And now, Libya...

kuliwil · Post by **kuliwil** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:54

I agree entirely with StupidBunny.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:38

As I was finishing my post I accidentally misclicked and closed the window... damn.

It's NATO, not the UN.

The rest of your comments don't merit response. Remember though that the transitional government is implementing a law model that the west doesn't approve of. Is that western dominance, hey?

I'm not saying I approve of sharia law, I'm just pointing out that Libya isn't being ruled by those who aided the rebels to overthrow the dictator.

Oh, and Switzerland is far freer than Libya ever was - did you even think that analogy through?

I don't get what you are trying to say with your first thing there.

The west does not give a garg if people are repressed. They support dictators and repressive regimes all the time. On one condition though.. .that that regime sells out their country by letting the west pillage their resources. Gadaffi was different, that's why he was bad.

NATO overthrew Gadaffi. And the regime right now only exists because of the West's involvement. They are indeed the West's puppets.

The Switzerland analogy is because switzerland is often look at as the best place in europe to live in, and the bank of europe. That's basically what Libya was in Africa. They did far more than the West ever did for that continent.

This is a good point. I'm really curious at this point to know what your views are on authoritarianism and press freedom versus control. I won't doubt that Libya under Gaddafi had higher health indicators than anywhere else in Africa (at least as an average) but you'd be a damned fool to say that Libyans were a free people who could say what they wanted of their government or that there were any democratic institutions that had any policy-making power whatsoever.

Gadaffi lifted Libya to not be a miserable backward garg to live in. He made into a very modern country that was the envy of the continent and that was ahead of many european countries.
For someone to do that, and to spend so lavishly on his people... hell yeah, there's no place for demands for that person to get the F*** out.

That aside, Libya has always been made up of various clans/tribes. They have never been at full peace with one another, so it's necessary for there to be authoritarian rule. What else can one expect from a country that the west carved up out of nothing.
Gadaffi did allow criticism. He did not allow uprisings, and nobody should allow that. They're clamping down on protesters in the US for example. It's something that happens.

In the free market the only ones who have freedom are those with big assets/money. The rest are just peons.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:16

I'm sure that CKEEN will be thrilled with this picture. How dare I see anything positive about Gadaffi. Shame on me!

KeenEmpire · Post by **KeenEmpire** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:51

Scarlet wrote:The west does not give a garg if people are repressed.

is correct in the sense that they don't instigate military action merely against repression (sometimes the opposite). This does not imply, however, that:

Scarlet wrote:Gadaffi [did not let the west pillage their resources], that's why he was bad.

If Gadaffi was bad for repressing his citizens, he was bad regardless, and what NATO decides to do with their military, or what Gadaffi decided to give or not to give to the west, has nothing to do with this.

Scarlet wrote:the regime right now only exists because of the West's involvement. [implies] They are...the West's puppets.

This is fallacious. I could leave it at that (the conclusion clearly does not follow from what you'd said), but let me elaborate.

The leaders of NATO saw an opportunity for military intervention. Furthermore, sociopolitical pressure (e.g. voter sentiment) was encouraging them to intervene. Thus, they intervened. While I'm open to evidence that this was done to puppetize the new Lybian government, this conclusion just does not follow from mere intervention.

Scarlet wrote:Gadaffi lifted Libya to not be a miserable backward garg to live in. He made into a very modern country that was the envy of the continent and that was ahead of many european countries.
For someone to do that, and to spend so lavishly on his people... hell yeah, there's no place for demands for that person to get the F*** out.

If you're saying that there are no grounds for protest against someone who drastically improves their community and then commits murder (for example), then I'm afraid we just don't share values similar enough for discussion.

Regardless of whether or not you believe there are grounds, a fair number of Libyans did. You can't call conspiracy just because not everyone agrees with you.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:59

If you're saying that there are no grounds for protest against someone who drastically improves their community and then commits murder (for example), then I'm afraid we just don't share values similar enough for discussion.

Uh dude, the current guys totally rejected democracy. It's like "yeah, democracy as long as you do not belong to that majority of people who supported Gadaffi."

Face it, most people in Libya supported Gadaffi, for all the goodness that Gadaffi did. But after almost a year of being bombed to smithereens, there is not one regime on this planet that could survive. People can take some bombing. But that much bombing? Come on.

edit: Oho, we're playing the game where you edit after your first post.

If Gadaffi was bad for repressing his citizens, he was bad regardless, and what NATO decides to do with their military, or what Gadaffi decided to give or not to give to the west, has nothing to do with this.

Okay so we say Gadaffi was bad. He was in fact better than many Western countries. He was better than almost all of Africa. And on top of that he was better than these monsters who replaced him.

is correct in the sense that they don't instigate military action merely against repression

Make it more blunt. The West does not go in "because of repression".

The leaders of NATO saw an opportunity for military intervention. Furthermore, sociopolitical pressure (e.g. voter sentiment) was encouraging them to intervene. Thus, they intervened. While I'm open to evidence that this was done to puppetize the new Lybian government, this conclusion just does not follow from mere intervention.

There was absolutely no pressure for them to intervene. Why did not intervene in Bahrain? Oh yeah, because that country sucks up big time to the West. Voters in the West though? They don't give a garg one way or another.
Without the West's organization of the rebels, they would not have come to power. This was not a mere uprising. It was a well coordinated and planned endeavor to get rid of Gadaffi, to replace him with a regime which will suck up to the West and extend their oil contracts in 2012.

KeenEmpire · Post by **KeenEmpire** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:20

Scarlet wrote: edit: Oho, we're playing the game where you edit after your first post.

Since I made my post then immediately X'ed out of the forum, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:34

KeenEmpire wrote:
Scarlet wrote: edit: Oho, we're playing the game where you edit after your first post.
Since I made my post then immediately X'ed out of the forum, I have no idea what you're talking about.

As I was posting you edited my post. Nevermind that though.

The point is that it's disguising to support such aggression by the west. In doing so we have a regime in libya which is arguably much worse than gadaffi ever was.

StupidBunny · Post by **StupidBunny** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:53

KeenEmpire wrote:If you're saying that there are no grounds for protest against someone who drastically improves their community and then commits murder (for example), then I'm afraid we just don't share values similar enough for discussion.

I think this more or less sums up my attitude towards this discussion. Yes, Gaddafi broadly raised standards of living and public health in Libya--I cannot emphasize enough that I know this is true--but in my opinion neither he nor you nor anybody should allow that to excuse a violent or tyrannical form of government.

You have said often that the great majority of Libyans support Gaddafi, and said earlier also that criticism and dissent were allowed in Libya under his rule. How do you know this? Where are you hearing these facts from? How are you so sure that everybody in Libya lived in such bliss that the only way protests would have begun is through foreign intervention?

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 23:35

StupidBunny · Post by **StupidBunny** » Mon Dec 26, 2011 5:53

I'm actually very opposed to military interventionism on the part of the Western powers as a means of forcing regime change, and I'm not sure I ever explicitly stated otherwise. Sorry if anything I said ever sounded that way, but I hope you understand that just because I think Gaddafi did some terrible things, doesn't mean I think direct military intervention to aid in his overthrow was the right course of action.

And that's what it was, too. I never really believed that NATO's intervention was just "protecting civilians" and it's pretty damn obvious to anybody who was paying attention that all that was just geopolitical posturing and that the entire intervention was all about overthrowing Gaddafi. And I don't think that was right at all, but it also doesn't surprise me. The U.S. and other Western powers do stuff like this all the time, it's what military giants can get away with.

I'm very cynical about my government's aims for the most part, especially in foreign policy. I know militaristic power projection when I see it and I don't approve of it as a means of effecting change. So you can say all you want that I don't know enough about Gaddafi or am misinformed about him or whatever, but don't you go saying that I'm some sort of imperialist stooge who things militarist intervention is a positive thing, or that I'm naive enough to believe that the NTC is going to be a great government. You clearly aren't listening if you believe these things about me and I suspect you're projecting whatever assumptions you have about Americans being stupid war-hawks on me.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:43

Ooo a post saying all these things about neutrality and whatnot, yet a continual condemnation of Gadaffi. It reminds of liberal imperialism, stuff along the lines of 'humanitarian bombing' and so forth.

The question is these idiots or Gadaffi. Clearly Gadaffi is the better option.

Now many of these nutjobs are going to fight in Syria. Scary, ain't it? In Tripoli there is outright dislike of the rebels who seem to just bother civilians nowadays. But wait, it's not Gadaffi, so hey, lets cheer for this more repressive alternative.

StupidBunny · Post by **StupidBunny** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:12

You know, it's quite possible for me to dislike both the NTC and Gaddafi. I'm also not sure what "humanitarian bombing" has at all to do with what I said, since I'm pretty sure I said I didn't approve of foreign military intervention as a means of forcing regime change.

As I and KeenEmpire have said, neither of us think that responding to protests, however "unreasonable" you insist they are, with brutal force and violence is justified either. That's where my disapproval of Gaddafi comes from. The new government may well turn out worse than his regime was, and I'm not trying to say otherwise. They haven't shown themselves to be very competent so far, and to be honest I doubt at this point that standards of living for a lot of Libyans will get any better, at least as things are going.

The thing of it is that I actually kind of liked Gaddafi up to the point that he started gunning down unarmed protesters in large numbers. He was a figure like Paul Kagame in Rwanda, who is also a dictator that has brought about a major growth in stability and economic prosperity in his own country. One big difference though between Kagame and Gaddafi is that Gaddafi's regime never tried to establish civil institutions; all reform was effected and carried out at his whim, and without his person there was nothing left to build a state around, and no civil tradition to hold the country together. And the fact of the matter is that Rwanda may have the same problem after Kagame is gone: despite his own efforts to create a rule of law and strong institutions, the state may quickly collapse into corruption and tribalism after his tenure is over. It's in my opinion the biggest failing with dictatorship, is that it is difficult for it to build stability that outlasts even the best-intentioned leaders.

I had a sort of tenuous hope for the NTC at the beginning, just as I did for the Congolese elections and for South Sudan and for Obama and so forth. All four of these things have disappointed to some degree or another. I always try to keep a "you never know" attitude towards these sorts of change, even though the more cynical reality generally wins out in the end.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 19:44

Disliking both, but condemning only one, overwhelmingly.

responding to protests... with brutal force and violence is justified

Everyone does this. In the US even. Especially if the protests are not approved in advance.
One thing is to organize approved protests. It's a whole other thing to disrupt society and day-to-day activities. I have no respect for that.

They haven't shown themselves to be very competent so far, and to be honest I doubt at this point that standards of living for a lot of Libyans will get any better, at least as things are going.

Well some people, like for example some Italian morons, think that the actions were great and that there is only good from them. They think Gadaffi was all bad and that anyone uttering anything good about Gadaffi is insane. Scary, isn't it? We have such ignorant douchbags on this forum.

You know what I say to such italian douchbags? Well, not only italians, but they're quite notorious, especially their southern hicks. I say this to them.

I had a sort of tenuous hope for the NTC at the beginning, just as I did for the Congolese elections and for South Sudan and for Obama and so forth. All four of these things have disappointed to some degree or another. I always try to keep a "you never know" attitude towards these sorts of change, even though the more cynical reality generally wins out in the end.

From the very start it was obvious that they were nothing but a bunch of bad people.

It's in my opinion the biggest failing with dictatorship, is that it is difficult for it to build stability that outlasts even the best-intentioned leaders.

China, Mexico, and countless other examples say no.

Post by **Ceilick** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 19:47

Enough is enough.