| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 07 2011 20:28 David Dark wrote: My final opinion on this is: America wants more oil, so they gonna drop Kaddafi, get some puppets to 'rule' in Libya and suck the country dry. Your opinion is horribly ignorant. Gaddafi was more than cooperaive in selling oil to Western nations. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On September 07 2011 20:28 David Dark wrote: All I know that we don't know shit about libya. All the information you get is from gov. controled media so they can tell you whatever they want. Are you refering to RT here? Because apart from them I haven't really been getting any news for any state controlled media. RT is obviously peddling a lot of bullshit though, I'll give you that. On September 07 2011 20:28 David Dark wrote:When this started I didn't even know about Kaddafi, all of the sudden the media tell you how evil this guy is and the NATO goes to libya to get his ass of his chair. At least you admit to not being educated on the subject. I also think you're cherrypicking your selection of articles here, but whatever. The bottom line is that the information is and always has been freely available before it became relevant to mainstream news. Also, NATO went to Libya to help the rebels, who asked for their help, after what seemed like popular support for such action (among UN and NATO countries). On September 07 2011 20:28 David Dark wrote:I read in various other sources that Kaddafi wasn't such a bad guy and the people living in Libya had a really decent life and had a vote on many things happening in their country. I didn't heard a single evil thing Kaddafi did to his peopel before this war, all they say that he's a dictator but that doesnt sound like a good reason to invade Libya. Balerus also has a dictator (and this one is one big motherf...) and noone does anything. Do you count shooting down protesters as before the war or do you include that in the war? Compared to the rest of Africa, though, Libya was doing well. That's not really Gaddafi's doing, that's oil. More importantly, though, NATO didn't start this rebellion. It's not like it "could have been avoided". As far as Belarus goes you'll have to speak with the Belarusian people. On September 07 2011 20:28 David Dark wrote:My final opinion on this is: America wants more oil, so they gonna drop Kaddafi, get some puppets to 'rule' in Libya and suck the country dry. Sincerly doubt they'll have much of anything to do with the political restructuring of Libya. | ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
| ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On September 07 2011 20:44 Saji wrote: (rant) Ask the Guatamalians, Ask the Bolivians, Ask the Venezuelans, Ask the Ecuadorians, Ask the Nicaraguans people what the after math of western support coup`s means for the people, or better go educate yourself about it. Before coming to groundless naive Utopian predictions. (sorry for the rant) Acutally I'm Chilean and I find that comparison very bad too. This was - again - done in the context of the Cold War and pro-communist guerillas. Seeing what happened to the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and China, maybe we were better off without communism. That is to say, as good as our leaders' intentions were (for example: Allende) and even though some were only socialist sympathizers, the danger of being taken over by the main communist power was too great, and the American power over our continent was too omnipresent to leave any non-violent window for change. Do these dynamics apply to the Libyan uprising? Not really. The opposing side doesn't exist anymore, and whatever you say the media and foreign state are not as controlled as they used to be. If you ACTUALLY read the CIA history you'll notice that it went nuts in the 60s-70s, but then the need for control slowly decreased. Second, people, PLEASE, if one side tells you that Gadaffi is a devil, and the other tells you that he's an angel, don't just buy one side's bullshit and then claim you're being open minded. Gadaffi did develop Libya, I have a 1968 National Geographic magazine to prove that there was a positive vision at some point. But today, with insane corruption levels and an uncontrollable family (read: those who liked to torture people, those who bought themselves football teams and terrorized foreign companies to force them to pay a bribe sum), with a near 30% unemployment rate (CIA factbooks) and a broken system (people can vote but the main decisions are taken elsewhere), Gadaffi is just another wealthy bastard who lost all of his original ideals. What is the youth supposed to do when most of the population is state-employed, but the state can't create any more employments due to a stalling economy and no will whatsoever to change? I remember finding an interview from 2007 from a young Libyan who explained he had a programer degree but was forced to illegally sell fish in the market to survive, as there was simply nothing to do after school. And finally, to those who suggest western media in general is being controlled... wtf? Do you actually know what it would mean to control all the 5 main press agencies and all the others? What kind of manpower it would take to control how every single newspaper in the west and the way it analyzes this data? In comparison, what does it takes to put up a few propaganda websites? NWO much? Do you seriously think a hidden 30% of the state budget is used on paying thousands of people we never heard of and who are in charge of reading and approving every written content before printing? Please. The explanations of why the news are bad is much simpler than that. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
As far as we know, the NTC that all the European nations rushed to recognize may not be able to pacify all of the tribal organizations and then what? | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On September 07 2011 21:56 Ghad wrote: The west got absolutely all the oil they wanted from Khadafi, that does not seem to be a valid argument at all. You're right, but it was very expensive, and the money went to Lybian companies. | ||
|
TwoMagTrav
United States195 Posts
On September 07 2011 21:27 sunprince wrote: Your opinion is horribly ignorant. Gaddafi was more than cooperaive in selling oil to Western nations. We don't want to buy it, buying costs money. We "need" more money and more resources at any cost as long as its not monetary. Sad but true. | ||
|
muse5187
1125 Posts
On September 07 2011 23:47 TRod wrote: We don't want to buy it, buying costs money. We "need" more money and more resources at any cost as long as its not monetary. Sad but true. So you think we are over there to steal their oil? Just like we stole Iraq's oil right? | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
What the US and the EU need at this point is control over any challenging party that might want to integrate or shake the bubble we live in. The key is control. And oil - and immigration control, as you seem to forget that Libya is also a strategic geographical point - is just a part of control. They need a "forced friendship" with the Maghreb states more than just oil and money. Oil is part of the deal but there are many, many other things. Thus the EU and the US getting close to the CNT, the Egyptian army and the Tunisian transition councils. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 07 2011 23:47 TRod wrote: We don't want to buy it, buying costs money. We "need" more money and more resources at any cost as long as its not monetary. Sad but true. More ignorance. You think the new leaders of Libya will give away their oil for free? | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
On September 07 2011 22:43 Kukaracha wrote: Acutally I'm Chilean and I find that comparison very bad too. This was - again - done in the context of the Cold War and pro-communist guerillas. Seeing what happened to the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and China, maybe we were better off without communism. That is to say, as good as our leaders' intentions were (for example: Allende) and even though some were only socialist sympathizers, the danger of being taken over by the main communist power was too great, and the American power over our continent was too omnipresent to leave any non-violent window for change. Do these dynamics apply to the Libyan uprising? Not really. The opposing side doesn't exist anymore, and whatever you say the media and foreign state are not as controlled as they used to be. If you ACTUALLY read the CIA history you'll notice that it went nuts in the 60s-70s, but then the need for control slowly decreased. Second, people, PLEASE, if one side tells you that Gadaffi is a devil, and the other tells you that he's an angel, don't just buy one side's bullshit and then claim you're being open minded. Gadaffi did develop Libya, I have a 1968 National Geographic magazine to prove that there was a positive vision at some point. But today, with insane corruption levels and an uncontrollable family (read: those who liked to torture people, those who bought themselves football teams and terrorized foreign companies to force them to pay a bribe sum), with a near 30% unemployment rate (CIA factbooks) and a broken system (people can vote but the main decisions are taken elsewhere), Gadaffi is just another wealthy bastard who lost all of his original ideals. What is the youth supposed to do when most of the population is state-employed, but the state can't create any more employments due to a stalling economy and no will whatsoever to change? I remember finding an interview from 2007 from a young Libyan who explained he had a programer degree but was forced to illegally sell fish in the market to survive, as there was simply nothing to do after school. And finally, to those who suggest western media in general is being controlled... wtf? Do you actually know what it would mean to control all the 5 main press agencies and all the others? What kind of manpower it would take to control how every single newspaper in the west and the way it analyzes this data? In comparison, what does it takes to put up a few propaganda websites? NWO much? Do you seriously think a hidden 30% of the state budget is used on paying thousands of people we never heard of and who are in charge of reading and approving every written content before printing? Please. The explanations of why the news are bad is much simpler than that. If your from Chili you should know the past of Latin America for the past 200 years. First of all about the communist that was BS it was American Business that wanted to get Allende out, because he wanted to do reforms that would actually help the people of Chili and that would be costly for the multinational business. So instead America financed the coup (Hell they even trained the dictators see School of Americas Pinochet was one of them). ps what do you mean by this " the danger of being taken over by the main communist power was too great, and the American power over our continent was too omnipresent to leave any non-violent window for change. " Libya is the same in that matter it is just for business that we invaded, you dont need man power to control the Media, you only need capital because in the West you can buy anyones opinion with money (see our politicians). If you want to comprehend what is going on in Libya you have to follow the money and read allot of Business history its motives, and outcomes. "And finally, to those who suggest western media in general is being controlled... wtf? Do you actually know what it would mean to control all the 5 main press agencies and all the others? What kind of manpower it would take to control how every single newspaper in the west and the way it analyzes this data? In comparison, what does it takes to put up a few propaganda websites? NWO much? Do you seriously think a hidden 30% of the state budget is used on paying thousands of people we never heard of and who are in charge of reading and approving every written content before printing?" Just look up who owns the 4 main media concerns in America (they also own GB news) and look up the history of them its right in the open but this shit you don't learn in history lessons at high school. Let me ask you do you know how much people are put in Guantanamo bay who are innocent? all the excuses we have to approve for intervening are lame and weak. We the west have killed and put more innocent people in jail than Gadaffi could have done in 42 years. Yet no one says anything about it. So why the arbitrary reason to justify attacking Gadaffi and supporting the rebels if we do the same thing else were Bahrain anyone? Not for ethics and moral ofcourse but money, capital, resources. If people still think the live of Libyans are worth anything in our governments eyes is delusional. Ps the west isn't corrupt? hmm lets see The Bank crisis, supprime bubble thats not corrupt? | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
| ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
On September 08 2011 00:16 sunprince wrote: More ignorance. You think the new leaders of Libya will give away their oil for free? Ofcourse they are going to give it for free, without NATO's help they wouldnt have anything. Jesus doesn't anyone read up history?? This is one of the oldest trick in the world. Put puppet government, fool own population, profit!!! Go look up School of Americas and what their pupil have done ..... | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
On September 08 2011 00:24 Kukaracha wrote: Well I do agree nonetheless that it will probably be open to foreign competition. If I recall correctly Libyan oil was of public domain (even though most of the benefits were taken by the Gadaffi family). But the damaged infrastructures and change of government will probably give grounds to the arrival of American or European companies. It is likely that this change will not benefit the Libyan people. Most of the funds to his family? what credible source do you have to say this.? | ||
|
EnsisRaizo
25 Posts
On September 08 2011 00:26 Saji wrote: Most of the funds to his family? what credible source do you have to say this.? I am not weighing in on American or western priorities because this whole thread seems to be mostly uneducated or at least ill-informed rants and conspiracy theories, but I will comment on this question by saji. Oil export wise Libya has more than any other north African nation. Tunisia barely has any. Population wise Libya has the least people of the North African Nations. Per capita, before the revolution Libya was the poorest nation by a huge margin. Thus, if they are making more money as a nation, and have less people to spread it among, and still have hte lowest per capita value. Those in power (both Political and Business) are keeping all of the money for themselves, and as ruler of the nation Gadaffi was taking the lion's share of this income. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On September 08 2011 00:21 Saji wrote: If your from Chili you should know the past of Latin America for the past 200 years. First of all about the communist that was BS it was American Business that wanted to get Allende out, because he wanted to do reforms that would actually help the people of Chili and that would be costly for the multinational business. So instead America financed the coup (Hell they even trained the dictators see School of Americas Pinochet was one of them). Please. Please. I'm going to get angry if you try to talk about this. Unless you have an extensive knowledge of Chilean politics and economy, I would ask you to leave your wikipedia knowledge out of this. Allende was a brilliant and good-willed leader. But as events prior to the coup show (response to the Tanquetazo, decisions made by the CP to acquire weapons in response to the military movements and the situation of Carlos Prats who was before that mostly following the Schneider doctrine), this WAS a communist/capitalist fight that grew way bigger than what Allende could control. The handshake with Castro marked the fact that Chile NEEDED to pick a side, precisely because the American presence made it impossible to align with Bandung's "third-world" party. I will not respond to the rest as it's a ridiculous and simplistic vision of things. On September 08 2011 00:21 Saji wrote: Just look up who owns the 4 main media concerns in America (they also own GB news) and look up the history of them its right in the open but this shit you don't learn in history lessons at high school. Let me ask you do you know how much people are put in Guantanamo bay who are innocent? all the excuses we have to approve for intervening are lame and weak. We the west have killed and put more innocent people in jail than Gadaffi could have done in 42 years. Yet no one says anything about it. Perfect! Tell me who owns them! And I was talking about the main press agencies, only 2 of them being American, the others are French (AFP), German (the brilliant Reuters), and Russian. If your answer is Murdoch I'd like to point out that he's a businessman who owns 80% of the english newspapers and more abroad, do you truly believe he has the power to read and control every single article? There are only 24 hours per day, you know. More importantly, even though such ownership gives a direction to his publications, keep in mind that this is probably the biggest owner and that he doesn't control every website, newspaper, and radio station in the western world. Your vision is TERRIBLY ethnocentrist as you imply that somewhat controlling a portion of the anglo-american news is like controlling all news in the west. What about France, Germany, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc, etc. RIGHT, there are many countries in the "west"! It's even weird to say so as you're not even American yourself. How come did I read the neswpaper and read many anti-intervention articles or tempered analysis of the subject? Because watching Fox News or reading The Sun or NY Times is a TERRIBLE idea in the first place. But you'd be surprised at the number of newspapers, newsbesites and radio stations in the world. Of course foreign intervention in another country is morally questionable attitude! But I did see this in many french newspapers. Of course, you won't see this on TV, but I guess it's the same in Russia where RT celebrates Gadaffi just like they celebrated Poutin the ex-KGB agent. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On September 08 2011 00:26 Saji wrote: Most of the funds to his family? what credible source do you have to say this.? DEALING WITH MUATASSIM 12.(S//NF) Considered little more than a playboy just two years ago, Muatassim has surprised many observers by the seriousness with which he has taken his new responsibilities as the National Security Adviser. He has, at times, overreached - notably attempting to install security chiefs without clearance from other regime elements and requesting $1.2 billion from the National Oil Corporation to form his own special forces brigade. Source (originally wikileaks) That and Gaddaffi's personal wealth which he probably didn't acquire with magic powers. He does own a plane and had a share of the Juventus... happy? | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 08 2011 00:25 Saji wrote: Ofcourse they are going to give it for free, without NATO's help they wouldnt have anything. Jesus doesn't anyone read up history?? This is one of the oldest trick in the world. Put puppet government, fool own population, profit!!! Except that the West is currently in the process of renewing the contracts they previously had with Gaddafi, except that the profits are instead going to the NTC instead. So no, you're wrong. | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
"In Order To Please The West Libya Cooperated With The CIA!" | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
The PondCast
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Serral vs TBD
BSL 21
BSL 21
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
|
|
|
EPT
