why do people support Gahdaffi [Archive]

View Full Version : why do people support Gahdaffi

RedMarxist

29th June 2011, 22:51

Weezer

29th June 2011, 23:03

Why do people support that scumbag Gahdaffi anyway? Oh, lets not support the supposed Pro-democracy rebels because Americuh is supporting them! Lets support a butcher who CLAIMS to be anti-imperialist. Lets support police states, etc.

Can Gahdaffi supporters please explain to me why you support him? Thanks.

While I'm not the biggest supporter, the fact of the matter is: these "pro-democracy" rebels are now just as bad as Gadaffi is claimed to be. They behead victims, they kill innocent people, they rape innocent people.

I haven't looked into the Libyan struggle in a month or two, but from what I know Gadaffi is a far more reasonable force to support nowadays. He even supplied arms to his own people to fight against NATO forces. NATO is senselessly bombing Libya, killing innocent people.

The situation is very reminiscent of the imperalist seize of the Suez Canal in the 1950's. They claim to be fighting for democracy, but they only want to reinforce Western interests in Africa. Gadaffi has been a rebel against Western interests for decades. I'm not saying I support all of his actions, but what I'm saying is that his government is worthy of supporting against imperialist aggression and bourgeois Islamist rebels.

W1N5T0N

30th June 2011, 00:59

A government ruled by a delusional dictator, whose clan holds the government and hoards large shares of the wealth from oil production? Gaddaffi ain't "reasonable". Only because I say i am a liberator of the people, doesn't mean i AM.

RedMarxist

30th June 2011, 01:20

you said it. Hes a ruthless dictator through and through.

Dogs On Acid

30th June 2011, 01:24

So RedMarxist, you rather support a bourgeois resistance?

I'm no Authoritarian, but Gaddafi has helped Socialist causes in the past.

Edit: BTW, I don't take either side in this conflict, they're both crap.Just saying Gaddafi isn't as bad as the media makes him be, and the rebels vice-versa.

Threetune

30th June 2011, 01:25

Dogs On Acid

30th June 2011, 01:32

Doopi do, Doopi do, peoplel like you need to, oh no! EDUCATE OURESELVS!!!

Do some work on this you stupid lazy twat if you want to stop you and your kids being slaves.

Easy on that sexist language, and calm down.

scarletghoul

30th June 2011, 01:40

Because while there are serious criticisms to be made of the Libyan Jamahiriya is has overall been a very progressive force. Gaddafi has helped anti-imperialist movements in Africa and Ireland. Particularly he has worked to unite africa to make it stronger, which is a noble goal. Politically Libya is quasi-socialist, with a system of peoples councils, and centrally planned economy. A few years ago Gaddafi announced plans to give the oil wealth of libya directly to the people (which was noted by the US in horror).. Libya has the highest living standards in Africa, which is not a coincidence, especially considering it used to be one of the poorest countries in the world.

And as has been said before, the rebels are not pro-democracy activists like the BBC would have you believe.. they're been lynching blacks and supporting NATO airstrikes against libyan civilians. Theyre a mix of reactionary elements it seems

RadioRaheem84

30th June 2011, 01:46

This thread is going to descend into a shitstorm.

For the last fucking time, Gaddafi needs to go(or reform his government), he is a a bit of an autocrat, but he is not this Suharto style kill any opposition dictator. Stop spreading that stuff people! He is a low level corrupt autocrat at best with nationalist leanings. He is not a free wheeling Idi Amin or Pinochet or Banana Republic Junta leader.

He isn't even a Kim Jong Il!

What we're talking about is the difference between a has been revolutionary who has succumbed to international capitalism in the last decade and has run Libya with an autocratic fist vs. a group of bourgoise opportunist neo-liberals who usurped a legitimate rebellion movement, is letting religious reactionary zealots from the East doing their fighting and is openly calling for imperialist intervention in exchange for most of Libya.

That is essentially what you have, RedMarxist. No one is saying that just because the US supports the rebels that we're somehow being "punk" and are openly against them. There is a reason not to be in support of such reactionaries.

There is also a debate raging on in here about the rebel movement in particular and if they are as monolithic as the press is making them out to be. But I say that whatever legitimate pockets of resistance among the rebels there is, has now been usurped by the neo-liberal National Transition Council. France, the leading agitator, has said that it would only accept the NTC as the legitimate voice of the rebellion and is now openly arming them.

The US has sent special forces and the CIA to work with the rebels in locating targets for NATO to hit.

The rebels are already securing oil deals with nations like Qatar in rebel-controlled areas, meaning they haven't even won and they're already selling the nation's oil wealth off at bargain basement prices!!

The rebel movement is a bad mix of the Chicago Boys of Chile, the Contras, and the Afghan Mujaheddin all rolled into one!

Sinister Cultural Marxist

30th June 2011, 01:48

Supporting Gaddhafi is indirect rape apologism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#Gaddafi_government_response

Gaddafi government response

There was confusion for several days as to whether she was in government custody or with her family. At a press conference on March 26, government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moussa_Ibrahim) said investigators had found al-Obeidi was drunk and possibly mentally ill, a suggestion that raised fears she would face indefinite incarceration in a government-controlled mental institution, continuing the list of forced disappearances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_disappearance) the opposition charges the Gaddafi regime with.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-Telegraph-12)
After journalists demanded to see her, Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Kaim) told CNN that five men, including the son of a high-ranking Libyan police officer, had been arrested in connection with the alleged rape.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-CNN-13) Kaim said al-Obeidi was being held at the headquarters of Libyan National Intelligence,[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-KirkpatrickMarch26-9) was doing well, and would be provided with legal aid. Ibrahim withdrew the allegation that she was mentally ill,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-WashPost1-14) but then suggested she was a thief and a prostitute (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): "sharmuta"‎)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-CBS-15) who had been on a prearranged meeting with one of the alleged rapists.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-APMarch28-16) This was rejected by al-Obeidi's 21-year-old sister Mawra: "We come from a good family. We study at university. Is this the type of people who engage in such horrible acts?"[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-Time-17)
Ibrahim expressed frustration about the international furore over al-Obeidi while Libya was suffering daily air-raids and massive civilian casualties.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-BlackMarch29-18) On March 27 he said al-Obeidi had been released and was with her sister.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-19) On March 28 her parents denied this, saying she was being held at Gaddafi's compound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab_al-Azizia#Gaddafi_compound) in Bab al-Azizia.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-APMarch28-16) According to one rebel activist, Gaddafi government representatives telephoned her mother at three o'clock in the morning on March 27, offering al-Obeidi "a new house and a lot of money and anything she wanted" if she would change her story. Her mother is reported to have spoken to al-Obeidi by telephone, and she replied, "I will die rather than change my words."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-WashPostMarch27-2)
On March 29 Ibrahim told reporters that the men al-Obeidi accused of rape were making a case against her, and that she was facing criminal charges: "The boys she accused are bringing a case against her because it's a very grave offense to accuse someone of a sexual crime."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-JacintoApril3-0) He said al-Obeidi's criminal case against her alleged rapists had been dropped because she refused to undergo a medical examination. On April 3 Gaddafi supporters posted on the Web what they said was a pornographic video made by al-Obeidi. A state media reporter gave a copy to The New York Times, which described it as a homemade video of a belly dancer, relatively chaste according to the newspaper, and bearing little resemblance to al-Obeidi.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#cite_note-KirkpatrickApril4-20)
There's no better proof of the total lack of progressive principles of this government than the fact that it smeared an alleged rape victim on national television as a drunk and a prostitute. I can see why someone would be critical of reactionary elements in the rebels, though these reactionary beliefs are best attributed to a sense of false consciousness (itself conditioned by a society which Gaddafi has shaped), one should not then go and see this despicable dictator's 42-year government as in any way a "lesser evil" as a result. There are many other examples of crimes from this government, this is merely the most visible and sensational during this recent conflict.

RadioRaheem84

30th June 2011, 01:58

Oh lord, you know if anything, legitimate rebels are probably revolting against Gaddafi because of the last decade or so of neo-liberal reforms and how it's lowered the standard of life in Libya (still the highest in Africa though).

There might be a chance that if Gaddafi survives this that he may end up repealing most of those reforms and distribute the wealth more. This could be a referendum for him.

Dogs On Acid

30th June 2011, 02:00

crazyirish93

30th June 2011, 02:05

Supporting Gaddhafi is indirect rape apologism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi#Gaddafi_government_response

There's no better proof of the total lack of progressive principles of this government than the fact that it smeared an alleged rape victim on national television as a drunk and a prostitute. I can see why someone would be critical of reactionary elements in the rebels, though these reactionary beliefs are best attributed to a sense of false consciousness (itself conditioned by a society which Gaddafi has shaped), one should not then go and see this despicable dictator's 42-year government as in any way a "lesser evil" as a result. There are many other examples of crimes from this government, this is merely the most visible and sensational during this recent conflict.

Supporting the rebels is indirect rape apologism it and lynchings ....................

RadioRaheem84

30th June 2011, 02:10

Rape As a Weapon of War
Worst than you thought, right? Most notoriously up to this point, it has become evident that Rebels are using rape as a war-time punishment of pro-Gadhaffi or “neutral” families. In Islamic culture, the whole family suffers stigmas after rape, a sort of communal punishment.
Right now a team of female human rights attorneys are interviewing rape victims. Two rape testimonials and other eye witness reports are provided here. For the attorney affidavit on the larger problem, go to ObamasLibya.com. Understand that new documentation is arriving daily from Tripoli.
However these are not the most graphic stories. The problem in collecting it is traveling hundreds of miles through checkpoints and bombs. By explanation, as of June 22, non-governmental fact finders are traveling 200 miles to video a boy who got castrated and both eyes gouged out by NATO Rebels as punishment for refusing to join their paramilitary unit.
Other video getting collected comes from a father, who describes the kidnapping of his virgin daughter from a pro-Gadhaffi family. After dragging her out of the house at gun-point and taking her to a rape party, NATO rebels cut off her breasts with a knife, and she bled to death.
Human rights investigators are now interviewing a Libyan Woman from Zawia who survived a brutal gang rape that cut off her breasts. Miraculously, horrified on-lookers saved her from bleeding to death, when excited Rebels ran off, firing their guns in the air. She’s been hospitalized, but she’s too physically and mentally damaged to handle the interview at the moment. International human rights attorney are standing by.
We urgently seek an American sponsor so this Libyan woman can undergo reconstructive surgery in the United States or Europe.
On June 19, Gadhaffi soldiers entering Misurata rescued another rape survivor. The young woman had been kidnapped and held hostage for 20 days. Rebel forces gang raped her every single day, round the clock, until Gadhaffi’s forces broke through their lines and saved her life.
So much for NATO’s humanitarian mission. Clearly NATO has been grossly deceived, and should cease at once from protecting these Rebels who are monstrously abusive to the Libyan people. U.S. tax dollars are training a New Taliban to intimidate the Libyan people into submission, while the West plunders Libya’s wealth.
But NATO failed to take into account the spirit of the Libyan people. Libya has a powerful history and traditions of resilience in defending its sovereignty from foreign invaders. Libyan families and Tribal Leaders are determined to seek financial damages from every NATO and Arab country that supports the rebels. So long as NATO provides training, uniforms, military assault rifles, jeeps and transportation, ground advisers and air power—-NATO will be forced to take responsibility for these crimes. Financial damages will come out of funding for NATO’s own citizens—out of education, health care, government pensions, universities, roads, bridges, you name it.
Patrick Haseldine, a British expert on Libya’s conflict with NATO, has calculated current British financial damages at $2.8 billion.
All of it begs the question why NATO governments should want to support these Rebels in the first place? Indeed, all of us should ask some important questions.
Should President Obama spend hard-earned U.S. tax dollars from the Middle Class to finance this War? Should America assume the role of training Al Qaeda forces and function as Al Qaeda enforcers? While our great nation bleeds red ink? While Americans struggle to find jobs and fight off foreclosures? Knowing that our soldiers are exhausted from two other failed Wars—fighting these same Al Qaeda Rebels in Iraq and Afghanistan?
And why exactly should America prop up NATO, so that the British and French can relive their glory days of Empire? Is it worth risking our Empire and prosperity? Really?
These videos reveal a whole different truth. The CIA will probably get mad that I have released them. But good Intelligence Assets are supposed to deliver brutal honesty. We’re not supposed to hide ugly truths. We’re supposed to get information that leaders—and communities— urgently need to make the most informed choices in policymaking. It happens to be very, very ugly intelligence. But it would be wrong for me to spare you.
In my opinion as a former U.S. Asset, the United States should break ties with the Libyan rebels and cut off financing immediately.
We’re pulling back the intelligence curtain, so you can decide for yourself.

Shiva wants to talk about rape? The international media machine supports the NTC's al-Obeidi, who probably did suffer at the hands of some assholes in the government, but it's not routine nor policy by the State.

While story after horror story keeps coming out about rapes, beheadings, and lynchings being perpetrated by the rebels. These rebels are using terror as a means.

Shiva stop acting like the rebel movement is something to support. It's not

wunderbar

30th June 2011, 02:24

Another Gaddafi/Libya thread?

Why do people support that scumbag Gahdaffi anyway?

Because some on the left interpret "anti-imperialism" as not only (rightly so) being against U.S./European intervention/occupation in other countries, but also actively supporting governments that said imperialist powers dislike (which can sometimes be pretty fucking contradictory for leftists to support). Examples include Gaddafi, military god-king Kim Jong-Il, capitalist China, and reactionary theocrat Ahmadinejad.

I don't support Gaddafi, but I don't support the rebels either. Real left-wing support toward Libya belongs to the working class, and neither side fighting represents them.

RadioRaheem84

30th June 2011, 02:27

Real left-wing support toward Libya belongs to the working class, and neither side fighting represents them.

I'm sure many workers don't want NATO intervening or rebel groups pillaging their town raping, lynching or beheading anyone not supporting them. For them, the Libyan army is all they have.

North Star

30th June 2011, 02:28

I had initially supported the rebels. I still support the Syrian rebels. As the conflict in Libya has gone on I'm a little torn if I should call for their defeat with the implication that Ghadafi holds on to power. The NATO intervention has gone from using "humanitarian intervention" as cover into full blown imperialism with the BBC reporting the French government has air dropped weapons to the rebels. So as Marxists we have to ask ourselves what is best for the working class? Perhaps instead of calling on victory for Ghadafi or the Rebels we should be calling for the failure of NATO's mission. As for the rape issue even Amnesty International and HRW haven't been able to prove any existence of systemic rape by government forces. If these groups who often are used to justify humanitarian intervention can't find any I seriously doubt there is any. There may be of course, but it has not been formally used as a weapon of war.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

30th June 2011, 02:28

Shiva wants to talk about rape? The international media machine supports the NTC's al-Obeidi, who probably did suffer at the hands of some assholes in the government, but it's not routine nor policy by the State.

While story after horror story keeps coming out about rapes, beheadings, and lynchings being perpetrated by the rebels. These rebels are using terror as a means.

Shiva stop acting like the rebel movement is something to support. It's not
I'm not talking about the fact that their soldiers committed acts of war. Obviously both sides have committed war crimes. I am talking about something totally different-the quote I posted was about the state media campaign to defame her as a drunk, maniac or whore after the fact. That is promotion of a despicable view of women on a state media platform, by a government which is incredibly autocratic.

I'm sure many workers don't want NATO intervening or rebel groups pillaging their town raping, lynching or beheading anyone not supporting them. For them, the Libyan army is all they have. Do you really think Gaddafi's troops are any less likely to come in murdering people or committing war crimes? I certainly don't have any illusions about the rebels, but you sure do about the government. This government is famous for using force to impose its will, and as I have mentioned before used heavy artillery against populated areas.

RadioRaheem84

30th June 2011, 02:38

As for the rape issue even Amnesty International and HRW haven't been able to prove any existence of systemic rape by government forces.

This is key. These organizations haven't found any systemic slaughtering of civilians to justify intervention by NATO.

Do you really think Gaddafi's troops are any less likely to come in murdering people or committing war crimes? I certainly don't have any illusions about the rebels, but you sure do about the government. This government is famous for using force to impose its will, and as I have mentioned before used heavy artillery against populated areas.

Good lord, the rebels haven't even won and they're already pillaging towns and hunting down dissent. The NTC is using the zealots in the East as a major fighting force and through the CIA is giving them support. The French are openly arming the rebels.

So all of these factors seem to point to just how oppressive a rebel victory would be.

Threetune

30th June 2011, 02:41

you said it. Hes a ruthless dictator through and through.

and what you done big gob? never don never anything

Dogs On Acid

30th June 2011, 02:49

and what you done big gob? never don never anything

Watch your attitude.

30th June 2011, 03:20

All you losers might as well support the US because it doesn't matter what position you take it will not have any effect on anything. And no that's not being pessimistic it's a cold hard fact.

Aspiring Humanist

30th June 2011, 03:29

To my knowledge he refused to aid the PFLP and the RZ when they needed him, he murders his own people and is the dictator of a supposed socialist country which has made no attempts to transition to workers control. This scumbag is no Marxist, just because he is against the Americans doesn't mean we have an obligation to support him. I'm sick of being forced to chose between two equally bad sides. Neither side has the interests of the people at the forefront. Fuck them both.

Dogs On Acid

30th June 2011, 03:33

All you losers might as well support the US because it doesn't matter what position you take it will not have any effect on anything. And no that's not being pessimistic it's a cold hard fact.

People are trying to formulate an opinion. Go away and take your unproductive post with you.

30th June 2011, 03:38

People are trying to formulate an opinion. Go away and take your unproductive post with you.

In that context pointing out that your opinion doesn't matter is the most productive thing one can say.

I find it silly that leftists spend so much time discussing who they support, and attacking others who don't support what they do, when in reality that's the only real outcome. A bunch of irrelevant leftists whining at one another and nobody else listening.

Jose Gracchus

30th June 2011, 03:38

They don't give a fuck. They want some pretext in activist ghetto subculture political hipster land to have some street cred and then call out the ISO and be like "OMG CAN YOU BELIEVE THEIR BANNER? JOIN PSL/FRSO/MOM'S CUPCAKE FACTORY"

CynicalIdealist

30th June 2011, 06:55

I'm sure many workers don't want NATO intervening or rebel groups pillaging their town raping, lynching or beheading anyone not supporting them. For them, the Libyan army is all they have.

And I'm sure workers in Benghazi don't want Gaddafi to do the same to them. I really don't see why not opposing the rebels necessitates support of Gaddafi in any measurable way. I oppose the Republicans, but while I might mentally have an infinitesimal mental preference for the Democrats based on infinitesimal differences (which prove the Democrats to be better by extremely slim margins), I would never speak in favor of them, tell people to vote for them or donate money to them. The same applies for the Gaddafi regime vis-a-vis the Transitional National Council.

CynicalIdealist

30th June 2011, 07:06

Perhaps instead of calling on victory for Ghadafi or the Rebels we should be calling for the failure of NATO's mission.

I like this thinking. What we should be doing is holding protests to get NATO out of Libya, which can theoretically be called a "Gaddafi victory" by Hillary Clinton and the rest of Obama's "for us or against us" ilk, but ultimately results in the best possible outcome in the immediate for the working class: no war. Obviously anti-war protests don't have a tendency to be effective, however, so you have some M-Ls cheerleading Gaddafi in a lesser of two evils scenario, who are usually the same such M-Ls who apply that kind of thinking for everybody who isn't America.

Crux

30th June 2011, 08:06

Rusty Shackleford

30th June 2011, 08:29

Oppose US intervention and leave it at that. If you live in the US, you have no other practical option. As for Libya, it is for themselves to decide. Not for the US to come in and basically arm and do all the bombing for the rebels.

Also, the rebels seem to like posting videos of decapitations.

punisa

30th June 2011, 08:33

Crux

30th June 2011, 08:43

Perfect scenario:
- Gaddafi survives and defeats the rebels
- he realizes that he made a huge mistake when started being friendly with the western leaders
- he goes ahead with his plans to redistribute all oil wealth directly to the people (huge proportion already is)

On another note, this crisis in Libya shows the true face of many users here - following these debates for months now I realized that (unfortunately) many here are simply just liberals.

Also, those who are blessed with ability of critical thinking will allow themselves to go to the point of "I support neither", but will stop right there.
Has it become a sin to openly declare support for Colonel Gaddafi?

Maybe I'm biased because I have many friends who were raised in Benghazi and Tripoli and only share great memories of stability and prosperity for the people.
In case of a victory for the regime in Libya I see two possible scenarios. They both start with:
1. Violent repression of anyone that can be percieved as opposition and the population in general

2. selling out the rest of the national resources to the highest bidder, perhaps eventually getting back into the west's grace, after all he has been a valuable ally both in the War against Terrorism and in helping keep african immigrants out of europe.

or scenario two
selling out the national respources to the highest bidder, in this case China, which after all already has interests in Libya.

RadioRaheem84

30th June 2011, 15:04

I don't see any of that happening at all, Maja.

If anything Gaddafi will concede, repeal the neo-liberal reforms, redistribute oil wealth even more and have a genuine fear of future revolt.

Why on Earth do you think that his regime will become far worse after all this? Do you guys just have it in yer heads that Gaddafi = Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto?

There may be a crackdown on the rebel movement but not on the rest of the nation.

The only thing that I can happening in your scenario is Russia and China getting most of the cuts of oil, with the West totally out. But in case you didn't know, Libya has to sell oil to someone.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

30th June 2011, 16:34

I don't see any of that happening at all, Maja.

If anything Gaddafi will concede, repeal the neo-liberal reforms, redistribute oil wealth even more and have a genuine fear of future revolt.

I don't understand why you think this. There is no evidence that Gaddafi would do this at all. This is no more naive than thinking the NTC would create some kind of Maoist utopia after taking over. We know Gaddafi's track record-he is highly capricious and arbitrary. He will do anything to stay in power, including, apparently, firing heavy artillery indiscriminately into populated areas or using his national media outlets to slander rape victims.

In reality, if either figures from within the NTC or the Gaddafi government end up taking power, they would need to utilize oil profits to some extent to gain popular support in the style of social democrats, though nobody in Libya is openly calling for an assault the Capitalist mode of production.

Why on Earth do you think that his regime will become far worse after all this? Do you guys just have it in yer heads that Gaddafi = Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto?
Yeah, they're not all the same. They were all equally brutal and bloody dictators, but Gaddafi is actually delusional on top of that.

The only thing that I can happening in your scenario is Russia and China getting most of the cuts of oil, with the West totally out. But in case you didn't know, Libya has to sell oil to someone.It's not about who buys the physical crude oil, its about who invests in the oil fields. It's about who has access to the infrastructure which physically extracts, and then refines the crude. In this respect, Gaddafi's government would end up seeking external investment just as much as any other government. And being run by a private Russian oil firm is no better or worse than being run by a French firm-they're all profit-oriented, market-based corporations which will exploit the labor and leave ecological damage.

There may be a crackdown on the rebel movement but not on the rest of the nation. What do you base this on? Protesters were cracked down on very violently in places like Tripoli, and his army is using brutal, indiscriminate force against civilian areas. He is using collective punishment against his own people.

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/06/2011629231512936499.html

RadioRaheem84

30th June 2011, 17:30

I figured someone who was beaten down into near submission by NATO and religious zealots from the East would care to negotiate a redistribution policy that would be favorable to the people. If not, then the people can oust him without NATO or NTC intervention. I really don't care if he remains in power or not, but that the Libyan people achieve a better deal than what the rebels are offering.

And did I just read that you were comparing Gaddafi to Suharto? Are you serious?

Crux

30th June 2011, 19:57

I don't see any of that happening at all, Maja.

If anything Gaddafi will concede, repeal the neo-liberal reforms, redistribute oil wealth even more and have a genuine fear of future revolt.
I suspect he'll bee more "triumphalist" than fearful of future revolt if he wins this military conflict.

Why on Earth do you think that his regime will become far worse after all this? Do you guys just have it in yer heads that Gaddafi = Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto?
I don't see why comparing him to Hussein would be all that unfair, to be honest.

There may be a crackdown on the rebel movement but not on the rest of the nation.
Just like The War On Terror only effects terrorists, amirite? This is also pretending there wasn't an authoritarian regime before all this.

The only thing that I can happening in your scenario is Russia and China getting most of the cuts of oil, with the West totally out. But in case you didn't know, Libya has to sell oil to someone.
Yes, that is oil money goes to china and russia. I can see openings for the chinese companies in Libya.