No.
Its stupid to believe the western media, who only wash our brains.
The classic battle for dominance and resources (oil in this case), seen so many times in history.
Or do you think that the entry into Iraq and Afghanistan was for democracy and human rights?
Two days ago the NY Times published a nice article with an analysis of a new U.S. approach to warfare. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/world/africa/qaddafis-death-is-latest-victory-for-new-us-approach-to-war.html
And only a few information that you will not hear on the BBC and CNN:
Life under a dictator Gaddafi:
- Interest-free loans
- In the course of the study receive the average wage for this occupation
- If you do not find a job after graduation, the state provides a salary from the profession
- After the entry into marriage, the state pays an apartment or house
- Purchase of vehicles at factory price
- Do not owe anyone a cent
- Free health care and education
- 25% of highly educated
- 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15
- A liter of gas costs $ 0.15
- Electricity, telephone, gas, everything is cheap. Clothing, footwear, also very cheap. Food also.
In the next few years, when large Western corporations come to Libya, many Libyans will starve like dogs.
No.
Its stupid to believe the western media, who only wash our brains.
The classic battle for dominance and resources (oil in this case), seen so many times in history.
Or do you think that the entry into Iraq and Afghanistan was for democracy and human rights?
Two days ago the NY Times published a nice article with an analysis of a new U.S. approach to warfare. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/world/africa/qaddafis-death-is-latest-victory-for-new-us-approach-to-war.html
And only a few information that you will not hear on the BBC and CNN:
Life under a dictator Gaddafi:
- Interest-free loans
- In the course of the study receive the average wage for this occupation
- If you do not find a job after graduation, the state provides a salary from the profession
- After the entry into marriage, the state pays an apartment or house
- Purchase of vehicles at factory price
- Do not owe anyone a cent
- Free health care and education
- 25% of highly educated
- 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15
- A liter of gas costs $ 0.15
- Electricity, telephone, gas, everything is cheap. Clothing, footwear, also very cheap. Food also.
In the next few years, when large Western corporations come to Libya, many Libyans will starve like dogs.
Well that explains why it was Libyans that hunted him down, occupied towns & killed him - maybe if the bread was $0.10 instead they would all still be happy
Well that explains why it was Libyans that hunted him down, occupied towns & killed him - maybe if the bread was $0.10 instead they would all still be happy
No. It just explains your lack of information.
USA has to get cheap oil at any price, that spoiled Americans still remain "happy".
To prevent something much worse than "occupied Wall Street".
Libyans?
Some people thirsty for power and a bunch of mercenaries.
Without US-NATO support, they wouldnt exist at all.
Carefully look at the struggle for power in Libya in the future.
No. It just explains your lack of information.
USA has to get cheap oil at any price, that spoiled Americans still remain "happy".
To prevent something much worse than "occupied Wall Street".
That would be true if the USA had overthrown Gaddafi.
Libyans?
Some people thirsty for power and a bunch of mercenaries.
Without US-NATO support, they wouldnt exist at all.
Carefully look at the struggle for power in Libya in the future.
Mercenaries who it would appear have the support of the country behind them. That'll be democracy...
Does my lack of information include the murder of an innocent police woman, and the bombing of a plane?
If Libya is such a nice place to live, why not move there? It's a damn load safer now.
Oh - and I have lived in several countries in the middle east - how long did you live there for?
I honestly wouldn't bother Lee. They'll just find some way of vindicating the terrorism and murder, or more likely just blame it on us wanting cheap oil. After all, they're a combination of Henry Kissinger and Terry Waite and are the fountain of all knowledge when it comes to how Libya/Middle East works and how the West has corrupted them.
Does my lack of information include the murder of an innocent police woman, and the bombing of a plane?
If Libya is such a nice place to live, why not move there? It's a damn load safer now.
Oh - and I have lived in several countries in the middle east - how long did you live there for?
In Libya?
Then you can give as your information about the miserable life in Libya, becouse I have my from cousin who worked there for years.
Or you may have been in Saudi Arabia, where U.S. friendly government, make the death penaltys by Sharia law, cutting hands etc.
Too bad you did not live in India, to know more about these things: http://ideamatters.blogspot.com/2010/05/british-war-crimes-in-indiajallianwala.html
And no, I dont forgot that Gaddafi was a dictator, but also havent forgotten when the democratic western world remained silent while million of people were killed in Rwanda.
But there is no oil, isnt it.
In Libya?
Then you can give as your information about the miserable life in Libya, becouse I have my from cousin who worked there for years.
Or you may have been in Saudi Arabia, where U.S. friendly government, make the death penaltys by Sharia law, cutting hands etc.
Too bad you did not live in India, to know more about these things: http://ideamatters.blogspot.com/2010/05/british-war-crimes-in-indiajallianwala.html
And no, I dont forgot that Gaddafi was a dictator, but also havent forgotten when the democratic western world remained silent while million of people were killed in Rwanda.
But there is no oil, isnt it.
People employed from other countries in the middle east generally work in 'safe' and affluent areas - these are very small areas in comparison to the rest of the country.
Sharia Law is nothing to do with the U.S.!
And as for India - blaming someone from Argentina for anything that happened during the falklands war in the 1980's is pointless,
Blaming a German for anything that happened during WWII in the 1940's is pointless,
blaming *anyone* for something that happened in 1919 is just stupid. Do we start dragging up the Roman Empire next?
I'm sorry but that link is a complete joke, one post suggests the Queen should hauled up before the War Crimes Tribunal for something that happened in 1919.
She wasn't even born when the events occured so how can she be in any way responsible???
People employed from other countries in the middle east generally work in 'safe' and affluent areas - these are very small areas in comparison to the rest of the country.
Sharia Law is nothing to do with the U.S.!
And as for India - blaming someone from Argentina for anything that happened during the falklands war in the 1980's is pointless,
Blaming a German for anything that happened during WWII in the 1940's is pointless,
blaming *anyone* for something that happened in 1919 is just stupid. Do we start dragging up the Roman Empire next?
The world moves on a lot quicker than that.
Remember that stupid incident when Tony Blair had to apologise for slavery in Britain during the 1800's? As if it was Blairs fault for something that hapenned over 150 years ago. Stupid.
To think you can actually watch someone get murdered online, it's nowhere near as amusing and "cool" as it was when you were younger, kinda makes me wish there really was such stuff as mind soap :(
I only know Gaddafi about what I read lately. But I must admit, I don't wish death upon any human being, not even Anders Breivik e.t.c and watching that video was a little disturbing. Its real life, and seeing him get bitch-slapped around from the soldiers, even that wasn't nice to see.
Yes, the older you get, the harder it gets to watch these brutal real life videos of death, gang killings, skin grafting of animals whilst still alive, strangulation with wire on cats&dogs e.t.c.
But the world is changing, these dictator types are being pulled down and in this day of enlightenment, we can only hope these countries with such a daily life of violence, will quickly recover and lead a more productive and peaceful way of exsistance from development.
"Do the right thing!" I think is more rewarding....
Remember that stupid incident when Tony Blair had to apologise for slavery in Britain during the 1800's? As if it was Blairs fault for something that hapenned over 150 years ago. Stupid.
i don't know the episode you're referring to, but it's not so stupid as it may seems, after all, as the apologizing blair didn't represent blair as a person and individual, but england as a country. he wasn't certainly apologizing for something he committed. when the prime minister speaks he speaks as part of an institution, an institution that is older than he is - yet if an individual becomes a prime minister, he must take "responsability" even for things that he hasn't done, or that happened before he even was born - when he represents a nation, then he represents even the history of that nation.
Gaddafi definitely wasn't an atheist, he was a muslim although he apparently enforced his own brand of Islam which was based around his (professed) beliefs in socialism and direct-democracy.
And no, I dont forgot that Gaddafi was a dictator, but also havent forgotten when the democratic western world remained silent while million of people were killed in Rwanda.
But there is no oil, isnt it.
The West didn't "stay silent" during the Rwandan genocide, it just didn't do anything militarily to prevent it. The long shadow cast by that atrocity was possibly part of the reason it acted in Libya.
As for Libyan oil, we already had energy agreements signed with the regime which had rapidly opened itself up to Western investment following the removal of sanctions in the 2000s. Something people forget about Libya is that from about 2000 until the revolution it had moved very close to the West and Europe in particular. Blair had secured deals between Libya and British companies and its not by chance that Gaddafi's son and heir apparent Saif had property in Britain.
This was nothing to do with the regime becoming more liberal and everything to do with the changed political situation. Gaddafi's professed ideology was leftwing, which made him a natural enemy of Islamism. His strong anti-islamism meant that he was brought into the Western sphere of influence, just like far-right dictators like Franco were in the 60s and 70s because of their anti-communism.
No. It just explains your lack of information.
USA has to get cheap oil at any price, that spoiled Americans still remain "happy".
Libya had already opened up its markets to the West, especially for oil. Libyan oil was part of the reason (along with the changed political situation which meant that Libya was no longer allied to the vanished Soviet bloc) that the West were as keen to end the isolation of the regime as Gaddafi was. More to the point, Gaddafi was overthrown by an uprising of the Libyan people as we clearly saw. Even when the West intervened, it was French and British lead.
Libyans?
Some people thirsty for power and a bunch of mercenaries.
Without US-NATO support, they wouldnt exist at all.
Carefully look at the struggle for power in Libya in the future.
Gadaffi was a dictator that ruled with an iron fist and was responsible for deaths of his people and victims of terrorists attacks.
On the other hand he made Libya a relatively rich country (much richer than its neighbours like Tunisia or Egypt). During his rule tribal conflicts were also practically nonexistant.
This is often used as an apology for Gaddafi (along with his professed ideology - a form of socialist direct-democracy - which needless to say was very different in practice). It's true that the Libyan economy was quite strong under Gaddafi but Libya is a country with a small population (just shy of Scotland until quite recently) with huge natural resources, not least oil. Under a liberal democratic government it would probably been twice as prosperous. It's been argued that Gaddafi actually mismanaged the economy, spending much of the country's wealth on private projects and his own family as well as his hometown of Sirte and his tribe whilst neglecting much of the rest of the country and even withholding funds from areas of Libya seen as rebellious.
None of this actually matters that much anyway: human rights and political liberty are more important than economic growth.
There were much worse African leaders. Read about events in Ruanda, Liberia Ethiopia or Uganda if you wish.
And ironically he recently tried to "become a better man". He apologised for terrorism, started paying the compensations.
The former is fair enough, but hardly excuses him. The latter is pure politics: Gaddafi was very keen to mend his bridges with the West and the West's leaders, for all their grandstanding about him, no longer really saw him as an enemy and cared much more about him opening up his country to Western business than they did about his human rights abuses.
But the decision in USA was made. The revolution must happen. Gadaffi was the only one leader who didn't escape and he would beat the rebels if not half of the world attacked him. Till he fought until the end in the unequal battle.
The USA didn't "make the decision", if you want my opinion they're divided about the Arab Spring and their confused policy in response to it underpins that. To understand this you need to understand US policy in the Middle East up to now. All the dictators who have fallen: Mubarak, Ben Ali even Gaddafi, had good relations with the United States and the West. The US was undoubtably happy with the status quo as were two of its main allies in the region (Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). The Spring was unexpected and it's taken the world by surprise meaning that the West is, essentially, improvising its foreign policy in the region and is uncertain exactly what to do. The Libyan intervention happened, in my opinion, because the rebels made a direct appeal to the world for help and the West was given two options: do nothing and earn the enmity of Libyans and possibly the wider arab world for having "stood aside" which would also come with the added problem of having to keep up the pretence of regarding Gaddafi as a "reforming dictator" when he clearly wasn't or intervene and, basically, hope the rebels win or its back to square one with the Gaddafi regime. They chose the latter and, as we saw around March, it might have ended badly for them.
The West didn't "stay silent" during the Rwandan genocide, it just didn't do anything militarily to prevent it. The long shadow cast by that atrocity was possibly part of the reason it acted in Libya
In the next few years, when large Western corporations come to Libya, many Libyans will starve like dogs.
Large Western corporations were already in Libya, as I've been explaining. Gaddafi the "enemy of the West" was history, he'd been opening up his country to Western business and had apparently been keen to do so:
Funny how Gaddafi was needed to secure deals with Western corporations when he insisted he didn't run the country and merely "oversaw" its governance by its people. ;)
As for all those "perks" of living under a tyrant (I notice "freedom to speak your mind, freedom of assembly and association, freedom to protest, freedom to form a political party or independent trade union, right to vote" were all conspicuous with their absence), assuming any of them are true in the first place, I'm struggling to see any which actually require the Gaddafi regime to be in place.
your wasn't an analysys either. it was just an assertion.
if you want an analysys you just have to look back at the worldwide interventions that the "west" did through time. none of them has nothing even remotely to do with "avoiding atrocities" or "humanitarian" goals, if not in terms of propaganda. or you can even look at the violation of human rights at guantanamo, the tortures at abu grahib and whatever. the economic disequality and disproportion existing even here, that now is spreading protests all over europe and north america too.
you can even notice that now. bahrein is doing what it wants to its demonstratos. the west isn't doing anything about that specific regime.
it almost doesn't even talk about that.
the rwanda case only demonstrates our hypocrisy.
"humanitarian goals", be them western or even eastern politics, are only wishful thinking.
Comments
No.
Its stupid to believe the western media, who only wash our brains.
The classic battle for dominance and resources (oil in this case), seen so many times in history.
Or do you think that the entry into Iraq and Afghanistan was for democracy and human rights?
Two days ago the NY Times published a nice article with an analysis of a new U.S. approach to warfare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/world/africa/qaddafis-death-is-latest-victory-for-new-us-approach-to-war.html
And only a few information that you will not hear on the BBC and CNN:
Life under a dictator Gaddafi:
- Interest-free loans
- In the course of the study receive the average wage for this occupation
- If you do not find a job after graduation, the state provides a salary from the profession
- After the entry into marriage, the state pays an apartment or house
- Purchase of vehicles at factory price
- Do not owe anyone a cent
- Free health care and education
- 25% of highly educated
- 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15
- A liter of gas costs $ 0.15
- Electricity, telephone, gas, everything is cheap. Clothing, footwear, also very cheap. Food also.
In the next few years, when large Western corporations come to Libya, many Libyans will starve like dogs.
http://zx-pk.ru/
Well that explains why it was Libyans that hunted him down, occupied towns & killed him - maybe if the bread was $0.10 instead they would all still be happy
No. It just explains your lack of information.
USA has to get cheap oil at any price, that spoiled Americans still remain "happy".
To prevent something much worse than "occupied Wall Street".
Libyans?
Some people thirsty for power and a bunch of mercenaries.
Without US-NATO support, they wouldnt exist at all.
Carefully look at the struggle for power in Libya in the future.
http://zx-pk.ru/
And Americans helped them. It's a bit inconsistent with US politics being the biggest Israeli friend, isn't it? ;)
Yankees will really at some time regret that they supported these guys, just like the supported Bin Laden some tme ago.
If Libya is such a nice place to live, why not move there? It's a damn load safer now.
Oh - and I have lived in several countries in the middle east - how long did you live there for?
I honestly wouldn't bother Lee. They'll just find some way of vindicating the terrorism and murder, or more likely just blame it on us wanting cheap oil. After all, they're a combination of Henry Kissinger and Terry Waite and are the fountain of all knowledge when it comes to how Libya/Middle East works and how the West has corrupted them.
In Libya?
Then you can give as your information about the miserable life in Libya, becouse I have my from cousin who worked there for years.
Or you may have been in Saudi Arabia, where U.S. friendly government, make the death penaltys by Sharia law, cutting hands etc.
Too bad you did not live in India, to know more about these things:
http://ideamatters.blogspot.com/2010/05/british-war-crimes-in-indiajallianwala.html
And no, I dont forgot that Gaddafi was a dictator, but also havent forgotten when the democratic western world remained silent while million of people were killed in Rwanda.
But there is no oil, isnt it.
http://zx-pk.ru/
People employed from other countries in the middle east generally work in 'safe' and affluent areas - these are very small areas in comparison to the rest of the country.
Sharia Law is nothing to do with the U.S.!
And as for India - blaming someone from Argentina for anything that happened during the falklands war in the 1980's is pointless,
Blaming a German for anything that happened during WWII in the 1940's is pointless,
blaming *anyone* for something that happened in 1919 is just stupid. Do we start dragging up the Roman Empire next?
The world moves on a lot quicker than that.
I'm sorry but that link is a complete joke, one post suggests the Queen should hauled up before the War Crimes Tribunal for something that happened in 1919.
She wasn't even born when the events occured so how can she be in any way responsible???
Pegaz: All your arguments are poor and misguided.
I am an atheist. all the peculiarities of national folklore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIyxVMG-L6M&feature=player_embedded&skipcontrinter=1
Allah Akbar .... Allah Akbar.... Allah Akbar .... Allah Akbar..... Allah Akbar .... Allah Akbar........
better than rocky iv!
come and see for yourself!
I don't see what being an atheist has got to do with Gaddafi's death.
Was Gaddafi an atheist?
Remember that stupid incident when Tony Blair had to apologise for slavery in Britain during the 1800's? As if it was Blairs fault for something that hapenned over 150 years ago. Stupid.
I only know Gaddafi about what I read lately. But I must admit, I don't wish death upon any human being, not even Anders Breivik e.t.c and watching that video was a little disturbing. Its real life, and seeing him get bitch-slapped around from the soldiers, even that wasn't nice to see.
Yes, the older you get, the harder it gets to watch these brutal real life videos of death, gang killings, skin grafting of animals whilst still alive, strangulation with wire on cats&dogs e.t.c.
But the world is changing, these dictator types are being pulled down and in this day of enlightenment, we can only hope these countries with such a daily life of violence, will quickly recover and lead a more productive and peaceful way of exsistance from development.
"Do the right thing!" I think is more rewarding....
My wife says I'm just stupid and naive :)
i don't know the episode you're referring to, but it's not so stupid as it may seems, after all, as the apologizing blair didn't represent blair as a person and individual, but england as a country. he wasn't certainly apologizing for something he committed. when the prime minister speaks he speaks as part of an institution, an institution that is older than he is - yet if an individual becomes a prime minister, he must take "responsability" even for things that he hasn't done, or that happened before he even was born - when he represents a nation, then he represents even the history of that nation.
and who's this allah he's talking about?
Gaddafi definitely wasn't an atheist, he was a muslim although he apparently enforced his own brand of Islam which was based around his (professed) beliefs in socialism and direct-democracy.
The West didn't "stay silent" during the Rwandan genocide, it just didn't do anything militarily to prevent it. The long shadow cast by that atrocity was possibly part of the reason it acted in Libya.
As for Libyan oil, we already had energy agreements signed with the regime which had rapidly opened itself up to Western investment following the removal of sanctions in the 2000s. Something people forget about Libya is that from about 2000 until the revolution it had moved very close to the West and Europe in particular. Blair had secured deals between Libya and British companies and its not by chance that Gaddafi's son and heir apparent Saif had property in Britain.
This was nothing to do with the regime becoming more liberal and everything to do with the changed political situation. Gaddafi's professed ideology was leftwing, which made him a natural enemy of Islamism. His strong anti-islamism meant that he was brought into the Western sphere of influence, just like far-right dictators like Franco were in the 60s and 70s because of their anti-communism.
Libya had already opened up its markets to the West, especially for oil. Libyan oil was part of the reason (along with the changed political situation which meant that Libya was no longer allied to the vanished Soviet bloc) that the West were as keen to end the isolation of the regime as Gaddafi was. More to the point, Gaddafi was overthrown by an uprising of the Libyan people as we clearly saw. Even when the West intervened, it was French and British lead.
Yes, Libyans. Have you been watching the news?
This is often used as an apology for Gaddafi (along with his professed ideology - a form of socialist direct-democracy - which needless to say was very different in practice). It's true that the Libyan economy was quite strong under Gaddafi but Libya is a country with a small population (just shy of Scotland until quite recently) with huge natural resources, not least oil. Under a liberal democratic government it would probably been twice as prosperous. It's been argued that Gaddafi actually mismanaged the economy, spending much of the country's wealth on private projects and his own family as well as his hometown of Sirte and his tribe whilst neglecting much of the rest of the country and even withholding funds from areas of Libya seen as rebellious.
None of this actually matters that much anyway: human rights and political liberty are more important than economic growth.
The former is fair enough, but hardly excuses him. The latter is pure politics: Gaddafi was very keen to mend his bridges with the West and the West's leaders, for all their grandstanding about him, no longer really saw him as an enemy and cared much more about him opening up his country to Western business than they did about his human rights abuses.
The USA didn't "make the decision", if you want my opinion they're divided about the Arab Spring and their confused policy in response to it underpins that. To understand this you need to understand US policy in the Middle East up to now. All the dictators who have fallen: Mubarak, Ben Ali even Gaddafi, had good relations with the United States and the West. The US was undoubtably happy with the status quo as were two of its main allies in the region (Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). The Spring was unexpected and it's taken the world by surprise meaning that the West is, essentially, improvising its foreign policy in the region and is uncertain exactly what to do. The Libyan intervention happened, in my opinion, because the rebels made a direct appeal to the world for help and the West was given two options: do nothing and earn the enmity of Libyans and possibly the wider arab world for having "stood aside" which would also come with the added problem of having to keep up the pretence of regarding Gaddafi as a "reforming dictator" when he clearly wasn't or intervene and, basically, hope the rebels win or its back to square one with the Gaddafi regime. They chose the latter and, as we saw around March, it might have ended badly for them.
in walt disney's magic world.
Large Western corporations were already in Libya, as I've been explaining. Gaddafi the "enemy of the West" was history, he'd been opening up his country to Western business and had apparently been keen to do so:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1553044/Blair-Gaddafi-and-the-BP-oil-deal.html
Funny how Gaddafi was needed to secure deals with Western corporations when he insisted he didn't run the country and merely "oversaw" its governance by its people. ;)
As for all those "perks" of living under a tyrant (I notice "freedom to speak your mind, freedom of assembly and association, freedom to protest, freedom to form a political party or independent trade union, right to vote" were all conspicuous with their absence), assuming any of them are true in the first place, I'm struggling to see any which actually require the Gaddafi regime to be in place.
Brilliant analysis.
blissfull ingenuity.
your wasn't an analysys either. it was just an assertion.
if you want an analysys you just have to look back at the worldwide interventions that the "west" did through time. none of them has nothing even remotely to do with "avoiding atrocities" or "humanitarian" goals, if not in terms of propaganda. or you can even look at the violation of human rights at guantanamo, the tortures at abu grahib and whatever. the economic disequality and disproportion existing even here, that now is spreading protests all over europe and north america too.
you can even notice that now. bahrein is doing what it wants to its demonstratos. the west isn't doing anything about that specific regime.
it almost doesn't even talk about that.
the rwanda case only demonstrates our hypocrisy.
"humanitarian goals", be them western or even eastern politics, are only wishful thinking.