Why the West Wants the Fall of Gaddafi

[The Vegan Marxist]

This 3-set video was really interesting to listen to. Definitely puts some important facts into perspective:

SoH0qLUPd2A
KMU9oT1qjXs
AxpiiTtfkOA

[RedSunRising]

The Vegan Marxist please.....We can ally at times with the national bourgeoise but they are NOT are friends.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The Vegan Maoist please.....We can ally at times with the national bourgeoise but they are NOT are friends.

Maoist?

Who's stating that Gaddafi's our "friend"? This isn't some "my enemy's enemy is my friend" ordeal. Only a bunch of you seem to keep lambasting national liberation under that illogical definition. This is simply to put into perspective certain facts needing to be known.

[Sword and Shield]

The Vegan Maoist

:laugh:

[RedSunRising]

Maoist?

Who's stating that Gaddafi's our "friend"? This isn't some "my enemy's enemy is my friend" ordeal. Only a bunch of you seem to keep lambasting national liberation under that illogical definition. This is simply to put into perspective certain facts needing to be known.

Sorry Marxist. :blushing:

g4JbOlakWZo

It might not be as simple though as his now supporters say....

[The Vegan Marxist]

Anyone can essentially call him a "dictator" or a "betrayer", but I see very little of people even questioning why he made the transition, the time-line's conditions, if there was any other option for Gaddafi (if so, how would it have affected Libya as a whole?), where does Gaddafi stand now (has he transitioned back to popular hero or still making concessions with imperialism), etc. etc. I see no one asking the crucial questions (except for a good few here on RevLeft), and instead making empty assumptions and dry rhetoric.

[Nolan]

And we get nothing but a bunch of just-so stories from Gaddafi fans like TVM about how he didn't want to let the west in and get filthy fucking rich like he did.

The reason the west wants him away now is because imperialism is opportunist. That's it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

And we get nothing but a bunch of just-so stories from Gaddafi fans like TVM about how he didn't want to let the west in and get filthy fucking rich like he did.

The reason the west wants him away now is because imperialism is opportunist. That's it.

If the imperialists were opportunists then they would've sided with the clear victors of this war - Gaddafi and his forces. Clearly the rebels have no fucking chance in achieving power over Libya. They're having an incredible hard time in even getting out of Benghazi, despite NATO helping them! So how the hell can you call the imperialists "opportunists" when they're not taking the opportunity of siding with the clear victors?

Seriously, I miss Captain Cuba over this ignorant Hoxhaist.

[Nolan]

So they can just switch sides halfway through the conflict when Gaddafi will never trust them again?

And the rebel war effort looked like it was going very well there for a while. Hell, it's not so bad now. Gaddafi isn't obviously winning as you claim.*

"Captain Cuba" was me at a less mature stage in my political development. Maybe you'll grow up one day, too.

*In fact I said a long time ago that the most likely outcome of this is that Gaddafi stays in power in Tripoli but a new Cyrenaica or East Libya is created with the capital at Benghazi.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So they can just switch sides halfway through the conflict when Gaddafi will never trust them again?

And the rebel war effort looked like it was going very well there for a while. Hell, it's not so bad now.

"Captain Cuba" was me at a less mature stage in my political development. Maybe you'll grow up one day, too.

If "politically maturing" means siding with a bunch of racist rebels who side with the imperialists and al-Qaeda over a progressive leader, then no thanks. ;)

Also, you do realize that the actual imperialist strikes and invasions didn't start until sometime mid-to-late March, right? By that time, Gaddafi's forces had already literally repelled the rebels back to Benghazi. It was quite clear who was winning. So no, your statement is still bullshit.

[Nolan]

If "politically maturing" means siding with a bunch of racist rebels who side with the imperialists and al-Qaeda over a progressive leader, then no thanks. ;)

You're an imbecile. I don't side with the rebels. But I think Gaddafi is an asshole and a poser.

And a perfect example of western opportunism, what just happened between the imperialists and Al-Qaeda the other day? Is the west siding with it at the same time it sends Seals to kill its leaders?


Also, you do realize that the actual imperialist strikes and invasions didn't start until sometime mid-to-late March, right? By that time, Gaddafi's forces had already literally repelled the rebels back to Benghazi. It was quite clear who was winning. So no, your statement is still bullshit.Because at first it looked like Gaddafi might go down the same way as Ben Ali and Mubarak. But Gaddafi massacred people and sections of the military joined the rebels, etc.

If there had been no uprising the west wouldn't care and Gaddafi would be sitting fat and happy in Tripoli resting his boot over all of Libya.

[Nolan]

I know I don't support the rebels. But you love Gaddafi, and that's undeniable.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Because at first it looked like Gaddafi might go down the same way as Ben Ali and Mubarak. But Gaddafi massacred people and sections of the military joined the rebels, etc.

Bullshit. This was purely media-hyped propaganda, and taking Gaddafi's word out of context.

For example, during a Department of Defense news briefing with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, when asked on whether or not there was any confirmation to the media claims of Libyan civilians were being killed by pro-Gaddafi forces through air-strikes, both Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen stated:


“Q: Do you see any evidence that he actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?

“SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.

“ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.”

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4777

According to the Russian military, when they were monitoring the events in Libya via satellite, they found no air activity during the beginning stages of civil-war conflict, despite media claims of there being air-strikes conducted:

http://rt.com/news/airstrikes-libya-russian-military/

According to the Western think-tank “international intelligence” International Institute for Strategic Studies, through an hour long military briefing, it was stated:


“When the globalist policy wonks speak frankly, outside the short attention span of the general public, they talk of Qaddafi’s professional forces taking special care to avoid civilian casualties knowing full well it will fuel calls for Western intervention.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5AEEbuV8Hg&feature=player_embedded

Then, not too long ago, an independent British fact-finding team was sent to Libya to conduct an investigation on claims of inflicted violence against innocent civilians by Gaddafi's forces, and guess what?: they found no evidence whatsoever!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Libya-British-Group-Sees-No-Evidence-Of-Gaddafi-Forces-Using-Violence-In-Western-Libya/Article/201104315975021?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_F eature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15975021_Video%3A_Libya_British_Group_ Sees_No_Evidence_Of_Gaddaf%E2%80%8Bi_Forces_Using_ Violence_In_Western_Libya

Even mainstream news sources are admitting that Gaddafi's forces did not intentionally kill civilians, and if any were killed, was done on accident (which is an unfortunate factor of war), as stated here by The Boston Globe:

http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions

Russia Today even covered the story, as shown here through video broadcast:

xmTxV5UaIbU

Of course, one look at the firefights conducted by the rebels and we can see clearly why any civilian casualty took place. Maybe if the civilians actually stopped treating battlegrounds like it's a fucking spectator sport, then they might not get killed themselves on accident!

ltWIU7QO7Dg


If there had been no uprising the west wouldn't care and Gaddafi would be sitting fat and happy in Tripoli resting his boot over all of Libya.

Bullshit again. The West have long not trusted Gaddafi for him not being trustworthy in their eyes. It's quite clear Gaddafi didn't want to continue being the Wests pawn, since he's been trying to nationalize the oil industry (http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/gaddafi-wanted-to-nationalise-oil/) since 2009 (though, lucky for the West, they have supporters within the Libyan govt. not wanting this to take place).

Let's also not forget the fact that Gaddafi never made true concessions with the West (or else, the West would've not invaded at all), because, even while Gaddafi allowed foreign investment within the oil industry, he kept it strictly regulated, allowing oil profits to fund social programs and kept worker rights at a must! This made the imperialists quite unhappy; thus why Libya remains one of the 10 least "economically-free" countries, according to the Index of Economic Freedom:

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/looking-out-for-western-business-and-investor-rights-why-the-west-approves-military-interventions-to-topple-one-arab-government-and-prop-up-another/

And then, let's also not forget the fact that by mid-March, before the imperialists decided to invade, Gaddafi had announced that he was going to cut off the West from his oil supply completely!

http://rt.com/news/libya-oil-gaddafi-arab/

[Nolan]

Bullshit again. The West have long not trusted Gaddafi for him not being trustworthy in their eyes. It's quite clear Gaddafi didn't want to continue being the Wests pawn, since he's been trying to nationalize the oil industry (http://www.anonym.to/?http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/gaddafi-wanted-to-nationalise-oil/) since 2009 (though, lucky for the West, they have supporters within the Libyan govt. not wanting this to take place).

etc.

etc.
We've had this conversation before, and you left out the part where the IMF praised Libya in 2010. So clearly this claim that Gaddafi was gonna nationalize it any minute doesn't hold up, otherwise the IMF would have shat itself.

Then of course there's the fact that his sons live it up in Europe.

[The Vegan Marxist]

We've had this conversation before, and you left out the part where the IMF praised Libya in 2010. So clearly this claim that Gaddafi was gonna nationalize it any minute doesn't hold up, otherwise the IMF would have shat itself.

Then of course there's the fact that his sons live it up in Europe.

And yet, again, the praise they had given was bullshit, or else they wouldn't have placed Libya in such a low bar under "economic freedom" with countries like Zimbabwe and North Korea, and they most certainly wouldn't have invaded Libya. Of course, you forget these details and resort to one article by the IMF.

Cool story bro. :thumbup1:

[Nolan]

Well let's see what that report said:


the International Monetary Fund’s executive board, its highest authority, assessed a North African country’s economy and commended its government for its “ambitious reform agenda.” The I.M.F. also welcomed its “strong macroeconomic performance and the progress on enhancing the role of the private sector,” and “encouraged” the authorities to continue on that promising path. This was a year after Gaddafi was about to nationalize the backbone of the economy, according to you.

And I don't care what the freedom index says. No one was every claiming Libya to be some libertarian paradise, so that's irrelevant.

And it's not like this kind of thing is new. Gaddafi has been in bed with the Italians a long time.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

A class analysis would understand why the rebellions in Libya and the rest of the Arab world broke out. Could it have had something to do with the imposition of neo-liberalism in the Arab countries, the effects of the financial crisis and then the rise of food prices?A class analysis also would not place national bourgeois leaders like Assad, Mugabe, Achmandijad and Qaddaffi on the side of the proletarian. A Marxist analysis would also understand the interconnectedness of global capital, Qaddaffi being as much a product of late capitalism as is Obama.The above mentioned figures are attempting to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. The Jasmine Revolution is upsetting their attempts to reposition themselves within the system of global capital.We should not take there side, even critically but that of the proletariat.

The Marcyite theory of "global class war" obscures how thoroughly global capital is and its "faux anti-imperialism" is both naive and ultimately reactionary.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well let's see what that report said:

This was a year after Gaddafi was about to nationalize the backbone of the economy, according to you.

And I don't care what the freedom index says. No one was every claiming Libya to be some libertarian paradise, so that's irrelevant.

And it's not like this kind of thing is new. Gaddafi has been in bed with the Italians a long time.

Clearly the IMF made hints that Libya wasn't exactly where they wanted it to be. They "encourage" him to continue on, though Gaddafi wasn't as I pointed out and, really, I don't give a shit what YOU think, nor care if you take an IMF article as being more "legitimate" than a global economic index chart.

The fact that you disregard everything for one article by the IMF (such a reliable source, I'm telling yah...) just shows me how "politically mature" you really are. :rolleyes:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Capitalism is a social relationship. Who had control over the means of production in Libya? How was power exercised in the "Revolutionary" Councils? I think the answer is obvious.Qaddaffi is a capitalist leader, the head of a capitalist state. He may have had disagreements with elements of global capital and close relationships with other elements. He was "in bed" with the Italians, sometimes quite literally with Berlusconni bragging how he used to go to orgies with his friend Munmar.Qaddaffi is a national bourgeois maneuvering for position with the top dogs. What does this have to do with the working class?

BTW Indonesia and China have been given low marks for "economic freedom" but no one can deny they are capitalist states.There is currently no such thing as a non-capitalist state.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^Who's talking about the working class? This is about preventing the imperialists from taking over Libya completely. Seriously, you can call for a working class revolution all you want, but it's nowhere near in Libya. What is going on? An imperialist invasion! Thus why we should put our efforts in opposing such now.

[Per Levy]

What is going on? An imperialist invasion! Thus why we should put our efforts in opposing such now.

there is a difference between opposing the imperialist intervention(wich 99,9% of the members of revleft do) and be a bootlicker of gaddafi.


Who's talking about the working class?

there i was and thought the working class was somewhat importent to marxists/communists.

[Thirsty Crow]

^Who's talking about the working class?
This, this truly says all there is to say. Nice job.

[RadioRaheem84]

there is a difference between opposing the imperialist intervention(wich 99,9% of the members of revleft do) and be a bootlicker of gaddafi.


What bootlicking?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Fuck it, I'm just gonna come out and say that I completely support Gaddafi in this war and I ain't ashamed to do so. I support the working class of Libya, and the majority of them support Gaddafi. Therefore I support Gaddafi. Seems simple to me. This pacifist bullshit of "opposing both sides" just works out as de facto support for whoever has the best firepower ie. NATO. And I'm pretty sure that's what we call 'social-imperialism', especially if you're actually from a western (or at least NATO) country.

Says it all about this website. You have a progressive fairly left-wing leader who's given his people the highest living standards in Africa and given aid and support to all kinds of socialist and anti-imperialist forces worldwide (oh but I'm forgetting how he apparently gave Nick Griffin some copies of the Green Book one time :rolleyes:), and against him you have all these rebels who come in pretty much every single different brand of reaction and have western imperialism specifically choosing to back them up. Who does everybody support? They either openly or de facto support the rebels and imperialists.

[Sasha]

. I support the working class of Libya, and the majority of them support Gaddafi.

Please tell, I'm dying to see your sources for that, because that is absolutely the opposite of what each and every libyan I spoke too have said. It's also in direct conflict with what an simple look at an population map of Libya tells you. In fact, its just an simple lie. I would never deny that gadaffi has support but its not majority support let alone from the working-class.
Source it, I dare you.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Fuck it, I'm just gonna come out and say that I completely support Gaddafi in this war and I ain't ashamed to do so. I support the working class of Libya, and the majority of them support Gaddafi. Therefore I support Gaddafi. Seems simple to me. This pacifist bullshit of "opposing both sides" just works out as de facto support for whoever has the best firepower ie. NATO. And I'm pretty sure that's what we call 'social-imperialism', especially if you're actually from a western (or at least NATO) country.

Says it all about this website. You have a progressive fairly left-wing leader who's given his people the highest living standards in Africa and given aid and support to all kinds of socialist and anti-imperialist forces worldwide (oh but I'm forgetting how he apparently gave Nick Griffin some copies of the Green Book one time :rolleyes:), and against him you have all these rebels who come in pretty much every single different brand of reaction and have western imperialism specifically choosing to back them up. Who does everybody support? They either openly or de facto support the rebels and imperialists.

Conflate much? How do you know that the majority of the Libyan working class supports Qaddaffi? What are your references for this claim?
Do you actually think Qaddaffi, the leader of a country with oil, with close trade and investment with the "West" is not part of global capitalism?Its not just that he's gumbas with Nazi Nick but he was also pals with Tony Blair, Berlesconni, Charles Taylor and many others.The guy bought off the LSE (not all that hard to do).

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have used their oil money for the betterment of their people, are they "progressive" as well? what do you mean by "progressive?"

Qaddaffi is a capitalist leader of a capitalist state. Do you support the suppression of domestic demonstrations against people like Qadaffi, just because they are seen "tainted" by bourgeois funding, organizations, etc? Or do you understand the cause of the rebellion and point a better way forward?

Do you support Qaddaffi's crushing of the rebellion?

[RadioRaheem84]

Please tell, I'm dying to see your sources for that, because that is absolutely the opposite of what each and every libyan I spoke too have said. It's also in direct conflict with what an simple look at an population map of Libya tells you. In fact, its just an simple lie. I would never deny that gadaffi has support but its not majority support let alone from the working-class.
Source it, I dare you.

Psycho what the fuck are you talking about?

The rebel leadership is comprised of businessmen and former politcos in the Gaddafi regime who want to open the floodgates to Western capitalism.

There are pockets of radical Islamists thrown in there too.

I do not deny working class elements in the rebellion but so far I have read that most side (whether they like Gaddafi or not is unclear) with Gaddafi over the NATO led Rebels.

Where are your sources then that the rebellion has large popular support?

[RadioRaheem84]

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have used their oil money for the betterment of their people, are they "progressive" as well? what do you mean by "progressive?"


This is just false. The Saudis have done no such thing. That place is a powder keg waiting to explode because of the Saudi's using all the oil money to enrich themselves. The only thing keeping it from descending into revolution is strong backing from the US.



Do you actually think Qaddaffi, the leader of a country with oil, with close trade and investment with the "West" is not part of global capitalism?Its not just that he's gumbas with Nazi Nick but he was also pals with Tony Blair, Berlesconni, Charles Taylor and many others.The guy bought off the LSE (not all that hard to do).


His position in all this is quite similar to the position Nicholas Ceausescu of Romani was in. He is an autocrat who lessened his stance against the West for economic and political gain but kept some of his anti-imperialist rhetoric or "cred" by not fully giving into the neo-liberal economic order.

If a rebellion that promises it cheaper oil deals emerges and better political ties, then he is out.


Qaddaffi is a capitalist leader of a capitalist state. Do you support the suppression of domestic demonstrations against people like Qadaffi, just because they are seen "tainted" by bourgeois funding, organizations, etc? Or do you understand the cause of the rebellion and point a better way forward?


Where are you guys getting all your info about the rebellion, anyways?



Do you support Qaddaffi's crushing of the rebellion?


You mean the armed rebellion that's been causing serious havoc in Libyan cities and called upon NATO to save it's ass when they were losing some of their strongholds?

Why do you guys think that it's just "elements" or little splatherings of bourgoise taint?

They hijacked and control the entire rebellion.

[agnixie]

TVM - have you considered that you might be a liability to your own arguments? Especially with your blanket dismissal of class arguments, your references to right wing russian conspirational sources not merely against NATO, but in open support of a man you claim not to support.

You're either a troll or you're not thinking things through.

[RadioRaheem84]

TVM - have you considered that you might be a liability to your own arguments? Especially with your blanket dismissal of class arguments, your references to right wing russian conspirational sources not merely against NATO, but in open support of a man you claim not to support.

You're either a troll or you're not thinking things through.

Is this about RT Russia Times News? Yes, it's a Putin loving FOX News like channel but occasionally it does offer insight from a few Marxists or leftists who would never see the light of day on US mainstream.

TRNN, the Real News Network is much better.

Also, I would like to know just where the pro-rebellion crowd, or at least the pro-sit this one out, is getting their information about the rebels to begin with?

[Luís Henrique]

^Who's talking about the working class?

Epicly honest.

Luís Henrique

[The Vegan Marxist]

This, this truly says all there is to say. Nice job.

Well, my statement isn't anti-working class. So, by all means, explain away oh "great socialist".

The working class are, obviously, of our greatest concerns, which is why I'm amazed at those siding against Gaddafi and those fighting for him. Especially when a good amount of those supporting Gaddafi are African migrants (workers!); which I might add are being slaughtered by the rebel opposition. Of course, those who were cheering them only earlier are now no longer supporting anybody, so it's now just a matter of sticking your fingers in your ears while singing the internationale.

If a real social revolution took place against the Libyan govt., then I would support it 100%! Though, that's not the case, now is it? There is no "working class revolution" taking place. Instead, there's an imperialist invasion, aiding Islamic fundamentalists (some being that of an al-Qaeda cell), who're calling for the West to assassinate Gaddafi (http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/middle-east/150914-libyan-rebels-ask-us-to-kill-gaddafi.html)!

Whether you like Gaddafi or not is pretty fucking irrelevant right now. I don't give a shit if you don't like him - again, it's completely irrelevant. Just like it was irrelevant if you didn't like Milosevic. There's two sides fighting here: those against imperialism and the imperialists. One side represents better worker rights, whereas the other represents more exploitation through private foreign companies. So if you don't like the fact that I side with the former, then you can just kiss my ass.

[Sword and Shield]

Also, I would like to know just where the pro-rebellion crowd, or at least the pro-sit this one out, is getting their information about the rebels to begin with?

This. They think Al Jazeera (that same channel that hasn't said a word about what's going on in Bahrain) and the Western mainstream media is a great source for information.

[RedHal]

If the imperialists were opportunists then they would've sided with the clear victors of this war - Gaddafi and his forces. Clearly the rebels have no fucking chance in achieving power over Libya. They're having an incredible hard time in even getting out of Benghazi, despite NATO helping them! So how the hell can you call the imperialists "opportunists" when they're not taking the opportunity of siding with the clear victors?

Seriously, I miss Captain Cuba over this ignorant Hoxhaist.

The Imperialists are deceivers as much as they are brutal. Having fucked up on Egypt, when they backed Mubarak, the imperialists needed another war to keep the lie of "protecting human rights and democracy". Libya provided the perfect opportunity.

[Sasha]

RadioRaheem84 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2100873#post2100873) Also, I would like to know just where the pro-rebellion crowd, or at least the pro-sit this one out, is getting their information about the rebels to begin with?


This. They think Al Jazeera (that same channel that hasn't said a word about what's going on in Bahrain) and the Western mainstream media is a great source for information.

next to al-jazeera (which isnt perfect but a lot more trustworthy than the "blatantly-lying propaganda spread by obscure blogs by even more obscure partys who never even have seen an libyan IRL themselfs" you lot seem to mistake for independent sources) i for one, as i have said plenty of times already actually know libyan people/people of libyan descent, i have talked with their family members and i got few times through them updates from benghazi but communication with the town is difficult. and at least what the situation in benghazi is considerd i have not heard anything which is in stark conflict to what al-jazeera is reporting.

[RadioRaheem84]

Al Jazeera? They've turned into BBC Mid-East by now.