Hey!

False again.  Your claim contradicts the history of the past century.  Libyans were much poorer under the Italian colonialism of Grazziani, Mussolini, and Rommel.  They were still deprived under King Idrisi - an american puppet whom Khaddafi overthrew.  The past forty years compares very favorably with Libyan welfare from 1911 to 1969.

Yes, but the price of oil has never been higher, and OPEC (the secondary reason why oil is so valuable now) did not come into its own until the 1970s, after the Libyan revolution. That fundamentally changed the role, status and wealth-potential of countries with large oil reserves. Norway made no serious money out of oil until the 1970s either.

Your argument depends on your use and interpretation of words like relatively.  You can have your own opinion, but mine is that the claim that Libyans are poor is unfounded rubbish.  I have shon that their economic well being is the best in Africa and that Khaddafi has done better for Libyans than any ruler of the past century, but that is not good enough for you.  I completely disagree with you.  Your assessment is prejudiced, but you do not realize it.

I am not saying they are 'poor' in an absolute sense, but the reason I use the term 'relatively' is because context is important. Not every country has significant oil wealth, and it is a fact that oil wealth massively increases the wealth potential of a country. Combine significant oil wealth with a small population, and you have huge wealth potential. Yet Libya does not rank especially high in the HDI. Why is that? Why is it that countries like Finland and Ireland are ranked highly on the HDI despite not having significant natural resources or natural export wealth? Instead of accusing me of bias, perhaps you should address these points, or explain why the current Libyan regime is unable to convert its considerable resources into more significant wealth for its moderate population.

Do you not have the feeling that the inclination of your assessment aligns with american foreign policy?  Of all the governments to foment rebellion against, why not create rebellion against a government in a country that better deserves it?

Given that Western foreign policy in the last half-decade has been distinctly pro-Khaddafi, not really. All of this was equally true when he was our new best friend.

Does it matter if they live well if they're being massacred?

Does it matter if they live well if they're being massacred?

I think his argument is that the massacred ones are rebels.

And? If our country was killing rebels, we'd riot in the street. That's not an excuse.

Also, november's argument seems to be "Khaddafi was better than his predecessors, therefore he is the best now."

And? If our country was killing rebels, we'd riot in the street. That's not an excuse.

true

You are evading the essence of the point.  Khaddafi was the enemy of american policy for more than thirty years when he was frightened by the american invasion of Iraq into acquiescing to a security deal with the US.

Now Obama insists that Khaddafi should step down.  American policy has never been "pro-Khaddafi."  If anything, the security arrangements made by israel and the United States were used to prepare and organize the current rebellion.

To say that american policy is pro-Khaddafi is a failure to see the larger picture if not a simple lie.

Anyway, I have to end by saying that Wilmore's monotonous argument about Libyan people being so poor even after Khaddafi made them mre materially wealthy than they have been in all of Libya's history is one of the most absurd causes he has ever taken.  It's the argument of a spin doctor in the service of empire.  Wilmore condemns Khaddafi because of the opportunity he had from the inflow of money that OPEC facilitated, but OPEC accomplished what it did directly because of Khaddafi.  Wilmore thus counts virtues as faults.  Such faulty logic is to be expected from people like Wardogg, but it is a bit surprising to see Wardogg's usual cause supported by Wilmore - of all people.

First of all 17, to suggest that I am in some way just parroting a narrative used by Western governments to legitimise their foreign policy is absurd. I have long condemned American and Western governments for supporting corrupt and repressive Middle Eastern regimes in order to cynically pursue their energy security policies. Here's a couple of posts I have made to that effect:

Militant Islam is a problem, but it's a far more complex problem than most people think. In a region dominated by neo-colonialism and inequality, it promises the dejected and neglected self-determination and a more just society. The means are extremely questionable, but the goals are not, and the sooner westerners realise this, the better. Just today, the United States confirmed a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, a regime as corrupt, brutal and oppressive as any of the other Middle Eastern states America has taken issue with. Yet instead of invasion or political and economic isolation, they are getting advanced weapons. As long as the U.S. continues to support such regimes, militant Islam will appeal to the disenfranchised masses of the Middle East. Viewing it as political realism is at least consistent, but bashing revolutionary Islam whilst simultaneously giving people good reason to support it is totally hypocritical. Politicians have to be hypocrites, but you don't.


The cause and solution to the problem of militant Islam lies in the socio-economic system of the developed world. Militant Islam should not pose a threat to the western world, but our support of autocratic and corrupt regimes does. The former flourishes because of the latter, and if it wasn't militant Islam, it would be something else (e.g. the Arab nationalism of the 50s, 60s and 70s).

Quote from: Lorddave on December 10, 2010, 05:47:28 PM

The ends justify the means.  Isn't that what you said?  Lying to his people has benefited the world when dealing with Iran.  But now the secret is out and Saudi Arabia is going to have to choose between appeasing Iran or helping us.  Neither of which is going to end pretty for them.

The duplicitous aims of the Kingdom of Saud are not my concern, especially given its frankly disgusting legal and political system. I have zero sympathy for the American=backed, crude-oil sustained autocratic monarchs of the Arabian peninsula.

Granted they refer specifically to Saudi Arabia, but that's only because it is the archetypal American-backed autocracy in the Middle East. After the recent rapprochement between Khadaffi and the West, Libya was effectively no different. I viewed that as another in a long line of cynical decisions on the part of Western governments.


Implicit in your argument is a false dichotemy, whereby if I don't support Khadaffi, I must therefore be an ignorant mouthpiece for Western governments. In fact, I didn't like Khadaffi when Western governments hated him, I didn't like him when Western governments cynically cosied up to him, and I don't like him now that they are desperately trying to distance themselves from his regime. My opinion of Khadaffi is distinct from (and largely independent of) Western policy towards Libya and the region at large.


As for the economic debate, you're basically misrepresenting my position and deliberately avoiding the thrust of my argument. Libya ranks lower on the HDI than many other nations which have siginificantly fewer natural resources and significantly larger populations. This signifies mismanagement of the Libyan economy, and to simply keep saying "Libyans are not poor" is not a forceful response.

I am already aware of that, and your examples are unnecessary, and I did not suggest that you are trying to legitimize american foreign policy, but I am saying that is the effect of your position.

Have you considered that for once the American government's position may be roughly correct, even if they have adopted it only begrudgingly? American foreign policy is not necessarily bad; it is good or bad depending on the outcomes it produces or seeks to produce. I will admit that it is necessarily motivated by self-interest, but the interests of the American government and those of other nations and the world at large need not be mutually exclusive. Sometimes they roughly or temporarily cohere.

I had expected that you had been biased against Khaddafi for a long time.  I am also suggesting that the onslaught of long term american propaganda against Khaddafi has at some point or other affected the judgment of many people like you even if you are not conscious of the influence.  If they repeat a lie often enough, then people begin to credit the propaganda as truth.

It sounds like you would be critical of most of Khaddafi's career.  In that case, it would be good for me to locate links to those older books and analyses about Khaddafi because it sounds like our disagreement is a long standing one.  

I have admired Khaddafi for a long time.

My opinion of Khadaffi is based on the kind of government he runs, the society he has created, and what I consider to be fundamentally bizarre behaviour and ideas which he has exhibited and expressed. The man clearly had charisma, and Libya has certainly seen more prosperity under his rule than under its previous rulers. But charisma is a superficial quality (one which he appears to have a lost a great deal of), and how much of Libya's prosperity can actually be attributed to his rule is questionable.

Sounds like you're saying: You all don't like khaddafi because you've been told he's bad. I like him because I've read he's good. You haven't addressed any of the claims against him recently, only the fact that he did better things with Libya than colonial powers in the past. You clearly have an anti-mainstream attitude that you haven't defended with fact, only impression, i.e., I've read Marxist literature and Noam Chomsky, which must be more correct than anyone fond of Western ideals. Ultimately you sound like a Marxist contrarian, without providing any evidence that what you are reading is true. Show us how you critically examine what you've read as much as you critically examine so called 'western propaganda' or 'western misconceptions'.

This thread is fail.

Here's the government and country he's running. From the BBC:

"Tanks and planes hit Libya rebels"

"Libyan troops have opened fire with machine-guns and large-calibre weapons on anti-government protesters in the second city Benghazi"

"Pro-Gaddafi forces are reported to have shelled the eastern oil town and deployed heavy armour after warplane bombed the town four times."

What exactly is sane about these actions? This is not the way you treat civil unrest.

also, his wardrobe isn't the issue. He blamed the protests on drugs provided by Bin Laden, for a start.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on March 08, 2011, 05:35:45 PM

Here's the government and country he's running. From the BBC:

"Tanks and planes hit Libya rebels"

"Libyan troops have opened fire with machine-guns and large-calibre weapons on anti-government protesters in the second city Benghazi"

"Pro-Gaddafi forces are reported to have shelled the eastern oil town and deployed heavy armour after warplane bombed the town four times."

What exactly is sane about these actions? This is not the way you treat civil unrest.

It's a war.  As far as I can tell, armed gangs are making war on the government, but when it responds you call them terrorists.  It's the other way around.

Why not overthrow governments that really are murderous and oppressive like Jordan, Bahrain, or Israel?

how can you tell? We're relying on news agencies like the BBC and Al Jazeera, where do you get yours?

Quote from: Benocrates on March 08, 2011, 06:32:44 PM

how can you tell? We're relying on news agencies like the BBC and Al Jazeera, where do you get yours?

Granma is another good source.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/news-i/2marzo-Cuba%20categorically.html

Quote from: Benocrates on March 08, 2011, 05:38:54 PM

He blamed the protests on drugs provided by Bin Laden

Sounds interesting.  Got a link?

Here's a link to the Russia Today segment concerning Gadaffi and his Bin Laden comments: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">. I trust them for my news far more than Granma because of bias issues. If you can't see the difference between them in terms of journalistic honesty, you're either diluted or being troll-tastic.

bolololo...def trolling. done with this

Human Development Report - Ireland
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/IDN.html

Sorry to interrupt you, but that is Indonesia's profile. Ireland's profile is the following:

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/IRL.html

What his clothes?  He refuses to accept degenerate western culture.  Good for him.
His pan-africanism?  If you're against that, then you're also against DuBois, Nkrumah, Mandela, and many other African freedom fighters who have had the same dreams.

Of course I don't mean his clothes (though now that you mention it his habit of obsessively changing robes is a bit odd). The man's speeches are often strange and eratic, as are some of his 'publicity' exercises. And his pan-africanism would be more credible had he not begun as a supporter of pan-arabism. Indeed he recently threatened to "take Libya out of Africa and put it back into Europe", or something to that effect. It seems to me that he aligns Libya to certain blocks based on what he feels to be in the state's best interests. It's no worse than western foreign policy, but it's also no better.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 08, 2011, 04:18:27 PM

My opinion of Khadaffi is based on ... the kind of government he runs, the society he has created

and yet,

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 08, 2011, 04:18:27 PM

Libya has certainly seen more prosperity under his rule than under its previous rulers...

Khadaffi not being the worst ruler of all time (or even the worst Libyan ruler of all time) does not make him a good ruler. Those two statements are in no way mutually exclusive. I'd like to think Libyans can hope for more than autocratic leaders who are distinct only in their degree of brutality and corruption.

America has not adopted its policy begrudgingly.  It has deliberately and passionately hated Libya for a very long time.

The definition of a neo-conservative is a former liberal turned conservative.  If you're with the crusaders, then count me out.

17, in the last five years Western governments ended their ostracization of Libya, concluding that he was of more value to them as an ally. Now because of these protests, they've had to backtrack and end their support, saying "wooo, democracy" and other such hypocritical nonsense. Their support for these protests is most certainly begrudging, just as it was in Egypt, because the West has propped up and endorsed these regimes.


As for your second point, I tend not to self-identify with ideologies or political positions, especially anything as vague and ill-defined as 'liberal'. However, I do want to say that being a liberal does not mean supporting anything that conservatives hate. It means supporting certain values, wherever they are under threat. It is not consistent to stick up for the right of workers to organise and fight for their rights in Wisconsin (for example), and then saying Khadaffi is great when he forbids precisely that kind of organisation in Libya. It is not consistent to attack American legislation such as the Patriot Act, or policies such as detention without trial in Guantanamo, and yet defend the repressive Khadaffi regime.


As I said earlier, opposing western policy doesn't mean supporting Khadaffi.

It seems that you searched for the highest rated country in the world on this list in order to bad mouth Khaddafi because Libya scored worse than the number one rated country.  Norway is ranked number one on this list, but they also produce more oil than Libya. 

List of Top World Oil Producing Countries
http://www.eia.doe.gov/countries/

Yet China, Russia, Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia all produce more oil than Libya produces, and all these countries score  lower than Libya on the International Human Development index!    Yet, you omit any mention of this (!) concentrating exclusively on the fact that Libya scored worse than number one. 

This is why I think that the only reason you cited this index was to make Khadaffi look bad.

I studied Norway's economy in secondary school geography class, so I knew plenty about it already. I chose it as a point of comparison because it produces a similar amount of oil to Libya, and has a similar population. None of the other countries you mention are in any way similar in this respect, which is why I didn't mention them. For example, China simply doesn't produce enough oil for it to significantly boost the wealth of its citizens by itself. In fact, China is a massive net-importer of oil, whereas oil accounts for 1/4 of Libya's exports. I imagine the same is true (to a greater or lesser degree) of Brazil and Mexico. What's more, all of the countries you mention have extremely large populations, whereas Libya has a comparatively tiny population. It's simply not an instructive comparison.

I don't care if America is anti-Khadaffi, or if he was a good leader. HE LET SNIPERS ATTACK UNARMED CIVILIANS.

All of this is false.  The american support for the potest in Libya is not begrudging.  Obama has insisted that Khaddafi abdicate his power.

The ostracization of Khaddafi never ended.  I have heard not a single positive thing about the Libyan government from the US government or media in the last five years (or last forty years for that matter).

You're the first person that I have heard explain the invasion of Libya's intelligence secrets five years ago as a pro-Khaddafi policy.  It is not.  American policy of the past five years was emphatically anti-Khaddafi.  They are not backtracking because the overthrow of Khaddafi is what they have aimed for all along.

Will you dredge some public relations propaganda that says the americans are officially?  If you do, then it is meaningless because actions speak louder than words.  They needed such PR only because Bush and the Iraq war became so unpopular.  They bombed LIbya in the 1980's, and are now considering invading again.

Your claim that america has been pro-Khaddafi the past five years is false like everything else you claim about Khaddafi.

I'm sorry 17, but it is a fact that Western nations (including the United States) have been normalising their relations with Libya over the last decade. I'm not going to do a huge search for articles confirming a policy which has been pretty high profile over the last few years, so here's some info from Wikipedia:

In 2003 Libya began to make policy changes with the open intention of pursuing a Western-Libyan d?tente. The Libyan government announced its decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs and pay almost $3 billion dollars in compensation to the families of Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772.[15]

Since 2003 the country has restored normal diplomatic ties with the European Union and the United States and has even coined the catchphrase, 'The Libya Model', an example intended to show the world what can be achieved through negotiation rather than force when there is goodwill on both sides.[16]

On October 31, 2008, Libya paid $1.5 billion, sought through donations from private businesses, to a fund that would be used to compensate both US victims of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 and the 1986 bombing of the La Belle disco in Germany. In addition, Libyan victims of US airstrikes that followed the Berlin attack will also be compensated with $300 million from the fund. US state department spokesman, Sean McCormack called the move a "laudable milestone ... clearing the way for continued and expanding US-Libyan partnership." This final payment under the US-Libya Claims Settlement Agreement was seen as a major step towards improving ties between the two, which had begun easing after Tripoli halted its arms programmes. George Bush also signed an executive order restoring Libya's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing pending compensation cases.[17]

On November 17, 2008, FCO minister Bill Rammell signed five agreements with Libya. Rammell said: "I will today sign four bilateral agreements with my Libyan counterpart, Abdulatti al-Obidi, which will strengthen our judicial ties, as agreed during Tony Blair's visit to Libya in May last year. In addition, we are signing today a Double Taxation Convention which will bring benefits to British business in Libya and Libyan investors in the UK ? benefits in terms of certainty, clarity and transparency and reducing tax compliance burdens. We are also in the final stages of negotiating an agreement to protect and promote investment."

"UK/Libya relations have significantly improved in recent years, following Libya's voluntary renunciation of WMD. Today we are partners in the UN Security Council. We also wish to assist Libya to establish closer relations with the European Union to continue and strengthen the reintegration of Libya within the international community. We therefore support the commencement of negotiations between Libya and the EU on a framework agreement which should cover a range of issues including political, social, economic, commercial and cultural relations between the EU and Libya."[18]

On November 21, 2008, the US Senate confirmed the appointment of Gene Cretz to be the first US ambassador to Libya since 1972.[19]
[edit] Cooperation with Italy

On 30 August 2008, Gaddafi and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi signed a historic cooperation treaty in Benghazi.[20][21][22] Under its terms, Italy will pay $5 billion to Libya as compensation for its former military occupation. In exchange, Libya will take measures to combat illegal immigration coming from its shores and boost investments in Italian companies.[21][23] The treaty was ratified by Italy in 6 February 2009,[20] and by Libya on 2 March, during a visit to Tripoli by Berlusconi.[21][24] In June Gaddafi made his first visit to Rome, where he met Prime Minister Berlusconi, President Giorgio Napolitano, Senate President Renato Schifani, and Chamber President Gianfranco Fini, among others.[21] The Democratic Party and Italy of Values opposed the visit,[25][26] and many protests were staged throughout Italy by human rights organizations and the Radical Party.[27] Gaddafi also took part in the G8 summit in L'Aquila in July as Chairman of the African Union.[21]

In the 2005-2009 period, Italy has been the first EU arms exporter towards Libya, with a total value of 276,7 ?m, of which one third only in the last 2008-2009 years. Italian exports cover one third of total EU arms exports towards Libya, and include mainly military planes but also missiles and electronic equipments. [28]

And here are some pictures of Khadaffi with his fair-weather friends:

















And of course:





Western nations have been crawling over each other to get cosy with the "new Khadaffi" over the last decade. Diplomatic relations have been normalised, trade deals struck, and Khadaffi has been getting handshakes all round. These protests have put paid to their cynical plans to embrace Khadaffi, and now they are doing the 'we support democracy' dance.

It's called realpolitik, Wilmore. Ideals and foreign policy are not practical to combine.

It's called realpolitik, Wilmore. Ideals and foreign policy are not practical to combine.

If that's so, why do Western leaders constantly harp on about our shared values and ideals? I know the hypocrisy of foreign affairs is obvious and that criticising it is a well-worn path, but it's still hypocritical. If our foreign policy is wholly self-interested and everyone knows it, why do politicians pretend otherwise, and why do people buy into this myth when (and only when) it suits them?

Every time I see a picture of him with his female bodyguards I wonder if he read God Emperor of Dune.

I'll give you that one - fair weather indeed.  Beyond that, your analysis has mistaken outward form for essence.  You have assumed an obvious charade to have been a reality.

That much is clear. 

Perhaps your long held antipathy towards Khaddafi led you to believe that the so-called "alliance" of Libya with the west was in some way genuine.

In fact, it is a gang of bullies forcing their victim and enemy to cooperate with them so that they may more easily conquer him.

If you're saying that it was a cynical and self-interested policy u-turn, I of course agree with you, and have said as much throughout this thread. They were trying to get what they could out of Libya, seeing as getting Khadaffi out of Libya wasn't really an option. But that's as 'genuine' as foreign policy usually gets; their alliances with other Middle Eastern autocracies are no more genuine or substantial. Western governments don't engage in lofty rhetoric in order to disguise deep, dark policy agendas. On the contrary, they use it as a way of distracting people from the shallow, morally anaemic nature of those policies.


I think people on the left have a habit of over-thinking this stuff. They tend to look for what is going on 'behind' or 'underneath' the governmental narrative, and construct elaborate meta-narratives, instead of looking at what's in plain sight. They read as much as possible into events, instead of as little as possible - a far more instructive method.


All I'm saying is that none of this changes my views about Khadaffi. It wouldn't matter if the West thought Khadaffi was amazing, his record and behaviour would remain, and that is what I judge him by.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 09, 2011, 04:06:52 PM

Every time I see a picture of him with his female bodyguards I wonder if he read God Emperor of Dune.

Do you wonder if one of them works for another master?

No, is one of them special in some way?

(In God Emperor of Dune, Leto's army was entirely female, he called them Fish Speakers.)

17 november i think you are right about khaddafi, just like Kim Jong Il is a great leader who cares for his people. -.-

17 november i think you are right about khaddafi, just like Kim Jong Il is a great leader who cares for his people. -.-

This guy is totally right. I mean, we all know that American imperial propaganda has cast unfair aspersions on the DPRK and have blanketed them with untrue rumour. Kim Il-Sung isn't even really dead! I mean, think about it. Why would they still claim to be lead by him if he's dead?! This is obviously a US government lie to make the DPRK seem unreasonable and evil. Think about the name! Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It's right in the NAME: Democratic!!! Anyone who claims to have lost relatives to DPRK kidnappings are obviously either CIA spies, or their relatives were poisoned by the CIA.

Khaddafi's troops triumphantly advance on the mafia stronghold in Benghazi!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12769609

And I am sad.
Looks like the people won't win freedom today.

It will be interesting to see how long his mercenaries will stand by him now that they are faced with the prospect of Western air-strikes. If the rebels can hold out for a couple of days, they'll be fine.

I think France and the UK are already laying the smack down on Libya's airforce. NATO will crush them soon enough and we'll be done of the dictator.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 18, 2011, 02:42:09 AM

It will be interesting to see how long his mercenaries will stand by him now that they are faced with the prospect of Western air-strikes. If the rebels can hold out for a couple of days, they'll be fine.

They are so obviously a foreign sponsored and even coordinated puppet mafia.

Quote from: Benocrates on March 18, 2011, 07:04:57 AM

NATO will crush them soon enough

Several weeks ago Fidel Castro presciently and rightly entitled his article about the situation 'NATO's Inevitable War.'
http://www.counterpunch.org/castro03032011.html

Anyone in favor of NATO bombing Libya who objects to NATO bombing their own house is a hypocrite because that is what NATO would be doing to people in Libya.

Any Libyan submarines in port would in most scenarios probably be useless to Khaddafi since american submarines are probably standing by with orders to torpedo them in the event that they were to put out to sea which would obviously be to sink the american aircraft carrier between Libya and Crete.  However, if a small submarine or even a lone swimmer were somehow able to torpedo or bomb the USS KEARSAGE aircraft carrier sinking it with all its crew and aircraft to their deaths in the great deep, then the political situation in the United States would likely taken a historic anti-military turn.

The energy of this violence would be better directed at the overthrow of the government in america and europe and the annihilation of their inhuman military and industrial establishments.

WTF is wrong with you? First of all, you believe that an aircraft carrier can be brought down by a single torpedo. Second, you think that this would cause America and the UK to both implode upon themselves. Third, why the hell are you so anti-America?