Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Muammar al-Gaddafi

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 16 Mar 2013, 13:32
runequester wrote:

Nope. I answered your question about how people replace a leader for life that no longer represents them. History has plenty of evidence of this process.

My own preferences are irrelevant to the discussion

So we were actually *not* talking how it ought to be, but instead how it was?
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 16 Mar 2013, 16:57
EdvardK wrote:
So we were actually *not* talking how it ought to be, but instead how it was?


That was my take, yeah. History always archs towards progress. Sometimes it's peaceful, sometimes it's violent.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2013, 07:11
Pioneer
Post 16 Mar 2013, 19:26
EdvardK sorry about that. I misread your post.
Soviet cogitations: 56
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 May 2013, 19:04
Ideology: Maoist
Pioneer
Post 14 May 2013, 21:28
Gaddafi was killed because he wouldn't let foreign capitalists exploit Libya. The US wanted his oil so they funded the Islamists fighting against him.
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2013, 07:11
Pioneer
Post 19 May 2013, 20:06
Cultofpersonality wrote:
Gaddafi was killed because he wouldn't let foreign capitalists exploit Libya. The US wanted his oil so they funded the Islamists fighting against him.

If that's true then why did he let foreign capital in a decade before that? He made a rapprochement with the western powers. I also don't believe the US attacked him for oil. I think they did it to look good for the arab league, and the arab world in general. Same reason Obama supported the overthrow of Mubarack in Egypt. He didn't want to. In fact he called him a "stalwart ally". He had to do it or face admitting that US policy is based on its interests not on humanitarian ideals. The uprising in egypt pushed Obama against the wall: if he didn't support the uprising it made all his flowery rhetoric about democracy an obvious lie, if he did support it he lost a reliable ally. He chose to support the uprising so that the US could maintain its image as the "good guys" basically. I think the same thing happened in Libya. I could be wrong but I'd need to see the evidence.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 19 May 2013, 20:50
Gaddafi's reproach with the West was of course pragmatic. In the mid-2000s it wasn't clear that the shift in the global balance of power would come so soon. He believed that in abandoning his WMDs, introducing some reforms and spending money on improving relations with Europe and the US he would be able to save the system he had constructed in Libya, and himself of course. He wasn't in the same class as Mubarak, neither in his status as an ally of the West, nor in terms of dependence on the West, nor in his commitment to neoliberalism. For these reasons it's clear that without Western military intervention, Gaddafi would have defeated the uprising. He was on the verge of doing so when airstrikes began.

On the other hand, his tinkering with the idea of creating a new currency for Africa based in on gold, which pricked up the ears of the BRICs, among others, after 2008 is probably one of the least often mention causes of his downfall. Remember that in 2010 many were afraid of a rush on the dollar. This was followed by similar fears over the Euro. IF Gaddafi had survived, and these ideas for a new currency became a reality, everyone dependent upon financial speculation to prop up their economies (i.e. the financial industries of Europe, of the US, of the parasitic microstates like the U.A.E.) would be in big trouble. For China, the world's industrial base, a switch to the golden dinar would be an opportunity to end their dependence on the West and to become a core in the core-periphery relationship with other developing countries. For Russia it would be a chance to end their status as a semi-occupied resource base of the West. The same goes for all developing countries with real finished goods and resources, rather than financial machinations and militarism, to offer other countries.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 19 May 2013, 22:35
Just another typical late imperialist blunder of the sort we saw Britain and France make continually in the first half of the 20th century. Not heeding the doctrine of containment has resulted in much mayhem, chaos, and unnecessary bloodshed which keeps the pot stirred, and the war profiteers rejoicing. I'm starting to think war is the only industry besides funeral preparations that the sun will never set on.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2013, 07:11
Pioneer
Post 20 May 2013, 02:58
soviet78 wrote:
Gaddafi's reproach with the West was of course pragmatic. In the mid-2000s it wasn't clear that the shift in the global balance of power would come so soon. He believed that in abandoning his WMDs, introducing some reforms and spending money on improving relations with Europe and the US he would be able to save the system he had constructed in Libya, and himself of course. He wasn't in the same class as Mubarak, neither in his status as an ally of the West, nor in terms of dependence on the West, nor in his commitment to neoliberalism. For these reasons it's clear that without Western military intervention, Gaddafi would have defeated the uprising. He was on the verge of doing so when airstrikes began.


I agree completely with that. Actually I think those reasons suffice to explain the desire to oust him, with one reason missing: the "arab spring". Without that there would've been no pressure to "do something" about the Libyan uprising. In reality the uprising in Libya was not a general rebellion with deep roots in the people. It was the same sect in Benghazi that had rebelled perennially that was behind it. This fact did not seem to register on international observers. They just put it all under the same "arab spring" heading, like it was some yearning by the whole people for freedom from Qadaffi. They may not have liked Qadaffi but the tribes distrusted each other, and he was the least worst option.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 21 May 2013, 02:51
I really don't see what did the imperialist powers achieve by supporting the rebellion in Lybia. After spending hundreds of millions of dollars all they got is a ravaged "state" ruled by tribal mobs, which has also become a nest of terrorists.
Gadafi had no qualms about letting foreign companies purchase the country's oil anyway, besides he had very good connections with the Italian and French bourgeoisie.
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2013, 07:11
Pioneer
Post 21 May 2013, 04:20
[quote="Loz"]I really don't see what did the imperialist powers achieve by supporting the rebellion in Lybia.

Qadaffi was a socialist, right? Basically? They got rid of THAT. You know the saddest part of it in my mind? That the Libyan people didn't get to choose. NATO decided and said "let me tell you how it will be".
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 May 2013, 02:53
Quote:
Qadaffi was a socialist, right? Basically?

I don't think so.

Quote:
They got rid of THAT.

But why would they go into that adventure? Libya was no "pariah state" like North Korea when the rebellion started.

Quote:
That the Libyan people didn't get to choose.

But they did. Of course NATO and certain Arab states played a great role in all that but Gadafi would have won had he had more support from the Libyan people.
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2013, 07:11
Pioneer
Post 22 May 2013, 04:05
Quote:
But they did. Of course NATO and certain Arab states played a great role in all that but Gadafi would have won had he had more support from the Libyan people.


They did not. Qadaffi was winning and was about to destroy the rebellion but for the de facto rebel air force known as NATO. That's probably WHY they intervened: because he was about to win. Couldn't have that. When you say "they did" choose, upon what is that based? How do you know what the mass of Libyan people wanted. Was the issue even raised in your post? Do you mean the benghazi rebels as "the people"? what are you talking about? With NATO intent on ousting the regime, it wouldn't have mattered what the people wanted. If the rebels had had more support they wouldn't have needed NATO right?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.