Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Libya...didn't "we" do well?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 31 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 31 Jul 2014 04:08:40 BDT
The western powers decided to intervene...look at it now.

Posted on 31 Jul 2014 11:47:37 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jul 2014 12:10:39 BDT
Man of truth says:
Actually the three B's-- Blair and Bush and Berlusconi-- had already successfully disarmed Gadhafi of most his WMD (half the reason or more for the disarmament was the Iraq War of 2003). But Gadhafi still did completely deserve to be taken down for years of terrorism. It was super-easy for Obama (with the mostly very kind-to-him US media) to have semi-occupied Libya after the takeover to ensure the new government worked there. But no the Benghazi incident--all because the Obama government was so dedicated to making it look like the war in Libya had made the country so ultra-safe (now that Gadhafi was all gone) that they would not even give more embassy security guards.

Posted on 31 Jul 2014 12:07:50 BDT
The media has been too concerned with other conflicts to pay much attention to Libya. Western politicians think that once they have removed the incumbent dictator all will be well, but in actual fact without these ruthless rulers the countries implode.

Posted on 31 Jul 2014 12:13:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jul 2014 12:14:11 BDT
Man of truth says:
Dance, King Idris (who ran Libya until Gadhafi overthrew him in 1969) had excellent US support and ran Libya moderately well. No need for Gadhafi was there. The American media deliberately chose not to overly pay attention to Libya as part of their kindness-to-Obama service.

Posted on 31 Jul 2014 12:15:55 BDT
Man of truth says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 31 Jul 2014 12:32:18 BDT
Ghadafi's son gave a lecture in this country in which he said that 'Libya is a democracy, in theory'. I'm not sure when exactly he made this statement or what further details he gave as I didn't attend the lecture as such, but monarchy if it is absolute monarchy is not so different from dictatorship, and dictatorship if it has elements of democracy could be less than a dictatorship and therefore have constraints on the ruler.

Posted on 31 Jul 2014 13:18:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jul 2014 13:19:32 BDT
Man of truth says:
Some may wonder : if the US media is really mostly so kind to Obama how did Benghazi get to be a big incident? It was practically election time. Had the incident happened 8 months earlier it would have been for sure and predictably forgotten fast by almost all American media outlets. The guilt most of the American media now has for Obama's way-less-than stellar second term! Some must have quit the media game over it and others fired. Bad votes won't change this!

Posted on 31 Jul 2014 14:14:27 BDT
Man of truth says:
Of interest. When Gadhafi was plotting the overthrow of King Idris in 1969, the future Libyan terrorist leader ran into another radical group. This other group wanted to overthrow Idris as well but then install the King's very nephew on the throne in his stead. Gadhafi resisted very strong efforts by his own followers to team up with this other radical bunch and have even greater strength in numbers for the revolution(citing differences in strategy following the overthrow of Idris as the reason). How would it have worked out if the two Libyan radical groups had teamed up?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 14:26:19 BDT
Dan Fante says:
Sounds like a titanic struggle.

Posted on 31 Jul 2014 14:58:41 BDT
Idris didn't have to cope with international Islamic terrorists though. Since Gaddafi's overthrow the security situation has worsened throughout the entire region and Libya sinks into total anarchy.

Posted on 31 Jul 2014 16:33:01 BDT
Ghostgrey51 says:
When removing or assisting in the removal of a dictator there is also to be considered just how that person has held their rule together. Obviously there is the terror aspect and the secret police. What is often overlooked is has that person also maintained rule by favouring one group/tribe/faction over others or played them off against each other. If they have been successful in this manoeuvre it is usually by their own skill in this area. Once they are gone all the old rivalries are let loose. Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya are prime examples.

The collapse of such regimes, therefore, does not result in everyone waving flags, having street parties and saying how wonderful the Western Powers were for saving them, or what a good example European Democracy is, 'let's have free, fair and open elections at once and accept the result'. People hardened and brutalised by living under such a style of rule see things by different standards.

Having said that I doubt if it is beyond the wit of Humanity to ensure a transference to stability. More a question of having the imagination, flexibility, will, and attention span.

Didn't say it would be easy though.
Achieving things of true value never are.
But the ordinary folk who have the misfortune to be caught in these power grabs deserve it.
Along those line let us not forget South Sudan while we are about it

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 20:13:30 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Aug 2014 21:25:51 BDT
"When removing or assisting in the removal of a dictator there is also to be considered just how that person has held their rule together. Obviously there is the terror aspect and the secret police. What is often overlooked is has that person also maintained rule by favouring one group/tribe/faction over others or played them off against each other. "

Very sensible contribution indeed Ghostgrey51

You're only stating the obvious truth. Unpopular regimes do maintain control by elevating unpopular minority groups into positions of authority over the mass population. This is the reason (for example) why the British Raj relied so heavily upon Sikh, Ghurkha and Muslim troops to enforce 'Law and Order' upon the Hindu majority.

What most British people still fail to understand however, is that this is also the true motivation of the 'anti-discrimination' legislation in UK/Europe today. Unpopular (potentially vulnerable? ) minorities are installed in the Civil Service/Police/Revenue/Legal and Enforcement arms of the State; because our masters realise the individuals with those groups know their liberties and status are dependant ONLY on the current Establishment remaining in control of the native masses.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 21:46:31 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 22:11:05 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jul 2014 22:14:22 BDT
Spin

The 'justification' for removing Gadhafi was nothing to do with 'morality'. Like Saddam before him, Gadhafi was attempting to fatally undermine America's economy by replacing the petro-dollar in Africa. This would (at a stroke!) have liberated Africa from poverty but bankrupted America and pauperised UK/Europe. It's all very well talking about airy-fairy 'morals/cultures raped' etc.... but do you realise the result would be no welfare/pension for you or your children ever again??? Western Governments would have been (might still be? China has now picked up the plan and activated it!) reduced to the levels of poverty currently seen in Africa.

Gadhafi's Gold-money Plan Would Have Devastated Dollar
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/ma...ould-have-devastated-dollar
11 Nov 2011 ... Oil, of course, has been mentioned frequently - Libya is Africa's largest oil producer. ... But it would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the ... "Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have ... a central bank to replace Gadhafi's state-owned monetary authority.

Has the US Dollar Lost its Credibility? Legitimate Concerns for the ...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/has-the-us-...urrency/5354410%3Fprint%3D
15 Oct 2013 ... The confidence in the US dollar as the world's reserve currency since ... It is fair to say that they are holding the global economy hostage .... One example was Iraq under Saddam Hussein (Once a US Patsy) tried to replace the petrodollar ... undermined the US Dollar in Africa for all oil traded in petrodollars.

US Threatens Russia Over Petrodollar-Busting Deal | Zero Hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-04...er-petrodollar-busting-dea
5 Apr 2014 ... Lately, China has led the BRICS efforts to dislodge the dollar from .... Jim Willie writes a nice piece on the destruction of the Petrodollar at the hands of Russia, China, Iran, etc. ..... The TP got hit with a lot more than just the IRS.

Bye Bye Petro-dollar: $400 B China-Russia Gas Deal is Official ...
http://www.silverdoctors.com/bye-bye-pet...ussia-gas-deal-is-official
21 May 2014 ... Bye Bye Petro-dollar: $400 B China-Russia Gas Deal is Official! ..... I believe gold may still take a bit of a hit I still like to buy it on the dips.

This is the realpolitik behind all those phoney media morality tales being spouted by the BBC's bleeding heart Liberals. America is trying to use it's military muscle to prevent it's petro-dollar based economic World domination being destroyed. With America goes the West. Choice is simple,

Would you prefer to enjoy welfare/pension/free medical care/housing etc.... courtesy of the US Army bombing would be rivals into anarchy?
OR
Would you prefer to take the moral high ground, encourage freedom/liberty in the Third World, and end up living as they do now in the Congo?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 22:22:32 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jul 2014 22:23:11 BDT
Spin says:
CW: The western companies and all their employees made a LOT of money working in Libya. When Gadaffi caught on to the reality of how he and his people were being screwed, we all turned the friend of the west into a monster, accusing the man of being a fascist...'Fascism' is the LAST thing one can accuse Gaddafi of advocating...The man could see, like the rest of us, how the West was turning against him personally in terms of the wider middle eastern (economic) issues..

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 22:57:07 BDT
Ghostgrey51 says:
Fair question Spin.
A very thorny one. At what point is there a justifiable set of circumstances to intervene?
Should we ever intervene?
Being a person of short fuse and a high red-rag level had by some misfortune I'd been made PM my tally of interventions might have surpassed that of the UK, USA & France combined. (but not Iraq-that was a ridiculous notion)...until of course I was replaced by my own cabinet.
Result- a lot more dead service men and women to be remembered on 11th November, many more injured to be cared for.
And would anything have been better?
Would it?
Just as well I never went into politics-emotion is fine only on forums and in front of the TV.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 23:05:52 BDT
Spin says:
Ghostr; Africa is only 50 or 60 years free of European colonialism; it is well behind in the grand scheme of things. Those in power in African nations try to emulate the West, the ideas left behind by the profiteers, without realising that society, a truly representative society, is borne of agreement and acceptance, not money and emulation of the white man...

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 23:10:46 BDT
Ghostgrey51 says:
I see where the basis of your argument lies C.W, however I differ with the logic of this.

If we all work together for a united cause we breed safety & security.
For how does one define the 'native' in masses?
As welsh I can recall a rather chilling time in the 1970s when the nation was in nascent danger of dividing up along lines of welsh-speaking and english-speaking communities; happily cool head prevailed.
Looking to England do those in one region truly feel an affinity with another region? Having worked in the Civil Service for many years, in differing regions and being into with most of the UK, I wonder. True, folk make jokes about differences, but at the end of the day is there a deep underlying antipathy between say something from the far north of England and someone from the south-east? Does it lurk?
I would prefer that question not to be put to the test.
Which is why I call myself British and judge my fellow brit by their deeds, tolerance and compassion.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 23:15:02 BDT
Ghostgrey51 says:
I would suggest Spin also the European knack of drawing borders without reference to culture, tribe and so forth, along with the continued willingness of a breed of large multi-national to see all as 'buyable' (remember the 'Slush Fund' scandals- did they ever go away?)

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 23:24:39 BDT
Spin says:
Ghost; Quite right. The Victors draw the borders, resulting in later conflict. Indeed, it was the physical and intellectual borders drawn by the 'victors' of WWI that created WWII and every conflict since...

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 23:28:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Aug 2014 21:28:15 BDT
True in part Spin.

Yes "western companies and all their employees made a LOT of money working in Libya", I was there for a while.
BUT
Thinking Colonel Gadhafi never 'caught on to the reality of how he and his people were being screwed' is wrong. He knew it from day one, but dared not rock the boat from fear of Western military might. As that boots on the ground power has dwindled however, Gadhafi (a patriot and nationalist) thought he could 'set his people free'; but he got a nasty shock. China is a very different kettle of fish however, which is why Putin has abandoned attempts to forge links with the EU and is cosying up to China. Thinks the EU is a broken reed and he's right.

As to the term 'Fascism', you should understand the West has been subject to fifty plus years of propaganda more effective than Goebbels could have dreamed of. Propaganda works by using 'trigger words' to stimulate emotional responses in the same way Pavlov's dogs were conditioned to salivate at the sight of a white coat.

Thus the modern West's Media trained masses have been conditioned to spit hatred at 'Fascists' in the same way Orwell's proles spat hatred at 'Goldstein'. Look at Sheldon/Wilde's constant references to me as a 'Fascist'.

Why? because I've expressed genuine admiration for several of Hitler/Stalin's 1930s policies, mostly those advocating the 1930/40s military unification of Europe and Eastward expansion.

Never once have any here called me a Marxism/Soviet sympathiser, despite my admiration for Stalin actually being greater (He WON for Christ's sake! Hitler lost!).

Why? Because propaganda must also be shallow/simple, so that even the stupidest can grasp it; "Four legs good, two legs bad!", "leftists good, Fascists bad!".

Hence propaganda conditioning says I MUST be Fascist. The alternative causes 'cognitive dissonance' in the minds of the conditioned. IE: exposes to the conscious mind what Orwell called 'doublethink', which is psychologically unpleasant for those subject to it.

Pavlov's Dogs | Simply Psychology
http://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html
During the 1890s Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov was looking at salivation in dogs in response to being fed, when he noticed that his dogs would begin to ...

Cognitive Dissonance and learning
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new ...

Cognitive Dissonance - Changing Minds
http://changingminds.org/explanations/th...es/cognitive_dissonance.ht
Cognitive Dissonance is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 23:32:02 BDT
Spin says:
CW; Gadaffi is NOT the monster the west makes him out to be...Remember, there was a time when Putin was hailed by the West...

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 23:44:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jul 2014 23:45:07 BDT
"Gadaffi is NOT the monster the west makes him out to be... "

Spin.
If I'd been Libyan, Colonel Gadhafi would have had my unfaltering loyalty till death.

He had great swathes of desert irrigated into fertile farmland at State expense AND THEN gave it FREE!!! to young men prepared to raise sizable families for the nation!!!

IMHO
Any leader (Hitler, Stalin, Cameron et al ) prepared to do that for my sons would be the next thing to God in my eyes! Even if He asked for suicide bombers, I'd be tempted to volunteer!

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014 23:53:23 BDT
Spin says:
CW; In my opinion, Gadaffi was no better or no worse than any other political leader. In fact, his people thrived before the sudden western obsession with capitalist ideology..."Your money is not good enough; we want your minds as well" =)

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2014 00:27:05 BDT
Depends on your point of view Spin.

I was not impressed in the least with any of those I met; but I'm 'liberal' enough to accept there must be a few good apples amongst the whole rotten barrel?
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  9
Total posts:  31
Initial post:  31 Jul 2014
Latest post:  7 Aug 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions