The Real Reason the US Wanted Gaddafi Gone by MURRAY DOBBIN in Counterpunch

[PurityOfEssence]

It's not just oil, although that's a huge part of it, and it's not just vengeance for a local potentate who got in our way; it's a very complex situation, and the same things keep coming up: Oil, Money and the inconvenient modernization of Africa, something the exploiters don't like.

Why does virtually no one in the mainstream Canadian media even mention the fact that Libya was the biggest obstacle to the continued super-exploitation of Africa and its vast resources. This is, after all, the principle reason for NATO’s determination to turn a ‘no fly zone” into regime change. On a whole number of fronts, Libya was using its oil wealth to gradually close the doors to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the economic domination of Africa.

Africa’s role as a giant pool of cheap resources was being threatened just as the U.S. and E.U. faced economic catastrophe because of the failure of their own neo-liberal policies. Gaddafi’s determination to eliminate Africa’s dependence on Western financial institutions was one of the most serious threats faced by global capitalism. Gaddafi was not only in the process of creating the African Investment Bank (providing interest-free loans to African nations) and the African Monetary Fund (to be centred in Cameroon) and eliminating the role of the IMF. It was also in the planning stages of creating a new, gold-backed African currency that would seriously weaken the U.S. by undermining the dollar.

It is almost certain that in return for putting the new bunch in power, and freeing up the billions in state funds, NATO will demand these new institutions be smothered in their cribs. Gaddafi was also instrumental in killing AFRICOM, a new U.S. military command and control base intended to add military intimidation to American economic domination. Look for that initiative to be revived.

counterpunch

[polly7]

1. Absolutely. K & R.

[Safetykitten]

3. Agree and K&R

[TheWraith]

2. Unrec for imaginary bullshit and conspiracy theories. nt

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Unrec is bullying censorship; nt is "no thinking"

What is imaginary about this?

Is everything that Barack Obama does perfect by definition of his perfection? Please explain.

[TheWraith]

13. What's imaginary is that it does not exist.

To believe this, you have to hand wave away all of the established objective reality surrounding Libya, starting with WHY there was intervention in the first place, and completely rewrite history in order to justify making Ghaddafi the good guy against western capitalist imperialist running dog lackeys.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. The killers and bullies do not get to rewrite the rules with impunity.

To speak of "objective reality" in this way is to dismiss all other voices and simply kneel at the altar of corporate propaganda and Al Jazeera's deep, deep betrayal. They are NOT morally superior, and the voices are NOT unanimous.

It is not a FACT that intervention was done because of the impending slaughter of hundreds of thousands--which is rather implausible itself in a nation of 5 or so million--it was a pretext from interventionists to take advantage of momentary instability to secure better oil deals and rid themselves of a tough customer. The banner of defense has sadly been taken up by the extremists among Obama supporters who will sustain him regardless of what he does.

It is not the "established objective reality" that this was done out of heartfelt defense of the imperiled innocents. That is the contention of the pro-war interventionists who have violated US law, the UN Charter and the NATO treaty to do as they please from a flimsy justification. Since they and the President show so complete a disregard for law, why are their words to be held as sacrosanct? This is not "established objective reality" at all. It is a bullying excuse held by western powers to eliminate a local potentate who wouldn't sell out his people for hard cash.

One can shriek all day how this was ONLY done because threatened "civilians" were in the cross-hairs, even though Qaddafi offered amnesty to armed insurrectionists who laid down their arms and NEVER threatened civilians, but that doesn't make it "true". The interventionists need to climb down from their high horses and not demand some kind of aristocratic clairvoyance; their statements of motivation are not "truth", they are Public Relations. Much as the victors tend to control history, it is not "fact" just because those who want to violate sovereignty and steal resources all agree. The "fact" that this was done to help the innocents flies in the face of the FACTS that there were only rather minor unarmed demonstrations before it became an armed insurrection. The escalation had armed attacks against the government promulgated by some who had legitimate grievances against Qaddafi's intolerance, but much was from Islamists, opportunists and proxies of foreign governments like the French, British and ours.

This is disgusting. The intimation is that intervention happened for purely altruistic reasons, which would be naivete to the enth degree. The claim is not the same as the reality. Hitler attacked the Soviet Union to uphold Civilization and Christianity against the evils of Communism. That didn't make it "right" or "true".

If one allows oneself to write the "reality" of what has happened, one is holding oneself above the common forum of pluralism. Regardless of what the corporate media and our President have said, this is not altruism.

In addition, resisting the violation of sovereignty and the cynical use of arms to secure other people's natural resources does not equate to loving Qaddafi. Using such language is insincere and simplistic.

This "objective reality" is a blinkered acceptance of justifications of those who launched this ugly war of thievery. It does not deserve unchallenged status as undeniable "objective reality"; it comes from the perpetrators.

[OnyxCollie]

39. +1. nt

[Ohio Joe]

22. "Unrec is bullying censorship"

bwahahahahahaha, too funny. You really should learn what censorship is. :rofl:

[truth2power]

47. What a substantive response. how about supporting yur claim? n/t

[stevenleser]

He doesnt have to support it. The OP has to make THEIR claim supportable. n/t

[truth2power]

68. The OP already has. If you think he's wrong, then dispute it....

Calling 'bullshit' isn't a substantive response.

I suggest you Google:

Goldman Sachs Libyan Sovereign Wealth Fund

pan-African Bank

Libya IMF


“The US, the other G-8 countries, the World Bank, IMF, BIS (Bank for International Settlements), and multinational corporations do not look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency markets.”

—John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"

[Swede]

4. What a steaming pile.

Yet he did it in so few words.

[MilesColtrane]

5. I guess I didn't realize that Gaddafi was the President of the African Union.

Whatever will those fifty two countries do now without his leadership and vision?

[PurityOfEssence]

10. They'll certainly need to look elsewhere for money

Good thing that telecom satellite is in place...

[MilesColtrane]

18. South Africa alone is sitting on an estimated $2.5 trillion in oil, gold, platinum, and diamonds.

Throw in Nigeria and Egypt and the African Union won't want for capital seed money just because Gaddafi's running scared.

[polly7]

20. ....

NATO’s War on Libya is an Attack on African Development–Dan Glazebrook
6 09 2011

To prevent this ‘threat of African development’, the Europeans and the USA have responded in the only way they know how – militarily. Four years ago, the US set up a new “command and control centre” for the military subjugation of the Africa, called AFRICOM. The problem for the US was that no African country wanted to host them; indeed, until very recently, Africa was unique in being the only continent in the world without a US military base. And this fact is in no small part, thanks to the efforts of the Libyan government.

Before Gaddafi’s revolution deposed the British-backed King Idris in 1969, Libya had hosted one of the world’s biggest US airbases, the Wheelus Air Base; but within a year of the revolution, it had been closed down and all foreign military personnel expelled.

More recently, Gaddafi had been actively working to scupper AFRICOM. African governments that were offered money by the US to host a base were typically offered double by Gaddafi to refuse it, and in 2008 this ad-hoc opposition crystallised into a formal rejection of AFRICOM by the African Union.

http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/tag/africom/

[tcaudilllg]

35. "King of King"

And he's hardly gone... the Nigerian scam artists will just have a new patron.

[leveymg]

6. It seems to have been Sarkozy more than Obama's doing, while Berlesconi supported Ghaddafi

consistent with the enormous commercial contracts between Libya and Italy, which also got most of its oil from Libya.

No, the overthrow of Ghaddafi was very complicated, and may not have been any sort of coordinated action, at least initially. I can't fully agree that the U.S. was really the driving force behind that one.

[FarCenter]

7. The US and UK had cut their deals with Ghaddafi

It was mainly the French who supported the Libyans in Benghazi. It took them a while to get the Italians and UK to agree. The Turks were also on side fairly early.

The US was one of the slowest to approve of involvement in Libya, partly because the Israelis and Saudis were alarmed by the "Arab Spring". Recall that after Turnisia and Egypt, things heated up in Yemen and Bahrain. Bahrain was put down sucessfully by the Saudi's but Yemen continues.

[leveymg]

8. CIA protected Gaddafi from 1969, after he ceeded 30% of Libyan oil to Occi and other western cos.

There's a reason he survived all those years in shark-infested waters.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. Due to its colonizing past, Italy had to be very careful...

Italy was reluctant to take sides and certainly to send forces: its history as Libya's colonial master was a very raw wound.

I don't think that the U.S. was the driving force; it seems pretty obvious that it was the French, spurring on the British into an alliance ("Operation Southern Mistral") that really took point on this one. They were hell-bent to get rid of Qaddafi for his rewriting of the oil deals with Total S.A. in the summer of 2009 and set up an alliance in November of 2010. The Arab Spring seems to be an incredibly lucky moment to justify and cloak their takeover.

As usual, Obama seems to have been noncommittal, and Gates was decidedly against it. Somehow Rice, Power and H. Clinton shoved it through. Obvious CIA elements were put into play, like Hifter, and it will be years before we know the full truth.

It's still too early and murky to pick out and stain the narrative conclusively, but this seems to more or less be the dynamic.

[leveymg]

14. Do you think the Admin has its eye on taking out Syria, next?

That one can't be trusted to mere luck or coalitions of convenience, and frankly is an incredibly dangerous gambit.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. No. Syria has very little oil, has a real army and is too hot a subject due to Israel

Once again, for all my fatuous pontification, I am humble in the face of very complex situations and don't hold myself as a Cassandra of any sort.

If we gave a fuck about innocent people being mowed down, we'd DEFINITELY be intervening in Syria and Yemen, but we don't. Syria is too hot a potato, though, being right next to Israel and a steadfast rival to it. Its connections with Iran and Russia are also a problem. Fuck all that, though; it hardly has any oil, so who cares? A few thousands wogs slaughtered here and there don't matter in the least when stacked up with the somewhere around 100 who died in the Libyan protests before we rode in with sanctimonious dudgeon.

No, I don't think we will or can intervene in Syria.

That's just me.

I'm wrong all the time.

On edit: We also don't tend to go after people who can defend themselves; we go after vulnerable states like Libya (which had radically reduced its military) and Iraq (which had done the same for different reasons). We don't attack people who can defend themselves; we crush weaklings. It's our way. I know I'm proud, how about you?

[leveymg]

23. Not so proud. Haven't been for a long time.

Like since the Vietnam War.

[stevenleser]

49. And that is reason #1 why the OP and reasoning behind it do not hold water.

When you see posts like this, it's clear that those who write stuff like this are desperate to frame everything in a way where everything that happens in the world is the fault of the US Boogeyman.

[polly7]

12. Gaddafi pledged to fund the creation of an African

investment bank, monetary fund and central bank, helping to end dependence on the IMF and World Bank, both of which provided loans with unrealistic expectations and disastrous results. OF course some of those World Bank and IMF loans included measures to privatize natural resources and allow unlimited access to foreign companies. Yes, the OA makes good sense. There wasn't a damned humanitarian thing about it.





.........."I quote that not so much for its Orwellian quality but as a model of journalism's role in justifying "our" bloodbaths in advance.

This is Rupert's Revolution, after all. Gone from the Murdoch press are pejorative "insurgents". The action in Libya, says The Times, is "a revolution... as revolutions used to be". That it is a coup by a gang of Muammar Gaddafi's ex cronies and spooks in collusion with Nato is hardly news.

The self-appointed "rebel leader", Mustafa Abdul Jalil, was Gaddafi's feared justice minister. The CIA runs or bankrolls most of the rest, including America's old friends, the Mujadeen Islamists who spawned al-Qaeda.

They told journalists what they needed to know: that Gaddafi was about to commit "genocide", of which there was no evidence, unlike the abundant evidence of "rebel" massacres of black African workers falsely accused of being mercenaries. European bankers' secret transfer of the Central Bank of Libya from Tripoli to "rebel" Benghazi by European bankers in order to control the country's oil billions was an epic heist of little interest."

JohnPilger.com
8 September 2011
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/middle-east-and-north-africa/780-has-wikileaks-exposed-the-real-reason-for-the-wests-war-on-libya

[EFerrari]

21. He was also developing an African telecom, a 500 million $ yearly loss

to the European companies.

[polly7]

26. He did so many bad things ........ but they were only invadingly bad when they

threatened the unfair loans of the World Bank and IMF towards African projects, the holy dollar and robbed poor billionaire communications companies of control of Libya's own telecommunications? He wasn't so bad when Libya was relatively recently used as a rendition site ... the hypocrisy is stunning.


"It's now common knowledge that British SAS, French intelligence, US Central Intelligence Agency assets, Qatar special forces and mercenaries of all stripes were parachuted as boots on the ground for months, planning and training the "rebels" and in close coordination with that philanthropic prodigy, NATO.

That was never the UN mandate - but who cares? NATO/GCC paid the bills, NATO conducted the bombing and NATO/GCC will "stabilize" the mess, according to a 70-page plan leaked by the British to Rupert Murdoch'sz Times of London."

"Expect local - and global - fireworks as far as grabbing the loot is concerned. Without even considering the (still unexplored) oil and gas wealth, Libya's foreign assets are worth at least $150 billion. Libya's central bank, now about to be privatized, has no less than 143.8 tons of gold. Then there's at least a millennium supply of fresh water, which had started to be harnessed by Gaddafi via the spectacular, multibillion dollar Great Man-Made River (GMR) project."

http://antemedius.com/content/libya-r2p-now-right-2-plu...


http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/08/sirte-th ... /

"There is no cause to doubt that, for whatever reason, the support of the people of Sirte for Gadaffi is genuine. That this means they deserve to be pounded into submission is less obvious to me. The disconnect between the UN mandate to protect civilians while facilitating negotiation, and NATO’s actual actions as the anti-Gadaffi forces’ air force and special forces, is startling.

There is something so shocking in the Orwellian doublespeak of NATO on this point that I am severely dismayed. I suffer from that old springing eternal of hope, and am therefore always in a state of disappointment. I had hoped that the general population in Europe is so educated now that obvious outright lies would be rejected. I even hoped some journalists would seek to expose lies....

I was wrong, wrong, wrong."


http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/2011/09/18/nato-air-strikes-kill-354-in-sirte-moussa-ibrahim/


NATO air strikes kill 354 in Sirte: Moussa Ibrahim
By Alexander Dziadosz

SIRTE, Libya | Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:40am EDT

Water, oil, scrapping the petro-dollar, fighting the IMF and World Bank in the effort to keep Africa from even worse economic disaster and foreign ownership. He pretty much did everything it takes to make a case for removing a dictator.

Will the new overlords of Libya ensure the people maintain the free education, housing, lowered infant morality, raised life expectancy, raised standard of living prior to this humanitarian intervention? I really hope so, but I'm doubtful.

[EFerrari]

27. If NATO was in Libya to protect civilians

they would have been in Bogota first and Obama wouldn't be pushing a trade deal there and our ambassador wouldn't be calling them a model on the war on terror.

That anyone falls for this stuff saddens me more than I can say.

The gambit hasn't changed an iota in over fifty years. The first twenty five times people didn't get it, everyone makes mistakes. The next twenty five times is on them.

[PurityOfEssence]

28. We, as a nation, have NEVER gone to war for altruism

We were perfectly happy to let Europe and Asia burn before being dragged into World War 2. It took allegations of German attempts to rile the Mexicans against us to get us to commit to World War 1.

If we gave a fuck about vulnerable protesters, we still wouldn't have gone into this mess; this was a sloppy armed insurgency that couldn't hold its own.

Nothing about this holds up to the least bit of scrutiny.

[tritsofme]

15. People that buy this garbage are stuck on stupid.

[polly7]

16. That's exactly what I was told when I didn't believe Hussein tossed

all those babies out of their incubators.

"7 countries in 5 years." The plan was revealed to General Wesley Clark right after the first bombing of Afghanistan: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

[Fire Walk With Me]

24. I'd heard about his attempts to create a gold-based currency. Nope, can't have that...

[Odin2005]

30. The gold standard is fucking stupid RW idiocy.

[polly7]

31. Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold

to sell oil and other resources around the world. Libya has 143 tons of gold. Hissein's switch to euros, the gold dinar - both would have had serious consequences for the world financial system. Where's the fucking stupid RW idiocy?

"The issue of oil is closely intertwined with that of the dollar, because the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency depends largely on OPEC’s decision to denominate the dollar as the currency for OPEC oil purchases. Today’s petrodollar economy dates back to two secret agreements with the Saudisin the 1970s for the recycling of petrodollars back into the US economy. The first of these deals assured a special and on-going Saudi stake in the health of the US dollar; the second secured continuing Saudi support for the pricing of all OPEC oil in dollars. These two deals assured that the US economy would not be impoverished by OPEC oil price hikes. Since then the heaviest burden has been borne instead by the economies of less developed countries, who need to purchase dollars for their oil supplies.16

As Ellen Brown has pointed out, first Iraq and then Libya decided to challenge the petrodollar system and stop selling all their oil for dollars, shortly before each country was attacked.

Kenneth Schortgen Jr., writing on Examiner.com, noted that "ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept Euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.."

According to a Russian article titled "Bombing of Lybia - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar," Qaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Qaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. … The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Qaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/scott-pd10.1.html

[Odin2005]

59. LewRockwell.com Is a Libertarian Nut site.

[polly7]

65. Ah well........... you know what they say about opinions.

But, he's pretty much right on course here with what many others are saying.

[Hart2008]

25. Finally, the real reason! K & R!!

:kick:

[Odin2005]

29. I am fucking sick of the Gaddafi apologists. Unrec.

Just because the West almost certainly have ulterior does not mean Gaddafi is some virtuous anti-colonialist saint, he's not, he's a dictatorial thug, just like his buddy Mugabe.

[polly7]

32. I don't see any Gaddafi apologists.

I see people who hate yet another bloody, lying atrocity using all the same propaganda and bull that was used in Iraq. But, we were called Saddam apologists back then, too.

[Distant Observer]

34. Ignorance is such bliss. The impudent dictator has been so demonized that any facts seem cookie

Great job of propaganda by the West.

[Ash_F]

37. This article is important. +rec

Are you demanding that the US/EU sponsor a democratic government?

Because that is not what is happening now. The bottom line is the big decisions for Libya's future are largely out of their hands. Even the very line-men who fought for the rebels are not being involved in the new government. I guess that will come later? Surely.


When Qaddafi first lead the revolution decades ago, the nationalists had huge majority support under a platform of Pan-Arabism. It was a popular revolt against the royalists and the news seems to leave this out every time they talk about Libya. Yet it is still very relevant to the current situation. Qaddafi and his ideals are still shared by a lot of Libyans, who do still deserve representation. The media-heads like to call these people mercenaries. It is funny how every time a foreign political party butts heads with US or EU businesses they are equated to either soulless mercenaries, mindless barbarians or some variation of savage Nazis. :eyes:

Regardless of you opinion of Qaddafi, you can not discount the entire party of Libyan citizens behind him. You can't just ignore a bunch of people when making a new government. The US made that mistake in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Now Libya?

[Distant Observer]

33. A proper analysis. Unfortunately, too informed for most Americans to grasp.

Whether this explains the US motives or the general Western motive is not clear. Certainly some in the Obama Admin -- such as Susan Rice -- seem to be just ignorant dupes or useful idiots.

Sadly, the audience, in general, lacks the basic precedent historical facts to relate to sound analysis of this tragedy, and the environment is now absolutely polluted by propaganda.

[stevenleser]

51. It's a ridiculous analysis on its face. France and Britain pushed this war, not the US. n/t

[Distant Observer]

56. Some are SOOO SMART --- US, UK, French policy have no connection.

I am stupid to think that the three are completely aligned in grasping onto any chance to maintain the post-colonial preferential access to cheep raw materials from Africa that China is increasingly challenging.

[stevenleser]

62. You said it yourself. You are stupid. The runup to Iraq proves it. The French will gladly tell us to

go F--K off if they disagree with us.

[Distant Observer]

72. Are you living in a cave. Don't you see how often the traditional alliance meets and agrees vs not

[hulka38]

75. These are the same experts who thought the Iraq War was necessary

and the leftists who criticized it were nutty conspiracy theorists and malcontents.

[johnaries]

36. Soooooo, the entire Arab Spring was just so we could get Ghaddafi

out of power so NATO could exploit Africa?
:tinfoilhat:

[Ash_F]

38. No, the Arab Spring is push back from the Pan-Arab Movement

Internationalism of today against the isolationism of yesterday. Pan-Arabism itself was push-back from the colonial era. But if the superpowers of today choose to act not in good faith, but rather like the colonialists of old, they will surely become the bad guys again in the eyes of this new wave of revolutionaries.

The U.S. in particular is in the position to set up a mutually beneficial, long term relationship with the Arab world. But they are making all the wrong decisions and this article is a golden example. Arabs can see when foreigners stick their fingers in their sovereignty. That fuels the isolationism, and rightly so.

[Distant Observer]

60. Was an OPPORTUNITY. US Intel said no security threat and questioned data re attacks on civilians

[joshcryer]

40. "Almost every photo of the victorious rebels show aggressive young men armed to the teeth"

I'm not sure I can really address the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z41kQvx4uKw">myopic view in that quote, though it's certainly not unique...

It gets better;

Do the boys firing their guns in the air even have a clue that their living standards — subsidized by nationalized oil — were among the highest in Africa? Who will they blame when medical care disappears and their kids have to pay to go to school? Western, free-market democracy will come to Libya at a very high price when designed and delivered by the neo-colonial powers.

1. Draft constitution keeps the oil proceeds in the hands of the people.

2. Draft constitution mandates health care and education for all.

"The boys firing their guns in the air" are aware of the issues which is one reason they are pushing for http://www.newcivilisation.com/home/islamic-civilisation/mustafa-abdul-jalil-and-the-great-shari’ah-divide">Sharia, and one reason the neoliberals are opposed to Sharia.

Al Jazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/09/201191512581789990.html">asked residents of Tripoli about the reasons behind the intervention and they are not stupid. Yes it's about the oil and they're self-determined.

I expect years to come any foreign contracts will be used as proof to slander Libya, but I think they're going to do OK.

[Hart2008]

61. Sorry, please expound on the history of constitutional law in this country and region.

:crazy: :dunce:

When you get older and acquire some wisdom, you will have noticed how incredibly naive you now are.

Until then, there is no point even arguing with you how silly your points about a Libyan constitution clearly are.

[MFrohike]

41. Pure fantasy

Gadhafi made his first overtures to fix relations with the US PRIOR to 9/11. He was held up as a model of cooperation in the resulting hunt for terrorists. He was quite open to US involvement and investment in Libya, as evidenced by his failure to terminate the oil rights that were suspended after the April 86 bombing.

He was not an African patriot. He was not a saint. He was a tyrant and thug. I've seen plenty of links in this thread with a lot of people claiming some kind of secular sainthood for him based on some mythical stand against imperialism, but I have seen zero proof.

The simple truth is that the US position with Libya would have been fine with Gadhafi still in power. He was proving to be a useful client, much in the way that every ruthless dictator who's ever been a client of the US has been. Obama was slow to get involved because Gadhafi was the devil we knew, while the rebels are unknown.

[MFrohike]

42. Pure fantasy

Gadhafi made his first overtures to fix relations with the US PRIOR to 9/11. He was held up as a model of cooperation in the resulting hunt for terrorists. He was quite open to US involvement and investment in Libya, as evidenced by his failure to terminate the oil rights that were suspended after the April 86 bombing.

He was not an African patriot. He was not a saint. He was a tyrant and thug. I've seen plenty of links in this thread with a lot of people claiming some kind of secular sainthood for him based on some mythical stand against imperialism, but I have seen zero proof.

The simple truth is that the US position with Libya would have been fine with Gadhafi still in power. He was proving to be a useful client, much in the way that every ruthless dictator who's ever been a client of the US has been. Obama was slow to get involved because Gadhafi was the devil we knew, while the rebels are unknown.

[polly7]

44. Sorta like Hussein at one time, heh? Funny how that works. nt.

[MFrohike]

45. Yep

US support of his removal strikes me as a result of unintended consequences. When you spend 40 years vilifying the guy, often rightly, it's difficult to oppose his ouster just because he's really useful. Not so different from Mubarak, but Mubarak had a much better rep.

[polly7]

46. Libya was targeted long ago,

for all of the reasons stated in the OA and in this thread. Just as Hussein was targeted in PNAC. The unintended was 911 for Iraq, and the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia for Libya. Opportunity. There are no unintended consequences ........ the Halliburtons, private armies, military bases, privatization, exploitation, IMF and World Bank 'aid' will all be there. Do you really believe NATO nations with people rioting for basic necessities like jobs, housing, food ...... would spend billions if they didn't KNOW the consequences? 7 countries, 5 years. I don't doubt for a second they hadn't divided Libya's spoils up long ago.

[stevenleser]

50. When all you have in your philosophical toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. nt

[polly7]

53. No, when you have a functioning brain and follow world affairs even

in the slightest, the propaganda is much easier to spot and things eventually make sense. For some, they make sense immediately, I fell for the propaganda originally though. Silly me.

[stevenleser]

63. Simpletons see remotely similar things and conclude they are the same.

When it fits the philosophy you desperately want to be correct, you dont even bother to question your own assumptions.

[polly7]

64. Functioning people study, observe, and make a logical

conclusion that something is similar or not based upon evidence and history .......... simpletons can watch something happen over and over and never make a connection.

[SharksBreath]

52. That devil sure did treat his people well.

Libya - Poverty and wealth

The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in Tripoli, Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruq. Despite its successes, the educational system has failed to train adequate numbers of professionals, resulting in Libya's dependency on foreign teachers, doctors, and scientists.

Many direct and indirect subsidies and free services have helped raise the economic status of low-income families, a policy which has prevented extreme poverty. As part of its socialist model of economic development,


http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html

[Distant Observer]

54. How demonic. How anti-capitalist. How irrational.

[polly7]

43. NATO’s War Crimes in Libya: Who Grieves for the Fallen Heroes?

NATO’s War Crimes in Libya: Who Grieves for the Fallen Heroes?
JAMES PETRAS | September 12th 2011

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/4152/

[malaise]

48. Ding ding we have a winner n/t

[Starry Messenger]

55. k&r

[leftynyc]

57. He blew an American plane

out of the sky. Enough reason for me. And do people really count on counterpunch for serious commentary?

[Distant Observer]

58. Guess now that a civil war that kills thousands has given us total control -- WE WILL FIND EVIDENCE

at last. And some REAL, not planted, evidence this time.

------

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/locevd.htm

Doubts Persist About Lockerbie Evidence

By T. R. Reid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday , April 30, 2000 ; A01

LONDON –– After interviewing thousands of witnesses and collecting 200,000 bits of evidence in one of the world's largest criminal inquiries, investigators in the 1988 Lockerbie airline bombing will finally bring their case against two alleged Libyan terrorists to court this week. But in the final months before the trial, unforeseen doubts have arisen about whether the detective work that led to the suspects will be strong enough to result in their conviction on charges of mass murder and conspiracy.

Prosecutors say they havhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=439&topic_id=1960891&mesg_id=1964400e the right men and the evidence to convict them, but observers who have followed the probe over the past decade warn that there are holes in the case. Information from several key witnesses that investigators counted on now appears to be problematic.

. . .

"It's a fantastic scenario, but it's an unlikely one at several points," the law professor said. "This chap just happens to find tiny pieces of a circuit board in the Scottish woods. The key suitcase is supposed to have come from Air Malta, but there's no record of it at all--and Air Malta keeps meticulous records."

. . . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8441796.stm

'Flaws' in key Lockerbie evidence

An investigation by BBC's Newsnight has cast doubts on the key piece of evidence which convicted the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

Tests aimed at reproducing the blast appear to undermine the case's central forensic link, based on a tiny fragment identified as part of a bomb timer.

The tests suggest the fragment, which linked the attack to Megrahi, would not have survived the mid-air explosion.

. . .

He told Newsnight: "I do find it quite it extraordinary and I think highly improbable and most unlikely that you would find a fragment like that - it is unbelievable.

"We carried out 20 tests, we didn't carry out 100 or 1,000, but in those 20 tests we found absolutely nothing at all - so I found it highly improbable that you would find anything like that, particularly at 10,000 feet when bits are dropping into long wet grass over hundreds of miles.

[court jester]

66. Lots of people talk about Lockerbie but few remember Iran Air Flight 655

Iran Air Flight 655 was a civilian jet airliner shot down by U.S. missiles on 3 July 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, toward the end of the Iran–Iraq War. The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2-203 operated by Iran Air, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children, ranking it ninth among the deadliest disasters in aviation history.



It was the highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Indian Ocean and the highest death toll of any incident involving an Airbus A300 anywhere in the world. Vincennes was traversing the Strait of Hormuz, inside Iranian territorial waters, and at the time of the attack IR655 was within Iranian airspace.<2>

More...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

***If Iran had blown a US Airliner out of the sky with 66 children on it what would have happened?***

Remember Americans:

War Is Peas!

Eat Your Peas Now!

[Distant Observer]

69. Iranian lives don't count the same -- Obviously

[polly7]

67. Murray Dobbin is a guest senior contributing editor

for rabble.ca. Murray has been a journalist, broadcaster, author and social activist for 40 years. A board member and researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, he has written five studies for the centre including examinations of charter schools, and "Ten Tax Myths." Murray has been a columnist for the Financial Post and Winnipeg Free Press and contributes guest editorials to the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and other Canadian dailies. He writes a regular "State of the Nation" column for the on-line journal theTyee.ca which is published simultaneously on rabble.ca. Murray has written five books, including critical profiles of Preston Manning, Kim Campbell and Paul Martin. His "The Myth of the Good Corporate Citizen" has been described as a citizens' guide to globalization. He has also prepared radio documentaries for the CBC Radio's Ideas series on subjects including taxes, human rights and the right-wing regime in New Zealand. A long time social activist Murray has been involved in many movements from the anti-nuclear movement, to the fights against so-called free trade and public private partnerships. He is the founder of Word Warriors, a project which co-ordinates letter-writing to the editorial pages of newspapers across Canada. He is a Senior Advisor to the Rideau Institute on International Affairs. (Rideau Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rideau_Institute)

[Hotler]

70. k&r n/t

[countryjake]

71. Interesting...KICK!...nt.

!

[Dover]

73. Thanks for posting this. It's becoming the common theme of Western "policy"

and it also raises questions about the real roots of the Arab Spring. It certainly has much in common with the orange and other color rebellions in eastern Europe which were covert
operations rather than spontaneous grassroots events. At any rate, there are enormous power struggles going on worldwide over resources and ultimately wealth. We can be sure that things are not what they seem or what the media reports.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Not sayin' that there is more to this than just protecting civilains

but the writer could have saved himself some embarrassment... Africom is still there... never went away.

http://www.africom.mil/

And like CENTCOM it's MHQ is not in the actual area. CENTCOM is in Florida.

But it never went away.