Gaddafi murdered by NATO and new buddies.

Hahahaha.. when the bloom is off the rose and you all don't have the sticktoitiveness to follow thru on your dreams of democracy, blame the US.

Libya has NOTHING to do with Iran or Syria.

 

So YOU say which means jack (*)(*)(*)(*), frankly.

 

What EXACTLY is the connection between Libya and Iran or Syria..

Many US companies were operating in Libya and paying revenue to the Libyan coffers.

 

This is a useless affair to convince Margo that she is wrong. Just Look at brands
Names wich she sounded.

 

95%v of Libya's income come from oil revenues.. They buy and import 75% of their food.

Think it thru..

The oil business HATES a war zone.. The US would have left it alone..

These gutless wonders who were so eager to overthrow every ME government and reduce it to chaos and poverty are now blaming the US and NATO for some nefarious plot.

Look at Tunisia.. The majority party won the vote.. so the losers riot.. They don't get how difficult democracy can be.

 

So following your logic, NATO's interference in Libya will now end and no commitments will be made over Libya’s resources until an elected government is in place to make them?

The truth is NATO's power interference, starting with the elections, will be less obvious than the mass killings, but in the end even more damaging. Libya’s resources and its finance will be handed over to the big corporations lock, stock and barrel. Those who trumpet this as a triumph of “Liberal intervention” are going to have to show a great deal of progress very quickly, if they claim it outweighs the many civilians NATO killed in Sirte and elsewhere – if you believe such a stark utilitarian equation of dead children for democracy can ever have validity.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/10/death-of-gadaffi/

The Libyan envoy to the UN had said the NTC needed more time to assess its security needs. But Security Council diplomats told reporters that the mandate to protect civilians had been accomplished, and any further security assistance would have to be negotiated separately.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15481143

Clearly, what is already happening is a protection racket. You can almost hear the rubbing of hands in the halls of power across Europe and elsewhere.

The newspaper Liberation last month disclosed a proposal made by the 'rebel' NTC to the French government in which France was offered 35 per cent of Libya's gross national oil production "in exchange" (the term used) for "total and permanent" French support for the NTC. Running up the Stars and Stripes in "liberated" Tripoli, the US ambassador, Gene Cretz, blurted out: "We know that oil is the jewel in the crown of Libyan natural resources."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/se...pers-s30.shtml

In a rare moment of honesty, Jackie Ashley in the Guardian stated:

'...cast aside international law, and there is nothing but might is right, arms, oil and profits.

'Well, you might say, but isn't that where we are already? Not quite. Many of us may feel great cynicism about some of the west's war-making and the strange coincidence of military intervention and oil and gas reserves. I do.' (Ashley, 'Few would weep for Gaddafi, but targeting him is wrong: In war, international law is all we have. If we cast it aside there'll be nothing left but might is right, arms, oil and profits,' The Guardian May 2, 2011)

Johann Hari wrote about the Libyan war in his sole article on the subject in the Independent on April 8, commenting:

'Bill Richardson, the former US energy secretary who served as US ambassador to the UN, is probably right when he says: "There's another interest, and that's energy... Libya is among the 10 top oil producers in the world. You can almost say that the gas prices in the US going up have probably happened because of a stoppage of Libyan oil production... So this is not an insignificant country, and I think our involvement is justified".'

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...a-2264785.html

This was a rare affirmation of the role of oil as a motive, albeit one that emphasised the specious claim that the US concern is simply to keep the oil flowing (Hari did mention, vaguely, that results were intended to be 'in our favour'). Hari appeared to lack any insight into the role of Wikileaks. A lack of awareness which perhaps explains why he had 'wrestled with' the alleged moral case for intervention before rejecting it.

The de facto conquest of Libya by the US and its imperial partners heralds a modern version of the "Scramble for Africa" at the end of the 19th century. Like in the "victory" in Iraq, journalists have played a critical role in distinguishing between worthy and unworthy Libyan victims. A recent Guardian front page carried a photograph of a terrified "pro-Gaddafi" fighter and his wild-eyed captors who, the caption said, "celebrate". According to General Petraeus, there are now wars "of perception . . . conducted continuously through the news media".

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/i...ew/full/111004

For more than a decade, the US has tried to establish a command on the African continent, AFRICOM, but has been rebuffed by governments fearful of the regional tensions this would cause. Libya, and now Uganda, South Sudan and Congo, provide the main chance. As WikiLeaks cables and the US National Strategy for Counter-terrorism show, American plans for Africa are part of a global design in which 60,000 special forces, including death squads, operate in 75 countries. As the then defence secretary Dick Cheney pointed out in the 1990s, America simply wants to rule the world.

http://www.newstatesman.com/internat...a-obama-africa

 

I don't want to argue with you today . I know one thing, the war does not stop oil business. In Russia during the first war company in Сhechnya ,all oil processing plants works at full capacity.

 

Oil concessions in Libya are based on 50-50.. The oil companies invest in all the required facilities , exploration and infrastructure.. and once flow reaches commerical numbers, they pay royalties to the Libyan government.

Yes, war does stop the oil business.. That's why Libya's production fell out last spring.

The oil companies cannot afford the hazard pay for their employees.

 

No Margot, Libya CEASED to be an Arab Spring event the instant that NATO became involved. Libya became a NATO Spring event.

 

Funny... the Libyans were begging for air cover.

Libya still stands a better chance of achieving their goals than Egypt or poor Yemen.

 

NATO'S intervention for some reason renders the Libyian peoples' sufferring less legitimate than that of Egyptians or Tunisians.

Try to get the logic in that.

 

Libya has a better chance of success because they have Khadafi's money to rebuild.. oil assets and lucrative contracts in place, the experience of an excellent Constitution in the past as well as beautiful beaches and a rich heritage.

Its cruel and hideous that a mob murdered Khadafi, but that does NOT reflect on the Libyan people nor does it mean the US wanted a regime change in 2011 in the midst of a horrific economic downturn.

 

Good point. Most libyans are not responsible for the deeds of one or a few individuals in a state of chaos.

 

I agree and my comment was not directed at you.

Financially Libyia is in a better place and that surely helps.

I also agree that the Libyian people will not be any better or worse than any other and I find the claims that the rebels killed him and are thus particularly tyranical as a whole to be an exercise in racism.

A regime change has never made sense for the west. They were getting along with the old one just fine.

 

What is even MORE preposterous is that Bernadine Dohn initiated the whole Arab Spring on Obama's behalf.

What really bugs me.. is the rhetoric that demands the overthrow of ALL Arab governments (good and bad) on one hand regardless of plunging all into poverty and lawlessness.. while on the other hand shifting the blame to NATO and Obama.

When you foment a revolution the going gets real tough.. you'd better pull up your socks.

 

I know.. and I didn't take it that your remarks were directed at me..

Egypt has long suffered from poverty .. and poor Yemen has been a poverty stricken basket case since the 1960s when the Egyptians were fighting for the Communists in the Yemeni civil war.

 

OK, so NATO's ' Libyans' invited NATO into Libya. We've agreed on that.

 

More conspiracy theory.

 

But now the Egyptians are living well, at least close to the Russian?

 

NOt so much .. 40% of Egyptian live on $1 a day and rice and bread are subsidized by the government.

 

The Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions were genuine expressions of the will of the mass of the people. This was not the case in Libya. As I have repeatedly stated, the 'revolution' in Libya would not have happened had NATO not intervened.

 

The Libyan revolution was already in progress for over a month.

 

I think that the Libyans will live even worse. I do not believe that this (*)(*)(*)(*) rebels could create something that makes sense. My country had such an experience.

 

Nato definitely helped it. As well as Obama's speech in which he talked about the so called Arab Spring. And i am not about to discount the influence that the Dohrn woman and Ayers have on Obama and his circle of confidants. You wanna talk about conspiracy i think this is an excellent candidate. Even though i don't believe that most conspiracies are a possibility since man is very self promoting. But i think they stumble in to luck every now and again.

 

However, at one stage the Benghazi rebels were in retreat and it looked like Gaddafi loyalists was gaining ground that was before NATO - joining into the conflict.


...