Thread: 'Victory' in Tripoli, Libya. A big lie?

Well, for now you cannot 100% believe anything about that war, because it is still ongoing and spreading propaganda and misinformation is normal part of any war.
Because - if I can read something on the net - so can Gaddafi and rebels.

Even if victory in Tripoli is false - it is a good way to harm morale for Gaddafi troops anyway.

As for the idea that Col. Khaddaffi was a brutal oppressive dictator; Libya was apparently one of the best organised states in Africa with a good educational system and likewise healthcare. Possibly the best organised country in North Africa.
No doubt he had many faults both as a person and in his administration, but there are plenty more brutal regimes in Africa...

Yeah, and Baltics should have remained in Russia.
Just like Gorbachew and some western leaders wanted.

Somebody who I personally know and respect (an arabic speaking woman who's an old friend of mine)
has several times mentioned that she has a high view of Khaddaffi.

Yes, I have met a few people that are whining for USSR and want it back too. (poor miserable losers)
Watching his speeches - it is clear that old nutjob (Gaddafi) has lost his mind.

Because my country was oppressed by brutal and inhuman regime for decades - I strongly support people from Arab world that want to get rid of their dictatorships.
Of course there will be a lot of chaos and uncertainty - just like after USSR collapse - but after that they might be better of if they choose a democracy and do not let another dictator to take power (most of former USSR failed to do it).

Originally Posted by nulle

Because my country was oppressed by brutal and inhuman regime for decades - I strongly support people from Arab world that want to get rid of their dictatorships.

It's one thing if the people feel strongly enough about the question to sort it out themselves, which is arguably what happened in Latvia etc.

It's a completely different thing if an alliance of superpowers decide that they want to participate and "protect civilians" by bombing cities or what-not.... which is what's happening in Libya.

And interestingly, overthrowing Khaddaffi has been on the US "roadmap" for at least a decade, if the Wesley Clark speech is anything to go by (and he should know). Britain has hated Libya since Lockerbie accident and was even more keen to get in toppling Khaddaffi.

I think the Libyans might find that they got into bed with somebody entirely different than they thought. As people across the world can tell them, once the Americans get a foot in, they NEVER leave.

Mark my word, next step is that a bunch of "consultants" or "advisors" or something will come in and "educate" the Libyans about how to set up a democracy.... and (more importantly) what to do with their oil.

If they are really lucky they might get a NATO airbase on their territory to "protect" their democracy.

It's one thing if the people feel strongly enough about the question to sort it out themselves, which is arguably what happened in Latvia etc.

We were very lucky that we regained our independence peacefully. Egypt and Tunis also overthrew their dictators relatively peacefully - and NATO did not bomb them.
But instead of resigning (like Mubarak) Gaddafi decided to start a bloodbath.
So - yes - when some dictator is slaughtering its own people - it is OK to intervene, because human rights are universal and not an "internal thing".

Thank God we have the notoriously reliable Russian tabloid press to give air time to the two or three people on the planet who really know what's going on!

Soviet years have trained us to take anything Russia publishes with caution anyway.
Especially if it is anti-American.

and (more importantly) what to do with their oil.

Oil is much cheaper to simply buy and not to wage war for it.
Most oil exporting countries are not producing anything else anyway.
It is better to buy their (cheap) oil and to sell them (expensive) industrial production (cars, electronics, etc) - (like Germany and Russia for example).

Just like natural resources of USSR was not USSR people's property, but were exploited by communist elite building useless shit like nuclear weapons.

Again, you're probably too young to know, but people did live far more happier in USSR than they are now.

But you agree that average soviet citizen did not have any say in how to use USSR natural resources.
If party decided to build more nuclear bombs - which really are useless shit - because - what do you do with that many?
Then they built nuclear bombs - does not matter that shops were empty and you had to wait in looooooooooong queue to get something TO EAT.
And which are these "happier people"? Chekists? Communist elite?

Originally Posted by nulle

...But instead of resigning (like Mubarak) Gaddafi decided to start a bloodbath.
So - yes - when some dictator is slaughtering its own people - it is OK to intervene, because human rights are universal and not an "internal thing"....

More people have been killed in sub-Saharan Africa than the entire population of Libya. Where is the intervention?

There won't be. Intervention is not done for humanitarian reasons. 'Humanitarian intervention' is simply an excuse because people believe that.

Originally Posted by Seraph

More people have been killed in sub-Saharan Africa than the entire population of Libya.

That's an argument in favour of interventions that didn't happen, not an argument against those that did.

.http://dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=462..The case for intervention in Libya is too weak. Intervention is not done for humanitarian reasons. It is a rationalization. Spin.

.http://wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/liby-a26.shtml. "abject criminality of imperialism’s takeover of Libya is becoming increasingly evident"

what the world is witnessing is the rape of Libya by a syndicate of imperialist powers determined to lay hold of its oil wealth and turn its territory into a neo-colonial base of operations for further interventions throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Looks like straight out of Soviet propaganda...
My country is part of that "imperialist powers" (NATO) too - can't wait to get a cut of loot.

Why Russian? Did Latvian newspapers say something completely different that time?

Of course not - those who did were quickly silenced by chekists.

Originally Posted by Seraph

.Dissent Magazine - Online Features - The Wrong Intervention -..The case for intervention in Libya is too weak. Intervention is not done for humanitarian reasons. It is a rationalization. Spin.

Of course it's spin. At least partly. It's not inconceivable that the intervention saved lives, but humanitarian concerns were at least as much a pretext for getting rid of Gadaffi as a genuine motive. That's hardly a revelation, the US and British governments haven't really even tried to pretend otherwise.

.The rape of Libya. "abject criminality of imperialism’s takeover of Libya is becoming increasingly evident"

See, this is the sort of cock-eyed, black and white, zero-sum binary thought that results in conspiracy theories. It takes healthy scepticism of NATO's motives and twists it into "The Rape of Libya", where the good, honest, just and dearly loved Colonel Gadaffi courageously fights against the odds with the imperialist pigs and their paid rebel puppets (they're not rebels, they're "rebels"), while their lackeys in the western media spread lies and propaganda to cover it up. It's absurd and simplistic, and isn't based on a rational appraisal of the situation but on a giant US-shaped chip on the author's shoulder. American capitalism: bad, therefore Gadaffi: good.

Honestly, it's actually embarrassing to read some of what passes for opinion on this forum sometimes.