NATO's Great Victory : Destroying Libya’s Welfare State

[stockholmer]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/23/destroying-libyas-welfare-state/

The other day, I was listening to the voice of “liberal” radio, NPR, and was surprised to hear its bizarre, and yet quite candid, report on what it apparently views to be one of the more hideous aspects of the Gadhafi years – a modern welfare state which looked after working people.

Thus, without tongue in cheek, or any note of irony, NPR, in its November 14 report, entitled, “Libya’s Economy Faces New Tests After Gadhafi Era,” explained that the biggest impediment to the new economic era is the Libyan worker who was simply too coddled by Gaddafi.

NPR thus cited a 2007 book on the Libyan economy by authors Otman and Karlberg who called “the Libyan worker under Gadhafi ‘one of the most protected in the world,’” receiving job tenure, government subsidies of around $800 a month for the average Libyan household, and gasoline at a mere 60 cents a gallon. NPR, citing the same book, explained that workers now freed from such a tyrannical world by NATO bombs, have been left with a “’subsidy mentality’” and a “’job-for-life outlook which has ill-prepared Libyans for the more aggressive and cutthroat world of competition.’”

snip

Of course, had NPR gone further, they could have also explained that, according to the statistics of the United Nations Development Programme, Libya, at the time of the NATO invasion, had the highest human development indicators (which measure levels of health, education and income) in all of Africa, with a life expectancy of 74.5; undernourishment of the population at under 5%; and adult literacy at over 88%. Libya was in fact ranked 53 in the world out of 169 comparable countries, ranking, for example, above Turkey, (post-Soviet) Russia, Brazil and Costa Rica in terms of the human development indicators.

snip

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



http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/24/payback-time-in-libya/

Payback Time in Libya

by PATRICK COCKBURN

“This was always a civil war, and the victors are not merciful”


The detention of 7,000 people in prisons and camps by the anti-Gaddafi forces is not surprising. The conflict in Libya was always much more of a civil war between Libyans than foreign governments pretended or the foreign media reported.

The winning anti-Gaddafi militia are not proving merciful. Often they have had relatives killed in the fighting or imprisoned by the old regime who they want to avenge. Sometimes they come from tribes and towns traditionally hostile to neighboring tribes and towns. Gaddafi supporters are being hunted down. According to one person in Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte, they are facing a “continuing reign of terror”.

“There is a deep and spreading frenzy, particularly among some of the youth militia and the Islamists, to hunt down anyone associated with the former regime,” this person said.

The National Transitional Council, whose control is largely theoretical, is not in a position to stop this purge because many of its members are themselves frightened of being accused of links with the old regime.

snip


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


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MJ22Ak03.html

THE ROVING EYE
How the West won Libya
By Pepe Escobar



snip

Welcome to the new Libya. Intolerant Islamist militias will turn the lives of Libyan women into a living hell. Hundreds of thousands of Sub-Saharan Africans - those who could not escape - will be ruthlessly persecuted. Libya's natural wealth will be plundered. That collection of anti-aircraft missiles appropriated by Islamists will be a supremely convincing reason for the "war on terror" in northern Africa to become eternal. There will be blood - civil war blood, because Tripolitania will refuse to be ruled by backward Cyrenaica.

As for remaining dictators everywhere, get a life insurance policy from NATO Inc; Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Tunisia's Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh were clever enough to do it. We all know there will never be R2P to liberate the Tibetans and Uyghurs, or the people in that monster gulag Myanmar, or the people in Uzbekistan, or the Kurds in Turkey, or the Pashtuns on both sides of the imperially drawn Durand Line.

We also know that change the world can believe in will be the day NATO enforces a no-fly one over Saudi Arabia to protect the Shi'ites in the eastern province, with the Pentagon launching a Hellfire carpet over those thousands of medieval, corrupt House of Saud princes.

It won't happen. Meanwhile, this is the way the West ends; with a NATO bang, and a thousand barbaric, lawless whimpers. Disgusted? Get a Guy Fawkes mask and raise hell.

snip

[Better Believe It]

1. This is the new coddle the capitalists and screw the working class era.

[quinnox]

2. that doesn't fit with the glorious liberation narrative

this is disturbing.

[msongs]

3. uh oh, is this criticism of obama's brilliant strategy via NATO? watch out! nt

[autorank]

40. Looks like a war crime to me

War Crimes in Libya - The Smoking Guns

Libya did not pose an imminent danger to the United States, other NATO nations, or Qatar. Yet the NATO alliance attacked
Libya by taking sides in a civil war.

The imminent danger doctrine is all about preemptive wars. Those wars are a crime, just as the Iraq invasion was.

Same as it ever was ...

[joshcryer]

42. "notwithstanding"

It was a very powerful bit of wording added into the resolution, and it empowered all people to aid the freedom fighters (it necessarily empower other nations to aid the tyrants, mind you, as that could've been under the guise of protecting civilians, however, that never happened).

I suppose you were against Castro taking sides in Angola or Ethiopia.

I suppose further that the author of the article in question felt the same kind of remorse for Zawiya and Misrata and Adjabiya and Zintan as they did for Sirte. Highly unlikely.

[autorank]

80. I'm the author of the article

I'm opposed to the United States of America engaging in military action when there is no imminent danger from the
nation under attack. It's illegal. The illegality and immorality of preemptive wars was one of the foundations
for the Nuremberg prosecutions.

Castro was widely hailed as a freedom fighter. Then he started rounding people up and shooting them. In Libya,
there are at least 7,000 rounded up. there are reported murders from the latest UN mission, and the destruction of
Sirte speaks for itself.

Just as Iraq posed no imminent danger to the US, Libya showed no signs of attacking us. I fact, Libya was supposedly
reformed.

We had no justification to intervene, period. NATO has blood on it's hands and the lies told about neutrality, rather
than blatant regime change, have reduced the organization's credibility to below zero.

[Prometheus Bound]

4. That's an informative set of articles, Stockholmer.

Thanks for putting them together like this.

As a Canadian, I find this so depressing, especially the current celebrations and flag-waving and talk of more similar good work to come from Canadian military involvement in other countries' civil wars.

It's really sickening.

[joshcryer]

19. I've been compiling far far more articles about the wonder of the Libyan revolution.

Which you might find "informative" when I post it Feb 17th.

Dozens of articles (possibly hundreds when the post is ready).

stockholmer does not tell the whole story of Libya and three posts would not in any way do that, in fact.

[stockholmer]

27. I have posted dozens upon dozens of articles on Libya ever since the NATO intervention started

Here is one of the best:

http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/08/26/lies-war-and-empire-nato%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Chumanitarian-imperialism%E2%80%9D-in-libya/

Lies, War, and Empire: NATO’s “Humanitarian Imperialism” in Libya


In this report I seek to examine the war against Libya in a more critical and comprehensive manner than that of the story we have been told. We hear a grand fairy tale about powerful Western nations working together to save innocent civilians in a far-off country who simply want the freedoms and rights we already have. Here we are, our nations and governments – whose officials we elect (generally) – are bombing and killing people on the other side of the world. Is it not our responsibility, as citizens of these very Western nations, to examine and critique the claims of our governments? They are, after all, killing people around the world in our name. Should we not seek to discover if they are lying?

It has been said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.” Libya is no exception. From the lies that started the war, to the rebels linked to al-Qaeda, ethnically cleansing black Libyans, killing civilians, propaganda, PR firms, intelligence agents, and possible occupation; Libya is a more complex story than the fairy tale we have been sold. Reality always is.

What Were the ‘Reasons’ for ‘Intervention’?

We were sold the case for war in Libya as a “humanitarian intervention.” We were told, of course, that we “needed” to intervene in Libya because Muammar Gaddafi was killing his own people in large numbers; those people, on the same token, were presented as peaceful protesters resisting the 40-plus year reign of a brutal dictator.

In early March of 2011, news headlines in Western nations reported that Gaddafi would kill half a million people.<1> On March 18, as the UN agreed to launch air strikes on Libya, it was reported that Gaddafi had begun an assault against the rebel-held town of Benghazi. The Daily Mail reported that Gaddafi had threatened to send in his African mercenaries to crush the rebellion.<2> Reports of Libyan government tanks sitting outside Benghazi poised for an invasion were propagated in the Western media.<3> In the lead-up to the United Nations imposing a no-fly zone, reports spread rapidly through the media of Libyan government jets bombing the rebels.<4> Even in February, the New York Times – the sacred temple for the ‘stenographers of power’ we call “journalists” – reported that Gaddafi was amassing “thousands of mercenaries” to defend Tripoli and crush the rebels.<5> Italy’s Foreign Minister declared that over 1,000 people were killed in the fighting in February, citing the number as “credible.”<6> Even a top official with Human Rights Watch declared the rebels to be “peaceful protesters” who “are nice, sincere people who want a better future for Libya.”<7> The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights declared that “thousands” of people were likely killed by Gaddafi, “and called for international intervention to protect civilians.”<8> In April, reports spread near and far at lightning speed of Gaddafi’s forces using rape as a weapon of war, with the first sentence in a Daily Mail article declaring, “Children as young as eight are being raped in front of their families by Gaddafi’s forces in Libya,” with Gaddafi handing out Viagra to his troops in a planned and organized effort to promote rape.<9>

snip

[joshcryer]

38. I posted thousands.

Don't pretend to educate me on Libya, you cherrypick really unfortunate articles. I never once saw an article that was remotely supportive of the Libyan people by you, not one.

If you did this same shit about South Africa even today you'd be banned from this site in an instant. You are only lucky that ultimately others on the left despise the Libyan revolution and can bash it without worrying about the long term effects of doing so.

Go google right now about South African crime and the racism and crap that exists there. Right wing racists are all over it, calling for the return of Apartheid. Much like these posts are a call for a return to Gaddafi-era oppression.

Since, after all, "Arabs are uncivilized and they need a dictator to keep them in check," etc.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

54. huge appreciation; i wish it was possible to be alerted to those posts, since

i, unfortunately, missed most of them.

i'm pretty sure we're on the same page, though. :)

[sabrina 1]

77. Thank you for keeping the record straight.

The evidence was everywhere that this was no more a people's revolution than Iraq was. Not to mention the exposure of the lies told to get that 'resolution'.

Few have been fooled however, most of all those who have the most at stake, as the Imperial nations move into Africa, Africans know the truth. Whether they can prevent another Colonial invasion of the Continent, will depend on how many collaborators there are. Clearly Libya had enough to pull of that invasion.

[tabasco]

5. Yes, it was a regular dictatorial utopia!

If the author of a book in 2007 said so - IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!


POOR OL' MUAMMAR!!!!

[sabrina 1]

26. You don't know much about Libya, do you?

Only here in the US where we have been subjected to the propaganda about African and S. American leaders who refuse to cooperate with selling out their coutnry's resources, does anyone believe that there was a 'revolution' in Libya. The African nations certainly know what happened, and as one African leader said, 'this is the beginning of Colonialism all over again.'

Libya was a very prosperous country. Education was free and anyone who wanted to study abroad, was able to do so and the Government paid their expenses.

The Libyan Govt believed that owning a home was a 'human right' so any Libyan who wanted to buy a home, was helped by the government to do so. Health Care, and care for the Disabled along with housing for those with disabilities was free.

But yeah, I know, our government decides what the people of Libya need. No need to ask them.

Libya, another Oil producing country on the PNAC list, now crossed off. Those poor people. Their beautiful country has been destroyed, according to international observers, as many of 90,000 Libyans were killed, mostly by NATO bombs. Many of them children, just like Iraq.

And now, according to Human Rights reports, Libyans who were happy with their country under Gadaffi, are living in terror and Black Africans dare not go out in the street for fear of being raped and murdered. Another wonderful Western invasion, well for them. As the Guardian reported 'Contractors had their bags packed and ready to go, so much money to be made in Libya now' and you can bet, it will no longer be shared with the Libyan people, as it was under Gadaffi.

[totodeinhere]

31. Are you suggesting that a dictator is Ok if he is benevolent? The guy was in power for

more than 40 years. Anyone who threatened the survival of the regime was eliminated. Is that OK as long as the people can buy a home and have health care? I don't think so. If this country truly were a workers' paradise then sometime during those 40+ yeas someone else should have been allowed to run the country.

[sabrina 1]

32. Actually he wasn't in power, he relinquished power decades ago

and Libya was run by a direct democracy. It was far from perfect, and he certainly retained a lot of power, but no more than say, our unelected officials, such as Gates, who never goes away no matter who is president, or any number of others here who remain in power from one administration to the next.

I think we need to clean up our own mess here before we point fingers elsewhere. Libyans had actually a better overall standard of living including education, general welfare etc. than any other country in Africa, than most of Eastern Europe and in recent times, more than at least one sixth of OUR population.

Why don't we leave Africa to Africans, South Amercia to South Americans and the ME to MEasterners? We are surely not in a position to criticize or to arrogantly tell other nations how they should live.

Like I said, Americans knew nothing about Libya. Most other parts of the world did, which is why only here for the most part, and in a few of the old Imperial allies we have in Europe, was there any support for this lates invasion of another country that is none of our business.

[joshcryer]

35. Gaddafi relinquished power decades ago?

:rofl:

Please take the propaganda elsewhere.

[totodeinhere]

74. I know. That is laughable. n/t

[tabasco]

75. Bwaaaahahahahahahaha!

And you accused me of not knowing anything about Libya!

:rofl:

[bhikkhu]

6. Welfare states always fail, and are usually hated by those who live in them

Speaking from the US, where we could certainly use a bigger safety net, a "welfare state" sounds like a tempting thing, or even a goal to be worked for, but its all a matter of degree really.

Too much welfare eliminates personal liberty as quickly as a system of pure survival-of-the-fittest, and both are hateful in the end to those who have to endure them.

[Fumesucker]

7. The US has a welfare state too...

Only our welfare state is for the 1% not the 99%.

Strange that the 1% seem to want to keep their welfare state, they certainly don't appear to hate it.

[bhikkhu]

8. Its a whole different thing

as I'm sure you know, though it does make for a clever turn of phrase.

[Fumesucker]

9. I don't see it as so different...

In both cases you have a subsidized class of people and those who pay for the subsidies.

[bhikkhu]

10. One with power, one without

A "welfare state" run by a privileged class which offers "bread and circuses" but no opportunity or power-sharing with its citizens - vs. the top-tier of a kleptocracy, which holds all power and subsidizes itself freely from the labor of its citizenry...

[Fumesucker]

11. So it's power that really makes the difference then?

Given the choice I'd rather be powerless and fed than powerless and starving..

[bhikkhu]

13. Well, if only we could all remain children

and have no worries.

Happy thanksgiving. btw - in our household we're only somewhat powerless, but certainly the food was fine this evening. :)

[Fumesucker]

15. It's been my experience that those who are obsessed with grasping ever more power..

Are the children.

Adults don't require power over others to feel fulfilled.

And a Happy Thanksgiving to you.. :hi:

[joshcryer]

37. Given the choice I'd rather starve and be able to opine than be riddled with riches...

...only to be forced to keep my beliefs or opinions to myself.

Your line of thinking can justify things like slavery, unfortunately. And indeed, it can even be used to justify, egads! the deepest evils of capitalism itself.

"I'd rather have a job in a sweatshop than have to prostitute myself." (Yes, I've seen even liberals make this comment, even though most progressives would hope that neither were necessary.)

[Fumesucker]

52. Spoken like someone who has missed very few meals..

If you are powerless your opinions don't matter anyway but you still get hungry nonetheless.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2367750


Exchanging notes during our break, a couple of us realized that "Joe", an old friend of ours who works at a neighboring facility, has been real quiet lately. A delegate was chosen to casually check on Joe and find out what was going on. We're a tight knit group.

Turns out Joe had no food and was too proud to tell us. He was even out of Ramen.

Joe lives far out, and has to bike to work. But apparently he blew a tire and needed to replace it. I don't know much about biking, but replacing it also blew out his food budget for the week. So he just stopped eating when he ran out. The important thing to understand here is that:

Joe has a job, and he still couldn't eat for two days.

[joshcryer]

56. You don't know me.

Family of 6, less than $6k a year. In the bottommost percent of the nation, just shy above homeless (thank god for HUD or we would've been).

Some weeks I was absolutely grateful for our staples rice and water.

To this day I clean my plate even when I'm overfull and disgusted.

I took home the turkey my family had because I'm the only one that will eat leftovers for weeks.

Stop trying to justify tyranny over food, as if your thesis was correct North Korea would've been overthrown years ago due to the abject poverty and starvation that country faces.

[Fumesucker]

60. It's one thing to be hungry in a desperately poor nation with a totalitarian government....

Being hungry in the wealthiest nation and most advanced democracy on the planet is a somewhat different scenario.

My parents both lived through the Great Depression, wasting food was not part of their agenda.

[joshcryer]

62. Yet, when I did starve as a child...

...my opinion went unheard.

It illustrates the paternalism indicated by this thread and this viewpoint very well, imo.

Paternalism justifies all sorts of atrocities, and it is beyond belief that it's being espoused here.

As Chomsky pointed out, the slave owners argued that they were taking good care of their slaves, and that they fed them and whatnot.

How could you argue that you'd chose to be a slave if it meant being fed? It's beyond comprehension for me.

[Fumesucker]

67. Who is advocating paternalism?

If you are going to be a slave it's better to be a slave that's fed than one that's not fed, that's all I'm saying.

Someone who is bicycling miles back and forth to work without anything to eat is a slave in everything but name.

As you pointed out, your opinion went unheard while you starved.

[provis99]

16. thats the stupidest pro-libertarian crap I've ever read here.

[bhikkhu]

17. There is a happy medium between the welfare state and libertarian fantasies

...Europe has the good-government thing about right, I think, balancing a helping hand with liberty and opportunity well, while keeping economic equality at a healthy level. In the US we need more of a helping hand, and certainly some government intervention to restore a sane level of wealth distribution.

But, with that clarified, Gadhafi's system of government was no model for how to govern anything, except perhaps a prisonhouse.

[joshcryer]

21. All states are welfare states, be it corporate welfare, party welfare, or individual welfare.

States have to resort to welfare to placate the masses. Gaddafi essentially bribed Libyan's for 42 years, and when he finally opened the country up to vast profits and vast wealth toward the end there, the Libyan people saw that the scraps that Gaddafi was giving them was not enough by any means.

Had Gaddafi increased the stipend as was requested Libya likely would not have revolted.

It wasn't the welfare, it was the unfair, despotic, nepotist use of that welfare that did him in.

[stockholmer]

25. as a resident of what is one the world's best 'welfare states' (Sweden) I have NO HATE for it

Our folkhemmet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet has its flaws, but overall our society, our outlooks for the future, our health, our education, our social mobility, our environmental stewardship, our equality, our food and water safety, our liberty, our political sophistication and participation by the citiens, our economy, our restraint of corporations and banks, and our compassion/acceptance levels are strong, strong, STRONG. I lived in the USA for several years, and America lags far to rear in all of the above.

If Sweden is welfare, and the USA is 'liberty' (I dispute this highly, but posit this as your argument), well then, count me in as a supporter of welfare states in most, if not all areas of society.

[bhikkhu]

33. There are degrees, and Sweden is probably the best example of good government

Every country is different. Of course I wouldn't say that Sweden should be hated because Gadhafi oppressed his people while also feeding them.

on edit - "welfare state" probably means different things to different people. At one end of the spectrum I think of the pre-civil war southern plantation as a microcosm of the perfect welfare state - your daily needs are given to you, but your body, your labor, and the products of your labor, all belong to the plantation owner. Who you are and how you live is someone's choice, but not your own. You have no say in who governs, or in how government proceeds.

Needless to say, if one has the right to regularly select representatives and choose their own government, whole hosts of evils are avoided.

[joshcryer]

36. Sweden is the hallmark of proper capitalism and is by no means a welfare state in the classical...

..."socialist" sense.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/12/swedens-march-toward-capitalis

[tabatha]

12. More crap from Counterpunch.

a) Nothing has changed regarding payment to citizens, except that Jalil announced higher payments.

b) Gaddafi was the biggest recipient of welfare in Libya --- at $200 billion of assets --- he was the richest man in the world.

c) Gaddafi's family members were the second biggest recipients of welfare in Libya - spending at least $2 million dollars each per month.

d) There was up to 40% poverty in Libya - it is one of the reasons the citizens were prepared to DIE for liberation.

e) All Libyans are expecting to do better. They are expecting the oil wealth to go to them instead of the Gaddafis.

f) Petrol prices are now the same as before the war.

g) Everything is the same; nothing has changed because the government was only sworn in today.

I cannot stand it when people who are not Libyans writie crap about something the Libyans like, wanted and fought for.

[Fumesucker]

14. I found the NPR story, what it has to say is quite interesting.

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/14/142289603/libyas-economy-faces-new-tests-after-gadhafi-era

Westerners looking at the new Libya from afar tend to offer recipes for recovery that feature widespread privatization of state-owned companies and a robust private sector that takes over the tasks of job and wealth generation.

A recent op-ed piece by Jay Hallen, a financial consultant with experience in Iraq and Egypt, argued that former leader Moammar Gadhafi's moves to virtually eliminate property rights must be reversed, and that Libya's oil wealth should be used to create venture capital funds.

But such prescriptions offer no help when it comes to changing the deeply ingrained instincts of Libyans to rely on the government for just about everything.

Taxi driver Nasser Gadour says that just before the Tunisian revolution, Gadhafi tried to raise gas prices to a shocking $1 a gallon. But even a dictator of four decades had to back down in the face of public outrage.

[ellisonz]

44. Well yeah it makes sense...

...teach a man to fish rather than just giving him a fish. So long as it's wisely and ethically done!

Gaddafi's system was far from benign - it was intended to create total dependency.

[Fumesucker]

48. Yes, venture capitalists are known for their gentle philanthropic ways.

I'm sure that putting Libya's oil wealth in the hands of the same people who have turned Iraq into a veritable economic paradise will do the same for Libya.

If even the liberal NPR thinks this is a good idea I'm sure it will all work out for the best in the end.

[ellisonz]

51. NPR didn't say a good idea - they interviewed an individual who said it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capital

I wouldn't advocate putting to much Libyan wealth to it, but I have some idea what I'm talking about and don't need to make spurious comparisons to "the same people who have turned Iraq into a veritable economic paradise." :hi:

[Fumesucker]

55. NPR does not choose who they interview?

What is "spurious" about my comparison?

Capitalism is such a fantastic system, it allocates the rewards of society to those who most deserve them.

[ellisonz]

61. That's the nature of journalism, sir. The interview.

I can see quite clear you do not approve of capitalism. I am not so eager to throw it away entirely. Like all things, it has its merits and faults.

[joshcryer]

63. Just to be clear, I don't approve of capitalism, but I don't delude myself that Gaddafi...

...was providing for his people. The fact that he backtracked on privatization and wealth redistribution is a large reason he was deposed. People wanted to be rid of the elitist, parternalist, nepotism that Gaddafi and his family and his tribe enjoyed.

He would make any modern capitalist proud, though they'd never admit it. The "state welfare" was mere placating bribery. The Arab Spring ended it.

[ellisonz]

65. Fair enough...

I've just not seen any evidence that replacing it with something else such as communism is any better. I think the solution is to moderate all forms of government for the sake of human rights, democracy, and equality of opportunity. I guess that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal.

[Fumesucker]

64. Meh, I know enough about the media to know they can put forth any message they wish..

Just roll tape on someone, let them talk to their heart's content and you can get whatever you want out of it in the editing, you can make a moron look brilliant or make a brilliant person look like a fool.

I praised capitalism, it allocates rewards in society according to the worth of an individual, what is wrong with that?

[joshcryer]

66. And so can forum posters on an internet that is largely free of thought.

Until it http://bit.ly/vtCf6k">gets cut, anyhow.

As long as you're fed, it's OK.

[Fumesucker]

68. All else being equal having food to eat is better than not having food to eat..

I'm not sure why this is a controversial position.

[joshcryer]

18. Saudia Arabia gives stipends, I suppose they're a beacon for welfare in the world.

:rofl:

What sort of liberal relativism is this crap?

"Payback time"? Diddling observers like Cockburn have been predicting despotism from the onset. It's not even a new argument, it's merely rehashed nonsense that is hardly significant. The left would be appalled if it criticized post-Apartheid for the events that took place in South Africa afterward (see: revenge killings and the like).

[Swede]

20. But it sure is fun to poke Obama.

nt

[joshcryer]

22. I want to know if these same people think abolishing Apartheid was worth it.

Clearly they don't think it was "worth" ousting Gaddafi, or they wouldn't be making these asinine arguments. Same stuff happened post-Apartheid. The left did not focus on those post-Apartheid crimes.

Why is that? The right wing has been bashing post-Apartheid South Africa for over a decade now, and the left doesn't want to be siding with the right wing in that vein.

But the left has no problem bashing Libya under a very similar set of circumstances (cultural change and new laws resulting in recriminations against the old regime).

[Swede]

24. It's pretzel logic.

They don't let the facts get in the way of a good bashing.

[riverwalker]

23. Kovalik, Cockburn and Escobar are not Libyan.

IMHO It always seems so freaking patronizing and arrogant to dismiss a revolution for which people have struggled and died.
Who cares what they think? Or if they didn't "approve"?
The only authentic, credible voices in this are from Libya.

[MedleyMisty]

29. I think prejudice and privilege lie behind a lot of the conspiracy theories about Libya

It's incredibly racist to think that the Libyans have no agency, that they could not have autonomously acted for themselves, that they are just pawns used by white Westerners to fool white Westerners.

I haven't watched TV in a decade. I don't consume Western media. The first time I saw Obama and Hillary Clinton's statements on Libya was in that video where they were interspersed with video of police brutality on occupiers here.

My information on Libya came from Libyans on Twitter and news sources that they linked to, and I trust them to know their own story a hell of a lot more than I trust white Westerners with ideological axes to grind who have never even bothered to find Libyans to talk to.

One of the Libyans I've gotten to know on Twitter is a Libyan-American rapper. He is American, but his father and his uncles were involved in activism against Gaddafi decades ago. Here's a song he wrote about the revolution - http://vimeo.com/21985272

He was working on a track with a Libyan rapper who does live in Libya, but it was delayed because the other rapper went to go fight in the revolution. I should look it up and see if it's out yet.

Here are some other Libyan music videos I've found, through, you know, actually getting to know Libyans.

Strong Enough, a song dedicated to Libyan women - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SImWfyYF0Zk

This one uses a popular song, but it has great footage of the protests:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx_B38678

If you don't know who Mo Nabbous is, then you need to learn about Libya before you go believing random made up conspiracy theories that fit your prejudices and privilege and views that you decided on before you even had any actual knowledge of Libya.

[ellisonz]

46. +217

[bhikkhu]

49. Well said! n/t

[joshcryer]

57. Nicely said, but I'd expound, it's also an ignorance and delusion.

You can be lucky, born into a wealthy state, and still be educated and informed about Libya. It takes a special kind of ignorance and self-delusion.

[Prometheus Bound]

69. If you're going to call people who disagree with you racists...

...you may want to think about the mass atrocities against dark-skinned Libyans and African migrants in this one-sided, NATO/Qatar-aided slaughter you call a revolution.

[tabatha]

70. There were not mass atrocities against dark-skinned Libyans.

There were atrocities that are being investigated by the ICC, but the numbers pale in comparison with what Gaddafi did.
Black Libyans fought with the Rebels, and live happily among Libyans.

It was just in the Tarwargha area - and for some background you should read this.
http://feb17.info/editorials/op-ed-misrata-and-tawargha/
and read the comment by Haythem Dharat (btw, the James Miller commenter is a big jerk)

And there was NO NATO/Qatar-aided slaughter - there was Gaddafi slaughter that targeted ALL civilians.

NATO/Qatar targeted only combatants.

It really behooves anyone who states an opinion to consider all sides and all of the FACTS - not just blind prejudice.

[Prometheus Bound]

78. Look in the mirror when you read your final sentence.

[blindpig]

76. All kinds of stuff on the internets.....

Parsing it might require a HAL 9000.

Things are not what they seem....

http://www.algeria-isp.com/depeches/

[Cali_Democrat]

28. Thanks stockholmer

Great post :thumbsup:

Of course the corporate media and their enablers will try to bury this information.

[Prometheus Bound]

30. Leaked UN report reveals torture, lynchings and abuse in post-Gaddafi Libya

Leaked UN report reveals torture, lynchings and abuse in post-Gaddafi Libya
Thursday 24 November 2011

Thousands of people, including women and children, are being illegally detained by rebel militias in Libya, according to a report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Many of the prisoners are suffering torture and systematic mistreatment while being held in private jails outside the control of the country's new government.

The document, seen by The Independent, states that while political prisoners being held by the Gaddafi regime have been released, their places have been taken by up to 7,000 new “enemies of the state”, "disappeared" in a dysfunctional system, with no recourse to the law.

....However, Ban Ki-moon also presents a grim scenario of the growing power of the armed militias that control of the streets of many towns, including those of the capital, Tripoli, and the settling of internecine feuds through gun battles resulting in deaths and injuries.

.....Of particular worry was the fate of women being held for alleged links with the regime, often due to family connections, sometimes with their children locked up alongside them.

“There have also been reports of women held in detention in the absence of female guards and under male supervision, and of children detained alongside adults,” says the report.

A number of black Africans were lynched following the revolution following claims, often false, that they were hired guns for the Gaddafi regime. .....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/leaked-un-report-reveals-torture-lynchings-and-abuse-in-postgaddafi-libya-6266636.html

[tabatha]

34. Yes, it is unsettling.

However, there is a difference

Under Gaddafi, it was state-sanctioned.

Under NTC, it is NOT state-sanctioned..

These are individuals who are doing this - it is not Libyan policy as it was under Gaddafi.

There are many prisons that have taken steps to rectify this - under Gaddafi there were never steps taken to rectify it; in fact it became worse over time.

The new Libyan government was only sworn in today. Give them time.

Go to this page, and scroll down to "Negotiations" and read what went on during that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid

So far Libya has done better than South Africa, and there was no war in South Africa. Also, that summary does not cover anywhere close to what went on shortly before 1994, and afterwards. I know because I have family there, and a mother who bitched about everything bad that went on. Where was the UN then?

The Whites in South Africa live in gated communities; and the Blacks suffer the most from crime. I attended a conference in South Africa in 1997 on that very topic.

In comparison Libya is like a storm in a teacup, and it will only get better.

[joshcryer]

39. It's going far far better than I could've ever imagined.

Three significant armed skirmishes between and an increasingly dwindling extra-judicial oppression. It's ridiculous how well things have turned out given so many people here predicting the "next Somalia."

[Prometheus Bound]

41. Torture, lynchings and abuse is far better than you could ever have imagined?

You either imagined some pretty horrible stuff or forgot the sarcasm tag.

[joshcryer]

43. Well, I was told vehemently that Libya would've turned into Somalia.

I thought it had to have been somewhere in between South Africa and Somalia, probably in the middle, which means that the skirmishes would total a number more than a dozen (it's closer to a quarter of that), if not daily skirmishes between tribes trying to take control. That didn't happen. Meanwhile the abuses are going down, not up, as opposed to what one might expect in a country that is in turmoil.

Compared to South Africa? Yeah, tabatha is right, it's in a lot better shape. And yet supposed progressives are continuing to highlight insignificant stories as filling in the whole picture. My only condolence is that such postings will be rendered irrelevant by that tried and true method.

The passage of time.

[tabatha]

45. It is not widespread. And will be stopped, if not already.

South Africa has also turned out better, despite the crime rate and rape rate, than predicted by all of the naysayers. And despite the effects of apartheid that will linger for years. It is far better than pre-apartheid, although there are many that will disagree.

Remember that those who are abused, normally are abusive in return. Very few Libyans have been abusive in return, despite 42 years of abuse.

You are lucky not to have seen or experienced abuse. In your sheltered and comfortable life. And holier-than thou judgmentalism. Take yourself off to a third-world country, and you will be humbled by what others in this life have had to endure. Most of them deal with it well; there are those that do not.

[ellisonz]

47. Libyans and South Africans...

have both survived a tremendous amount of violence and upheaval in their society. It makes you strong when you see that one can move beyond such problems and build a world anew. This is the difference between Libya/Afghanistan and South Africa/Somalia - the former desperately wanted to move beyond the past and had the leadership to do it; the former did not and they are both still mired in a cycle of conflict. The fear/or actual influence of an external force also tends to slow this process down or allow it to backslide towards previous conditions. What's happened in Afghanistan and Somalia vis a vis neighboring foriegn intervention has not helped but really only served to exacerbate the situation. I say this as a student of history and international relations, it also helps that I am a descendant of Polish Jews. ;)

I agree, those who have who have born witness to such conditions develop a clearer picture of what it means to be human, what humans are capable of, and what humans can be reasonably expected to do.:hi:

[tabatha]

50. I have seen the terrible effects of abuse.

What amazed me about South African Blacks, was that they always seemed cheerful --- until one talked to them about the subject of their status. Then the deep-seated anger became apparent, and it was amazing that people could be strong enough to be happy despite carrying around all that resentment and hatred and hurt.

Not every one is strong - some let the anger get out of control.

These are some of the factors:

--- The high levels of inequality, poverty, unemployment, social exclusion and marginalisation.<3>

--- The vulnerability of young people linked to inadequate child rearing and poor youth socialisation. As a result of poverty, unstable living arrangements and being brought up with inconsistent and uncaring parenting, some South African children are exposed to risk factors which enhance the chances that they will become involved in criminality and violence.<3>

--- The normalisation of violence. Violence comes to be seen as a necessary and justified means of resolving conflict, and males believe that coercive sexual behaviour against women is legitimate.<3>

--- The reliance on a criminal justice system that is mired in many issues, including inefficiency and corruption.<3>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa

Americans/Europeans who grow up in stable cities and towns just have no clue as to the daily, continuous, brutality. I don't know what Polish Jews had to endure, but many Jews have had to endure atrocities. In South Africa, it was often Jewish people who helped and supported the underprivileged Blacks. It is so easy to judge and condemn; it is much more difficult to understand the socio-economic factors that can turn people into criminals, especially those whose IQs are below normal.

Apparently, in Libya under Gaddafi, many men hit their wives. Now that they are not under the stress of surveillance of the secret police and will be able to go out and get decent jobs, maybe the risk factors and stress will decrease.

[joshcryer]

59. The western world is completely blind to the atrocities in the developing world, that we're...

...largely responsible for. Sure, we will sit back and cry and moan when the US fails to support democracy in some countries if it goes against our interests (I'd argue that democracy is never against our interests, but historically the US has viewed it that way), but by the same token, we'll gladly purchase items made by slave workers who make our items cheap for us (just look at any Apple praising thread).

25% of Libyan employed worked for the state surveillance apparatus. Libya was truly a genuine incarnation of 1984.

We are so self-absorbed that we have the audacity to agree with the military apparatus in other countries and compare their actions to the actions of our own policing forces, despite that there is no equal in any way. We cry about being pepper sprayed (no doubt a very cruel act) but compared to being shot to death by machine guns and tanks and anti-aircraft, we are really far more blessed than those who really have to deal with utter tyranny.

[inna]

58. kr+11, and see post #55

[Starry Messenger]

71. recommend

[polly7]

72. Thanks for all the information. Recommend. nt.

[bvar22]

73. NATO is the Enforcement Arm of the G-8 and the IMF.

” For all his dictatorial megalomania, Gaddafi is a committed pan-African - a fierce defender of African unity. Libya was not in debt to international bankers. It did not borrow cash from the International Monetary Fund for any "structural adjustment". It used oil money for social services - including the Great Man Made River project, and investment/aid to sub-Saharan countries. Its independent central bank was not manipulated by the Western financial system. All in all a very bad example for the developing world.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html

The plan for Libya is the same as the plan for Iraq.
Libya WILL be turned into a NeoLiberal Free Market HELL,
with the Western Banks, The Western Resource Extraction Corporations, and the IMF
owning Every-Fucking-Thing.

WORD.





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AverageJoe90]

79. They just went from one set of dictators to another. That's all. Gadhafi was no better. nt

At least there's a chance democracy will still win out in the end.