Gaddafi fall cost Russia tens of blns in arms deals

[jakeXT]

Source: Reuters

Gaddafi fall cost Russia tens of blns in arms deals
ST PETERSBURG, Russia Nov 2 (Reuters) - Russia lost tens of billions of dollars in potential revenues from arms deals with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's fall, the official in charge of Russia's arms exports said on Wednesday.

...


Such was the discord within the Russian elite over Libya that it provoked a rare public disagreement between Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev.

Russian companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in oil and gas exploration there, and Russian Railways was building a railway under a 2.2 billion euro ($3 billion)contract.

Arms contracts signed under Gaddafi's rule made up 12 percent of Russia's 2010 arms exports, worth a total of $10 billion. An arms embargo imposed in February caused Russia to forfeit $4 billion in new contracts.

Read more: http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL5E7M221H20111102

---

Russian arms loose French ones win ?

Dassault uses Libya war to boost Rafale
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/09/20/Dassault-uses-Libya-war-to-boost-Rafale/UPI-99061316540157/

“Omnirole” Rafale Steals Lead Over Eurofighter Typhoon in Libyan Operations


While NATO forces fielded the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon in the UN-mandated war against Gaddafi’s forces in Libya, details emerging from briefings by the U.K. and French air forces about the use of their respective fighters tell that the Rafale was the primary attack plane while the Eurofighter Typhoon provided intelligence through its targeting pods.

With the Libyan hostilities over, the Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon face off one another in an estimated $11 billion tender for India’s Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) acquisition, the price bids for which are scheduled to be opened in the first week of November.

The Rafale, which is yet to receive an international order, has never come so close to finding a foreign customer. The Dassault fighter made the shortlist along with the Eurofighter Typhoon after a nearly two year evaluation of European, American and Russian fighters.

No sooner than NATO announced a no-fly zone over the Rebel stronghold of Benghazi in Libya earlier this year, French Rafale and Mirage 2000 jets zoomed across the Mediterranean sea attacking Libyan ground-based military targets, a move which many critics say was prompted to exhibit the French jet’s fighting capabilities to potential customers.

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=6202&h=%E2%80%9COmnirole%E2%80%9D%20Rafale%20%20Steals%20Lead%20Over%20Eurofighter%20Typhoon%20in%20Libyan%20Operations

[tabatha]

1. I hope Global Warming or some other global concern halts the insane

production and sales of arms from all countries, including the US. Gaddafi had built a big enough stockpile for more than 10 wars.

The US had papers in hand in January to sell weapons to Gaddafi when the uprising halted it.

Khamis had completed a tour of US highly-confidential military equipment.

[harmonicon]

2. Does the truth hurt?

How's that "freedom" working out for you? Does your brain hurt to realize that this was all just another capitalist exercise? Don't you know that war is the west's most profitable export?

It astonished me to read comments from so many on here that were pro-war, pro-murder, pro-violence. I really hope that some people around here will do some soul-searching over the feelings of unbridled blood-lust they carry in their hearts.

[Celefin]

3. There a known truths and then there are unknown truths

known and unknown untruths also abound.

Problem is finding the rare true truths.

Dumdidum.

As to your question: don't hold your breath.
Heads on pikes are always 'in'. A true truth.

[al bupp]

4. can you explain, sir, how you can tell a legitimate revolution from a "capitalistic exercise"?

I'm guessing that for you the revolution in Libya stopped being legitimate the moment that NATO intervened, while the snipers Gaddafi put on the roof-tops shooting at protesters were just peace-loving security personnel. Your straw-man "argument" regarding supposedly on "pro-murder" and "pro-violence" comments sounds to me a lot like what the anti-abortionists say in their "arguments", too.

I am astonished that ostensibly liberal members of this forum prefer to defend the rule of a brutal and dictatorial regime rather than consider that people living under that regime might have a legitimate reason for wanting to end it, or that NATO's actions in response might have been measured or justified. Of course, by saying this I will also be branded as someone w/ unbridled blood-lust.

[Fool Count]

5. There is nothing easier - a ligitimate revolution does not need NATO bombs

to succeed. Moreover, a legitimate revolution would succeed even if NATO were
bombing it. Libyan regime change wasn't it.

[al bupp]

7. Why, because no legitimate revolution ever faced an overwhelming disparity in firepower?

I think the revolution would have succeeded in Libya w/o NATO's bombs, but it would have taken years instead of months and cost many times more lives. Seems to me that you have a rule: NATO involvement == bad. I think very many Bosnians and Libyans would disagree.

[Fool Count]

10. "Legitimate revolution" is an entirely meaningless concept.

Revolution's "legitimacy" is determined solely by its ability to succeed without (or despite) an outside intervention. Change brought by foreign military
power does not even qualify as "revolution" by any conceivable definition. Of course, NATO involvement == bad, that goes without saying, because
NATO represents and promotes the interests of the global capitalist elites (the 1%) which are almost always opposite and exclusive of the legitimate
interests of the vast majority (the 99%). Any claim to the contrary, like saying that NATO had interests of Libyan people as its priority, is ridiculous
on its face, and anyone who advocates such an obvious falsehood is not worthy of being taken seriously in any meaningful discussion.

[al bupp]

12. Name one revolution, sir, that succeeded w/o outside intervention

When exactly did NATO tip its hand as being such a promoter of global elites? Was it the intervention in the Balkans where Serbs were systematically murdering and raping the Bosnia population? Or was it after that when they accepted memberships from states formerly part of the USSR? Or is it just in Libya that it's become clear to all right-thinking, meaningful discussion worthy observers what it's true agenda is?

[harmonicon]

14. What is it that you think NATO was established for?

You seem very confused.

[Fool Count]

17. Russian revolution of 1917 immediately comes to mind.

All outside intervention was against it, yet it succeeded anyhow. Same goes for French revolution of 1789. Portugal revolution of 1974. Islamic revolution in Iran.
Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt of this year are among the recent examples. NATO's regime change in Libya is not on the list, sorry. If you sincerely think that
NATO exists to defend and protect the poor and victimized, you need a more professional help than I can offer.

[al bupp]

22. And you would be immediately wrong

The Germans smuggled Lenin back into the country after giving him refuge for years. Then there's the fact that in 1916 the Tsar's troops suffered staggering losses to the Germans on the Eastern Front.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_revolution#World_War_I">Wikipedia - Russian Revolution, World War I

By the end of October 1916, Russia had lost between 1,600,000 and 1,800,000 soldiers, with an additional 2,000,000 prisoners of war and 1,000,000 missing, all making up a total of nearly 5,000,000 men.

The French & Iranian Revolutions may be the only cases where rebellions against well-established monarchies succeeded w/o significant foreign aid.

The revolutions in Portugal, Tunisia & Egypt did not face dictators willing to use any available means to crush their revolutions, as was the case in Libya. This was also true in Iran, where the Shah stopped short of deploying snipers on roof-tops, and except for the incident known as Black Friday avoided sending his military to confront demonstrators.

Compared to Gaddafi and his family the average Libyan is quite poor, so I suppose that NATO, whatever its motivations did, in fact, defend the victimized there, as they did in Bosnia. I think you have been blinded by your pre-conceptions, and would rather spout ideology than honestly look at the situation.

[harmonicon]

32. You should look into why NATO did what they did in Bosnia...

especially the run-up to that war. It was a set up from the beginning (nearly decades in advance), for the purpose of destabilizing a successful communist country and to stop what would remain after that destabilization from being allied with Russia. Again, just remember what NATO was set up for.

"An insidious plan has been drawn up to destroy Yugoslavia. Stage one is civil war. Stage two is foreign intervention. Then puppet regimes will be set up throughout Yugoslavia." Veljko Kadijević, 12 March 1991

[Lars77]

19. So basically the people being slaughtered by Assad in Syria has no legitimate greviances?

Because they cannot defeat the Syrian military?

[Fool Count]

28. They certainly have grievances, that much is clear. But grievances are

like assholes, everybody has one. Hell, most people have a long list of them. I myself have a few.
Should I start a revolution now?

[NickB79]

45. To paraphrase what you just said, if we were living in 1770's America

"A ligitimate revolution does not need French ships to succeed."

[harmonicon]

6. There was no "revolution" in Libya.

There was a campaign by imperial western forces to overthrow a legitimate government. This campaign was backed by racists, islamists, and royalists within the country who resented the socialist practices of their government. They wanted a bigger piece of the pie, and now they're going to get one. This was a great relationship for both parties; they both got what they wanted.

Just so you understand - because you don't seem to - there is a big difference between advocating a dictatorship and disliking the systematic murder of a country's population. There are many governments in the world that I strongly dislike (including my own), but I don't think bombing the shit out of them and murdering their citizens is the best response to disliking a government. If you want to know what my argument is actually like, it's like the anti-war arguments that preceded the Iraq war. That's what it's like.

[al bupp]

8. Let's be clear, sir, there is no evidence that NATO systematically murdered Libyans

Rather there is much evidence that they targeted only military assets and carefully vetted all targets. Measures included using concrete blocks instead of explosives and getting intelligence from Libyans on the ground. There were perhaps a couple of regrettable mis-fires that caused civilian casualties. The scale of these tragedies pales beside the magnitude of those perpetrated by the regime.

I do not generally advocate violence, but I ask what you would do if you were at an Occupy protest that instead of being met by thugs w/ billy clubs, tear-gas and rubber bullets, you were met w/ snipers, mortars and a systematic round-up of dissidents, because that's what happened in Libya. Not all wars are spurious such as Vietnam or Iraq, and certainly not just because NATO gets involved.

By painting his regime's opponents as anti-socialist imperialist lackeys, you essentially excuse the Gaddafi regime of all misdeeds. What exactly made his government legitimate? Was it the coup which brought him to power or the public executions he engaged in afterwords?

[harmonicon]

9. No, two wrongs do not make a right.

I am not excusing the former government of any wrongdoing because I don't like - you wrote it, but I agree - the "anti-socialist imperialist lackeys" who are in power now. What made the previous government legitimate? What makes our government legitimate? It's recognized within the country and internationally.

While NATO forces may not have been directly involved in the systematic murder of civilians, their actions allowed it to happen. I know that people in airplanes can't bind the hands of captives and shoot them in the back of the head. I know that people in airplanes can't round up the black population of a neighbourhood, murder them, and dump their bodies in a mass grave. However, NATO airplanes can destroy the government and military that was protecting these people from being tortured and murdered.

See, here's the difference between one of these Libyan "protests" and an actual protest: the Libyans who were "protesting" took up arms against their government. That's not protesting, it's violent revolt.

Back in the day - you know, like when I was growing up in the US from the 70's until I left a few years ago - we admired people like Martin Luther King jr. and advocated non-violence. We also thought that the right side had won both the civil war and WWII. It seems - to draw conclusions from what's being written by you and others - that is no longer the case.

[al bupp]

11. Legitimacy of a government, sir, to paraphrase our founding document....

derives from the consent of the governed. Clearly, most of the "consent" that Gaddafi did have, consisted of grudging obedience he acquired via mass coercion and organized thuggery. That is why the capital of Tripoli fell in about two days, because Gaddafi's support was mostly illusory. Whatever international recognition he had came by means of throwing-around his oil money and due to the needs of commerce and realpolitik. Yes, those calculations changed over time, much to the relief of most Libyans.

NATO's actions significantly shortened the conflict, and certainly prevented mass casualties in Benghazi and Misrata. To suppose that Gaddafi's troops were protecting anything but his cleptocracy in the disguise of socialism is laughable. The neighborhood you reference, Tawergha, seems to have been the place from where Grad missiles and cluster bombs were launched at Misrata for a couple of months, so the fact that it was cleared by the rebels seems understandable. I have seen no evidence of a mass execution of people from there, though. That was a tactic used exstensively by Gaddafi.

Libyans took up arms after being fired upon as a last resort. You never answered my question about what you would have done in a similar situation. I will hazard to guess that you agree w/ the armed revolutions that happened in Cuba and Nicaragua. Both of those (and most others have) had some help from foreign powers, including the supply of weapons. In those cases, as well, non-violent protest could not remove entrenched dictators, though they tried to some extent. In fact, a Gandhi or MLK-style non-violent movement has, as current event in Syria demonstrate, serious short-comings when it comes to toppling determined and ruthless dictatorships. Can you name one or two instances where this has happened?

Your last sentence about the Civil War & WWII I find truly perplexing. How is that what I've written could be construed as suggesting that the wrong sides prevailed in those conflicts?

[harmonicon]

13. AHHHHH!!! It always comes out!! The Bush Doctrine!!

It wasn't right then, it wasn't right in Libya, and it's not right now. "See, we totally had to kill a shit-load of people, or else WORSE things would happen!! REALLY take my word for it!!" Where do you get these magical crystal balls that justify the Bush Doctrine? I'd like to know. Can they be used to predict other future maybe-events? It seems like if they could, they could be used for things other than war.

Do you seriously not understand the cognitive dissonance that's going on in your argument? You claim that the popular Libyan position was... against the Libyan army?! Why then was the military fighting NATO?! Take a look at recent revolutions and see who the army sided with. I will not accept the idea that Gadhafi was some magical satan/devil able to control an entire military with mind-control.

What would I have done in a similar situation? I don't know. What would you do if you lived my life? I can tell you that in any circumstance, I would not take up arms, because I'm against violence!! Shocking, I know. What would you do if you had a prisoner with their hands tied behind their back and you could shoot them in the head? Would you shoot them in the head? That's what these "protesters" did. What if you captured the head of the faction you were fighting? Would you shoot him in the head when he was your prisoner? That's what these "protesters" did.

You don't get my last sentence from the previous post? I guess the cognitive dissonance you're engaging in would make that the case.

Ok, in one case - lets take WWII - there was an imperialist power with a racist ideology taking over other countries. What exactly is it that you think NATO did in Libya if not that?
In the case of the US Civil War, there was a group of... protesters(?)... who didn't like their government. They decided to take up arms against that government and lost. Thank god Lincoln got shot in the end, and freedom was achieved.

You don't seem to get that I can have a view of the world that isn't black and white. I can look at a conflict as an observer and not have to feel an emotional attachment to one side or the other. Do I think Cubans are better off because of their revolution? Yes. Would I ever actively support a violent revolution? No. I can do it. You can too - maybe.

[al bupp]

16. So many straw-men, so little time

Maybe if you just repeat the phrase "cognitive dissonance" a few more times, drop in a spurious reference to dubya, and throw in some caps and exclamation points for emphasis, it'll prove your points. Meanwhile you compare NATO to the Axis powers, and Gaddafi to Lincoln. Wow, that's a DUzzy.

I don't recall NATO sending armoured pincers into either Bosnia or Libya. However, Gaddafi did have an armoured column bearing down on Benghazi when the French jets stopped it. No crystal ball was necessary to know what they intended to do the population when they got there. Gaddafi promised in a speech that they would go street by street and house to house "clean out" all the "rats". Nice imagery there, don't you think?

Hardly the entirety of Gaddafi's military fought to protect his regime, many did defect to the rebel side. So many refused to fight, that in fact that he had to largely rely on foreign mercenaries to carry the fight for him.

You seem to say that some things, such as the Cuban revolution, or Nazis are worth fighting for, in the former case, or against in the latter, but that you, as a detached and non-emotional observer cannot support such a fight, even if you agree w/ the outcome. I respect that sentiment that the ends don't justify the means and your adherence to non-violence principles. If you left it at that, fine, however you seem to feel the need to make wild and outrageously exaggerated accusations in order to defend your prejudice against anything done w/ NATO's backing.

I suppose that the best we will be able to do here is agree to disagree. Good night, it's been fun playing.

[harmonicon]

20. Good night, but I need to have one last word:

NATO was set up for the purpose of stopping the spread of communism and socialism in the service of western capitalism. That has not changed. Libya is a perfect example of that.

[al bupp]

23. Gaddafi's Libya was about as socialist as Stalin's Russia

He literally squirreled away billions in private accounts held abroad and his family lived in a lavish and garrish manner that belied the situation of the common Libyan. His rule was a cleptocracy that persisted by cult of personality and terrorizing the population. Is that really your idea of a government worth defending?

[Fool Count]

27. Now explain, how is that different from what true rulers of USA (the 1%)

do? At least he cared enough to feed, house, educate and treat sickness of all his subjects.
The feat considered to generous to attempt in the US. As to lavishness, by all accounts Qaddafi
was a veritable Gandhi in comparison with the US ruling class.

[al bupp]

31. Next time you're out on the streets protesting against the 1%...

and you notice that you're not being shot at by roof-top snipers, or opened up upon by anti-aircraft guns, or having tanks roll into your city and blasting away randomly or having cluster bombs lobbed at you, then those would be the chief differences.

Sure, Libya under Gaddafi was a real worker's paradise, unless of course you wanted to write a letter to the editor of the state-run newspaper or post something non-anonymously to a blog which criticized the Jamahiriya. That or joining a trade union or any non-state sanctioned organization (all illegal) would probably land you in jail or worse.

According to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index">Human Development Index Libya ranked between Cuba and Montenegro. Given its relatively small population and large oil income, I'd say this is not too impressive.

According to http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/21/world/la-fg-kadafi-money-20111022">The LA Times Gaddafi:

secretly salted away more than $200 billion in bank accounts, real estate and corporate investments around the world before he was killed, about $30,000 for every Libyan citizen and double the amount that Western governments previously had suspected, according to senior Libyan officials.

The new estimates of the deposed dictator's hidden cash, gold reserves and investments are "staggering," one person who has studied detailed records of the asset search said Friday. "No one truly appreciated the scope of it."

...

Revelation of the stunning size of the portfolio may stir anger among Libya's 6.5 million people — about one-third of whom live in poverty.

If true, this made him the richest man in the world, richer than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined. I think that if you wish to fight against the 1% (and I would join you in that fight,) then it would be hard to find a better target than Gaddafi and his family who appear to have been in 0.01% .

[Fool Count]

34. There is nothing "stunning" in the $200 billion of Libyan funds held abroad,

most Arab oil-producing countries have similar or larger amounts. There is also nothing unusual
in the fact that those accounts were controlled by Qaddafi and/or his confidants. They represented
legitimate and internationally recognized government of Libya. Who else should have had control
of those accounts, Sarkozi? Who do you think controls the foreign holdings of OAE or Qatar or
Norway or any other country, if not that country's government? This meaningless affectation about
Qaddafi's $200 billion is a very typical example of cheap propaganda used in support of this
regime change. The same goes for "tanks and anti-aircraft guns". We heard all that crap before -
"booby-trapped toys planted by Soviet Army in Afghanistan", "babies thrown out of incubators
in Kuwait", "genocide in Kosovo", "WMDs in Iraq". Do they think we are stupid and will keep falling
for those lies over and over? Way to take a civic position, mate, to side with lying and murdering
elite and go spout their propaganda lies on an internet forum. Like they don't have all the newspapers
and television in the world for that already, they really need your help. Real brave too.

[al bupp]

36. Supposedly Gaddafi was not the government

So, the holdings being in name is nothing more than theft from the country. The money should have been held in the name of an accountable government entity and controlled by a something more than his whims. By resorting to tired comparisons to Kuwaiti incubator stories you prove the shallowness of your arguments. There is abundant evidence to support the charges that Gaddafi used murderous means to try and quell the at the time peaceful protests. That is why the ICC wanted him for crimes against humanity. You can call it crap but then that would be the true propaganda, something that could have come straight from Mousa Ibrahim. I think it is you who have sided w/ the elite liars and murderers, as I say they were clearly in the .01% globally, and among Libyans probably more like the .0001%.

[Fool Count]

38. Whatever. Regardless of what Goebbels said, your repeating the lies

won't make them true and, certainly, won't make me believe them. I know who is right and who is wrong here, and no amount
of dimwitted propaganda will change that. Adious, amigo, try peddling your crap to someone else.

[al bupp]

39. That's funny, because I feel pretty much the same about your arguments, sir

"The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew."

Abraham Lincoln (Second State of the Union Address, 1 December 1862)

[pinboy3niner]

40. Perhaps you forgot how this began

Human Rights Watch reported at the onset:

Libya: Security Forces Kill 84 Over Three Days


End Attacks on Peaceful Protesters


February 18, 2011


(New York) - Government security forces have killed at least 84 people in three days of protests in several cities in Libya, Human Rights Watch said today, based on telephone interviews with local hospital staff and witnesses.

The Libyan authorities should immediately end attacks on peaceful protesters and protect them from assault by pro-government armed groups, Human Rights Watch said.

Thousands of demonstrators gathered in the eastern Libyan cities of Benghazi, Baida, Ajdabiya, Zawiya, and Derna on February 18, 2011, following violent attacks against peaceful protests the day before that killed 20 people in Benghazi, 23 in Baida, three in Ajdabiya, and three in Derna. Hospital sources told Human Rights Watch that security forces killed 35 people in Benghazi on February 18, almost all with live ammunition.

"Muammar Gaddafi's security forces are firing on Libyan citizens and killing scores simply because they're demanding change and accountability," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "Libyan authorities should allow peaceful protesters to have their say."

...


http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/02/18/libya-security-forces-kill-84-over-three-days

[harmonicon]

42. I didn't forget.

Maybe you've heard of Kent State? I, for one, am glad that no one thought the solution to that was to start shooting at the US army.

[Lars77]

18. I supported that war and i will tell you why

Ghadaffy was already slaughtering civilians by the thousands. Jets were defecting, pilots reporting that they had been ordered to attack unarmed protestors. Many of them did. Thousands of his soldiers were burned alive in barracks for disobeying orders to commit murder, and he used Shilka AA guns to rip people apart in the streets. And when he understood that a lot of soldiers were disobaying, he got thousands of mercenaries in from central africa, rampaging in cities, terrorizing civilians.

These are not trumped up lies by the western powers, these were universal truths long before NATOs mission begun.

I know that revisionist conspiracy theorists are trying to make it out like Ghadaffi was a great guy running a peaceful regime, and that nothing bad was going on there before NATO took action. That is absolute bullshit. There were people updating live threads on DU for weeks collecting links to videos and eye witness reports from civillians, people on twitter pleading the international community for help.

It is a shame that the military-industrial complexes of the western powers are profiting from this, but you know what? I still think it was right to go in, and i am glad that bastard is dead. I dont even think the western powers had the protection of the Libyan people in mind.

But this time, it turns out that the goals of the people and the goals of NATO was one of the same. Regime change.

[harmonicon]

21. Regime change to what end?

You say you "supported" the war, but apart from paying taxes, I doubt you did. I don't like the way that "support" gets used these days. "Agreed with" may be better. I disagreed with the war, but that doesn't mean that I agreed with the former government of Libya.

Clearly "the people" only meant some of the people. It was "the people" that overthrew the monarchy and established the government that Gadhafi led, after all. Many of those same people and their descendants were more than willing to fight and die for the country they'd created and lived in. I think it's an insult to them to act as if they are not also the people of Libya.

So, we have a new regime. What will happen? Well, we know that Russia will lose money. NATO wanted that. I'm pretty sure that the new regime won't distribute money earned from natural resources as equitably as the last regime; NATO powers, and certain revolutionary leaders (especially those from Benghazi who wanted to reinstate the royals and always resented socialist practices of the Gadhafi government which distributed wealth away from that wealthy city to other parts of the country) wanted that. Both were likely also against African unity which Gadhafi pushed.

In addition to this, now Islamists will have a large say in the new government. I really don't think that's good for anyone except for the small minority who will benefit directly from it.

Sure, Gadhafi was bad, but what do we have now? You may be glad that he's dead, but are you glad that he was assassinated? I'm not. I'm especially not ok with the military that my tax dollars support being in league with assassins. If a foreign country disagrees with the US, would it be ok for them to finance the assassination of its president? I would hope not, but that's essentially what we did in Libya, and I find it to be incredibly disturbing.

I think the world is becoming an increasingly cold, dark, and scary place with few remaining bastions of virtue. I see the NATO destruction of Libya as perfect evidence of this.

[defendandprotect]

26. I also supported it -- expressly that they topple Gadaffi and get out --

and I supported it because there was no way the people could topple Gadaffi since he

had been so well armed by foreign powers -- UK, Russia -- and US did have a contract

which they didn't have a chance to fulfill before the revolution started.


Same with us here -- do we really think we could topple our MIC? Our CIA?

These are systems now kept in place by intimidation and violence -- national security states.


Gadaffi only was able to hold power as long as he did in his own country by abusing and

TORTURING his own citizens!!

[harmonicon]

33. The US abuses, assassinates, and tortures its own citizens. nt.

[defendandprotect]

35. Exactly -- that's the only way the RW can rise -- thru violence ---

Unlike some of those who are gleeful at the return of the "right" to torture

people, I think most here are simply supporting the right of rebellion against

dictatorships.

However, faced with our own nation and other nations becoming global gun runners to

people like Gadaffi -- and watching citizens, cities and towns being destroyed one

after the other by Gadaffi and those he could afford to hire -- where was the non-

violent choice? The rebellion in Libya -- as in Egypt -- began in non-violence.

For some reason Mubarak did not choose to totally destroy his citizens and his nation.

Maybe he knew that one way or another the military would eventually hold the country

and redeliver it to elites -- ? I guess we still don't know the answer to that?


But Gadaffi was willing to totally slaughter all of his citizens and totally destroy

Libya. Would there have been a more "peaceful" solution in more Libyans dying for

freedom and how high might those numbers have gone?


Where was the more peaceful solution?



Meanwhile, I completely agree with you about our own nation -- though I think some would

still balk at that reality. There cannot be a democracy and a national security state --

a MIC and a CIA and multi-levels of intelligence agencies throughout government -- some

even unknown! Certainly the Patriot Act, overturning of Posse Comitatus Law and Homeland

Security weren't a move in the direction of freedom and democracy!

And these are simply all more of the tools of the elite war on citizens for their own

profit and amassing of power.


Again -- I don't think anyone on this thread is saying that war or violence is their first

choice -- first choice is non-violence.

[harmonicon]

41. So, are you going to start shooting cops? I'm not.

Gadhafi and no one else "slaughtered" anyone. That's inflammatory rhetoric. If you recognize that the US does these things you say justify violence, why no violence on your end against our government?

You ask questions, and the answers really are quite simple. Why was Egypt different? Because, the Egyptian military - like the Libyan military - is made up of citizens, and they agreed with the majority. Same goes for Libya. That's why the majority of the Libyan military fought for their country against a group of violent radicals and foreign invaders. There was one side in that conflict that destroyed Libyan cities, and it wasn't the former government - look at pictures of Sirte.

[defendandprotect]

44. Inflammatory and disingenuous ... and you're making clear that

you're willing to say anything --


So, are you going to start shooting cops? I'm not.

Presumably, you've noticed that Police are shooting citizens -- with rubber bullets,

at the least. Cracking heads, as well. Willing to deprive citizens of their right

to free assembly and protest to save elites/corporations.


Gadhafi and no one else "slaughtered" anyone.

Sadly, Gadhaffi did slaughter many -- and when he couldn't get his own troops to do it

he imported mercenaries to do it.


That's inflammatory rhetoric.

You use inflammatory rhetoric and then you accuse others of it. Who does that remind us of?


And your post has made you not worthwhile responding to any longer --

You're on ignore --

[harmonicon]

46. "ignore" - wow!! That'll show me. I guess reading the truth does hurt.

One of DU's resident right-wing shills puts me on "ignore".... oh well.

[Fool Count]

29. Wrong. These are not "universal truths" at all, but exactly the trumped up lies

by the western powers invented to justify the regime change. An absolute and utter bullshit,
exactly the same as Saddam's WMDs. When the final count of civilians "slaughtered" by Qaddafi
is tallied, I'd be surprised if there is even a hundred names on that list, and most would be
the criminals who were killing Libyan soldiers in Benghazi on day two of the "rebellion".

[LanternWaste]

24. Post hoc ergo pormpter hoc.

Post hoc ergo pormpter hoc.

Precisely how much profit is the west gaining from the aftermath of the conflict in Bosnia?

[plumbob]

15. At least now I know why we went there.

Not at all surprising given this country's history.

I just didn't have the details. The theme is always $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[defendandprotect]

25. US also had an arms deal with Gadaffi, but the rebellion began before they could fill the order!!

[Whoa]

30. Belarusian hirelings in Libya

Before the war Gaddafi had a lot of friends among those ones who eventually became his killers. But one man stayed a ‘true’ friend of Gaddafi and this man is the last dictator of Europe notorious Lukashenko. Media recently reported that 20 mercenaries from Belarus were captured and 10 were killed in Libya. Those hirelings became Lukashenko’s payment to Gaddafi who invested millions into Belarusian economy within many years. Gaddafi is dead, mercenaries are captured but the money stayed in Belarus and knowing Lukashenko you can be sure that he is not going to return money as well as helping his captured soldiers. Belarusian authorities already started refusing to have anything in common with them. It was reported that biggest part of mercenaries is snipers so the Libyan savages will arrange a short shrift with the poor guys whom Lukashenko sent to their death. In the end Lukashenko got Libya’s money and no witnesses. Bravo!

[al bupp]

37. An informative 1st post, sir

Welcome to DU!

[TheLastMohican]

43. Oh really?

There were also Ukrainians, Moldovans, guys who can operate the soviet equipment and can actually fight. What's your point?

And what are Qataris, Saudis and other Afghan Taliban scum doing on the side of the NATO-backed "insurgents" who happen to be the new law and order now?
And they started in good fashion - by killing scores of people in the towns they have just captured!

I wouldn't be surprised if the "civil war" there continues. Hack, there is nothing civil in this war - mercenaries from the whole Middle East are flocking there, this is an intervention from outside.