who could have possibly seen that coming?

[zidhai89]

(11-25-2014 03:30 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

U.S. decides a country needs regime change. Total chaos, violence, civil war.

The U.S.A did not decide anything here. The people of Libya did when they walked into the street of Tripoli. It was ordinary Libyans who picked up arms when the Colonel refused to come to the table. When the Colonel started going batshit crazy NATO leveled the playing field.

There were no ground incursions etc.

(11-25-2014 03:30 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Standing by and doing nothing is precisely what we should have done in Libya and Syria.

Great, then we would've ended up with a death toll greater than Rwanda easily crossing a million except this time weapons would have been western supplied.

(11-25-2014 03:30 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Now ISIS is in Libya. Who could have possibly seen that coming?

ISIS are a group of ill trained religious zealots who have stepped into lawless reigons. They're getting held by the under armed and under resourced Kurds, They're unable to push into Lebanon and Iran and they cannot take the South of Iraq where the army is stationed. When they manage to take of those reigons then i'll start buying into the hype.

[bojangles]

Another Rwanda or Bosnia? That's fucking silly, you obviously have no idea what went on in Rwanda nor Bosnia.

In Syria hundreds of thousands have died in the civil war, you think Assad has killed that many people? Ridiculous


Even Egyptians now admit that life was much better under Mubarak who improved their country in all facets than it is now. I can guarantee life under Gaddafi would be better now too.

[Saga]

(11-25-2014 04:44 AM)zidhai89 Wrote:  

The U.S.A did not decide anything here.

Of course it did, it decided to attack Libya. At the time there were concerns that it would merely create turmoil, sustained civil strife and a chance for extremists to take power; objectively, that's exactly what's happened.

Quote:

There were no ground incursions etc.

Yes there were, in fact special forces on the ground located Gaddafi's convoy, which led to it being struck by a drone, which led to him being summarily and extrajudicially executed. Hardly a shining moment for the democratic process, and it was unfortunately a sign of things to come.

Quote:

Great, then we would've ended up with a death toll greater than Rwanda easily crossing a million except this time weapons would have been western supplied.

That's hard to imagine given the entire population of Benghazi is less than the number killed in Rwanda. Your claim is complete hyperbole.

Quote:

ISIS are a group of ill trained religious zealots who have stepped into lawless reigons. They're getting held by the under armed and under resourced Kurds, They're unable to push into Lebanon and Iran and they cannot take the South of Iraq where the army is stationed. When they manage to take of those reigons then i'll start buying into the hype.

Ask yourself why those regions (regions like Tripoli) were and are lawless: it's a consequence of the western interventions that you're defending.

[zidhai89]

(11-25-2014 06:29 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

In Syria hundreds of thousands have died in the civil war, you think Assad has killed that many people? Ridiculous

Of course not. I don't think I mentioned that anywhere.

I am merely saying it is never so simplistic. We are quick to point fingers at the Americans but before they got involved the Russians were already arming Assad and his fellow Alawites. Complex issues and they (west) did the right thing at that time. Tough luck how it all turned out.

(11-25-2014 06:29 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

Even Egyptians now admit that life was much better under Mubarak who improved their country in all facets than it is now. I can guarantee life under Gaddafi would be better now too.

These are the pains of progress. You can't put a price on freedom and democracy. This is in respect to the Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans. Syria is a whole different ball game.

[zidhai89]

(11-25-2014 06:57 AM)Saga Wrote:  

Of course it did, it decided to attack Libya. At the time there were concerns that it would merely create turmoil, sustained civil strife and a chance for extremists to take power; objectively, that's exactly what's happened.

NATO attacked Libya with the French and British leading the charge not the USA.

(11-25-2014 06:57 AM)Saga Wrote:  

Yes there were, in fact special forces on the ground located Gaddafi's convoy, which led to it being struck by a drone, which led to him being summarily and extrajudicially executed. Hardly a shining moment for the democratic process, and it was unfortunately a sign of things to come.

I stand corrected if true then. Source?

(11-25-2014 06:57 AM)Saga Wrote:  

That's hard to imagine given the entire population of Benghazi is less than the number killed in Rwanda. Your claim is complete hyperbole.

It's a drastic projection but not unrealistic. Rwanda population during genocide - 9 million. Libyan population - 6 million.

In Rwanda we reached a death toll upwards of half a million even though the people carrying out genocide were ill trained, uneducated and equipped with machetes.

If the colonel had been allowed to turn his tanks and air force on the rebels who were armed with machine guns and limited ammunition you can bet it could easily have crossed those numbers.

[Saga]

(11-25-2014 07:08 AM)zidhai89 Wrote:  

NATO attacked Libya with the French and British leading the charge not the USA.

A charge which the US government was strongly in favor of and decided to partake in...therefore, the US government shares responsibility for the effort and for its consequences. That's only fair.

Quote:

I stand corrected if true then. Source?

Here, here and here.

Quote:

It's a drastic projection but not unrealistic. Rwanda population during genocide - 9 million. Libyan population - 6 million.

In Rwanda we reached a death toll upwards of half a million even though the people carrying out genocide were ill trained, uneducated and equipped with machetes.

If the colonel had been allowed to turn his tanks and air force on the rebels who were armed with machine guns and limited ammunition you can bet it could easily have crossed those numbers.

First, the rebels weren't so poorly armed, they even had a functioning air force. Second, turning one's tanks and air force on armed, hostile rebels is what a military is for, and isn't illegitimate use of force. What distinguishes Rwanda is that violence was inflicted upon unarmed and defenseless populations due only to ethnicity, which is what you'll need to prove was happening in Libya if you want this argument to carry any weight. Third, there's zero evidence to suspect that Gaddafi had any motivation, intention or actionable plan in place to commit genocide against Benghazi or unrestrained violence against any population during that time. In fact, evidence to suggest this was produced by neither the US nor any other NATO government, both in the run-up and in the aftermath of western involvement.

In other words, I'm afraid you're justifying western intervention on the basis of a hypothetical, and one without evidence.

[bojangles]

(11-25-2014 06:58 AM)zidhai89 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 06:29 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

In Syria hundreds of thousands have died in the civil war, you think Assad has killed that many people? Ridiculous

Of course not. I don't think I mentioned that anywhere.

I am merely saying it is never so simplistic. We are quick to point fingers at the Americans but before they got involved the Russians were already arming Assad and his fellow Alawites. Complex issues and they (west) did the right thing at that time. Tough luck how it all turned out.

(11-25-2014 06:29 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

Even Egyptians now admit that life was much better under Mubarak who improved their country in all facets than it is now. I can guarantee life under Gaddafi would be better now too.

These are the pains of progress. You can't put a price on freedom and democracy. This is in respect to the Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans. Syria is a whole different ball game.

What does the Syrians being armed by the Russians have to do with anything? Russia has sent arms to Syria for decades. In the same way the Americans have armed ISIS. I guess you support that.

The fact that you equate freedom with democracy says a lot.

[Kitsune]

He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it.

Again and again and again, it would seem.

[zidhai89]

(11-25-2014 07:40 AM)Saga Wrote:  

A charge which the US government was strongly in favor of and decided to partake in...therefore, the US government shares responsibility for the effort and for its consequences. That's only fair.

Sure. The Arab League, African Union were also in favor of this intervention. So perhaps instead of merely pointing fingers at the West we can say it was more or less a global stance

(11-25-2014 07:40 AM)Saga Wrote:  

First, the rebels weren't so poorly armed, they even had a functioning air force.

They were trying to gun down air crafts using machine guns mounted on the back of trucks. When the uprising picked up they had no air force.

(11-25-2014 07:40 AM)Saga Wrote:  

Second, turning one's tanks and air force on armed, hostile rebels is what a military is for, and isn't illegitimate use of force.

A military is also answerable to a government not a proxy dictator. Like I said they rebels were not armed and hostile at the start. They came to the table. The colonel drove their backs against the wall and planned to slaughter them when they had no other option.

(11-25-2014 07:40 AM)Saga Wrote:  

What distinguishes Rwanda is that violence was inflicted upon unarmed and defenseless populations due only to ethnicity, which is what you'll need to prove was happening in Libya if you want this argument to carry any weight.

Not particularly. In Rwanda it happened on the basis of ethnicity, in Bosnia because of Serb fascism. In Libya it would've been a power hungry sociopath who would have put Assad's father to shame.

(11-25-2014 07:40 AM)Saga Wrote:  

Third, there's zero evidence to suspect that Gaddafi had any motivation, intention or actionable plan in place to commit genocide against Benghazi or unrestrained violence against any population during that time.

Apart from the first hand accounts of pilots seeking refuge in Europe who testified that they were asked to open fire on unarmed civlians and the Colonel himself advocating killing the inhabitants of Dernah. He then blamed it on foreign 'dogs' from Egypt and Tunisia and advocated killing all of those nationalities that were present in Libya.

Yeah, no thanks. I can see you disagree so I'll leave it. Ultimately if you want to criticize western intervention, the list is endless. I won't agree that Libya is part of that though.

[Saga]

(11-25-2014 08:11 AM)zidhai89 Wrote:  

Sure. The Arab League, African Union were also in favor of this intervention. So perhaps instead of merely pointing fingers at the West we can say it was more or less a global stance

I wouldn't say it was global, but yes other supporters of the intervention also share responsibility.

Quote:

They were trying to gun down air crafts using machine guns mounted on the back of trucks. When the uprising picked up they had no air force.

That changed, and even if it didn't it still doesn't render Gaddafi's use of military force illegitimate or illegal. Martial force doesn't suddenly become wrong if the opposing force lacks good enough weaponry. Was Gaddafi supposed to give the rebels warplanes and tank divisions to make things fair?

Quote:

A military is also answerable to a government not a proxy dictator. Like I said they rebels were not armed and hostile at the start. They came to the table. The colonel drove their backs against the wall and planned to slaughter them when they had no other option.

"Rebels", by the definition of the word, are armed and hostile. And say what you like about Gaddafi's dictatorship, it was the recognized government of Libya; overthrowing a government because it's adjudged insufficiently democratic is in violation of national sovereignty, and is itself undemocratic.

Moreover, the rebels were the ones who slaughtered Gaddafi and many of his supporters without so much as a drumhead trial. The rebels have no moral high ground.

Quote:

Not particularly. In Rwanda it happened on the basis of ethnicity, in Bosnia because of Serb fascism. In Libya it would've been a power hungry sociopath who would have put Assad's father to shame.

"It would've been" and "[he] would have" isn't a factual argument, it's a hypothetical, and one without any basis.

Quote:

Apart from the first hand accounts of pilots seeking refuge in Europe who testified that they were asked to open fire on unarmed civlians and the Colonel himself advocating killing the inhabitants of Dernah. He then blamed it on foreign 'dogs' from Egypt and Tunisia and advocated killing all of those nationalities that were present in Libya.

Defectors' statements aren't reliable, and if what they said was true, there would certainly be hard evidence to support it after the fall of the government. In reality, there is none. There's as much evidence to support this line of reasoning as there is the idea that Gaddafi was planning to conquer all of North Africa and move the pyramids to Libya.

Quote:

Yeah, no thanks. I can see you disagree so I'll leave it.

No problem, agree to disagree.

[RexImperator]

Infowars Wrote:

Far more people have been killed since 2011 than during the revolution or under 42 years of Gaddafi’s rule combined
The Sunday Mail, Zimbabwe’s “leading family newspaper,” has published accounts of a number of Libyans who expressed regret over Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow in 2011, despite the fact some of them even took up arms against him.

As one said:
“‘I joined the revolution in the first days and fought against Gaddafi,’ former revolutionary fighter Mohammed, 31, said from the southern city of Murzuq. ‘Before 2011, I hated Gaddafi more than anyone. But now, life is much, much harder, and I have become his biggest fan.’”
...
Before the NATO onslaught, Libya had the highest standard of living of any country in Africa. This meant the people enjoyed state-sponsored healthcare, high literacy rates, and other benefits that come with living in a relatively prosperous society. In 2015 alone, the country fell 27 places on the U.N. Human Development Index ratings. According to UNICEF, there are now two million Libyan children out of school.

http://www.infowars.com/libyans-who-once...me-change/