On February 24 2011 06:33 ELA wrote: I just read the translation of Gaddafis speech.. Holy shit, he's even sicker in his head that I thought.. He is litterally asking his people to start killing each other..
On February 24 2011 06:33 ELA wrote: I just read the translation of Gaddafis speech.. Holy shit, he's even sicker in his head that I thought.. He is litterally asking his people to start killing each other..
Yep and saying that the sons of the nation are being drugged by a coup of the american terrorists doesnt feel odd at all.
(Also, I dont understand how you can say that its justified that a politician asks his population to kill another group of his population. Fighting fire with fire is never a good thing, and especially not when youre the country's leader, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever)
Edit : Everytime I read your post I just cant believe what Im reading. If a strong anti-Obama group would form in the US, would you say its totally normal (and that Obama doesnt have any issues) to ask the whole american population to kill these ''rebels'' on sight ?........... (Transpose that to the situation where Obama has also been in power for 41 years, known to be a terrorist, a despot and a criminal, and your post just makes even less sense.)
On February 24 2011 06:58 Consolidate wrote: I'll admit I was being slightly more contrary than I intended to be in my earlier posts. The point I was trying to get across was that there are more factors at work than most people realize.
While the current regime in Libya is brutal and oppressive at times, that sort of thing is pretty much the status quo as far as states in that area go. The actual living conditions in Lybia are considerably better than its neighboring states.
For the past decade, Libya has been undergoing a series of economic reforms with the intention of reintegrating with the global economy - They absolute poverty level is notably low (per capital GPD around $14000). Their educational reforms have given its people the highest rate of literacy among its neighbors ~90%.
To be honestly, compared with neighboring countries in the area, Libya had undergone the most significant reforms over the past two decades.
People like to see things as black and white.
The literacy rate in Libya is closer to 80% than 90% but yeah, it is decent. I agree with you here. I would like to add that very similar protests (the Cedar revolution) took place in Lebanon in 2005 and look what the situation in that country is now.
On February 24 2011 06:33 ELA wrote: I just read the translation of Gaddafis speech.. Holy shit, he's even sicker in his head that I thought.. He is litterally asking his people to start killing each other..
On February 23 2011 11:26 Consolidate wrote: 2011 is proving to be an interesting year...
People here don't seem to realize that Gaddafi was a pretty decent ruler by relative standards. The man had visions of uniting Africa and used his nation's oil money to give aid to poorer african states. In recent times he was also as good of a friend of the West as one could hope for.
Per Capita GDP in Libya is around $14000 Literacy rate is about 90%
Demographically speaking, a large portion of the population are youths, who also happen to be the ones protesting.
In my mind, these protests are unwarranted and irresponsible, but Gaddafi's response has been horrifically inept. Libya is fucked big-time. It will be decades before the country recovers.
This is extremely uninformed.
The mans only vision was to rule over something, he tried with an arabic union first and when he saw it didnt work out he figured he might as well turn and become the leader of Africa (which he proclaimed himself, he wasnt doing it for the good of the african community, it was for his own good). No matter how much he helped the surrounding countries, youve got to keep in mind the purpose of these actions.
Gaddafi is, as shown by a lot of his previous actions, a very dangerous man.
I dont undestand how you can say that these protests are unwarranted and irresponsible when you dont even seem to know the motivation behind these, this really comes out as a baseless judgement.
I do realize that the man is unstable. He fancied himself as a Che Guevara revolutionary long before he whored himself out to the west. That he has no abiding principles is somewhat correct. His recent actions are deplorable.
But it would be a huge mistake to assume that these protests are good thing.
People are so extraordinarily naive. I can guarantee that in 10 years time, the government you have in Libya will be as corrupt and inept as the current.
There a hundreds of thousands people protesting in India right now - the largest democracy which also grants its citizens many civil liberties.
Liberties don't mean shit when food prices are rising. People think that this revolutionary phenomenon is spurred by a spontaneous desire for 'democracy'. It is not. What you are witnessing are the effects of high youth unemployment, real food shortages as well as inflated food commodities due to speculation.
So people should not fight for their rights because they cant be sure of the outcome ...seriously ?
People are so extraordinarily naive. I can guarantee that in 10 years time, the government you have in Libya will be as corrupt and inept as the current.
Id say youre the naive one there, as there is no actual way of guaranteeing that (unless you built a time machine but Id doubt that one.) And even if you could say that the odds are great that the government will be as bad, I still dont see how it should stop you from making yourself heard at least.
This revolutionary phenomenon is due to the fact that people just figured out the power of communication (mostly in the form of internet) and the fact that they now see that they can do something about their situations. Youve stated India as youre only example but the fact is that countries such as Iran, Libya, Egypt, etc. are not democratic countries. Now Id gladly like to ask you who you are, as an outsider, to jugde these people and tell everyone that ''nonono youre lying, youre only using the lack of democracy as an excuse to fight due to other problems''.
I wont even answer to your point of ''liberties dont mean shit when food prices are rising'', I seriously dont understand how someone could really think that statement is true deep down.
Why are they protests occurring now? Why not a year ago?
The Demographic problem in these Middle Eastern/ North African countries is a huge problem. Youth unemployment around these areas is around 25% The global recession and rising food prices have been the last straw.
When governments fall, democracy rarely wins out permanently. Many revolutions begin with good intentions. The first few elections may be 'free'. But more often than not, countries which undergo revolution end up as autocratic states.
Look at Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. People were calling it the 'end of history'. They were claiming that democracy had prevailed once and for all over autocracy. Look at Russia today - Putin remains the de-facto leader while slowly eroding western ideals year by year.
Simply put, I do not trust that these protests will end well at all.
Have you people already forgotten the 'color revolutions' that occurred in South East Asia in the late 1980s?
To this very day, The Philippines and Indonesia are rampant with corruption and dominated by private interests. While they have 'free' elections, conditions of both countries are hardly improved than when they were under despots.
It's not that I don't welcome the recent protests. I'd probably even withdraw my earlier criticism that these protests are irresponsible. What I do feel obligated to point out however, is how little people are willing to look at the bigger picture.
I dont think that I am not looking at the bigger picture, Ive never said that these protests were a good thing in order to change the situation, quite frankly, I can share your oppinion that odds are the situation wont be that much better after the fall of these governments.
The thing I was mainly arguing is the fact that you say its not a good thing. Even knowing that the government might be the exact same in a year, I still think it is justified to protest and make your voice heard to that people around you can know whats going on. Odds are great that once the dust settles people stop caring and everything goes back to where it was, but you can never be certain about that and who knows, one day some things might actually change due to these people.
The simple fact that something hasnt worked in the past shouldnt stop you from trying again. And to me, the biggest issue is those who tell these people who are trying to fight that they are stupid of doing so since nothing will happen. This is exactly the kind of opinion that will prevent things from actually changing some day.
Youth unenployement and food supplies sure are extremly big issues currently, but I think that you cant pinpoint only single things. These are just some of the factors that made this round of protest finally appear, the same way that people realizing that they actually have the power to regroup themselves due to the internet is another factor.
TLDR
I fail to see how, if youre living in a country where there is no democracy, trying to change things around even with the knowledge that it might not, is a bad thing to do.
I'll admit I was being slightly more contrary than I intended to be in my earlier posts. The point I was trying to get across was that there are more factors at work than most people realize.
While the current regime in Libya is brutal and oppressive at times, that sort of thing is pretty much the status quo as far as states in that area go. The actual living conditions in Lybia are considerably better than its neighboring states.
For the past decade, Libya has been undergoing a series of economic reforms with the intention of reintegrating with the global economy - They absolute poverty level is notably low (per capital GPD around $14000). Their educational reforms have given its people the highest rate of literacy among its neighbors ~90%.
To be honestly, compared with neighboring countries in the area, Libya had undergone the most significant reforms over the past two decades.
People like to see things as black and white.
No economic master plan is needed to increase the GDP per capita of a country of 6.5 million with huge oil reserves. In fact, Libya could have been well off much earlier if not for Gaddafi's insane policies before his political u-turn.
While I must admit that the literacy rate is impressive for a north african country, you will have to admit that the unemployment rate is much higher than in egypt or tunisia. This speaks volumes about the nature of the economical upturn, which was entirely fueled by oil.
Regarding your previous point about the reasons behind the revolutions: Do you think the french revolution would have happened if the people would have been well-fed?
On February 23 2011 11:26 Consolidate wrote: 2011 is proving to be an interesting year...
People here don't seem to realize that Gaddafi was a pretty decent ruler by relative standards. The man had visions of uniting Africa and used his nation's oil money to give aid to poorer african states. In recent times he was also as good of a friend of the West as one could hope for.
Per Capita GDP in Libya is around $14000 Literacy rate is about 90%
Demographically speaking, a large portion of the population are youths, who also happen to be the ones protesting.
In my mind, these protests are unwarranted and irresponsible, but Gaddafi's response has been horrifically inept. Libya is fucked big-time. It will be decades before the country recovers.
This is extremely uninformed.
The mans only vision was to rule over something, he tried with an arabic union first and when he saw it didnt work out he figured he might as well turn and become the leader of Africa (which he proclaimed himself, he wasnt doing it for the good of the african community, it was for his own good). No matter how much he helped the surrounding countries, youve got to keep in mind the purpose of these actions.
Gaddafi is, as shown by a lot of his previous actions, a very dangerous man.
I dont undestand how you can say that these protests are unwarranted and irresponsible when you dont even seem to know the motivation behind these, this really comes out as a baseless judgement.
I do realize that the man is unstable. He fancied himself as a Che Guevara revolutionary long before he whored himself out to the west. That he has no abiding principles is somewhat correct. His recent actions are deplorable.
But it would be a huge mistake to assume that these protests are good thing.
People are so extraordinarily naive. I can guarantee that in 10 years time, the government you have in Libya will be as corrupt and inept as the current.
There a hundreds of thousands people protesting in India right now - the largest democracy which also grants its citizens many civil liberties.
Liberties don't mean shit when food prices are rising. People think that this revolutionary phenomenon is spurred by a spontaneous desire for 'democracy'. It is not. What you are witnessing are the effects of high youth unemployment, real food shortages as well as inflated food commodities due to speculation.
So people should not fight for their rights because they cant be sure of the outcome ...seriously ?
People are so extraordinarily naive. I can guarantee that in 10 years time, the government you have in Libya will be as corrupt and inept as the current.
Id say youre the naive one there, as there is no actual way of guaranteeing that (unless you built a time machine but Id doubt that one.) And even if you could say that the odds are great that the government will be as bad, I still dont see how it should stop you from making yourself heard at least.
This revolutionary phenomenon is due to the fact that people just figured out the power of communication (mostly in the form of internet) and the fact that they now see that they can do something about their situations. Youve stated India as youre only example but the fact is that countries such as Iran, Libya, Egypt, etc. are not democratic countries. Now Id gladly like to ask you who you are, as an outsider, to jugde these people and tell everyone that ''nonono youre lying, youre only using the lack of democracy as an excuse to fight due to other problems''.
I wont even answer to your point of ''liberties dont mean shit when food prices are rising'', I seriously dont understand how someone could really think that statement is true deep down.
Why are they protests occurring now? Why not a year ago?
The Demographic problem in these Middle Eastern/ North African countries is a huge problem. Youth unemployment around these areas is around 25% The global recession and rising food prices have been the last straw.
When governments fall, democracy rarely wins out permanently. Many revolutions begin with good intentions. The first few elections may be 'free'. But more often than not, countries which undergo revolution end up as autocratic states.
Look at Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. People were calling it the 'end of history'. They were claiming that democracy had prevailed once and for all over autocracy. Look at Russia today - Putin remains the de-facto leader while slowly eroding western ideals year by year.
Simply put, I do not trust that these protests will end well at all.
Have you people already forgotten the 'color revolutions' that occurred in South East Asia in the late 1980s?
To this very day, The Philippines and Indonesia are rampant with corruption and dominated by private interests. While they have 'free' elections, conditions of both countries are hardly improved than when they were under despots.
It's not that I don't welcome the recent protests. I'd probably even withdraw my earlier criticism that these protests are irresponsible. What I do feel obligated to point out however, is how little people are willing to look at the bigger picture.
I dont think that I am not looking at the bigger picture, Ive never said that these protests were a good thing in order to change the situation, quite frankly, I can share your oppinion that odds are the situation wont be that much better after the fall of these governments.
The thing I was mainly arguing is the fact that you say its not a good thing. Even knowing that the government might be the exact same in a year, I still think it is justified to protest and make your voice heard to that people around you can know whats going on. Odds are great that once the dust settles people stop caring and everything goes back to where it was, but you can never be certain about that and who knows, one day some things might actually change due to these people.
The simple fact that something hasnt worked in the past shouldnt stop you from trying again. And to me, the biggest issue is those who tell these people who are trying to fight that they are stupid of doing so since nothing will happen. This is exactly the kind of opinion that will prevent things from actually changing some day.
Youth unenployement and food supplies sure are extremly big issues currently, but I think that you cant pinpoint only single things. These are just some of the factors that made this round of protest finally appear, the same way that people realizing that they actually have the power to regroup themselves due to the internet is another factor.
TLDR
I fail to see how, if youre living in a country where there is no democracy, trying to change things around even with the knowledge that it might not, is a bad thing to do.
I'll admit I was being slightly more contrary than I intended to be in my earlier posts. The point I was trying to get across was that there are more factors at work than most people realize.
While the current regime in Libya is brutal and oppressive at times, that sort of thing is pretty much the status quo as far as states in that area go. The actual living conditions in Lybia are considerably better than its neighboring states.
For the past decade, Libya has been undergoing a series of economic reforms with the intention of reintegrating with the global economy - They absolute poverty level is notably low (per capital GPD around $14000). Their educational reforms have given its people the highest rate of literacy among its neighbors ~90%.
To be honestly, compared with neighboring countries in the area, Libya had undergone the most significant reforms over the past two decades.
People like to see things as black and white.
No economic master plan is needed to increase the GDP per capita of a country of 6.5 million with huge oil reserves. In fact, Libya could have been well off much earlier if not for Gaddafi's insane policies before his political u-turn.
While I must admit that the literacy rate is impressive for a north african country, you will have to admit that the unemployment rate is much higher than in egypt or tunisia. This speaks volumes about the nature of the economical upturn, which was entirely fueled by oil.
Regarding your previous point about the reasons behind the revolutions: Do you think the french revolution would have happened if the people would have been well-fed?
The youth unemployment in Egypt was as high as it is in Libya.
The French revolution happened over 200 years ago .... It's hardly a comparable situation.
That said, the principle cause of the French Revolution was the rising cause of bread, the inadequate transportation of food to urban centers, and high unemployment.
No. The French Revolution would probably not have happened if the country wasn't bankrupt and it's citizens were well-fed and with jobs.
On February 23 2011 11:26 Consolidate wrote: 2011 is proving to be an interesting year...
People here don't seem to realize that Gaddafi was a pretty decent ruler by relative standards. The man had visions of uniting Africa and used his nation's oil money to give aid to poorer african states. In recent times he was also as good of a friend of the West as one could hope for.
Per Capita GDP in Libya is around $14000 Literacy rate is about 90%
Demographically speaking, a large portion of the population are youths, who also happen to be the ones protesting.
In my mind, these protests are unwarranted and irresponsible, but Gaddafi's response has been horrifically inept. Libya is fucked big-time. It will be decades before the country recovers.
This is extremely uninformed.
The mans only vision was to rule over something, he tried with an arabic union first and when he saw it didnt work out he figured he might as well turn and become the leader of Africa (which he proclaimed himself, he wasnt doing it for the good of the african community, it was for his own good). No matter how much he helped the surrounding countries, youve got to keep in mind the purpose of these actions.
Gaddafi is, as shown by a lot of his previous actions, a very dangerous man.
I dont undestand how you can say that these protests are unwarranted and irresponsible when you dont even seem to know the motivation behind these, this really comes out as a baseless judgement.
I do realize that the man is unstable. He fancied himself as a Che Guevara revolutionary long before he whored himself out to the west. That he has no abiding principles is somewhat correct. His recent actions are deplorable.
But it would be a huge mistake to assume that these protests are good thing.
People are so extraordinarily naive. I can guarantee that in 10 years time, the government you have in Libya will be as corrupt and inept as the current.
There a hundreds of thousands people protesting in India right now - the largest democracy which also grants its citizens many civil liberties.
Liberties don't mean shit when food prices are rising. People think that this revolutionary phenomenon is spurred by a spontaneous desire for 'democracy'. It is not. What you are witnessing are the effects of high youth unemployment, real food shortages as well as inflated food commodities due to speculation.
So people should not fight for their rights because they cant be sure of the outcome ...seriously ?
People are so extraordinarily naive. I can guarantee that in 10 years time, the government you have in Libya will be as corrupt and inept as the current.
Id say youre the naive one there, as there is no actual way of guaranteeing that (unless you built a time machine but Id doubt that one.) And even if you could say that the odds are great that the government will be as bad, I still dont see how it should stop you from making yourself heard at least.
This revolutionary phenomenon is due to the fact that people just figured out the power of communication (mostly in the form of internet) and the fact that they now see that they can do something about their situations. Youve stated India as youre only example but the fact is that countries such as Iran, Libya, Egypt, etc. are not democratic countries. Now Id gladly like to ask you who you are, as an outsider, to jugde these people and tell everyone that ''nonono youre lying, youre only using the lack of democracy as an excuse to fight due to other problems''.
I wont even answer to your point of ''liberties dont mean shit when food prices are rising'', I seriously dont understand how someone could really think that statement is true deep down.
Why are they protests occurring now? Why not a year ago?
The Demographic problem in these Middle Eastern/ North African countries is a huge problem. Youth unemployment around these areas is around 25% The global recession and rising food prices have been the last straw.
When governments fall, democracy rarely wins out permanently. Many revolutions begin with good intentions. The first few elections may be 'free'. But more often than not, countries which undergo revolution end up as autocratic states.
Look at Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. People were calling it the 'end of history'. They were claiming that democracy had prevailed once and for all over autocracy. Look at Russia today - Putin remains the de-facto leader while slowly eroding western ideals year by year.
Simply put, I do not trust that these protests will end well at all.
Have you people already forgotten the 'color revolutions' that occurred in South East Asia in the late 1980s?
To this very day, The Philippines and Indonesia are rampant with corruption and dominated by private interests. While they have 'free' elections, conditions of both countries are hardly improved than when they were under despots.
It's not that I don't welcome the recent protests. I'd probably even withdraw my earlier criticism that these protests are irresponsible. What I do feel obligated to point out however, is how little people are willing to look at the bigger picture.
I dont think that I am not looking at the bigger picture, Ive never said that these protests were a good thing in order to change the situation, quite frankly, I can share your oppinion that odds are the situation wont be that much better after the fall of these governments.
The thing I was mainly arguing is the fact that you say its not a good thing. Even knowing that the government might be the exact same in a year, I still think it is justified to protest and make your voice heard to that people around you can know whats going on. Odds are great that once the dust settles people stop caring and everything goes back to where it was, but you can never be certain about that and who knows, one day some things might actually change due to these people.
The simple fact that something hasnt worked in the past shouldnt stop you from trying again. And to me, the biggest issue is those who tell these people who are trying to fight that they are stupid of doing so since nothing will happen. This is exactly the kind of opinion that will prevent things from actually changing some day.
Youth unenployement and food supplies sure are extremly big issues currently, but I think that you cant pinpoint only single things. These are just some of the factors that made this round of protest finally appear, the same way that people realizing that they actually have the power to regroup themselves due to the internet is another factor.
TLDR
I fail to see how, if youre living in a country where there is no democracy, trying to change things around even with the knowledge that it might not, is a bad thing to do.
I'll admit I was being slightly more contrary than I intended to be in my earlier posts. The point I was trying to get across was that there are more factors at work than most people realize.
While the current regime in Libya is brutal and oppressive at times, that sort of thing is pretty much the status quo as far as states in that area go. The actual living conditions in Lybia are considerably better than its neighboring states.
For the past decade, Libya has been undergoing a series of economic reforms with the intention of reintegrating with the global economy - They absolute poverty level is notably low (per capital GPD around $14000). Their educational reforms have given its people the highest rate of literacy among its neighbors ~90%.
To be honestly, compared with neighboring countries in the area, Libya had undergone the most significant reforms over the past two decades.
People like to see things as black and white.
No economic master plan is needed to increase the GDP per capita of a country of 6.5 million with huge oil reserves. In fact, Libya could have been well off much earlier if not for Gaddafi's insane policies before his political u-turn.
While I must admit that the literacy rate is impressive for a north african country, you will have to admit that the unemployment rate is much higher than in egypt or tunisia. This speaks volumes about the nature of the economical upturn, which was entirely fueled by oil.
Regarding your previous point about the reasons behind the revolutions: Do you think the french revolution would have happened if the people would have been well-fed?
The youth unemployment in Egypt was as high as it is in Libya.
The French revolution happened over 200 years ago .... It's hardly a comparable situation.
That said, the principle cause of the French Revolution was the rising cause of bread, the inadequate transportation of food to urban centers, and high unemployment.
No. The French Revolution would probably not have happened if the country wasn't bankrupt and it's citizens were well-fed and with jobs.
The concept of unemployment didn't exist during the 18th century.
On February 23 2011 11:26 Consolidate wrote: 2011 is proving to be an interesting year...
People here don't seem to realize that Gaddafi was a pretty decent ruler by relative standards. The man had visions of uniting Africa and used his nation's oil money to give aid to poorer african states. In recent times he was also as good of a friend of the West as one could hope for.
Per Capita GDP in Libya is around $14000 Literacy rate is about 90%
Demographically speaking, a large portion of the population are youths, who also happen to be the ones protesting.
In my mind, these protests are unwarranted and irresponsible, but Gaddafi's response has been horrifically inept. Libya is fucked big-time. It will be decades before the country recovers.
This is extremely uninformed.
The mans only vision was to rule over something, he tried with an arabic union first and when he saw it didnt work out he figured he might as well turn and become the leader of Africa (which he proclaimed himself, he wasnt doing it for the good of the african community, it was for his own good). No matter how much he helped the surrounding countries, youve got to keep in mind the purpose of these actions.
Gaddafi is, as shown by a lot of his previous actions, a very dangerous man.
I dont undestand how you can say that these protests are unwarranted and irresponsible when you dont even seem to know the motivation behind these, this really comes out as a baseless judgement.
I do realize that the man is unstable. He fancied himself as a Che Guevara revolutionary long before he whored himself out to the west. That he has no abiding principles is somewhat correct. His recent actions are deplorable.
But it would be a huge mistake to assume that these protests are good thing.
People are so extraordinarily naive. I can guarantee that in 10 years time, the government you have in Libya will be as corrupt and inept as the current.
There a hundreds of thousands people protesting in India right now - the largest democracy which also grants its citizens many civil liberties.
Liberties don't mean shit when food prices are rising. People think that this revolutionary phenomenon is spurred by a spontaneous desire for 'democracy'. It is not. What you are witnessing are the effects of high youth unemployment, real food shortages as well as inflated food commodities due to speculation.
So people should not fight for their rights because they cant be sure of the outcome ...seriously ?
People are so extraordinarily naive. I can guarantee that in 10 years time, the government you have in Libya will be as corrupt and inept as the current.
Id say youre the naive one there, as there is no actual way of guaranteeing that (unless you built a time machine but Id doubt that one.) And even if you could say that the odds are great that the government will be as bad, I still dont see how it should stop you from making yourself heard at least.
This revolutionary phenomenon is due to the fact that people just figured out the power of communication (mostly in the form of internet) and the fact that they now see that they can do something about their situations. Youve stated India as youre only example but the fact is that countries such as Iran, Libya, Egypt, etc. are not democratic countries. Now Id gladly like to ask you who you are, as an outsider, to jugde these people and tell everyone that ''nonono youre lying, youre only using the lack of democracy as an excuse to fight due to other problems''.
I wont even answer to your point of ''liberties dont mean shit when food prices are rising'', I seriously dont understand how someone could really think that statement is true deep down.
Why are they protests occurring now? Why not a year ago?
The Demographic problem in these Middle Eastern/ North African countries is a huge problem. Youth unemployment around these areas is around 25% The global recession and rising food prices have been the last straw.
When governments fall, democracy rarely wins out permanently. Many revolutions begin with good intentions. The first few elections may be 'free'. But more often than not, countries which undergo revolution end up as autocratic states.
Look at Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. People were calling it the 'end of history'. They were claiming that democracy had prevailed once and for all over autocracy. Look at Russia today - Putin remains the de-facto leader while slowly eroding western ideals year by year.
Simply put, I do not trust that these protests will end well at all.
Have you people already forgotten the 'color revolutions' that occurred in South East Asia in the late 1980s?
To this very day, The Philippines and Indonesia are rampant with corruption and dominated by private interests. While they have 'free' elections, conditions of both countries are hardly improved than when they were under despots.
It's not that I don't welcome the recent protests. I'd probably even withdraw my earlier criticism that these protests are irresponsible. What I do feel obligated to point out however, is how little people are willing to look at the bigger picture.
I dont think that I am not looking at the bigger picture, Ive never said that these protests were a good thing in order to change the situation, quite frankly, I can share your oppinion that odds are the situation wont be that much better after the fall of these governments.
The thing I was mainly arguing is the fact that you say its not a good thing. Even knowing that the government might be the exact same in a year, I still think it is justified to protest and make your voice heard to that people around you can know whats going on. Odds are great that once the dust settles people stop caring and everything goes back to where it was, but you can never be certain about that and who knows, one day some things might actually change due to these people.
The simple fact that something hasnt worked in the past shouldnt stop you from trying again. And to me, the biggest issue is those who tell these people who are trying to fight that they are stupid of doing so since nothing will happen. This is exactly the kind of opinion that will prevent things from actually changing some day.
Youth unenployement and food supplies sure are extremly big issues currently, but I think that you cant pinpoint only single things. These are just some of the factors that made this round of protest finally appear, the same way that people realizing that they actually have the power to regroup themselves due to the internet is another factor.
TLDR
I fail to see how, if youre living in a country where there is no democracy, trying to change things around even with the knowledge that it might not, is a bad thing to do.
I'll admit I was being slightly more contrary than I intended to be in my earlier posts. The point I was trying to get across was that there are more factors at work than most people realize.
While the current regime in Libya is brutal and oppressive at times, that sort of thing is pretty much the status quo as far as states in that area go. The actual living conditions in Lybia are considerably better than its neighboring states.
For the past decade, Libya has been undergoing a series of economic reforms with the intention of reintegrating with the global economy - They absolute poverty level is notably low (per capital GPD around $14000). Their educational reforms have given its people the highest rate of literacy among its neighbors ~90%.
To be honestly, compared with neighboring countries in the area, Libya had undergone the most significant reforms over the past two decades.
People like to see things as black and white.
No economic master plan is needed to increase the GDP per capita of a country of 6.5 million with huge oil reserves. In fact, Libya could have been well off much earlier if not for Gaddafi's insane policies before his political u-turn.
While I must admit that the literacy rate is impressive for a north african country, you will have to admit that the unemployment rate is much higher than in egypt or tunisia. This speaks volumes about the nature of the economical upturn, which was entirely fueled by oil.
Regarding your previous point about the reasons behind the revolutions: Do you think the french revolution would have happened if the people would have been well-fed?
The youth unemployment in Egypt was as high as it is in Libya.
The French revolution happened over 200 years ago .... It's hardly a comparable situation.
That said, the principle cause of the French Revolution was the rising cause of bread, the inadequate transportation of food to urban centers, and high unemployment.
No. The French Revolution would probably not have happened if the country wasn't bankrupt and it's citizens were well-fed and with jobs.
The concept of unemployment didn't exist during the 18th century.
Well i was correcting your mistake. "Unemployment" wasn't a cause of the revolution because unemployment didn't exist ! The majority of the population were peasants not blue-collar workers duh.
On February 24 2011 09:55 Boblion wrote: Well i was correcting your mistake. "Unemployment" wasn't a cause of the revolution because unemployment didn't exist ! The majority of the population were peasants not blue-collar workers duh.
I know I know. But the point is still the same.
Poverty and hunger were the main causes of the French Revolution rather than ideological fervor.
The youth unemployment in Egypt was as high as it is in Libya.
The French revolution happened over 200 years ago .... It's hardly a comparable situation.
That said, the principle cause of the French Revolution was the rising cause of bread, the inadequate transportation of food to urban centers, and high unemployment.
No. The French Revolution would probably not have happened if the country wasn't bankrupt and it's citizens were well-fed and with jobs.
It's very comparable to the French Revolution... and "landless" was the 18th century equivalent of unemployed.
And just like the French Revolution didn't leave France better off in 10 years, but DID leave it better off in 100 years, these revolutions have a chance of being the same.
They are the only way an autocracy will surrender power. The next rounds of "protests" in the next several decades will have the potential to be less bloody and increase freedom more.
4:17am: Benghazi, eastern Libya's biggest town, refused orders from power controllers in Tripoli to cut the power.
1:24am: According to Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera's political analysts, the Libyan leader has lost all three pillars of his rule - tribal, military and diplomatic. Judging from his desperate speech last night, he seems to be losing his mind and perhaps his nerves.
Driving under the influence? Here's a video which shows vodka bottles allegedly found in an abandoned tank - reportedly used by mercenaries - in Benghazi airport.
Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi has told state TV that Osama Bin Laden and his followers are to blame for the protests racking his country.
So, everyone know's he's insane right
he is coming up with excuses to kill those protesters and say, "they were terrorists".
Reminds me of Gwangju in 1980. Protesters against military dictatorship in Gwanju were portrayed as north korean communists trying to spread its influence. all communications in and out of gwanju were cut. hundreds of people were killed by the military. truth was found out later. the event made korea what it is today, protesters dying in libya, yemen, egypt, jordan, etc. will be unavoidable, only thing i can hope for is that it'll build a better future.
Mustafa Abdel Galil, who resigned three days ago from his post as the country's justice minister, spoke to Al Jazeera at a meeting of tribal leaders and representatives of eastern Libya in the city of Al Baida.
He warned that Gaddafi has biological and chemical weapons, and will not hesitate to use them.
'We call on the international community and the UN to prevent Gaddafi from going on with his plans in Tripoli,' he said.
'At the end when he’s really pressured, he can do anything. I think Gaddafi will burn everything left behind him.'
EPT![[image loading]](http://blogs.aljazeera.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/Post-image/images/twitpic.jpg)
