Real reasons for war in Lybia

[-martin- 10]

I'll play along: why was it "a shattered country which was locked up for almost half a century and with no help from anyone, with no money, travel the world without knowing any language" a success in your opinion, that you want back?

I'm not politically correct, I am unfortunate enough to live in the real world, where you and everyone else in the former Soviet Union were peasants, uneducated, landless, peasants back in the 1900s, and by the dissolution of the USSR in 1990, still were landless, uneducated peasants.

Do you want this fate for the rest of the world?

:rolleyes:

I don't know where you get the term uneducated from, my dad is an engineer and my mom is an artist :j: explain perhaps?

I'll play along: why was it "a shattered country which was locked up for almost half a century and with no help from anyone, with no money, travel the world without knowing any language" a success in your opinion, that you want back?

It was a success because if you take the time to give this a little thought you would know how hard it is to move to a different country and learn a different language, now combine this with a person who has never even seen a different country in their life, had no money but yet managed to make this journey while giving their son a life that people in the country they left only dream about now and a life that not many people never get to even in the country where we emigrated to.

I don't want this back and I don't want anyone else to have to experience this because not many people make it this far and it’s a very merciless journey to undertake.

If you’ve ever gone through something like this especially in that time then you would know exactly what I’m talking about :smile:

It’s easy to judge someone without knowing the story which made them the person that they are and gave them the opinions that they have same as it’s easy to drop a bomb on someone without giving a crap, but if you actually take some time to understand that person you might be surprised at the things you discover.

Edited June 6, 2011 by -Martin-

[bospor 0]

Interesting how the article about Libya turned into love/hate Soviet discussion :)

I guess this article just simply reaffirmed my believe that modern wars are never about politics, religion or any other beliefs. It's always about money. I also think that most people already know that as well. What makes me wonder however, is what can civilized people do to stop it? Is it even possible? Every time powerful nations invade their less fortunate neighbors with some bullsh.. story of WMD or terrorism or lack of democracy or socialist order, all we can do as a public is cry about it on forums and blogs, make a few movies, and make jokes on late night TV. That's about it, isn't it? The fat cats know this also, so they figure that they can do whatever they want. The worst thing that can happen is some criticism in the papers and maybe early retirement. Is that what we call a western civilization now? I like how the author of the article called us a dictatorship of the rich. The western civilization is no longer represented by democracy or republic, it is most definitely a corporatism, where large private companies make all the rules and elect the "right" politicians to enforce them. This is still a form of a despotism and dictatorship. So what makes us so different from the "axis of evil"? Well, we do it with much class and we give it better names I guess :)

Anyways, the article made me think, so I thought I'll share it with you guys.

[vilas 477]

i "love" how young men from Texas know better than we - how we have lived here before 1989 and what happened with our factories and places of work :/

[Hans Ludwig 0]

i "love" how young men from Texas know better than we - how we have lived here before 1989 and what happened with our factories and places of work :/

Yeah, because I never been to Bosnia or Kosovo. I guess you believe all Americans are stupid and couldn't tell you the name of a country picked randomly off a map because your media told you so, huh?

As far as your comment about me knowing "better" is a half-truth. I know what form of government and economic philosophy works much better. Perfect? Far from it. But our constitutional republic allows us to make our own decisions (not ones made for us by a few that say they know what is in our best interest), protects the minority from majority rule, says what government can or can't do, promotes economic freedom and the pursuit of happiness (whatever that pursuit maybe) and of free speech.

Unfortunately many of you pro socialist type want me to live in your world, and if you have the method to enforce your view upon me through state intervention, you probably would. That's the beef I have with many of you. Socialism can't work without force and has been proven time and time again to fail. It's based on totalitarianism. It's based off a theory that sounds good in reality but fails in the real world.

I think, however, many of you had a bad taste of something you thought was "Capitalism" but wasn't. Or it could be that you were just so brainwashed to believe that things like education and housing could actually be free, not understanding that one group was forced to give up his or her share of wealth through force so that you could get a free ride in life.

In closing, if you are so against Capitalism, then why are you on this forum? Is BIS and their consumer base not Capitalism, where two groups can engage in a contractual agreement over a good or service?

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit.

[demonized 20]

guys, topic is about war in libya and why.........

The western civilization is no longer represented by democracy or republic, it is most definitely a corporatism, where large private companies make all the rules and elect the "right" politicians to enforce them. This is still a form of a despotism and dictatorship. So what makes us so different from the "axis of evil"? Well, we do it with much class and we give it better names I guess

+1

[ProfTournesol 956]

LOL

I think you want to use another word, since that one doesn't go very well at all with the sentence.

Maybe use the word biased instead?

God yes, my english isn't always at its best :rolleyes:

Interesting how the article about Libya turned into love/hate Soviet discussion :)

I guess this article just simply reaffirmed my believe that modern wars are never about politics, religion or any other beliefs. It's always about money. I also think that most people already know that as well. What makes me wonder however, is what can civilized people do to stop it? Is it even possible? Every time powerful nations invade their less fortunate neighbors with some bullsh.. story of WMD or terrorism or lack of democracy or socialist order, all we can do as a public is cry about it on forums and blogs, make a few movies, and make jokes on late night TV. That's about it, isn't it? The fat cats know this also, so they figure that they can do whatever they want. The worst thing that can happen is some criticism in the papers and maybe early retirement. Is that what we call a western civilization now? I like how the author of the article called us a dictatorship of the rich. The western civilization is no longer represented by democracy or republic, it is most definitely a corporatism, where large private companies make all the rules and elect the "right" politicians to enforce them. This is still a form of a despotism and dictatorship. So what makes us so different from the "axis of evil"? Well, we do it with much class and we give it better names I guess :)

Anyways, the article made me think, so I thought I'll share it with you guys.

The problem is comparing what sadly happened in Irak with everything happening in other places since then. Particularly the arab revolutions.

Moreover, the part taken by the USA is quite small here, and is mainly helping France and GB who haven't the best logistic capabilities (to say the least...).

This article defends Ghaddafi who is one of the worst dictator in this area, and who faces a revolution in its own country. Moreover nobody invaded Lybia, UN and NATO are trying to make the job by supporting the opponents, while other african or arab countries of the region are just sitting and watching people being slaughtered on al jazeera (apart from Qatar).

Saying that Western democracies aren't democracies is a kind of modern revisionism, mainly from countries unable to create or maintain a democratic regim, and suffering from an economic crisis.

The author of this article even quoted Voltaire to defend Ghaddafi. Laughable.

[Defunkt 431]

Where was NATO when the people of Egypt sought to depose their dictatorship? Nowhere to be found because the ruling regime was prepared to do the West’s bidding (unlike Gaddafi). And if the people of Saudi Arabia rise up against their unrepresentative leadership, will NATO be supporting their bid for democracy? No chance, because actual democracy, the type that can't be controlled by a wealthy oligarchy is anathema to the so-called 'free world'.

[st_dux 26]

Taken as in bought, for a very unfair price because it was the people of Czechoslovakia that built these factories and after the revolution communist managers of these factories who had no right to own them sold them for an unfair price.

Since everything belonged to the state by what means was one person who was simply an employee responsible for the running of the factory allowed to clam that a factory was solely theirs? It’s like if you employ me in your company as a manager and I claim that I'm the chairman and sell it.

This is certainly unfair, and I can understand why it would make you upset. However, I don't see why you're blaming capitalism. It was the communist system that came before which created a situation in which property could be arbitrarily awarded by the state, and this is what led to the unfair sale prices.

Things may have seemed better before the communist system collapsed, but you have to understand that it was bound to collapse from the moment it began. Communism has never led to long-lasting prosperity.

[celery 8]

Where was NATO when the people of Egypt sought to depose their dictatorship? Nowhere to be found because the ruling regime was prepared to do the West’s bidding (unlike Gaddafi). And if the people of Saudi Arabia rise up against their unrepresentative leadership, will NATO be supporting their bid for democracy? No chance, because actual democracy, the type that can't be controlled by a wealthy oligarchy is anathema to the so-called 'free world'.

You're trying to find ulterior ideological motives where there's only realpolitik. Attacking Egypt or Saudi-Arabia is a completely different matter in terms of cost and relations in the Middle East. Nobody likes Gaddafi and the Libyan army isn't that good, but the other guys have more friends and better militaries.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Where was NATO when the people of Egypt sought to depose their dictatorship? Nowhere to be found because the ruling regime was prepared to do the West’s bidding (unlike Gaddafi). And if the people of Saudi Arabia rise up against their unrepresentative leadership, will NATO be supporting their bid for democracy? No chance, because actual democracy, the type that can't be controlled by a wealthy oligarchy is anathema to the so-called 'free world'.

Egypt is too close to Israel & Saudi Arabia, you want to start a nuclear war this soon? Same goes for Yemen and any-Stan.

"Democracy" Fuck democracy, and fuck mob rule, the day I will be subject to a majority rule is the day I relinquish my own body. You people have absolutely no idea how the world functions.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[gammadust 12]

Things may have seemed better before the communist system collapsed, but you have to understand that it was bound to collapse from the moment it began. Communism has never led to long-lasting prosperity.

Two decades of unrestrained Capitalism (from Soviet Communism lunatics) and Finance implodes itself and the world's Economic System that lasted 200 yers! That is "long-lasting prosperity", Yes!

I would say this argument is driven more by anti-communism than any minimal appreciation for reality. So the priority is to expose defunct Communist failures (as seen from where we are) than it is to analyse Actual Capitalism.

One could even also say Capitalism was bound to implode anyway, that indeed it is lasting for so long precisely because of its nemesis, "Communist bastards, prolonging humanity's agony"! "Communism was just a Capitalist conspiracy, to keep people at bay"! (span the all spectrum of perspectives please)

So the discussion on the Capitalist System shortfalls always ends in the Communism as its root cause... That is defending the status quo! That is obviously a Capitalism defense mechanism, if not the main one, the ever present.

Marx would be proud.

This mystification will end soon, don't worry!

On Libya:

Same thing was a factor when Saddam found the Euro would serve Iraq's Oil Interests best, Ahmadinejad's Oil market endeaviours, Chavez using Venezuela's Oil Wealth to sustain socialist programs (threat by giving a bad example to other resource rich nations) "How dare you?!" and now Gaddafi's shortsightedness in pretending an african gold-backed currency would pass peacefully. All major threats to petrodollar and the global Ponzi scheme.

So nothing new here, history repeats itself with slight nuances.

750 military bases around the world just to bring "Democracy" to us all. But we should be talking about the devilish Soviets, the ultimate culprits!

No wait... we also have Osama Bin Laden... No wait he is dead! No wait, he is alive... No wait, he never existed! No wait, of course it fought soviets! No wait, we did not fund him! No wait, he's dead but he has sleeping cell followers! No wait, they're Libya rebels! No wait, alQaida is...

750 military bases around the world just to bring "Democracy" to us all. Not counting the hollywood non existing black ops!

750 military bases around the world just to bring "Democracy" to us all.

750 military bases around the world just to bring "Democracy" to us all.

Isn't the world at war already?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

750 military bases around the world just to bring "Democracy" to us all.

750 military bases around the world just to bring "Democracy" to us all.

That many bases is an insult, boo-hoo-hoo... what's adding salt to the injury is that 'democracy' is being brought to the uneducated masses. :icon_razz: Gotta love me a society built upon a lowest common denominator, yeah. You know, One World Government can't come soon enough to rid me of this bullshit I come across in life; of human beings incapable of living.

Tell me, commie, would you survive in some remote forest in Canana, with a bottle of water and an axe? You'd then learn what it means to be free and alive.

You people are too concerned with things you can not comprehend, coupled with the fact that most of you are EU citisens, thus NATO members, you seem to dislike civilisation a lot. :rolleyes:

Edited June 6, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[-martin- 10]

Yeah, because I never been to Bosnia or Kosovo. I guess you believe all Americans are stupid and couldn't tell you the name of a country picked randomly off a map because your media told you so, huh?

We were having a discussion about life in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and other Warsaw Pact countries prior to 1989 and the way our factories were prostituted to the West by corrupt politicians and all of a sudden you randomly picked Bosnia and Kosovo from the map and somehow hoped to incorporate it in to this discussion. I don’t understand how the events in Kosovo and Bosnia are related to the discussion we were having no matter from which angle I look at it.

Unfortunately many of you pro socialist type want me to live in your world, and if you have the method to enforce your view upon me through state intervention, you probably would. That's the beef I have with many of you. Socialism can't work without force and has been proven time and time again to fail. It's based on totalitarianism. It's based off a theory that sounds good in reality but fails in the real world.

I’m not a pro Socialist or pro Capitalist because as far as I’m concerned the Soviet Union and America were always two heads of the same dragon with only one goal, and I frankly don’t care if you live in the world or not, all I want is for you Westerners to mind your own business and stop messing with us, you’ve been turning all of Eastern Europe against each other since history began, now your NATO wants to plant rockets in our countries against our bothers.

This is certainly unfair, and I can understand why it would make you upset. However, I don't see why you're blaming capitalism. It was the communist system that came before which created a situation in which property could be arbitrarily awarded by the state, and this is what led to the unfair sale prices.

There was no communist system in the Eastern Bloc, and it’s not the Socialists who are to blame for this but the people who joined the Communist party without wanting to do anything for the people but only for their own benefit (capitalists in socialist clothes).

This lead to downfall of Socialism in Eastern Europe because those who joined the Communist party for their own good could quickly use their position to privatise state property and sell it to their Western accomplices, which happened and they turned in to the rich elite of business men and corrupt politicians who now run the country.

I remember after the Velvet Revolution Vaclav Havel, the first president of the Czech Republic wanted to make Madeleine Albrigh the president after his term expired. Proof that the West was in on this revolution all along. (http://www.ce-review.org/00/10/culik10.html)

It’s also no secret that there is immense corruption in Czech politics and Police now, you can’t hide the fact that EU funds destined for repairing infrastructure disappear without a trace while new villas are built around Prague. And you can’t hide the scandals of bribes that regularly take place in the government, I see it in the news all the time.

Here is even a quote from eubusiness.com:

"Things are always moving in the Czech Republic. All of a sudden you notice that someone in a political group votes another way, and you notice a few years later that he has a nice house," he said.

You can’t come here and tell me that this isn’t true when I see it with my own eyes every day, you have absolutely no clue about the situation in Eastern Europe, so I suggest that you don’t try to prove me wrong, I have millions of people as living proof of what I’m saying is true.

i "love" how young men from Texas know better than we - how we have lived here before 1989 and what happened with our factories and places of work :/

+1

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit.

Good luck explaining that to people like this: :smile:

Edited June 6, 2011 by -Martin-

[ProfTournesol 956]

Please guys, how hard is it to stick on topic ?

[st_dux 26]

You can’t come here and tell me that this isn’t true when I see it with my own eyes every day, you have absolutely no clue about the situation in Eastern Europe, so I suggest that you don’t try to prove me wrong, I have millions of people as living proof of what I’m saying is true.

I'm not quite sure if this was meant to be directed at me or not, but I never claimed that there isn't corruption in Eastern Europe or anything like that. The only point I was trying to make was that capitalism itself isn't to blame: If the factories and places of work had been privately owned to begin with, they couldn't have been given away by the state.

I don't understand your point with the picture of the homeless man.

[-martin- 10]

I'm not quite sure if this was meant to be directed at me or not, but I never claimed that there isn't corruption in Eastern Europe or anything like that. The only point I was trying to make was that capitalism itself isn't to blame: If the factories and places of work had been privately owned to begin with, they couldn't have been given away by the state.

I don't understand your point with the picture of the homeless man.

That wasn’t aimed at you because you never said anything like that so please don't take it the wrong way. It was aimed at everyone who wants to prove me wrong. As for the factories they weren’t privately owned before, they were built by the state long after capitalism was gone. As for the homeless man, it’s just a reminder for those who keep saying that "capitalism works".

Anyway I'm not going to post anymore about Eastern Europe, I siad everything I had to say about it :smile:

EDIT:

On Lybia, how long do you guys think is left to the end of this conflict and how will it end, will Gadafii stay or will NATO "win"?

I think that if NATO fails to bring Gadafii down they will resort to arming the rebels which will probably bring them some nice benefits which is why the UK was in such a hurry to propose this.

Edited June 6, 2011 by -Martin-

[gammadust 12]

The nature of a capitalist system depends upon the institutional framework that supports and shapes it.

Premise (opinion)

(...) through this energy source [Oil] they [Transnational Companies] had an instrument that considerably expanded their political power in the world.

Supporting rationale (the bias)

One has to wait the necessary length of time in order to learn precisely what is the truth and what are lies, or a mixture of events of every kind that, in the midst of chaos, were produced in Libya.

Call to a Sceptic Analisys of the facts (read, not jumping into conclusions)

For me, what is absolutely clear is that the government of the United States is not in the least worried about peace in Libya and it will not hesitate in giving NATO the order to invade that rich country, perhaps in a matter of hours or a few short days.

Premonition based in historical evidence (read full article for more)

An honest person shall always be against any injustice being committed against any people in the world, and the worst of all, at this moment, would be to remain silent in the face of the crime that NATO is getting ready to commit against the Libyan people.

Human Call to denounce and condemn against what was the mainstream conclusion vehicled by Corporate Media

The above quotes are reproduced from an article written in February 21, 2011

The Plan is to Occupy Libya

Conclusion and the assumed premonition (Article's Headline)

He's a crasy old man! No one will invade Libya

Corporate Media kneejerk reaction.

-------------

Nearly 1 month later:

On March 18:

Libya: UN backs action against Colonel Gaddafi

On March 20:

Gunfire, explosions heard in Tripoli

Today we are at the stage of attack helicopters violating Libya's Airspace (3 days ago)

NATO helicopters hit targets in Libya

Edited June 6, 2011 by gammadust

[vilas 477]

I don't understand your point with the picture of the homeless man.

you're joking ? or really you don't understand ?

it is up to state system how weak or disabled can function as man, as employee (also free education too)

cause when ONLY profits are important - than those who not bring profits are thrown away

don't say you not understand

and it also has a lot to Lybia

cause one system tries to destroy another system (to be safe from workers, employee fighting for better work, social and health conditions )

[ProfTournesol 956]

For me, what is absolutely clear is that the government of the United States is not in the least worried about peace in Libya and it will not hesitate in giving NATO the order to invade that rich country, perhaps in a matter of hours or a few short days.

Nobody invaded Lybia.

An honest person shall always be against any injustice being committed against any people in the world, and the worst of all, at this moment, would be to remain silent in the face of the crime that NATO is getting ready to commit against the Libyan people.

Who is committing crimes against the Lybian people ? AFAIK, it's Ghaddafi.

[st_dux 26]

you're joking ? or really you don't understand ?

No, I really didn't understand. There has never been a system that has eliminated poverty completely. Throughout most of history, the vast majority of people lived in poverty all over the world. This is still true today in most of the world, but in developed capitalist countries the average standard of living is well above poverty, a situation which is an historical first. This is why capitalism, while not perfect, is still a relative success when compared to everything else: No system has done more to eliminate poverty for more people. It obviously hasn't eliminated it for everyone, but what was once the norm is now seen as especially unfortunate.

[-martin- 10]

Nobody invaded Lybia.

NATO didn't invade Libya by land but they have certainly invaded them by air, I remember at the beginning of this conflict NATO said that they are only planning to impose a no-fly zone to make sure that Gadafi can't use his superior air power against the rebels, this also happened in Bosnia but it was fair to this point, and I agree that NATO had the right to impose the no fly zone to protect civilians from airstrikes if this was their genuine plan.

But this soon changed in to the approval of bombing Gadafis army with airplanes. At this stage NATO had publicly shown that they are in full support of the rebels and their only aim at this point is not to discuss how to stop the violence but to overthrow Gadafii, at whatever cost.

Now NATO extended its time in Libya because they underestimated Gadaffi and thought that he would get scared and step down. In my opinion Gadafii won't step down until they kill him or destroy his whole army which will be very hard to do with no ground troops.

NATO just wants to divide Libya in to two parts which will be dependent on the West, NATO are the best at doing this, they divided Yugoslavia the Soviet Union, the Warsaw pact and now they are aiming to divide Libya, China and Iran.

Prior to 1951, America, Italy, France, and Britain all had agreements amongst themselves to divide Libya into spheres of influence and stop Libya from becoming a united and independent country. Unsurprisingly these three countries are the ones that are playing the biggest roles in the war right now.

This just shows that no matter what political party you vote for, they all have the same goal.

Who is committing crimes against the Lybian people ? AFAIK, it's Ghaddafi.

You can't say "the Libyan people" as if Libya is one country now, it stands divided in to three parts now, pro Gadafii, pro NATO and the people who didn't ask for any trouble and are suffering as a result. So it depends on who’s side you stand, you can say that NATO is committing crimes against the people who back Gadaffi or that Gadafii is committing crimes by protecting himself and his people from NATO by killing rebels.

This wasn't meant as some kind of bash post to you ProfTournesol, just wanted to get some ideas out here.

Kind regards :smile:

No, I really didn't understand. There has never been a system that has eliminated poverty completely. Throughout most of history, the vast majority of people lived in poverty all over the world. This is still true today in most of the world, but in developed capitalist countries the average standard of living is well above poverty, a situation which is an historical first. This is why capitalism, while not perfect, is still a relative success when compared to everything else: No system has done more to eliminate poverty for more people. It obviously hasn't eliminated it for everyone, but what was once the norm is now seen as especially unfortunate.

I have never ever ever ever seen anyone live in poverty in Czechoslovakia, there was so much food that you could eat form one end and and sh** from the other end at the same time. When I came to Canada we went to the downtown and as we walked through those streets filled with sky scrapers we saw beggars living in shelters made from cardboard boxes or sleeping on top subway vents from were warm air comes out and I thought "so this is what we wanted?" It was quite ironic and sad at the same time to see a 100 story glass bank and to see a person sleeping on the street beside it.

But leave it Vilas, what does equality and social values say to Westerners? They even managed to sell people as slaves not that long ago and there wasn't even a national health service in the US a few years ago...

No point to explain it to them, the only thing that will teach them is when it happens to them...

Edited June 7, 2011 by -Martin-

[vilas 477]

No, I really didn't understand. There has never been a system that has eliminated poverty completely. Throughout most of history, the vast majority of people lived in poverty all over the world. This is still true today in most of the world, but in developed capitalist countries the average standard of living is well above poverty, a situation which is an historical first. This is why capitalism, while not perfect, is still a relative success when compared to everything else: No system has done more to eliminate poverty for more people. It obviously hasn't eliminated it for everyone, but what was once the norm is now seen as especially unfortunate.

than you're blind and deaf

hah

in Poland before 1989 noone have seen homeless or povert hunger for food or people who were refused for basic medic help etc.

flats were given by state in many cases, especially to people who for example lost all due to accident etc.

seems you not know world around

homeless , unemployed appeared here after 1990

[ProfTournesol 956]

@ -Martin- : no problem with exposing your point of view.

At first France and to some extent GB didn't intend to intervene along with NATO (under its command), precisely to avoid any comparison with any other events and to be inevitably compared to the great western satan. But they had no choice.

Anyway its under French and British initiative that this military action took place, and will end. It's very obvious they won't intervene massively on the ground, mainly because of lack of available military means, and lack of internal political support.

And you're right, it's probably for historical reasons (Ghaddafi former terrorism against France and GB for example) and recent arab uprisings, that we can explain this intervention, even if the oil reserves are (always) a part of the game.

It's true that Ghaddafi is (still) backed by some Lybian tribes (and by some African leaders widely financed by Ghaddafi's dollars), but by weakening his threatening power, he's progessively losing internal supports, gained by the rebellion. The Tribes are giving their support to the strongest party, which isn't Ghaddafi anymore.

[topas 1]

than you're blind and deaf

hah

in Poland before 1989 noone have seen homeless or povert hunger for food or people who were refused for basic medic help etc.

flats were given by state in many cases, especially to people who for example lost all due to accident etc.

seems you not know world around

homeless , unemployed appeared here after 1990

Well, that's a somewhat idealized image. I agree that poverty, unemployment and homelessness increased drastically after 1990, but claiming that none of these problems existed before is wrong. Unemployment was there, but was a 'hidden unemployment' and was officially referred to as 'workforce surplus'. Poverty was a common thing... By 1983 almost 40% of the society did not even reach the subsistence level... It's true though that homeless people were picked up from the streets by the Militia and given shelter in WorkerHotels. Sure, it was not a lasting solution, but you really did not see any on the streets back in those days

[mrcash2009 0]

Noam Chomsky had some good views on this.

_oMslFIYaVk



xyWDzFgw2es