Jump to content
Djordje

Libyan civil war started by Western countries?

Recommended Posts

Before the unrest in Libya, the Libyan people had high standard, good wages, social and health insurance. Gadaffi is a sort of dictator, but his people are happy, fed and satisfied. He led a revolution without spilling a single drop of blood. And after all these years, there are riots in Libya? Which sane man would protest for democracy if he has everything he needs in the present system? So the first protest must have been caused by the Western insurgents in Libya - the ultimate goal is of course that 1.8 million barrels of oil a day. Civil war and the intervention is merely the last phase of such a plan. The people of Serbia and Montenegro who have experienced something similar in the 1999 (though NATO bombed us without UN consent) have organized a facebook fan page to support Gadaffi and it already has nearly 40,000 fans.

IMPERIALISM, IMPERIALISM and IMPERIALISM!

Edited by Djordje

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the unrest in Libya, the Libyan people had high standard, good wages, social and health insurance. Gadaffi is a sort of dictator, but his people are happy, fed and satisfied. He led a revolution without a single drop of blood spilled. And after all these years, there are riots in Libya? Which sane man would protest for democracy if he has everything he needs in the present system? So the first protest must have been caused by the Western insurgents in Libya - the ultimate goal is of course that 1.8 million barrels of oil a day. Civil war and the intervention is merely the last phase of such a plan. The people of Serbia and Montenegro who have experienced something similar in the 1999 (though NATO bombed us without UN consent) have organized a facebook fan page to support Gadaffi and it already has nearly 40,000 fans.

IMPERIALISM, IMPERIALISM and IMPERIALISM!

Maybe, but if there was a benevolent dictatorship, wasn't it only benevolent by means of selling oil to global markets? As such, wasn't the regime just a welfare state designed to manufacture consent and cooperation with the imperialism of the global oil economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rebels have broad popular support throughout the Arab world. Are they all plants of Western governments? What about in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, etc.?

 

I think you have a very unrealistic notion of how "happy, fed, and satisfied" the average Libyan is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Djordje; Understanding your words and agreeing for the most part, even that some blame should lay at the feet of US WORDS and Policy, I'm concerned there might be an "Islamic Brotherhood" influence in ALL the Middle East or Northern Africa unrest.

 

Obama, IMO set the pattern with his Speech To The Muslim World, at the Cairo University in 2009. I won't pick the speech apart here, but if you or anyone has not heard it, I've linked it below and second and more recent speech to Egyptians over their very similar "so called" problem with Mumarak. All I detected was an attempt to micro-manage Muslim affairs, without regards to their own cultures...

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7341972n

 

 

If you wish to respond however, I will disagree with your Imperialism problem and don't think that's the problem with Western Countries. It seems to me, both Egypt and Libya have used a certain amount of Western style Capitalism to improve their basic standard of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're showing an interesting parallel to the bloodiest part of European history since World War 2. However, almost all people outside of Serbia would draw a completely different conclusion from this comparison. Considering the idiots bringing it to the streets just for democracy and despite an ok overall standard of living the people of the Democratic Republic of Germany come to my mind. Saying that the people are "happy, fed, and satisfied" is a strange statement about a country in a state of civil war.

Edited by timo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're showing an interesting parallel to the bloodiest part of European history since World War 2. However, almost all people outside of Serbia would draw a completely different conclusion from this comparison. Considering the idiots bringing it to the streets just for democracy and despite an ok overall standard of living the people of the Democratic Republic of Germany come to my mind. Saying that the people are "happy, fed, and satisfied" is a strange statement about a country in a state of civil war.

The Democratic Republic of Germany had lower standard than most European countries which was normal for the countries of the Eastern block. However, the absurdness of dividing a country in half, together with oppression of Stasi is IMO what led to revolt.

 

 

Jackson33: There must be some influence of the "Islamic Brotherhood".

 

Sisyphus: You are forgetting that Egypt had quite low standard.

 

lemur: Libya had to trade oil in order to be independent from financial aid of banks and IMF. The same thing happened in Yugoslavia after WWII - with communists in power and workers' self management as form of socialism, Yugoslavia prospered - it was neutral, fought of USSR's attempts to make it a satellite state, traded with US, Libya, USSR, China etc. Yugoslavia indeed cooperated with capitalist forces of West as well as with communist forces of East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saying that the people are "happy, fed, and satisfied" is a strange statement about a country in a state of civil war.

How can people wage war without being well-fed? I don't see how people could ever rise up if they didn't have the means to mobilize. My issue is to question what uprising and civil war achieve? What can emerge from a political movement that involves force except governance that involves force and repression? I'm not saying that power doesn't, can't, or shouldn't ever check other power - but I think people too often have the idea that they'll mobilize with a group and use their power to dominate; only they never reflect on their own will to dominate because all they focus on is the thing they're rebelling against.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a link to an Amnesty report on the Human Rights situation in Libya mid last year - perhaps some of the posters could acquaint themselves with the realities of life in Libya before painting it as the land of milk and honey

 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE19/007/2010/en/65e2d9ca-3b76-4ea8-968f-5d76e1591b9c/mde190072010en.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a link to an Amnesty report on the Human Rights situation in Libya mid last year - perhaps some of the posters could acquaint themselves with the realities of life in Libya before painting it as the land of milk and honey

 

http://www.amnesty.o...190072010en.pdf

You think reading a report can acquaint anyone with any realities that they aren't living and experiencing for themselves? My question is why you are taking such a guarded stance to making whatever point it is you are trying to make? Why cite a report instead of just stating your points? You can always cite the report as backup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imatfaal; Since I'd rather not read a 100++ page report which would read pretty much the same for any Muslim Based Sharia State, I did go far enough to see they give credit for advancements in Human Rights since 2006. "Milk and Honey" to one person is subjective and poison to the next person. I doubt it would convince me a "possible" majority wouldn't still wish to maintain Sharia Rule and/or whether it's under Qadaffi or al Qaeda, would make any difference.

 

 

 

Djordje; None of your links after quoting my "Muslim Brotherhood" question, answered the question. Do you think, whether directly (al Qaeda) or indirectly (Muslim Brotherhood), that influence would be better or worse for the people of Libya? It's my contention, Libya had been making progress for them, under both civil and human rights and with the cooperation of Western Commercial ventures, oil exploration, trade, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It counts as a truism among historians (ever since the French Revolution) that revolutions are caused by rising standards of living rather than by totally oppressive situations. Once the people start living in conditions of increasing prosperity and also come to enjoy a little more freedom (cf. the Soviet Union under the liberal regime of Gorbachow) they develop a taste for more ambitious developments and a revolution can break out. It is only under conditions of extreme material and political oppression that revolution becomes impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think reading a report can acquaint anyone with any realities that they aren't living and experiencing for themselves? My question is why you are taking such a guarded stance to making whatever point it is you are trying to make? Why cite a report instead of just stating your points? You can always cite the report as backup.

 

Because the whole of this thread is based on peoples misconceptions and assumptions of knowledge. Another "comment" post was not needed. I hoped that the posters who were happy to make wide-scale assumptions might take time to read a little.

 

And frankly your point is always to question the stance of the poster and, whilst this does well in JCRs, it is fairly hackneyed and tiresome. Additionally I made my stance quite clear in another thread, in a post that you responded to http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/55820-popular-control-of-global-oil/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It counts as a truism among historians (ever since the French Revolution) that revolutions are caused by rising standards of living rather than by totally oppressive situations. Once the people start living in conditions of increasing prosperity and also come to enjoy a little more freedom (cf. the Soviet Union under the liberal regime of Gorbachow) they develop a taste for more ambitious developments and a revolution can break out. It is only under conditions of extreme material and political oppression that revolution becomes impossible.

I wonder if that's because they get hungry for even more change or because the excitement of change results in fear of where it is leading, which incites social unrest that boils over. Then it of course makes sense that everyone will say that they were rebelling for whatever cause prevails after the revolution. When do you ever hear people come out after a revolution and say that they were for a different change that the one they got? Probably this is because post-revolutionary regimes tend to be naturally repressive insofar as the supporters of a new regime are going to be very protective against it being undermined (like protecting a newborn baby). Does this mean that "pro-democracy revolution" is an oxymoron?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the whole of this thread is based on peoples misconceptions and assumptions of knowledge. Another "comment" post was not needed. I hoped that the posters who were happy to make wide-scale assumptions might take time to read a little. [/Quote]

 

imatfaal; It's difficult to justify self perceived injustices, but to many people in the Middle East or in fact most of Africa, they are perfectly content with life as it is, so to speak. For a couple thousand years these societies have fought each other and a good day was simply not fighting. With any sense of stability, a home of any kind, food on the table and the basic needs met (opening post) it could be equal to life in heaven, ignorance can be blissful...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And after all these years, there are riots in Libya? Which sane man would protest for democracy if he has everything he needs in the present system? So the first protest must have been caused by the Western insurgents in Libya

How do you jump to this conclusion? Going from "the protests would be unlikely to occur without external cause" to "the external cause was Western insurgents" requires evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It counts as a truism among historians (ever since the French Revolution) that revolutions are caused by rising standards of living rather than by totally oppressive situations. Once the people start living in conditions of increasing prosperity and also come to enjoy a little more freedom (cf. the Soviet Union under the liberal regime of Gorbachow) they develop a taste for more ambitious developments and a revolution can break out. It is only under conditions of extreme material and political oppression that revolution becomes impossible.

 

This is perhaps the best answer to the AI's report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imatfaal; It's difficult to justify self perceived injustices, but to many people in the Middle East or in fact most of Africa, they are perfectly content with life as it is, so to speak. For a couple thousand years these societies have fought each other and a good day was simply not fighting. With any sense of stability, a home of any kind, food on the table and the basic needs met (opening post) it could be equal to life in heaven, ignorance can be blissful...

 

imatfaal; Since I'd rather not read a 100++ page report which would read pretty much the same for any Muslim Based Sharia State, I did go far enough to see they give credit for advancements in Human Rights since 2006. "Milk and Honey" to one person is subjective and poison to the next person. I doubt it would convince me a "possible" majority wouldn't still wish to maintain Sharia Rule and/or whether it's under Qadaffi or al Qaeda, would make any difference.

 

 

Jackson - do you seriously believe that we should judge the entire Muslim world as one homogeneous entity? And moreover, that those in Africa and the Middle East only care or desire the bare minimum essential of life? And finally, that the continent/area that gave the world much of its learning, culture, religion, and science has been in wallowing for 2000 years in a blissful ignorance of everything apart from that necessary to survive?

 

I can see no alternative but to infer from your postings that you don't think that Africans and Arabs have the right or the will to be anything but oppressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson - do you seriously believe that we should judge the entire Muslim world as one homogeneous entity? And moreover, that those in Africa and the Middle East only care or desire the bare minimum essential of life? And finally, that the continent/area that gave the world much of its learning, culture, religion, and science has been in wallowing for 2000 years in a blissful ignorance of everything apart from that necessary to survive?

 

I can see no alternative but to infer from your postings that you don't think that Africans and Arabs have the right or the will to be anything but oppressed.

People all have unique lives and genealogies of experience, but there are universal commonalities. One is that people experiencing relative deprivation are likely to experience more intense pleasure and desire for it than someone who has easy regular access to it. So relative poverty and material comfort are mixed bags. When you're poor, you have less but appreciate it more. When your material standard of living rises, you keep desiring more because things aren't as exciting as when you're deprived of them. I don't think anyone is blissfully ignorant of anything, except perhaps how desensitizing western materialism can be. I think people realize that they can achieve happiness with relatively small material increases, which is why there is tension and conflict over economic development. On the one hand people want to progress economically but on the other they don't want to get swept into a flood of western materialism that appears to spoil so many westerners if you pay attention to the media. That and they don't want to give up all their traditional ways of doing things to adopt modern forms of labor and technology for everything.

Edited by lemur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if one would consider the US revolution as consisting of people who were happy, fed and satisfied, except for the part about not having the power of self-determination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if one would consider the US revolution as consisting of people who were happy, fed and satisfied, except for the part about not having the power of self-determination. [/Quote]

 

swansont; Aside from that revolution taking place in an entirely different time period, taking many generations to develop, it's a fair question. Different historians have different views on how many of the colonialist were happy or content, generally around 70% of which many (25% of the total) wanting to stay under British control. If convinced, I'm not and could be wrong, that an actual goal of the "rebels" was free choice and some control of the people over Government (even if Islamic/Sharia), I'd support the movement, with my words. I feel the Libyans, Egyptians and several others are being mislead by VERY small internal activist, anarchist groups wanting or desiring different personal goals, no less than any activist group in the US or any Country, then taking advantage of the situation.

 

Without getting involved in "Caliphate" discussion, I'll offer this link and it worries me what forces might be standing by to fill in any voids left in those few of the 58 Islamic States that are to some degree pro-Western...

 

As anti-government protests continue brewing in Egypt, opposition groups such as the banned Muslim Brotherhood are gaining steam and popularity among disillusioned Egyptians bent on ousting President Hosni Mubarak from office. But excerpts of a 1995 book written by the Muslim Brotherhood‘s fifth leader and translated by Palestinian Media Watch are lending a disturbing look at the group’s views and stated mission.[/Quote]

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/muslim-brotherhoods-goals-uncovered-global-islamic-conquest-caliphate/

 

If your not familiar with "The Blaze" it is a Glen Beck publication, I do not necessarily agree with any article, but do feel they offer a perspective, not found in main stream media...

 

Jackson - do you seriously believe that we should judge the entire Muslim world as one homogeneous entity? [/Quote]

 

No imatfaal, if anything the Muslim World is heterogeneous, since those societies are split on theological teachings based on different Koran interpretations of each Nations Clergy. Some execute Homosexuals, others don't allow any other religion than Muslim, others educate only certain males and in most all women have extremely limited rights. Isn't Jordan the only remaining Muslim State, that will even recognize Israel, much less say they have a right to exist?

 

 

And moreover, that those in Africa and the Middle East only care or desire the bare minimum essential of life? And finally, that the continent/area that gave the world much of its learning, culture, religion, and science has been in wallowing for 2000 years in a blissful ignorance of everything apart from that necessary to survive? [/Quote]

 

What you call the "bare essentials of life", to some people are luxury's. Then yes, to many of those people, many whom live on 2 US$/day or much less, have life expectancies of less than 50 years, those living in Egypt/Libya might feel blessed. Anyway I was simply agreeing with this thread's author, on that portion.

 

I'm not contesting the historical values of ancient societies, but if the Western World (their words) developed from Arab/African cultures (they had to have), why do they so oppose what developed afterward, in the West.

 

I can see no alternative but to infer from your postings that you don't think that Africans and Arabs have the right or the will to be anything but oppressed. [/Quote]

 

They most certainly DO have human rights (remember unalienable), but is that what's being pursued or is the end desired result the rights of the Koran over all people. I will suggest, this has always been true, while the rest of the world advanced, whatever direction and with 1.5 Billion people could have changed things anytime they had wished. Even today "terrorist" organizations or even the Brotherhood, could not exist without a great deal of the general populations support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if one would consider the US revolution as consisting of people who were happy, fed and satisfied, except for the part about not having the power of self-determination.

I'm guessing different people had different reasons. The story of the Pilgrams, however, is that people were living in Leiden and living reasonably well but that they wanted to become religiously and economically independent so they chartered the Mayflower boat to the new world to live off the land, and lost half their colonists the first winter. The famous tea party is another example where they preferred to throw away the tea than to pay taxes on it to a sovereign that didn't represent them. If their purpose was to take possession of the colonial land wealth to prosper from global trade, I would say that is a similar situation to people taking over oil-wealth, since that is also land wealth that is really only valuable because it can be exchanged on global markets for other things. If the revolution was intended to provide people with land to be independent farmers free from colonial obligations, as it is idealized, then I would say it was not just about increasing their means of consumption by altering their position in a global hierarchy of privilege.

 

The problem everyone seems to forget about whenever there's a 'national' revolution is that these nation-states are not economically self-contained self-sustaining economies. So unless people are having a revolution to become completely economically self-sustaining, then all they're really doing is vying to shift their negotiating position in the global economy. In other words, it's like revolutionary Libyans and Egyptians are saying, "we want to take over the oil-wells so we can send the oil to China and get those people to make us more stuff in exchange." I don't think many people care about economic independence or freedom or democracy except as an instrument for getting in on the systems of global economic exploitation.

 

If they were workers being exploited by global capitalism and what they wanted was to start cultivating more economic independence, that would be more comparable to the ideal of the US revolution, imo. But when people just want access to mineral rights to be able to lease the land for money to buy stuff from other people who produce it, isn't that just a means to become a leisure-elite of the global economy?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Libyan war was started by Western countries, the current turn of developments, in which it now appears as though the rebels in Libya are permeated by al-Quaida, should teach them a lesson. When you bring democracy to various nations you have to keep in mind that everyone's choice for a democratic society is not Madison Avenue, and the genuine majority will of the people may actually want to see adulterous women stoned to death in the public square.

 

The U.S. does better if it just sticks to what it's good at, which is Realpolitik and raison d'etat. That's why the U.S. attacked Libya to save a few Libyan civilians from Gaddafi's bombs by bombing and inevitably accidentally killing other Libyan civilians. This attack makes no sense, of course, unless it could be rigorously demonstrated that the NATO attacks would cause fewer civilian casualties than Gaddafi's, and unless it could be rigorously demonstrated that Gaddafi was killing impermissably many civilians as a by-product of his perfectly legal defense of his status as the sovereign head of state opposing an armed rebellion. So the official doctrine that the NATO attack is somehow a humanitarian mission to save civilians is ludicrous, and what is really going on is just the West trying to maneuver the desired caretaker government into place to supervise the Libyan oil reserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the official doctrine that the NATO attack is somehow a humanitarian mission to save civilians is ludicrous, and what is really going on is just the West trying to maneuver the desired caretaker government into place to supervise the Libyan oil reserves.

I do not see how any of your prior reasoning supports this conclusion. How can you demonstrate the West's true intentions here? What is your evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
March 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama made a convincing case for his Libya policy last night. But his speech touched only briefly on the question of double standards in launching humanitarian missions. Why intervene in Libya and not Syria, Yemen or Ivory Coast? Shouldn’t any foreign-policy doctrine be based on consistency?[/Quote]

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-29/obama-s-policy-on-libya-is-tailored-to-events-jonathan-alter.html

 

Thread; I must be missing something, because to my knowledge, actions taken in Libya, as presented by the US, with the following UN resolution...were all based on Humanitarian efforts, not a Government Change or anything else.

 

I really don't follow Marat around looking for consistency, but the comment "So the official doctrine that the NATO attack is somehow a humanitarian mission to save civilians is ludicrous" would seem absolutely accurate "Broadly or extravagantly humorous; resembling farce". I would place the blame on the leader of the gang action, however, not NATO.

 

Djordje; I did listen, well read your video, but I'm not sure of your motive. I also looked up Libya's GDP/capita and it ranks 50th in a total of 189, not too bad. I joined your thread, thinking you might be satisfied with Qaddafi, at least over what might be next and basically have been arguing that point. I hope I'm wrong, but it's looking more and more like Egypt is going to have a Muslim Brotherhood/Military Coalition Government and they had been outlawed, while already in Libya, are part of the "so called" rebels. Would you accept a Iranian Style Government???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.