Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 17:56 Ideology: Democratic Socialism New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)  24 Oct 2011, 18:05
Did the west invade Gaddafi's Libya for imperialistic gain of the oil reserves? Would this explain the lack of care for civilians in Sirte and the random bombing raids like in Dresden?
Last edited by marcuspotter4564 on 25 Oct 2011, 11:10, edited 2 times in total.
I'm deputy military commander of Cuba.
Soviet cogitations: 4955
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo 25 Oct 2011, 04:14
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeessss. Freedom had nothing to do with Libya's "liberation". It's all about gaining control of as much oil as possible. Western nations saw an opportunity and took it regardless of the lives and long term well being of the local people. 25 Oct 2011, 04:23
FC's got it. The Libyan Intervention is textbook Imperialism. Fully loaded with comprador bourgeoisie, false rebellions, and extensive historical-falsification. Libya is going to bite us in the ass just like Afghanistan did.
 لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا 
Soviet cogitations: 3763
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo 25 Oct 2011, 06:37
That's what Gaddafi gets for nationalizing. I'm sure there were other equally sneaky motives, but oil was a big one. Others would be Israeli Peace, destruction of a Pan-Arab/Pan-African spokesman, pressure on Egypt for new government to be pro-Western, Foreign Direct Investment, pressure against Iran, pressure against OPEC, another Sunni majority country with Western sympathies to help in the war against al Qaeda.
But yes, oil was a big part. 
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 17:56 Ideology: Democratic Socialism New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!) 25 Oct 2011, 10:41
Sorry for having a one line question. I know that I shouldn't have. I forgot to preview. Anyway, is there any proof of my point? Have any files been leaked to back up this, for example? Also, how come Libya had a prior alliance against terror yet the west are invading it to help against terror? Wouldn't that make the situation worse because of the political vacuum?
I'm deputy military commander of Cuba.
25 Oct 2011, 13:02
Another factor in addition to those already mentioned is/was Gaddafi's desire to create a new regional currency in the form of the golden dinar, a currency backed by gold which several African and Asian countries took an interest in. Since the US dollar's credibility has been declining as of late, and the Euro has also been facing loss of confidence, the successful creation of a new global currency backed by gold would be disastrous for the West's global economic supremacy and threatened to result in an entirely new configuration of global economic power.
Also consider Libya as part of the reconfiguration of the entire Middle East region. With successful 'shedding of snake skin' revolutions taking place all over the region, the Gaddafi domino had to be toppled in order to maintain the 'cleansing' cycle. There is great pressure now to 'finish off' the process by getting rid of the anti-Western regimes in Syria and Iran, and to gain a region more pro-Western than at any time since the 1940s. With regard to Islamic terrorism and the 'war on terror', these revolutions have made it apparent that the US had largely superficial and self-interested motives for that war, and that partially with the help of the Arab Spring they are returning to their traditional role of being allied to and/or ambivalent toward radical Islam. If you observe the entire post-WW2 era, you will note that the US nearly always supported Islamists against the threat of socialist and/or Arab nationalist figures, who were likely to align with the Soviet Union in the Cold War. "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: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 17:56 Ideology: Democratic Socialism New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!) 25 Oct 2011, 16:53
The whole "domino" is just history repeating. When South Vietnam fell the world didn't become communist. Just shows that the west still hasn't learnt from the Vietnam War.
I'm deputy military commander of Cuba.
Soviet cogitations: 2868
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55 Party Bureaucrat 25 Oct 2011, 23:17
This had nothing to do with the domino theory; there was no domino to fall. Whereas the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt seemed to be of an organic nature, the overthrow of Gadhafi looks highly pre-meditated, for the reasons mentioned above. One thing to observe is how quickly the NTC formed a new central bank earlier this year, which is an odd action to take for a group of disorganized rebels. It is a clear indication that NATO was orchestrating the whole affair short of putting boots on the ground, although even that happened in the form of British SAS teams, etc.
 "History is a set of lies agreed upon." --Napoleon Bonaparte 25 Oct 2011, 23:56
Of course it's imperialism. The West were happy to cooperate with Gaddafi a year ago but when the Arab Spring happened, the West seized the initiative and invaded Libya under the pretext that he was 'killing his own people'. Now that he's out of the picture, the NATO allies will be given 30% of the oil reserves by the NTC for overthrowing Gaddafi.
There are no libertarians in dumpsters.
Soviet cogitations: 55
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Feb 2011, 12:58 Ideology: Social Democracy Pioneer 18 Dec 2011, 14:33
If anything, i'm surprised the NTC have been so welcoming and generous to the West. Considering how close Western relations to Gaddafi were, I would have thought that they would not been so nice. But in answer to your question - yes. Textbook Imperialism. The West smelled the oil, so jumped on the bandwagon and have now earned themselves another section of the Arab's oil.
 "Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem." Joseph Stalin 19 Dec 2011, 07:25
Quote: That's from the OWS Facebook page. I found it pretty interesting and basically a summary of the hypocrisy of the overthrow of Gaddafi. 17 Feb 2013, 04:39
Very good question, as to the reason for NATO assault on the Qadaffi regime. I still haven't figured it out. The west had brought Q back into the fold sometime during the W. presidency, had recognized him diplomatically, put business firms into Libya, sold him weapons, and used him for extraordinary rendition purposes( I think only the US did this). Then, in a flash, they turned on him. They justified the attack on Libya as a case of preventing a bloodbath, ie., Qadaffi was going to commit a massacre in Benghazi, and they need to stop him. However, when you look at the evidence, there is very little to support the claim that Qadaffi was going to do that. He was going to march into Benghazi to retake it, but you would expect that in a civil war. He didn't massacre people in the cities he retook as his army swept eastward, so what evidence was there that he would do so in Benghazi?
Qadaffi gave up his nuclear ambitions about a decade earlier because he wanted a rapprochement with the west. Pretty big mistake. |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||
[ Top ]
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
