On September 10 2011 22:29 Saji wrote: The same paramilitary groups that CIA had lose relationship with and helped train them (why aren't you critical of the role of the CIA in this)...
Besides that what do you think the FBI, CIA, SAS, and the other secret agency are in the western world. (you just don't call them paramilitary to feel good). Go watch Gore Vidal's History of The National Security State, the last part with Ray McGovern EX CIA for more info on western intelligence services agency, modern day gestapo).
And about the capital, the difference is that the money flow remained in Libya with Gadaffi. With the new situation the capital of the Libyan people will be extracted to the west (multinationals and arms manufacturers). This of course will not benefit the Libyan people.
Also don't forget for all the wrongs Gadaffi did, he did build a country with its resources. People defending this war act as if Gadaffi has been looting all the money gained fro the resources.
Tell me what despot/dictator would spend 25 billion in a project (The Great Man Made River) that was making Libya the most fertile land in Africa in terms of agriculture.
And for the people that want to take cheap shots and what im saying I`m not a Gadaffi supported I just don't buy this bullshit propaganda of we are bringing democracy and freedom to countries with bombs.
Plus history has proven that western interventionism has never worked in favour of the people but in favour of foreign Business. Go read a book about it see spoilers: + Show Spoiler +
I already adressed the stupidity of your positions in this post, when you tried to lecture me about the history and politics of my own country. To which you never answered by the way.
I'd like to note that I was not talking about Gaddaffi's secret services but his son's elite brigades who had nothing to do with secret services and were just a sort of private army since Gaddaffi didn't trust the national army itself.
The SAS aren't a paramilitary group, they ARE in the military. They're part of the british army. The FBI and particularly the CIA don't have an army to speak of but many cells. They often use the army (commandos like the SEAL) if military presence is needed, and their own agents. They don't have a batallion and a military CIA base to speak of (CIA barracks? Wtf?).
And how did the money stay in Libya if the jet fighters he bought were FRENCH? Do you think all of Gaddaffi's arsenal was Libyan-made? Most of it was USSR arsenal!
And MOST of the money was for Gaddaffi's family as I proved it in a previous post to which you didn't reply.
Are you some random high schooler who thinks that he just discovered the earth is round? We all KNOW that this isn't good vs evil, but you're just reversing the roles, claiming that this is evil vs good!
On September 10 2011 22:29 Saji wrote: The same paramilitary groups that CIA had lose relationship with and helped train them (why aren't you critical of the role of the CIA in this)...
Besides that what do you think the FBI, CIA, SAS, and the other secret agency are in the western world. (you just don't call them paramilitary to feel good). Go watch Gore Vidal's History of The National Security State, the last part with Ray McGovern EX CIA for more info on western intelligence services agency, modern day gestapo).
And about the capital, the difference is that the money flow remained in Libya with Gadaffi. With the new situation the capital of the Libyan people will be extracted to the west (multinationals and arms manufacturers). This of course will not benefit the Libyan people.
Also don't forget for all the wrongs Gadaffi did, he did build a country with its resources. People defending this war act as if Gadaffi has been looting all the money gained fro the resources.
Tell me what despot/dictator would spend 25 billion in a project (The Great Man Made River) that was making Libya the most fertile land in Africa in terms of agriculture.
The Great-Man Made River International Water Prize for "Water Resources in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas" presented by UNESCO: call for nominations.
And for the people that want to take cheap shots and what im saying I`m not a Gadaffi supported I just don't buy this bullshit propaganda of we are bringing democracy and freedom to countries with bombs.
Plus history has proven that western interventionism has never worked in favour of the people but in favour of foreign Business. Go read a book about it see spoilers: + Show Spoiler +
I already adressed the stupidity of your positions in this post, when you tried to lecture me about the history and politics of my own country. To which you never answered by the way.
I'd like to note that I was not talking about Gaddaffi's secret services but his son's elite brigades who had nothing to do with secret services and were just a sort of private army since Gaddaffi didn't trust the national army itself.
The SAS aren't a paramilitary group, they ARE in the military. They're part of the british army. The FBI and particularly the CIA don't have an army to speak of but many cells. They often use the army (commandos like the SEAL) if military presence is needed, and their own agents. They don't have a batallion and a military CIA base to speak of (CIA barracks? Wtf?).
And how did the money stay in Libya if the jet fighters he bought were FRENCH? Do you think all of Gaddaffi's arsenal was Libyan-made? Most of it was USSR arsenal!
And MOST of the money was for Gaddaffi's family as I proved it in a previous post to which you didn't reply.
Are you some random high schooler who thinks that he just discovered the earth is round? We all KNOW that this isn't good vs evil, but you're just reversing the roles, claiming that this is evil vs good!
Either you don't read and understand what i post or your trolling. First of all you haven't proven that most of the money was for Gaddaffi`s family (you dint show the total income of Libya and what portion goes to the Gaddaffi family (I`m not disputing the fact that he enriched his own family) what I`m disputing is this outrageous claim that Gaddaffi has been profiteering from the Libyan resources.
Kukaracha
I'd like to note that I was not talking about Gaddaffi's secret services but his son's elite brigades who had nothing to do with secret services and were just a sort of private army since Gaddaffi didn't trust the national army itself.
What evidence do you have to say that Khamis Brigade has no ties with the CIA? none because they have clearly had ties:
Secondly what you told about Chile is completely bogus, i suggest you go and read: Confession of an Economic Hit Man to understand what happened in Latin America and not the pretext bullshit history you get (specially from Chile).
Thirdly you are uniformed about what western intelligent agency plans and actions in this world, go educate yourself about that first before we can discuss it (like for example reading stuff from EX CIA agents).
Lastly: I have never used terms such as good or evil, such notions are too childish, in the grown up world there is only grey.
Clearly you have a uninformed opinion on this matter. (and why do you try to insult me personally ?)
On September 10 2011 22:37 muse5187 wrote: Ok so you don't like one sides propaganda. That's fine. But what's the point of posting the opposing propaganda. I just dont get it. You're just shitting on this thread with faux reports.
I`m posting the 2 sides of the story (there are much more) because the MSM will only put out its own propaganda
So you if only know the propaganda of one side how are you going to filter that information?, I do it by reading both and bring it in perspective by look at what has happened in the past.
If you agree that both side are using propaganda then wouldn't that make the news reports from MSN also faux reports?
How do you make the distinction in claiming one is false and the other is not if you acknowledge both parties use propaganda?
On September 10 2011 22:29 Saji wrote: The same paramilitary groups that CIA had lose relationship with and helped train them (why aren't you critical of the role of the CIA in this)...
Besides that what do you think the FBI, CIA, SAS, and the other secret agency are in the western world. (you just don't call them paramilitary to feel good). Go watch Gore Vidal's History of The National Security State, the last part with Ray McGovern EX CIA for more info on western intelligence services agency, modern day gestapo).
And about the capital, the difference is that the money flow remained in Libya with Gadaffi. With the new situation the capital of the Libyan people will be extracted to the west (multinationals and arms manufacturers). This of course will not benefit the Libyan people.
Also don't forget for all the wrongs Gadaffi did, he did build a country with its resources. People defending this war act as if Gadaffi has been looting all the money gained fro the resources.
Tell me what despot/dictator would spend 25 billion in a project (The Great Man Made River) that was making Libya the most fertile land in Africa in terms of agriculture.
The Great-Man Made River International Water Prize for "Water Resources in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas" presented by UNESCO: call for nominations.
And for the people that want to take cheap shots and what im saying I`m not a Gadaffi supported I just don't buy this bullshit propaganda of we are bringing democracy and freedom to countries with bombs.
Plus history has proven that western interventionism has never worked in favour of the people but in favour of foreign Business. Go read a book about it see spoilers: + Show Spoiler +
I already adressed the stupidity of your positions in this post, when you tried to lecture me about the history and politics of my own country. To which you never answered by the way.
I'd like to note that I was not talking about Gaddaffi's secret services but his son's elite brigades who had nothing to do with secret services and were just a sort of private army since Gaddaffi didn't trust the national army itself.
The SAS aren't a paramilitary group, they ARE in the military. They're part of the british army. The FBI and particularly the CIA don't have an army to speak of but many cells. They often use the army (commandos like the SEAL) if military presence is needed, and their own agents. They don't have a batallion and a military CIA base to speak of (CIA barracks? Wtf?).
And how did the money stay in Libya if the jet fighters he bought were FRENCH? Do you think all of Gaddaffi's arsenal was Libyan-made? Most of it was USSR arsenal!
And MOST of the money was for Gaddaffi's family as I proved it in a previous post to which you didn't reply.
Are you some random high schooler who thinks that he just discovered the earth is round? We all KNOW that this isn't good vs evil, but you're just reversing the roles, claiming that this is evil vs good!
Either you don't read and understand what i post or your trolling. First of all you haven't proven that most of the money was for Gaddaffi`s family (you dint show the total income of Libya and what portion goes to the Gaddaffi family (I`m not disputing the fact that he enriched his own family) what I`m disputing is this outrageous claim that Gaddaffi has been profiteering from the Libyan resources.
I'd like to note that I was not talking about Gaddaffi's secret services but his son's elite brigades who had nothing to do with secret services and were just a sort of private army since Gaddaffi didn't trust the national army itself.
What evidence do you have to say that Khamis Brigade has no ties with the CIA? none because they have clearly had ties:
Secondly what you told about Chile is completely bogus, i suggest you go and read: Confession of an Economic Hit Man to understand what happened in Latin America and not the pretext bullshit history you get (specially from Chile).
Thirdly you are uniformed about what western intelligent agency plans and actions in this world, go educate yourself about that first before we can discuss it (like for example reading stuff from EX CIA agents).
Lastly: I have never used terms such as good or evil, such notions are too childish, in the grown up world there is only grey.
Clearly you have a uninformed opinion on this matter. (and why do you try to insult me personally ?)
On September 10 2011 22:37 muse5187 wrote: Ok so you don't like one sides propaganda. That's fine. But what's the point of posting the opposing propaganda. I just dont get it. You're just shitting on this thread with faux reports.
I`m posting the 2 sides of the story (there are much more) because the MSM will only put out its own propaganda
So you if only know the propaganda of one side how are you going to filter that information?, I do it by reading both and bring it in perspective by look at what has happened in the past.
If you agree that both side are using propaganda then wouldn't that make the news reports from MSN also faux reports?
How do you make the distinction in claiming one is false and the other is not if you acknowledge both parties use propaganda?
1) How much money Ghadaffi took in is hardly relevant, fact is that a majority of the population wanted to see him gone. If they didn't, they wouldn't have actually been able to expel him. As much as the west likes to boast about their military capabilities, if a majority of the country still supported Ghaddafi, a couple of airstrikes don't change a thing. If the vast majority of a population wants its leader gone, we shouldn't be standing in their way, and if it turns violent, the international community has every right to intervene. Ghadaffi wasn't some kind of glorious leader, the population wanted to see him gone, and for good reason.
2) Kukaracha isn't saying that Khamis' brigades had no ties with the CIA. He said that the Khamis brigades are 1) Not a secret service organisation, but infact a paramilitary organisation and that 2) are therefore uncomparable to organisations like the SAS/CIA/NSA or ST6. This is in my view, undisputable.
3) Confessions of an economic hitman is a piece of garbage that should be read as fiction. It is pretty much recycled conspiracy theories, and has been widely discredited on the basis that most of the policies described in the book don't even make sense in a truly 'realpolitik' world.
4) Ghadaffi's propaganda is incomparable to the way western government try to spin the media. Sure, western governments try to spin the thruth in their favor, and all western news organisations have some kind of bias, but by-en-large it is fact based. As opposed to the fairy tales coming out of dictatorial regimes. There's a lot of valid complaints you can make about the way western governments handle their public image, but at least in democracies you have some assurances of openness and transparancy, and facts can be checked. You can't make a similar argument for dictatorial regimes. I think the way Ghadaffi handled the foreign press in Libya pretty much proved that.
5) International politics, even more then national politics, are about changing what's possible and easy, and exploiting what you can't change. The fact that MI-6 and the CIA had regular interactions with the Libyan regime and secret services isn't exactly shocking. Ghadaffi had been cooperating with the west for quite some years, both in economic terms and in the war on terrorism. You have to be incredibly naive to think that organisations like the CIA or MI-6 would not use all the options at their disposal, including the use of the very questionable Libyan security services. It's not moral, but it's the world we live in. In the end, it didn't make much of a difference, seeing how the West dropped Ghadaffi the moment they saw a better alternative. That's just how the world works.
All in all: If western nations ever have a shot again at helping a population remove an unwanted dictator again, and can do so at relatively low cost and risk to themselves, I'm all bombing the shit out of whatever stands in their way again. This intervention was just, measured and completely worth it. Let's hope we get to do it again, especially in the Middle-East.
I like how he thought that requests to buy stuff from american sources and a request for Khami to tour america's military base is a tie between the cia and Khamis Brigade. Thats like saying because i have a german car i'm working for the german intelligence agency (dont actually know the name of).
On September 11 2011 00:09 darklight54321 wrote: I like how he thought that requests to buy stuff from american sources and a request for Khami to tour america's military base is a tie between the cia and Khamis Brigade. Thats like saying because i have a german car i'm working for the german intelligence agency (dont actually know the name of).
There is evidence of rendition between the US and Libya and the UK and Libya. That's handing over suspects to the Libyans in order to interrogate them more 'effectively', and where they got to enjoy the Libyan prison system:
Some of the reported methods of torture, according to the report, included: chaining prisoners to a wall for hours; clubbing; applying electric shock; applying corkscrews to the back; pouring lemon juice in open wounds; breaking fingers and allowing the joints to heal without medical care; suffocating with plastic bags; deprivation of food and water; hanging by the wrists; suspension from a pole inserted between the knees and elbows; cigarette burns; threats of being attacked by dogs; and beating on the soles of the feet.
It's not at all like saying that you're working for german intelligence because you own a german car.
On September 10 2011 23:51 Derez wrote: 1) How much money Ghadaffi took in is hardly relevant, fact is that a majority of the population wanted to see him gone. If they didn't, they wouldn't have actually been able to expel him. As much as the west likes to boast about their military capabilities, if a majority of the country still supported Ghaddafi, a couple of airstrikes don't change a thing. If the vast majority of a population wants its leader gone, we shouldn't be standing in their way, and if it turns violent, the international community has every right to intervene. Ghadaffi wasn't some kind of glorious leader, the population wanted to see him gone, and for good reason.
How do you know? He did some bad things, but there were also good things in libya. I know someone who used to live there, and according to him it wasn't that bad. Schools, health care, gas was practically free, and borrowing money was government regulated and available for everyone, with no to nearly no interest.
The rebels couldn't do anything. Without NATO help, nothing would have changed. NATO has sent forces, bombed the country, destroyed infrastructure, bombed some schools and hospitals. This is a fact, just ask the people who live in libya, or check any reliable non mainstream media.
On September 10 2011 23:51 Derez wrote: 3) Confessions of an economic hitman is a piece of garbage that should be read as fiction. It is pretty much recycled conspiracy theories, and has been widely discredited on the basis that most of the policies described in the book don't even make sense in a truly 'realpolitik' world.
"piece of garbage" is just your opinion, you probably didn't even read it.
"Recycled conspiracy theories." This isn't an argument. A conspiracy theory simply is a theory that says wealth powerful people conspire to do something which gives them more wealth and power. How is that so crazy? It's actually something that happens, and the ruling economic system supports these conspiracy theories - capitalism - or as some strong supporters of capitalism would say, "survival of the fittest" or "rule of the strongest". Don't judge the book by it's cover, judge it by it's content.
"widely discredited ... policies make no sense" That's false. The main line of his story is that governments/corporations try to exploit many countries, south american countries, middle eastern countries, etc. It fits the description of my previous paragraph.
And something perkins explains is how loans are made to such countries, which they can't pay the interest of. This leads to these countries being abused by the people/organisations, forced to vote in the UN for something they want, forced to provide extremely cheap labor, forced to provide a lot of natural resources like oil for a cheap price...
And guess what. What's the state debt of libya? It's... nearly nothing! I wonder what's going to happen to that debt the next few years.
Public debt: 3.3% of GDP (2010 est.) 3.9% of GDP (2009 est.)
Definition: This entry records the cumulative total of all government borrowings less repayments that are denominated in a country's home currency. Public debt should not be confused with external debt, which reflects the foreign currency liabilities of both the private and public sector and must be financed out of foreign exchange earnings.
Source: CIA World Factbook - Unless otherwise noted, information in this page is accurate as of July 12, 2011
(and to be honest, I don't see the cia world factbook as a reliable source)
And guess what, this changing nations into debt slaves, just like how many people in the us/europe are debt slaves is happening again!
"The Group of Eight (G8) countries will pledge $20bn in aid to post-autocratic Arab countries that have toppled heads of state and moved towards democracy, according to European officials."
That's 20bn, or 20.000 million! In loans! How can they pay this interest? They can't.
On September 10 2011 23:51 Derez wrote: 1) How much money Ghadaffi took in is hardly relevant, fact is that a majority of the population wanted to see him gone. If they didn't, they wouldn't have actually been able to expel him. As much as the west likes to boast about their military capabilities, if a majority of the country still supported Ghaddafi, a couple of airstrikes don't change a thing. If the vast majority of a population wants its leader gone, we shouldn't be standing in their way, and if it turns violent, the international community has every right to intervene. Ghadaffi wasn't some kind of glorious leader, the population wanted to see him gone, and for good reason.
How do you know? He did some bad things, but there were also good things in libya. I know someone who used to live there, and according to him it wasn't that bad. Schools, health care, gas was practically free, and borrowing money was government regulated and available for everyone, with no to nearly no interest.
The rebels couldn't do anything. Without NATO help, nothing would have changed. NATO has sent forces, bombed the country, destroyed infrastructure, bombed some schools and hospitals. This is a fact, just ask the people who live in libya, or check any reliable non mainstream media.
On September 10 2011 23:51 Derez wrote: 3) Confessions of an economic hitman is a piece of garbage that should be read as fiction. It is pretty much recycled conspiracy theories, and has been widely discredited on the basis that most of the policies described in the book don't even make sense in a truly 'realpolitik' world.
"piece of garbage" is just your opinion, you probably didn't even read it.
"Recycled conspiracy theories." This isn't an argument. A conspiracy theory simply is a theory that says wealth powerful people conspire to do something which gives them more wealth and power. How is that so crazy? It's actually something that happens, and the ruling economic system supports these conspiracy theories - capitalism - or as some strong supporters of capitalism would say, "survival of the fittest" or "rule of the strongest". Don't judge the book by it's cover, judge it by it's content.
"widely discredited ... policies make no sense" That's false. The main line of his story is that governments/corporations try to exploit many countries, south american countries, middle eastern countries, etc. It fits the description of my previous paragraph.
And something perkins explains is how loans are made to such countries, which they can't pay the interest of. This leads to these countries being abused by the people/organisations, forced to vote in the UN for something they want, forced to provide extremely cheap labor, forced to provide a lot of natural resources like oil for a cheap price...
And guess what. What's the state debt of libya? It's... nearly nothing! I wonder what's going to happen to that debt the next few years.
Public debt: 3.3% of GDP (2010 est.) 3.9% of GDP (2009 est.)
Definition: This entry records the cumulative total of all government borrowings less repayments that are denominated in a country's home currency. Public debt should not be confused with external debt, which reflects the foreign currency liabilities of both the private and public sector and must be financed out of foreign exchange earnings.
Source: CIA World Factbook - Unless otherwise noted, information in this page is accurate as of July 12, 2011
(and to be honest, I don't see the cia world factbook as a reliable source)
And guess what, this changing nations into debt slaves, just like how many people in the us/europe are debt slaves is happening again!
"The Group of Eight (G8) countries will pledge $20bn in aid to post-autocratic Arab countries that have toppled heads of state and moved towards democracy, according to European officials."
That's 20bn, or 20.000 million! In loans! How can they pay this interest? They can't.
You know because otherwise Ghadaffi wouldn't have been pushed out of power this easily. The fact that the rebels pushed Ghadaffi out of power in about 6 months with low casualties across the board simply means that resistance wasn't actually all that impressive. A minority of the population against Ghadaffi will never be able to oust him from power if a majority of people is actually backing him, history has proven that very clearly.
The fact that there were some good things in Libya doesn't make the system as a whole any good. Libya was utterly corrupt, had crazy unemployment, policies favored certain ethnic groups over others, no civil liberties and a generally poor economy dependant on oil revenues in general. Libya was not some kind of paradise, it was a dictatorial regime run by security services where people were tortured on a regular basis for having a different point of view. You have a recipe for an uprising right there.
And yea, the rebels weren't anywhere before NATO intervention, simply because if you send people with AK-47s against tanks, you don't usually win. All the NATO intervention did was remove the Libyan military infrastructure from the equation, and once that was done the regime crumbled pretty much overnight (again, not exactly confirming that anyone wanted Ghadaffi in the first place). Some schools got bombed, some hospitals, some civilians and that's sad but it's also war. You can't wage war without casualties, including civilians, and they were rather low overall.
As for confessions of an economic hitman, I read it, and it is garbage. You get laughed out of the room for using any of it in academic circles, as you should be. Perkins provides nearly no information at all and his basic rationale for explaining state actions isn't even rational in the first place. The actions he describes in the book are not consistant even with the most basic 'realpolitik' view of the world, and if it doesn't even apply to that theoretical circumstance, it sure as hell won't be applicable to the world we live in today. Not to even mention that quite a lot of the loans made to 2nd/3rd world countries have actually improved the situation in those countries, and have paid for themselves several times over.
As for your example, a 20 billion debt works out at approximately 20-25ish percent of Libyan GDP, which as any half decent economist will tell you is not actually a big deal to pay back, let alone pay interest over. Not to mention that once a more competive economic system is in place in Libya, I'd wager that economic growth in Libya is going to pick up tremendously over the next decade, which makes loaning money now a great option for the country as a whole, as any half-decent economist would agree with also.
I honestly don't understand the negativity surrounding the intervention in Libya. For once, western powers did something actually good and helped the population of a country get rid of an unwanted dictator. How can you be against this? This isn't some new Iraq or Afghanistan where some country was unilaterally invaded, this was dropping a bunch of bombs on the Libyan military. This is what interventions should be about. When it costs us so little to do it, why shouldn't we?
Noone knows how it turns out in the end, but all indications point to a secular, more democratic Libya. It still won't be heaven on earth, but it will probably be better then what it was.
On September 11 2011 01:18 Derez wrote: You know because otherwise Ghadaffi wouldn't have been pushed out of power this easily. The fact that the rebels pushed Ghadaffi out of power in about 6 months with low casualties across the board simply means that resistance wasn't actually all that impressive. A minority of the population against Ghadaffi will never be able to oust him from power if a majority of people is actually backing him, history has proven that very clearly.
The fact that there were some good things in Libya doesn't make the system as a whole any good. Libya was utterly corrupt, had crazy unemployment, policies favored certain ethnic groups over others, no civil liberties and a generally poor economy dependant on oil revenues in general. Libya was not some kind of paradise, it was a dictatorial regime run by security services where people were tortured on a regular basis for having a different point of view. You have a recipe for an uprising right there.
And yea, the rebels weren't anywhere before NATO intervention, simply because if you send people with AK-47s against tanks, you don't usually win. All the NATO intervention did was remove the Libyan military infrastructure from the equation, and once that was done the regime crumbled pretty much overnight (again, not exactly confirming that anyone wanted Ghadaffi in the first place). Some schools got bombed, some hospitals, some civilians and that's sad but it's also war. You can't wage war without casualties, including civilians, and they were rather low overall.
As for confessions of an economic hitman, I read it, and it is garbage. You get laughed out of the room for using any of it in academic circles, as you should be. Perkins provides nearly no information at all and his basic rationale for explaining state actions isn't even rational in the first place. The actions he describes in the book are not consistant even with the most basic 'realpolitik' view of the world, and if it doesn't even apply to that theoretical circumstance, it sure as hell won't be applicable to the world we live in today. Not to even mention that quite a lot of the loans made to 2nd/3rd world countries have actually improved the situation in those countries, and have paid for themselves several times over.
As for your example, a 20 billion debt works out at approximately 20-25ish percent of Libyan GDP, which as any half decent economist will tell you is not actually a big deal to pay back, let alone pay interest over. Not to mention that once a more competive economic system is in place in Libya, I'd wager that economic growth in Libya is going to pick up tremendously over the next decade, which makes loaning money now a great option for the country as a whole, as any half-decent economist would agree with also.
I honestly don't understand the negativity surrounding the intervention in Libya. For once, western powers did something actually good and helped the population of a country get rid of an unwanted dictator. How can you be against this? This isn't some new Iraq or Afghanistan where some country was unilaterally invaded, this was dropping a bunch of bombs on the Libyan military. This is what interventions should be about. When it costs us so little to do it, why shouldn't we?
Noone knows how it turns out in the end, but all indications point to a secular, more democratic Libya. It still won't be heaven on earth, but it will probably be better then what it was.
The rebels didn't really do anything, without nato they were nothing. How much time did it take in egypt? Way less than 6 months, and they didn't have nato support. The fact that even with heavy support from nato it took 6 months+ says something.
I never claimed libya was a paradise, of course bad things were going on there. It's hard for me to be for or against the attack because we just don't know the entire truth, and we probably never will. But what's going to happen now? I fear they will trade this dictatorship for another dictatorship. Has intervention in similar situations ever done any good in the past? I doubt it.
On September 11 2011 01:18 Derez wrote: You know because otherwise Ghadaffi wouldn't have been pushed out of power this easily. The fact that the rebels pushed Ghadaffi out of power in about 6 months with low casualties across the board simply means that resistance wasn't actually all that impressive. A minority of the population against Ghadaffi will never be able to oust him from power if a majority of people is actually backing him, history has proven that very clearly.
The fact that there were some good things in Libya doesn't make the system as a whole any good. Libya was utterly corrupt, had crazy unemployment, policies favored certain ethnic groups over others, no civil liberties and a generally poor economy dependant on oil revenues in general. Libya was not some kind of paradise, it was a dictatorial regime run by security services where people were tortured on a regular basis for having a different point of view. You have a recipe for an uprising right there.
And yea, the rebels weren't anywhere before NATO intervention, simply because if you send people with AK-47s against tanks, you don't usually win. All the NATO intervention did was remove the Libyan military infrastructure from the equation, and once that was done the regime crumbled pretty much overnight (again, not exactly confirming that anyone wanted Ghadaffi in the first place). Some schools got bombed, some hospitals, some civilians and that's sad but it's also war. You can't wage war without casualties, including civilians, and they were rather low overall.
As for confessions of an economic hitman, I read it, and it is garbage. You get laughed out of the room for using any of it in academic circles, as you should be. Perkins provides nearly no information at all and his basic rationale for explaining state actions isn't even rational in the first place. The actions he describes in the book are not consistant even with the most basic 'realpolitik' view of the world, and if it doesn't even apply to that theoretical circumstance, it sure as hell won't be applicable to the world we live in today. Not to even mention that quite a lot of the loans made to 2nd/3rd world countries have actually improved the situation in those countries, and have paid for themselves several times over.
As for your example, a 20 billion debt works out at approximately 20-25ish percent of Libyan GDP, which as any half decent economist will tell you is not actually a big deal to pay back, let alone pay interest over. Not to mention that once a more competive economic system is in place in Libya, I'd wager that economic growth in Libya is going to pick up tremendously over the next decade, which makes loaning money now a great option for the country as a whole, as any half-decent economist would agree with also.
I honestly don't understand the negativity surrounding the intervention in Libya. For once, western powers did something actually good and helped the population of a country get rid of an unwanted dictator. How can you be against this? This isn't some new Iraq or Afghanistan where some country was unilaterally invaded, this was dropping a bunch of bombs on the Libyan military. This is what interventions should be about. When it costs us so little to do it, why shouldn't we?
Noone knows how it turns out in the end, but all indications point to a secular, more democratic Libya. It still won't be heaven on earth, but it will probably be better then what it was.
The rebels didn't really do anything, without nato they were nothing. How much time did it take in egypt? Way less than 6 months, and they didn't have nato support. The fact that even with heavy support from nato it took 6 months+ says something.
I never claimed libya was a paradise, of course bad things were going on there. It's hard for me to be for or against the attack because we just don't know the entire truth, and we probably never will. But what's going to happen now? I fear they will trade this dictatorship for another dictatorship. Has intervention in similar situations ever done any good in the past? I doubt it.
The simple fact that the Egyptian military wasn't gunning people down might be worth considering.
On September 11 2011 01:18 Derez wrote: You know because otherwise Ghadaffi wouldn't have been pushed out of power this easily. The fact that the rebels pushed Ghadaffi out of power in about 6 months with low casualties across the board simply means that resistance wasn't actually all that impressive. A minority of the population against Ghadaffi will never be able to oust him from power if a majority of people is actually backing him, history has proven that very clearly.
The fact that there were some good things in Libya doesn't make the system as a whole any good. Libya was utterly corrupt, had crazy unemployment, policies favored certain ethnic groups over others, no civil liberties and a generally poor economy dependant on oil revenues in general. Libya was not some kind of paradise, it was a dictatorial regime run by security services where people were tortured on a regular basis for having a different point of view. You have a recipe for an uprising right there.
And yea, the rebels weren't anywhere before NATO intervention, simply because if you send people with AK-47s against tanks, you don't usually win. All the NATO intervention did was remove the Libyan military infrastructure from the equation, and once that was done the regime crumbled pretty much overnight (again, not exactly confirming that anyone wanted Ghadaffi in the first place). Some schools got bombed, some hospitals, some civilians and that's sad but it's also war. You can't wage war without casualties, including civilians, and they were rather low overall.
As for confessions of an economic hitman, I read it, and it is garbage. You get laughed out of the room for using any of it in academic circles, as you should be. Perkins provides nearly no information at all and his basic rationale for explaining state actions isn't even rational in the first place. The actions he describes in the book are not consistant even with the most basic 'realpolitik' view of the world, and if it doesn't even apply to that theoretical circumstance, it sure as hell won't be applicable to the world we live in today. Not to even mention that quite a lot of the loans made to 2nd/3rd world countries have actually improved the situation in those countries, and have paid for themselves several times over.
As for your example, a 20 billion debt works out at approximately 20-25ish percent of Libyan GDP, which as any half decent economist will tell you is not actually a big deal to pay back, let alone pay interest over. Not to mention that once a more competive economic system is in place in Libya, I'd wager that economic growth in Libya is going to pick up tremendously over the next decade, which makes loaning money now a great option for the country as a whole, as any half-decent economist would agree with also.
I honestly don't understand the negativity surrounding the intervention in Libya. For once, western powers did something actually good and helped the population of a country get rid of an unwanted dictator. How can you be against this? This isn't some new Iraq or Afghanistan where some country was unilaterally invaded, this was dropping a bunch of bombs on the Libyan military. This is what interventions should be about. When it costs us so little to do it, why shouldn't we?
Noone knows how it turns out in the end, but all indications point to a secular, more democratic Libya. It still won't be heaven on earth, but it will probably be better then what it was.
The rebels didn't really do anything, without nato they were nothing. How much time did it take in egypt? Way less than 6 months, and they didn't have nato support. The fact that even with heavy support from nato it took 6 months+ says something.
I never claimed libya was a paradise, of course bad things were going on there. It's hard for me to be for or against the attack because we just don't know the entire truth, and we probably never will. But what's going to happen now? I fear they will trade this dictatorship for another dictatorship. Has intervention in similar situations ever done any good in the past? I doubt it.
Has intervention done any good in the past? Nearly all revolutions get help from the outside just some examples that you should know: The Netherlands would have never beaten Spain without the help of England and the US got help from France in their war for independence.
Why Egypt got rid of Mubarak faster is easy to explain, the army there went over to join the protesters.
On September 11 2011 01:18 Derez wrote: You know because otherwise Ghadaffi wouldn't have been pushed out of power this easily. The fact that the rebels pushed Ghadaffi out of power in about 6 months with low casualties across the board simply means that resistance wasn't actually all that impressive. A minority of the population against Ghadaffi will never be able to oust him from power if a majority of people is actually backing him, history has proven that very clearly.
The fact that there were some good things in Libya doesn't make the system as a whole any good. Libya was utterly corrupt, had crazy unemployment, policies favored certain ethnic groups over others, no civil liberties and a generally poor economy dependant on oil revenues in general. Libya was not some kind of paradise, it was a dictatorial regime run by security services where people were tortured on a regular basis for having a different point of view. You have a recipe for an uprising right there.
And yea, the rebels weren't anywhere before NATO intervention, simply because if you send people with AK-47s against tanks, you don't usually win. All the NATO intervention did was remove the Libyan military infrastructure from the equation, and once that was done the regime crumbled pretty much overnight (again, not exactly confirming that anyone wanted Ghadaffi in the first place). Some schools got bombed, some hospitals, some civilians and that's sad but it's also war. You can't wage war without casualties, including civilians, and they were rather low overall.
As for confessions of an economic hitman, I read it, and it is garbage. You get laughed out of the room for using any of it in academic circles, as you should be. Perkins provides nearly no information at all and his basic rationale for explaining state actions isn't even rational in the first place. The actions he describes in the book are not consistant even with the most basic 'realpolitik' view of the world, and if it doesn't even apply to that theoretical circumstance, it sure as hell won't be applicable to the world we live in today. Not to even mention that quite a lot of the loans made to 2nd/3rd world countries have actually improved the situation in those countries, and have paid for themselves several times over.
As for your example, a 20 billion debt works out at approximately 20-25ish percent of Libyan GDP, which as any half decent economist will tell you is not actually a big deal to pay back, let alone pay interest over. Not to mention that once a more competive economic system is in place in Libya, I'd wager that economic growth in Libya is going to pick up tremendously over the next decade, which makes loaning money now a great option for the country as a whole, as any half-decent economist would agree with also.
I honestly don't understand the negativity surrounding the intervention in Libya. For once, western powers did something actually good and helped the population of a country get rid of an unwanted dictator. How can you be against this? This isn't some new Iraq or Afghanistan where some country was unilaterally invaded, this was dropping a bunch of bombs on the Libyan military. This is what interventions should be about. When it costs us so little to do it, why shouldn't we?
Noone knows how it turns out in the end, but all indications point to a secular, more democratic Libya. It still won't be heaven on earth, but it will probably be better then what it was.
The rebels didn't really do anything, without nato they were nothing. How much time did it take in egypt? Way less than 6 months, and they didn't have nato support. The fact that even with heavy support from nato it took 6 months+ says something.
I never claimed libya was a paradise, of course bad things were going on there. It's hard for me to be for or against the attack because we just don't know the entire truth, and we probably never will. But what's going to happen now? I fear they will trade this dictatorship for another dictatorship. Has intervention in similar situations ever done any good in the past? I doubt it.
Has intervention done any good in the past? Nearly all revolutions get help from the outside just some examples that you should know: The Netherlands would have never beaten Spain without the help of England and the US got help from France in their war for independence.
Why Egypt got rid of Mubarak faster is easy to explain, the army there went over to join the protesters.
Then it might be interesting to think about why the army in libya did no such thing. Maybe Kadaffi treated them well so they wouldn't join the people in a situation like this. I'm not sure.
I'm not arguing that kadaffi was a good man, but if the people in libya don't watch out they'll trade 1 dictator for another.
Something else, I'm seeing youtube footage about syrian soldiers joining the protestors. Good news, I hope they deal with assad quickly and stop the killing.
On September 11 2011 01:18 Derez wrote: You know because otherwise Ghadaffi wouldn't have been pushed out of power this easily. The fact that the rebels pushed Ghadaffi out of power in about 6 months with low casualties across the board simply means that resistance wasn't actually all that impressive. A minority of the population against Ghadaffi will never be able to oust him from power if a majority of people is actually backing him, history has proven that very clearly.
The fact that there were some good things in Libya doesn't make the system as a whole any good. Libya was utterly corrupt, had crazy unemployment, policies favored certain ethnic groups over others, no civil liberties and a generally poor economy dependant on oil revenues in general. Libya was not some kind of paradise, it was a dictatorial regime run by security services where people were tortured on a regular basis for having a different point of view. You have a recipe for an uprising right there.
And yea, the rebels weren't anywhere before NATO intervention, simply because if you send people with AK-47s against tanks, you don't usually win. All the NATO intervention did was remove the Libyan military infrastructure from the equation, and once that was done the regime crumbled pretty much overnight (again, not exactly confirming that anyone wanted Ghadaffi in the first place). Some schools got bombed, some hospitals, some civilians and that's sad but it's also war. You can't wage war without casualties, including civilians, and they were rather low overall.
As for confessions of an economic hitman, I read it, and it is garbage. You get laughed out of the room for using any of it in academic circles, as you should be. Perkins provides nearly no information at all and his basic rationale for explaining state actions isn't even rational in the first place. The actions he describes in the book are not consistant even with the most basic 'realpolitik' view of the world, and if it doesn't even apply to that theoretical circumstance, it sure as hell won't be applicable to the world we live in today. Not to even mention that quite a lot of the loans made to 2nd/3rd world countries have actually improved the situation in those countries, and have paid for themselves several times over.
As for your example, a 20 billion debt works out at approximately 20-25ish percent of Libyan GDP, which as any half decent economist will tell you is not actually a big deal to pay back, let alone pay interest over. Not to mention that once a more competive economic system is in place in Libya, I'd wager that economic growth in Libya is going to pick up tremendously over the next decade, which makes loaning money now a great option for the country as a whole, as any half-decent economist would agree with also.
I honestly don't understand the negativity surrounding the intervention in Libya. For once, western powers did something actually good and helped the population of a country get rid of an unwanted dictator. How can you be against this? This isn't some new Iraq or Afghanistan where some country was unilaterally invaded, this was dropping a bunch of bombs on the Libyan military. This is what interventions should be about. When it costs us so little to do it, why shouldn't we?
Noone knows how it turns out in the end, but all indications point to a secular, more democratic Libya. It still won't be heaven on earth, but it will probably be better then what it was.
The rebels didn't really do anything, without nato they were nothing. How much time did it take in egypt? Way less than 6 months, and they didn't have nato support. The fact that even with heavy support from nato it took 6 months+ says something.
I never claimed libya was a paradise, of course bad things were going on there. It's hard for me to be for or against the attack because we just don't know the entire truth, and we probably never will. But what's going to happen now? I fear they will trade this dictatorship for another dictatorship. Has intervention in similar situations ever done any good in the past? I doubt it.
Has intervention done any good in the past? Nearly all revolutions get help from the outside just some examples that you should know: The Netherlands would have never beaten Spain without the help of England and the US got help from France in their war for independence.
Why Egypt got rid of Mubarak faster is easy to explain, the army there went over to join the protesters.
Then it might be interesting to think about why the army in libya did no such thing. Maybe Kadaffi treated them well so they wouldn't join the people in a situation like this. I'm not sure.
I'm not arguing that kadaffi was a good man, but if the people in libya don't watch out they'll trade 1 dictator for another.
Something else, I'm seeing youtube footage about syrian soldiers joining the protestors. Good news, I hope they deal with assad quickly and stop the killing.
Libyan society is divided on tribal lines, certain groups in society were beneficiaries of Ghadaffi's policies and the soldiers from those groups were, generally speaking, willing to fight. Large parts of the Libyan army deserted/defected aswell, mainly from ethnic groups that were rebelling against Ghadaffi in the first place. Compared to that, the Egyptian military is highly homogenic and shooting at protesters for them is shooting your own group, which is much harder to do then shooting a group you never really liked in the first place.
That, and the presence of foreign mercenaries willing to fight for Ghadaffi.
I'd also like to point out that the first indicator in this conflict that Gaddaffi lacked popular support was the quick use of foreign mercenaries to fight... against his own people. Libya had his own, well equipped army, and various paramilitary brigades directly under the Gaddaffi family's control. One of them defected as soon as the conflict started How come? If most of the population supported Gaddaffi, how is it that he needed to use foreign mercenaries - whose presence led to many hate crimes towards black people in Libya? Who uses mercenaries to fight his own people? Those who lack their people's support. Now, there is a big gap between that and saying that the vast majority was against Gaddaffi. In my opinion, most did not trust his regime anymore but didn't necessarily wanted him gone. The majority actually didn't partake in the conflict.
On September 10 2011 23:24 Saji wrote: Either you don't read and understand what i post or your trolling. First of all you haven't proven that most of the money was for Gaddaffi`s family (you dint show the total income of Libya and what portion goes to the Gaddaffi family (I`m not disputing the fact that he enriched his own family) what I`m disputing is this outrageous claim that Gaddaffi has been profiteering from the Libyan resources.
Isn't requesting nearly 2 billions of dollars to form a private paramilitary brigade a way to profit from the Libyan ressources? Buying a private A340 Airbus (130 millions)? Do you actually realize that Gaddafi comes from a small and humble bedouin family and that he was merely an officer before the coup? Where do you think his huge wealth comes from?
***
On September 10 2011 23:24 Saji wrote: Secondly what you told about Chile is completely bogus, i suggest you go and read: Confession of an Economic Hit Man to understand what happened in Latin America and not the pretext bullshit history you get (specially from Chile).
Please, the context of Operation Condor is widely known and is a commonly studied tragedy in South America. I have been closer to the consequences of CIA involvment than you will ever be. You need to aknowledge the fact that you're unimformed about this situation in comparison to South American intellectuals who actually saw with their own eyes the scars of Amercian imperialism.
The book you quoted is highly specific. If you had a clue of what you talked about you would know that foreign interests have prevailed even after 1818, mainly because the ruling families in Chile are "international" families who never defended the country in the first place. American presence and interests have grown since WW1 when Europeans lost foot in the continent due to their sudden weakness, and has worsened through the Cold War. A good example in Chile is the influence of the Chicago Boys, or the ridiculous opposition to our neighbours in favor of the US (only being associated in the MERCOSUR without being members and favorizing the membership with the APEC...).
What YOU are saying is completely senseless. I don't even know why you're arguing as it is completely off-topic. Troll?
Prove that Gaddafi used foreign mercenaries against his own people? As of yet I have not seen one bit of substantiated proof that Gaddafi in fact hired mercenaries and used them against peaceful protesters.
All I have seen are random videos where gunshots are heard and people are running around. In no video do you actually see any gunmen, its not actually even substantiated that there are in fact anti-Gaddafi protesters in the videos.
Please someone show me SUBSTANTIATED evidence that this took place, I cannot find it.
The ALBA foreign ministers condemn NATO's aggression on Libya.
Havana, Cuba, Sept 10.- The foreign ministers of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas (ALBA) condemned on Friday in Caracas the military aggression of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on Libya.
Convened by that organization for regional integration, the FMs of Venezuela, the host country, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador and the Grenadine Islands declared themselves to be against what they defined as a US and European attempt to take possession of the natural resources of that north-African nation.
While inaugurating the meeting, broadcast by Venezolana de Television, FM Nicolas Maduro considered the aggression against Tripoli as a format that once again resorts to lie (...) and manipulation, (...) to justify invasion.
Walter Fauntroy, Feared Dead in Libya, Returns Home—Guess Who He Saw Doing the Killing
Former U.S. Congressman Walter Fauntroy, who recently returned from a self-sanctioned peace mission to Libya, said he went into hiding for about a month in Libya after witnessing horrifying events in Libya's bloody civil war -- a war that Fauntroy claims is backed by European forces.
Fauntroy's sudden disappearance prompted rumors and news reports that he had been killed.
In an interview inside his Northwest D.C. home last week, the noted civil rights leader, told the Afro that he watched French and Danish troops storm small villages late at night beheading, maiming and killing rebels and loyalists to show them who was in control.
"'What the hell' I'm thinking to myself. I'm getting out of here. So I went in hiding," Fauntroy said.
The rebels told Fauntroy they had been told by the European forces to stay inside. According to Fauntroy, the European forces would tell the rebels, "'Look at what you did.' In other words, the French and Danish were ordering the bombings and killings, and giving credit to the rebels.
CNN REPORTS THAT THERE ARE MORE JOURNALISTS THAN NATO MILITIA
This proves the suspicion, that this war is mostly fought from the air and through propaganda. NATO militiamen have no support therefore can't survive even a day without NATO operations, or the propaganda machine which is painting them in good light.
Fighters frustrated as Gadhafi loyalists resist assault on Bani Walid September 10, 2011
And at times, the journalists have outnumbered them, with as many as 150 -- probably the biggest media throng seen here -- gathered with the fighters outside Bani Walid earlier Saturday.
Sometimes the anti-Gadhafi fighters' frustration breaks out in heated exchanges with the journalists, as they try to tell them what they can and can't film, their relations with the media a barometer of how well the battle is going
I'm sorry, how did you conclude that the rebels have no support from that article?
On September 11 2011 14:40 ImFromPortugal wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Walter Fauntroy, Feared Dead in Libya, Returns Home—Guess Who He Saw Doing the Killing
Former U.S. Congressman Walter Fauntroy, who recently returned from a self-sanctioned peace mission to Libya, said he went into hiding for about a month in Libya after witnessing horrifying events in Libya's bloody civil war -- a war that Fauntroy claims is backed by European forces.
Fauntroy's sudden disappearance prompted rumors and news reports that he had been killed.
In an interview inside his Northwest D.C. home last week, the noted civil rights leader, told the Afro that he watched French and Danish troops storm small villages late at night beheading, maiming and killing rebels and loyalists to show them who was in control.
"'What the hell' I'm thinking to myself. I'm getting out of here. So I went in hiding," Fauntroy said.
The rebels told Fauntroy they had been told by the European forces to stay inside. According to Fauntroy, the European forces would tell the rebels, "'Look at what you did.' In other words, the French and Danish were ordering the bombings and killings, and giving credit to the rebels.
On September 11 2011 12:07 Aurocaido wrote: Prove that Gaddafi used foreign mercenaries against his own people? As of yet I have not seen one bit of substantiated proof that Gaddafi in fact hired mercenaries and used them against peaceful protesters.
All I have seen are random videos where gunshots are heard and people are running around. In no video do you actually see any gunmen, its not actually even substantiated that there are in fact anti-Gaddafi protesters in the videos.
Please someone show me SUBSTANTIATED evidence that this took place, I cannot find it.
* Repeated reports of foreign fighters attacking protesters
* UN working group says their use looks increasingly likely
* Evidence points to fighters from west, central Africa
By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent
LONDON, Feb 24 (Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the loyalty of his armed forces proving decidedly unreliable, appears to have turned to mercenaries from elsewhere in Africa to support his bloody crackdown.
Witnesses and rights groups have told Reuters and other media repeatedly of foreigners brought in to fight, perhaps veterans of wars and insurgencies elsewhere in Africa -- often from countries with which Gaddafi has built strong links.
A lawyer in Benghazi said on Wednesday a security committee formed by civilians there had arrested 36 mercenaries from Chad, Niger and Sudan hired by Gaddafi's elite Praetorian Guard.
However,
Mercenaries joining both sides in Libya conflict
But if you choose to remain skeptic over such elements, I would need to ask you: are there any women in Libya? I haven't seen anyone since the conflict started. I also never saw a video that clearly showed that Gaddafi is in Libya, it actually looked a bit like England at some point. Amrite?
The use of mercenaries was a common topic since the 17th of february and wasn't disproved like Gaddafi's supposed airstrikes against the protesters were. It's also not surprising since the countries south of Libya have been full of mercenaries since the Toyota war. That and the bloodthirsty speeches Gaddafi gave make this piece of information quite possibly true.
I will agree though that it is unlikely that he used mercenaries against the peaceful protests. My point though is that as long as you have the army and at least half of the population to back you up, even a drawn out rebellion shouldn't require the use of foreign mercenaries and should end quite quickly, UNLESS part of the army is necessary to secure the whole territory because the lack of popular support makes it unstable... the rebels' use of mercenaries seems more logical since they had no army to speak of in the first place, and probably received some sort of funding by the NATO.
On September 11 2011 16:14 Saji wrote: CNN REPORTS THAT THERE ARE MORE JOURNALISTS THAN NATO MILITIA
This proves the suspicion, that this war is mostly fought from the air and through propaganda. NATO militiamen have no support therefore can't survive even a day without NATO operations, or the propaganda machine which is painting them in good light.
Fighters frustrated as Gadhafi loyalists resist assault on Bani Walid September 10, 2011
And at times, the journalists have outnumbered them, with as many as 150 -- probably the biggest media throng seen here -- gathered with the fighters outside Bani Walid earlier Saturday.
Sometimes the anti-Gadhafi fighters' frustration breaks out in heated exchanges with the journalists, as they try to tell them what they can and can't film, their relations with the media a barometer of how well the battle is going
Not to mention you're using corporate western media as a source of information...by your own admission, western media can't be trusted. How can this? It is far more likely CNN would report something like that in order to get NATO governments to fund more private military firms and send more western-built guns into the Libyan rebels' hands, right?
EPT
