Libya

shadowcast

I have come to believe that after the president’s inauguration the next day men in black suits show eight different camera views of JFK getting shot. You know views that no one has ever seen before. Then they proceed to tell him here's how things are run in the world and don't be a hero. We will tell you what to do. Things are just too fucked up. But I am a dreamer and I think goodness will one day rise over darkness.

zarocat

___________ wrote:

though stability on their own terms--that is, keeping the masses subjected under oppressive rulers who do what the U.S. tells them to do.

That's instability

Bronx Bombers

Not a surprise but khadafys justice minister says that the Libyan leader personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.

http://m.nypost.com/;s=i6z3FgMwfZYDPaBd ... 9aR8k2R98I

StillHere

LIBYA / LONDON. Muammar Gaddafi gave himself ordered the Lockerbie bombing.
It reveals Libya's outgoing justice minister, Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil, in an exclusive interview with Expressen Kassem Hamade.
- I have evidence that Gaddafi ordered the Lockerbie, said Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil to Expressen.se.
Also read
February 23, 2011 Thage G. Peterson of grief after the Lockerbie bombing February 23, 2011 The crew shot out from the plane to protest the bombing February 23, 2011

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.2341356/khadaffi-gav-order-om-lockerbie-attentatet

and of course Quadaffi says that he'll fight to his death to stay in power.

fuck

zarocat wrote:

___________ wrote:

though stability on their own terms--that is, keeping the masses subjected under oppressive rulers who do what the U.S. tells them to do.

That's instability

No, not really. It was technically stable in that it lasted for decades. It only became unstable when the people finally decided to revolt very recently.

fuck

Bronx Bombers wrote:

Not a surprise but khadafys justice minister says that the Libyan leader personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.

http://m.nypost.com/;s=i6z3FgMwfZYDPaBd ... 9aR8k2R98I

who cares about this? so typical--Qadhdhafi is killing so many of his own people right now, but to get people in the West to care you have to connect him to something that actually affected white people.

Jason P

___________ wrote:

Um, let me take a shot, oh how about this: Because the U.S. has been supporting the Qadhdhafi regime!! I mean, Hillary just met with Mu`tasim Qadhdhafi. WTF! Americans need to tell its government to stop supporting these governments. And America needs to take a more active role in demanding Qadhdhafi step the fuck down, along with the rest of the world.

I'm pretty sure that the US has supported dropping bombs on Libya.

LikeAnOcean

Looks like we may be stepping in..


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/23/n- ... ts/?hpt=T1



I don't see how the international community can just sit by and watch a mad man gun down and bomb his own peaceful unarmed protesting citizens.

We don't have to occupy. We just need to take out this mad man.

zarocat

___________ wrote:

zarocat wrote:

___________ wrote:

though stability on their own terms--that is, keeping the masses subjected under oppressive rulers who do what the U.S. tells them to do.

That's instability

No, not really. It was technically stable in that it lasted for decades. It only became unstable when the people finally decided to revolt very recently.

Dude, it has always been unstable. What is happening now is just the next step of the instability.
Instability just didn't fall out of the sky.
If it was stable you wouldn't have instability.

Let's take this to the next step seeing that you and I will probably disagree about what I have just written.

What happens if a country needs money (Investment etc.) for whatever reason, what do they do ? World Bank,
yes ? (That is run by ?) And knowing that those countries can't pay back that money, what happens when it's time to collect ? Who goes to these countries and sets up shop ? Answer those questions and step back and look at the STABILITY turned INSTABILITY as you call it, from the perspective that you acquire after answering those questions.

Here is a helpful tool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession ... ic_Hit_Man :thumbup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8

Cheers

fuck

zarocat wrote:

Dude, it has always been unstable. What is happening now is just the next step of the instability.
Instability just didn't fall out of the sky.
If it was stable you wouldn't have instability.

your last sentence makes no sense, lol. that means that everything is virtually unstable since everything at some point always experiences some sort of instability. The thing that makes these revolutions so incredible is that they actually turned over stable governments, and it came out of nowhere (well actually, it came out of Tunisia).

Let's take this to the next step seeing that you and I will probably disagree about what I have just written.

When a country needs money for whatever reason, what do they do ? World Bank, yes ? (That is run by ?) And knowing that those countries can't pay back that money, what happens when it's time to collect ? Who goes to these countries and sets up shop ? Answer those questions and step back and look at the STABILITY turned INSTABILITY as you call it, from the perspective that you acquire after answering those questions.

Here is a helpful tool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession ... ic_Hit_Man :thumbup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8

Cheers

hahaha, dude I know all about this stuff, and I've read the book. I have some problems with it, but whatever I won't get into that right now. You seem to suggest as if the U.S. engineered these revolutions. Which isn't true. Also you seem to suggest that the World Bank and foreign investment hasn't been playing a role in this region for decades already. At this point the U.S. and foreign interests do not want the people taking control of their government because it would threaten their investments. So they do not want any more instability. They want stable governments that protect their investments. Up till now, the dictatorships have played that role very well. Now the U.S. and other foreign powers are very stressed at this instability because it is threatening these investments.

EDIT: Let me be more clear: The region was pretty unstable before with assassinations and revolutions takign place a LOT decades ago. Finally these dictatorships rose that basically introduced some notion of a stable government into many of these countries. That was when the U.S. began playing a much bigger role and foreign interests began investing. After that, they did not want any more instability. Instability here basically means a few things: 1. unpredictability, where no one knows where things are heading. this was not present before in the dictatorial regimes, and 2. no known power head. this is unheard of. the U.S. and foreign interests at this point do not know who to deal with because of how much of a people's movement these revolutions have been. so before, there was some sense of stability in the dictatorial regimes, and the U.S. and foreign powers liked that. the thing you're talking about, which Naomi Klein also talks about in the Shock Doctrine to some extent and on her analysis on disaster economics, has already basically taken place. we're in a new phase where the U.S. wants to preserve these investments, not have them dismantled.

fuck

the U.S. and other foreign powers understand that a huge reason for these revolutions, if not the biggest, is the economic problems these countries have been facing (or rather, the economic problems the PEOPLE have been facing). A lot of that is due to the fact that such business has been completely privatized whether through foreign investments or through the few elite who have taken control of and monopolized many businesses in these countries. Now with these revolutions, such foreign interests are very worried that due to this instability, the people will seek out new economic alternatives that will threaten these foreign investments and privatized business. And they should be worried. because it is such business that has fucked up these countries' economies. i just hope the people are well aware of the issues that dismantling such a system will involve. no freedom is true freedom without political, social, AND economic freedom. the U.S. and foreign interests may be willing to let these people have the first 2 (to some extent), but it is the last one they are deeply worried about.

zarocat

___________ wrote:

zarocat wrote:

Dude, it has always been unstable. What is happening now is just the next step of the instability.
Instability just didn't fall out of the sky.
If it was stable you wouldn't have instability.

your last sentence makes no sense, lol. that means that everything is virtually unstable since everything at some point always experiences some sort of instability.

That last sentence makes perfect sense, lol
Everything will fail ... You don't believe or know that deep down ?

stable 1 |ˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler , -blest )
not likely to change or fail

unstable |ˌənˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler, -blest)
prone to change, fail, or give way; not stable

___________ wrote:

"EDIT: Let me be more clear: The region was pretty unstable before with assassinations and revolutions takign place a LOT decades ago. Finally these dictatorships rose that basically introduced some notion of a stable government into many of these countries. That was when the U.S. began playing a much bigger role and foreign interests began investing. After that, they did not want any more instability. Instability here basically means a few things: 1. unpredictability, where no one knows where things are heading. this was not present before in the dictatorial regimes, and 2. no known power head. this is unheard of. the U.S. and foreign interests at this point do not know who to deal with because of how much of a people's movement these revolutions have been. so before, there was some sense of stability in the dictatorial regimes, and the U.S. and foreign powers liked that. the thing you're talking about, which Naomi Klein also talks about in the Shock Doctrine to some extent and on her analysis on disaster economics, has already basically taken place. we're in a new phase where the U.S. wants to preserve these investments, not have them dismantled"

In the next phase ? Yes, I agree to an extent for some regions of the world

And that is a NOTION of stability like you said, but objectively speaking, is that not instability ?

Agree to disagree ... ah, humans ...

Shawshank

I find it curious that in cases such as Libya and Iran, our President doesn't feel the need to urge the leaders of those countries to step down as he did with Mubarak in Egypt. So last year when those kids were revolting in Iran and needed our support, where were we? If you were to get into a comparison of who's more oppressive I can assure you Iran would have won hands down, so why not speak out then? Same thing with Libya now. I noticed the President didn't even mention Kadafi's name during his speech today. I'm sure no one here can answer that, because there's no logical explanation.

fuck

zarocat wrote:

That last sentence makes perfect sense, lol
Everything will fail ... You don't believe or know that deep down ?

stable 1 |ˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler , -blest )
not likely to change or fail

unstable |ˌənˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler, -blest)
prone to change, fail, or give way; not stable

Dude, WHAT arey ou talking about? Jesus christ. You're basically saying that the American government is unstable. Why? Because it MAY experience instability in the future, who knows, so it might as well be considered unstable. The whole POINT of these revolutions is that they toppled stable regimes. The regime in Egypt for example was completely stable. It was kept alive by the notion of fear and apathy that had plagued the Egyptians. It was not until a few weeks ago that they broke through that. The Egyptian regime did not become unstable I would even argue until a few days into the protests, when it became more apparent that the people were unwilling to give up. Stop arguing in absolutes, it's not helping your argument. A government can go through phases of stability and instability. And all this goes back to your earlier point when you said if you think the U.S. does not welcome this instability then you're wrong. The fact is you were wrong in that sentence. There's no agree to disagree here. It's like I say the sky is blue and you say it's yellow. Agree to disagree?

fuck

Shawshank wrote:

I find it curious that in cases such as Libya and Iran, our President doesn't feel the need to urge the leaders of those countries to step down as he did with Mubarak in Egypt. So last year when those kids were revolting in Iran and needed our support, where were we? If you were to get into a comparison of who's more oppressive I can assure you Iran would have won hands down, so why not speak out then? Same thing with Libya now. I noticed the President didn't even mention Kadafi's name during his speech today. I'm sure no one here can answer that, because there's no logical explanation.

He never urged Mubarak to step down, are you serious? He only did muuuuuuch into it. In fact, the U.S. administration was trying very hard to keep Mubarak in power, and when they couldn't they tried to force Suleiman into a position where he can take power.
Also, you can assure us that Iran is more oppressive? How and based on what? I agree that the U.S. should ask Qadhdhafi to step down, and they should have long ago. But don't fool yourself into thinking the U.S. ever encourages democracy in the Arab world. They did not do in Egypt, they are not doing it in Libya, and they do not do it anywhere else, except in those few countries where the government is not a crony U.S. puppet who will do what they ask, like Syria and Iran.

bytterman

Speaking of unstable...

Gadhafi blames Osama bin Laden for savage clashes across Libya

Mr. Gadhafi accused al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden of being behind the uprising in Libya, in a rambling phone call to state TV. The Libyan leader said the more than week-long revolt has been carried out by young men hopped up on hallucinogenic pills given to them “in their coffee with milk, like Nescafe.”

“Shame on you, people of Zawiya, control your children,” he said, addressing residents of the city outside Tripoli where the mosque attack took place. “They are loyal to bin Laden,” he said of those involved in the uprising. "What do you have to do with bin Laden, people of Zawiya? They are exploiting young people ... I insist it is bin Laden.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le1918500/

fuck

"Less than two weeks ago, the International Monetary Fund’s executive board, its highest authority, assessed a North African country’s economy and commended its government for its “ambitious reform agenda.” The I.M.F. also welcomed its “strong macroeconomic performance and the progress on enhancing the role of the private sector,” and “encouraged” the authorities to continue on that promising path. By unfortunate timing, that country was Libya. The fund’s mission to Tripoli had somehow omitted to check whether the “ambitious” reform agenda was based on any kind of popular support. Libya is not an isolated case. And the I.M.F. doesn’t look good after it gave glowing reviews to many of the countries shaken by popular revolts in recent weeks. Tunisia was hailed last September for its “wide-ranging structural reforms” and “prudent macroeconomic management.” Bahrain was credited in December with a “favorable near-term outlook” after the economy “managed the global crisis well.” Algeria’s “prudent macroeconomic policies” helped it to “build a sound financial position with a very low level of debt.” And in Cairo, the I.M.F. directors last April praised the authorities’ response to the crisis as well as their “sound macroeconomic management.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/busin ... nted=print

gimmesometruth27

i am hearing rumblings now that people are wanting obama to give military aid to the people revolting in order to topple khadafi. most of them are on the right end of the spectrum. don't get me wrong, i am all for insubordination and overthrowing one's government, but i do not think we should get involved in this one for several reasons.

my questions to them are:

with what money and resources? these are the same people who are in favor of cutting taxes AND cutting spending AND cutting foreign aid. you can not have all three of those and commit to helping those revolting in libya.

what happened to "we are not going to engage in nation building"?if we go into libya to topple the regime isn't that what we would be doing?

is giving another country freedom from their leader enough justification to spend the required money, even in this time of cutting taxes and cutting funding to essential programs back home? and how can these people justify spending militarily to give freedom to others while cutting things in our own country?? how can congressional republicans talk of cutting spending and at the same time beat the war drums on yet another country?

if we go into libya wouldn't we then have a moral obligation to finally do something to force an end to the israeli palestinian conflict? i mean, why not, if we are going to be going into libya why not take care of the entire region right? unfortunately this will never happen because the estimated 4 billion dollars we give to israel in military aid every year to fund their apartheid occupation can never be cut....

puremagic

Just like in the case of Iraq and, now in Libya, the US turns a blind eye as long as their needs are being served. Along with the oil benefits, Libya was part of ‘secret’ prison program against terrorists. Now Gahdafi has become the new Saddam Hussein and Libya the new Iraq.

So we begin with UN sanctions and reviewing military options against Libya
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/23 ... must-stop/

Why aren’t these same measures taken against Bahrain?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ ... L420110218

If the US is going to play the global instigator, then they should be fair to all the people seeking relief from these dictators and Kings. If we are going to commit to military actions to help people achieve their economical and social rights could it not take ten years?

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am hearing rumblings now that people are wanting obama to give military aid to the people revolting in order to topple khadafi. most of them are on the right end of the spectrum. don't get me wrong, i am all for insubordination and overthrowing one's government, but i do not think we should get involved in this one for several reasons.

my questions to them are:

with what money and resources? these are the same people who are in favor of cutting taxes AND cutting spending AND cutting foreign aid. you can not have all three of those and commit to helping those revolting in libya.

what happened to "we are not going to engage in nation building"?if we go into libya to topple the regime isn't that what we would be doing?

is giving another country freedom from their leader enough justification to spend the required money, even in this time of cutting taxes and cutting funding to essential programs back home? and how can these people justify spending militarily to give freedom to others while cutting things in our own country?? how can congressional republicans talk of cutting spending and at the same time beat the war drums on yet another country?

if we go into libya wouldn't we then have a moral obligation to finally do something to force an end to the israeli palestinian conflict? i mean, why not, if we are going to be going into libya why not take care of the entire region right? unfortunately this will never happen because the estimated 4 billion dollars we give to israel in military aid every year to fund their apartheid occupation can never be cut....

The last thing we need to do right now is get involved in a civil war in a different country.