Libya 18

120 posts / 0 new
Last post

I'm not sure whether this has been posted already. If so, my apologies.

Why Gaddafi got a red card
By Pepe Escobar

Surveying the Libyan wasteland out of a cozy room crammed with wafer-thin LCDs in a Pyongyang palace, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, must have been stunned as he contemplated Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's predicament.

"What a fool," the Dear Leader predictably murmurs. No wonder. He knows how The Big G virtually signed his death sentence that day in 2003 when he accepted the suggestion of his irrepressibly nasty offspring - all infatuated with Europe - to dump his weapons of mass destruction program and place the future of the regime in the hands of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Granted, Saif al-Islam, Mutassim, Khamis and the rest of the Gaddafi clan still couldn't tell the difference between partying hard in St Tropez and getting bombed by Mirages and Rafales. But Big G, wherever he is, in Sirte, in the central desert or in a silent caravan to Algeria, must be cursing them to eternity.

He thought he was a NATO partner. Now NATO wants to blow his head off. What kind of partnership is this?

The Sunni monarchical dictator in Bahrain stays; no "humanitarian" bombs over Manama, no price on his head. The House of Saud club of dictators stays; no "humanitarian" bombs over Riyadh, Dubai or Doha - no price on their Western-loving gilded heads. Even the Syrian dictator is getting a break - so far.

So the question, asked by many an Asia Times Online reader, is inevitable: what was the crucial red line crossed by Gaddafi that got him a red card?

'Revolution' made in France
There are enough red lines crossed by The Big G - and enough red cards - to turn this whole computer screen blood red.

Let's start with the basics. The Frogs did it. It's always worth repeating; this is a French war. The Americans don't even call it a war; it's a "kinetic action" or something. The "rebel" Transitional National Council" (TNC) is a French invention.

And yes - this is above all neo-Napoleonic President Nicolas Sarkozy's war. He's the George Clooney character in the movie (poor Clooney). Everybody else, from David of Arabia Cameron to Nobel Peace Prize winner and multiple war developer Barack Obama, are supporting actors.

As already reported by Asia Times Online, this war started in October 2010 when Gaddafi's chief of protocol, Nuri Mesmari, defected to Paris, was approached by French intelligence and for all practical purposes a military coup d'etat was concocted, involving defectors in Cyrenaica.

Sarko had a bag full of motives to exact revenge on The Big G.

French banks had told him that Gaddafi was about to transfer his billions of euros to Chinese banks. Thus Gaddafi could not by any means become an example to other Arab nations or sovereign funds.

French corporations told Sarko that Gaddafi had decided not to buy Rafale fighters anymore, and not to hire the French to build a nuclear plant; he was more concerned in investing in social services.

Energy giant Total wanted a much bigger piece of the Libyan energy cake - which was being largely eaten, on the European side, by Italy's ENI, especially because Premier Silvio "bunga bunga" Berlusconi, a certified Big G fan, had clinched a complex deal with Gaddafi.

Thus the military coup was perfected in Paris until December; the first popular demonstrations in Cyrenaica in February - largely instigated by the plotters - were hijacked. The self-promoting philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy flew his white shirt over an open torso to Benghazi to meet the "rebels" and phone Sarkozy, virtually ordering him to recognize them in early March as legitimate (not that Sarko needed any encouragement).

The TNC was invented in Paris, but the United Nations also duly gobbled it up as the "legitimate" government of Libya - just as NATO did not have a UN mandate to go from a no-fly zone to indiscriminate "humanitarian" bombing, culminating with the current siege of Sirte.

The French and the British redacted what would become UN Resolution 1973. Washington merrily joined the party. The US State Department brokered a deal with the House of Saud through which the Saudis would guarantee an Arab League vote as a prelude for the UN resolution, and in exchange would be left alone to repress any pro-democracy protests in the Persian Gulf, as they did, savagely, in Bahrain.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC - then transmuted into Gulf Counter-Revolution Club) also had tons of reasons to get rid of Gaddafi. The Saudis would love to accommodate a friendly emirate in northern Africa, especially by getting rid of the ultra-bad blood between Gaddafi and King Abdullah. The Emirates wanted a new place to invest and "develop". Qatar, very cozy with Sarko, wanted to make money - as in handling the new oil sales of the "legitimate" rebels.

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be very cozy with the House of Saud or the murderous al-Khalifas in Bahrain. But the State Department heavily blasted Gaddafi for his "increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector"; and also for "Libyanizing" the economy.

The Big G, a wily player, should have seen the writing on the wall. Since prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh was deposed essentially by the Central Intelligence Agency in Iran in 1953, the rule is that you don't antagonize globalized Big Oil. Not to mention the international financial/banking system - promoting subversive ideas such as turning your economy to the benefit of your local population.

If you're pro-your country you are automatically against those who rule - Western banks, mega-corporations, shady "investors" out to profit from whatever your country produces.

Gaddafi not only crossed all these red lines but he also tried to sneak out of the petrodollar; he tried to sell to Africa the idea of a unified currency, the gold dinar (most African countries supported it); he invested in a multibillion dollar project - the Great Man-Made River, a network of pipelines pumping fresh water from the desert to the Mediterranean coast - without genuflecting at the alter of the World Bank; he invested in social programs in poor, sub-Saharan countries; he financed the African Bank, thus allowing scores of nations to bypass, once again, the World Bank and especially the International Monetary Fund; he financed an African-wide telecom system that bypassed Western networks; he raised living standards in Libya. The list is endless.

Why didn't I call Pyongyang
And then there's the crucial Pentagon/Africom/NATO military angle. No one in Africa wanted to host an Africom base; Africom was invented during the George W Bush administration as a means to coerce and control Africa on the spot, and to covertly fight China's commercial advances.

So Africom was forced to settle in that most African of places; Stuttgart, Germany.

The ink on UN Resolution 1973 was barely settled when Africom, for all practical purposes, started the bombing of Libya with over 150 Tomahawks - before command was transferred to NATO. That was Africom's first African war, and a prelude of thing to come. Setting up a permanent base in Libya will be practically a done deal - part of a neo-colonial militarization of not only northern Africa but the whole continent.

NATO's agenda of dominating the whole Mediterranean as a NATO lake is as bold as Africom's agenda of becoming Africa's Robocop. The only trouble spots were Libya, Syria and Lebanon - the three countries not NATO members or linked with NATO via myriad "partnerships".

To understand NATO's global Robocop role - legitimized by the UN - one just has to pay attention to the horse's mouth, NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen. As Tripoli was still being bombed, he said, "If you're not able to deploy troops beyond your borders, then you can't exert influence internationally, and then that gap will be filled by emerging powers that don't necessarily share your values and thinking."

So there it is, out in the open. NATO is a Western high-tech militia to defend American and European interests, to isolate the interests of the emerging BRICS countries and others, and to keep the "natives", be they Africans or Asians, down. The whole lot much easier to accomplish as the scam is disguised by R2P - "responsibility to protect", not civilians, but the subsequent plunder.

Against all these odds, no wonder The Big G was bound for a red card, and to be banned from the game forever.

Only a few hours before The Big G had to start fighting for his life, the Dear Leader was drinking Russian champagne with President Dmitry Medvedev, talking about an upcoming Pipelineistan gambit and casually evoking his willingness to talk about his still active nuclear arsenal.

That sums up why the Dear Leader is going up while The Big G is going down.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at [email protected].


An excellent piece by Escobar and a good one to forward to any pro-war, 'RP2' types in your vicinity, like your MP maybe?

and from the sublime to the ridiculous:

On Libya, Harper - and the West - Have Played Their Cards Well  -  by John Ibbotson

"In our nation's history, this is a good page."


Another good piece on Libya, this one from

September 2, 2011 0Share

The Holy Triumvirate

Libya and the World We Live In


"Why are you attacking us? Why are you killing our children? Why are you destroying our infrastructure?"

- Television address by Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi, April 30, 2011

A few hours later NATO hit a target in Tripoli, killing Gaddafi's 29-year-old son Saif al-Arab, three of Gaddafi's grandchildren, all under twelve years of age, and several friends and neighbors.

In his TV address, Gaddafi had appealed to the NATO nations for a cease-fire and negotiations after six weeks of bombings and cruise missile attacks against his country.

Well, let's see if we can derive some understanding of the complex Libyan turmoil.

The Holy Triumvirate - The United States, NATO and the European Union - recognizes no higher power and believes, literally, that it can do whatever it wants in the world, to whomever it wants, for as long as it wants, and call it whatever it wants, like "humanitarian".

If The Holy Triumvirate decides that it doesn't want to overthrow the government in Syria or in Egypt or Tunisia or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Jordan, no matter how cruel, oppressive, or religiously intolerant those governments are with their people, no matter how much they impoverish and torture their people, no matter how many protesters they shoot dead in their Freedom Square, the Triumvirate will simply not overthrow them.

If the Triumvirate decides that it wants to overthrow the government of Libya, though that government is secular and has used its oil wealth for the benefit of the people of Libya and Africa perhaps more than any government in all of Africa and the Middle East, but keeps insisting over the years on challenging the Triumvirate's imperial ambitions in Africa and raising its demands on the Triumvirate's oil companies, then the Triumvirate will simply overthrow the government of Libya.

If the Triumvirate wants to punish Gaddafi and his sons it will arrange with the Triumvirate's friends at the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for them.

If the Triumvirate doesn't want to punish the leaders of Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Jordan it will simply not ask the ICC to issue arrest warrants for them. Ever since the Court first formed in 1998, the United States has refused to ratify it and has done its best to denigrate it and throw barriers in its way because Washington is concerned that American officials might one day be indicted for their many war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bill Richardson, as US ambassador to the UN, said to the world in 1998 that the United States should be exempt from the court's prosecution because it has "special global responsibilities". But this doesn't stop the United States from using the Court when it suits the purposes of American foreign policy.

If the Triumvirate wants to support a rebel military force to overthrow the government of Libya then it does not matter how fanatically religious, al-Qaeda-related, executing-beheading-torturing, monarchist, or factionally split various groups of that rebel force are at times, the Triumvirate will support it, as it did certain forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and hope that after victory the Libyan force will not turn out as jihadist as it did in Afghanistan, or as fratricidal as in Iraq. One potential source of conflict within the rebels, and within the country if ruled by them, is that a constitutional declaration made by the rebel council states that, while guaranteeing democracy and the rights of non-Muslims, "Islam is the religion of the state and the principle source of legislation in Islamic Jurisprudence."

Adding to the list of the rebels' charming qualities we have the Amnesty International report that the rebels have been conducting mass arrests of black people across the nation, terming all of them "foreign mercenaries" but with growing evidence that a large number were simply migrant workers.

Reported Reuters (August 29): "On Saturday, reporters saw the putrefying bodies of 22 men of African origin on a Tripoli beach. Volunteers who had come to bury them said they were mercenaries whom rebels had shot dead." To complete this portrait of the West's newest darlings we have this report from The Independent of London (August 27): "The killings were pitiless. They had taken place at a makeshift hospital, in a tent marked clearly with the symbols of the Islamic crescent. Some of the dead were on stretchers, attached to intravenous drips. Some were on the back of an ambulance that had been shot at. A few were on the ground, seemingly attempting to crawl to safety when the bullets came."

If the Triumvirate's propaganda is clever enough and deceptive enough and paints a graphic picture of Gaddafi-initiated high tragedy in Libya, many American and European progressives will insist that though they never, ever support imperialism they're making an exception this time because ...

  • The Libyan people are being saved from a "massacre", both actual and potential. This massacre, however, seems to have been grossly exaggerated by the Triumvirate, al Jazeera TV, and that station's owner, the government of Qatar; and nothing approaching reputable evidence of a massacre has been offered, neither a mass grave or anything else; the massacre stories appear to be on a par with the Viagra-rape stories spread by al Jazeera (the Fox News of the Libyan uprising). Qatar, it should be noted, has played an active military role in the civil war on the side of NATO. It should be further noted that the main massacre in Libya has been six months of daily Triumvirate bombing, killing an unknown number of people and ruining much of the infrastructure. Michigan U. Prof. Juan Cole, the quintessential true-believer in the good intentions of American foreign policy who nevertheless manages to have a regular voice in progressive media, recently wrote that "Qaddafi was not a man to compromise ... his military machine would mow down the revolutionaries if it were allowed to." Is that clear, class? We all know of course that Sarkozy, Obama, and Cameron made compromises without end in their devastation of Libya; they didn't, for example, use any nuclear weapons.
  • The United Nations gave its approval for military intervention; i.e., the leading members of the Triumvirate gave their approval, after Russia and China cowardly abstained instead of exercising their veto power; (perhaps hoping to receive the same courtesy from the US, UK and France when Russia or China is the aggressor nation).
  • The people of Libya are being "liberated", whatever in the world that means, now or in the future. Gaddafi is a "dictator" they insist. That may indeed be the proper term to use for the man, but it must still be asked: Is he a relatively benevolent dictator or is he the other kind so favored by Washington? It must also be asked: Since the United States has habitually supported dictators for the entire past century, why not this one?

The Triumvirate, and its fawning media, would have the world believe that what's happened in Libya is just another example of the Arab Spring, a popular uprising by non-violent protestors against a dictator for the proverbial freedom and democracy, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia and Egypt, which sandwich Libya. But there are several reasons to question this analysis in favor of seeing the Libyan rebels' uprising as a planned and violent attempt to take power in behalf of their own political movement, however heterogeneous that movement might appear to be in its early stage. For example:

  1. They soon began flying the flag of the monarchy that Gaddafi had overthrown
  2. They were an armed and violent rebellion almost from the beginning; within a few days, we could read of "citizens armed with weapons seized from army bases" and of "the policemen who had participated in the clash were caught and hanged by protesters"
  3. Their revolt took place not in the capital but in the heart of the country's oil region; they then began oil production and declared that foreign countries would be rewarded oil-wise in relation to how much each country aided their cause
  4. They soon set up a Central Bank, a rather bizarre thing for a protest movement
  5. International support came quickly, even beforehand, from Qatar and al Jazeera to the CIA and French intelligence

The notion that a leader does not have the right to put down an armed rebellion against the state is too absurd to discuss.

Not very long ago, Iraq and Libya were the two most modern and secular states in the Mideast/North Africa world with perhaps the highest standards of living in the region. Then the United States of America came along and saw fit to make a basket case of each one. The desire to get rid of Gaddafi had been building for years; the Libyan leader had never been a reliable pawn; then the Arab Spring provided the excellent opportunity and cover. As to Why? Take your pick of the following:

  • Gaddafi's plans to conduct Libya's trading in Africa in raw materials and oil in a new currency - the gold African dinar, a change that could have delivered a serious blow to the US's dominant position in the world economy. (In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars; sanctions and an invasion followed.) For further discussion see here.
  • A host-country site for Africom, the US Africa Command, one of six regional commands the Pentagon has divided the world into. Many African countries approached to be the host have declined, at times in relatively strong terms. Africom at present is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. According to a State Department official: "We've got a big image problem down there. ... Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don't trust the US."
  • An American military base to replace the one closed down by Gaddafi after he took power in 1969. There's only one such base in Africa, in Djibouti. Watch for one in Libya sometime after the dust has settled. It'll perhaps be situated close to the American oil wells. Or perhaps the people of Libya will be given a choice - an American base or a NATO base.
  • Another example of NATO desperate to find a raison d'être for its existence since the end of the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact.
  • Gaddafi's role in creating the African Union. The corporate bosses never like it when their wage slaves set up a union. The Libyan leader has also supported a United States of Africa for he knows that an Africa of 54 independent states will continue to be picked off one by one and abused and exploited by the members of the Triumvirate. Gaddafi has moreover demanded greater power for smaller countries in the United Nations.
  • The claim by Gaddafi's son, Saif el Islam, that Libya had helped to fund Nicolas Sarkozy's election campaign could have humiliated the French president and explain his obsessiveness and haste in wanting to be seen as playing the major role in implementing the "no fly zone" and other measures against Gaddafi. A contributing factor may have been the fact that France has been weakened in its former colonies and neo-colonies in Africa and the Middle East, due in part to Gaddafi's influence.
  • Gaddafi has been an outstanding supporter of the Palestinian cause and critic of Israeli policies; and on occasion has taken other African and Arab countries, as well as the West, to task for their not matching his policies or rhetoric; one more reason for his lack of popularity amongst world leaders of all stripes.
  • In January, 2009, Gaddafi made known that he was considering nationalizing the foreign oil companies in Libya. He also has another bargaining chip: the prospect of utilizing Russian, Chinese and Indian oil companies. During the current period of hostilities, he invited these countries to make up for lost production. But such scenarios will now not take place. The Triumvirate will instead seek to privatize the National Oil Corporation, transferring Libya's oil wealth into foreign hands.
  • The American Empire is troubled by any threat to its hegemony. In the present historical period the empire is concerned mainly with Russia and China. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya and elsewhere in Africa. The average American neither knows nor cares about this. The average American imperialist cares greatly, if for no other reason than in this time of rising demands for cuts to the military budget it's vital that powerful "enemies" be named and maintained.
  • For yet more reasons, see the article "Why Regime Change in Libya?" by Ismael Hossein-zadeh, and the US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks - Wikileaks reference 07TRIPOLI967 11-15-07 (includes a complaint about Libyan "resource nationalism")

William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War IIRogue State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power and West-Bloc Dissident: a Cold War Political Memoir. He can be reached at: [email protected]


Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

You know, come to think about it, my country, the USA, won its independence because of outside foreign intervention in its revolution (technically a civil war between American royalists and rich landowners): France intervened at the request of the "rebels". The French army, which outnumbered the Americans at Yorktown, did allot of the heavy lifting at and around Yorktown; especially when it came to artillery. France's navy drove off the British relief fleet outside the Chesapeake Bay and thus sealed Cornwallis's fate at Yorktown. Could we have won without their help? We'll never know.

That is not to say it justifies what happened in Libya now; I'm just pointing out that small similarity.

Yes, a "small similarity", but linked by the thread of greed (colonial or neo-colonial) with the American skirmish fought on a murderously colonized continent in the age-old global competition between two colonizing empires, France and Britain.

Unlike Libya, there would be no external military force directing and shaping the operation of the entire rebellion--or its winner's government. Nor would France's economic agents successfully move in to take control of the colonized state's source of wealth.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The race is on for Libya's oil, with Britain and France both staking a claim - Guardian UK

Guardian wrote:
Abdeljalil Mayouf, an executive at Libyan rebel oil firm Agoco told Reuters: "We don't have a problem with western countries like the Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil."

Snort! Grunt!


My apologies in advance to real pigs, and those who love them, for comparing them to ... those who are planning to loot the natural resources of Libya.



Frmrsldr wrote:

It's all about the crude, dude!

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

You mean the crude they are going to sell on the world market at world market prices set by the world market supply and demand to whom ever can afford it?

You bet.

Refusing to do so was Gadhafi's "unpardonable sin."

And for that the American Empire and its stooges waged a war of aggression on Libya and cost Gadhafi his job.

Well, that and Gadhafi's refusal to buy reruns of Gilligan's Island, The Dukes of Hazard and Dallas.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture


Only 5% of their oil went to the USA, most of Libya's oil went to Europe and China... why do you keep saying the USA? Also are you saying Libya sold its oil above the world market price?


I don't think Gadaffi was refusing to allow Libyan oil to be sold to other countries. See Libya's revolt squeezing world oil supplies.

What the Gladio Gang considers to be a free market, and what people like Adam Smith defined to be a free market, are two different ideas altogether.

When capitalists collude with one another to fix prices is one thing. But when governments collude with supranational energy companies and the military to put a grab on a nation's oil wealth is quite another. That's called fascism. And not all Islamic country leaders are immune to benefiting by these threats of war and aggression. Ahmadinejad's Iran is an example. They love it when oil prices rise, too, and realize that "the market" is listening to their squawking open air speeches as well.

Blood for oil terrorists do not want democratically or otherwise elected governments taxing natural resource exports in order to raise revenues to benefit the people who elect them, Gadaffi or anyone else.

Fascists do not believe that democratically elected governments, Arab nationalists or any other governments wanting a share of natural resource exports to fund public works, social spending or whatever the case may be, to have any power or authority whatsoever in that country's energy supplies. 

Fascists don't want democraticallt elected governments or otherwise controlling their own oil or natural resource wealth in general. IOW's, whether they represent the people's interests or not, governments are now not considered to be part of the free market formula. We the people are not considered part of the new free market equation.

You are just a consumer or labourer and nothing more. You as a person cease to matter beyond being a one-dimensional, greed driven agent acting within their economy not your's. That is how neofascists think of you and your right to vote. We may not have leaders with the integrity to write national energy policies that reflect the will of Canadians or Americans, but they don't want leaders in Africa having the powers of allocation of resource wealth either. And it's a very racist ideology manifest as a militarized terrorist action and overstepping the bounds of democracy and international sovereignty in this way.


Bec.De.Corbin wrote:


Only 5% of their oil went to the USA, most of Libya's oil went to Europe and China... why do you keep saying the USA? Also are you saying Libya sold its oil above the world market price?


Are you saying that no country should be able to set the price for its own oil, or determine its own national energy policy, or set energy reserve requirements in case of future shortages? Because it sounds like you are on side with a relative handful of oil bourse capitalists and energy companies and their shareholders to determine what prices should be for the oil they buy and sell and profit by their own speculation.

Libyan oil was delivered in to the world supply. If China or Europe has enough, then the overall supply tapped into by every other country is not restricted. 

You may well be in favour of a handful of corporate types and their friends in government and military colluding to rig markets in their favour, but not those of us possessing some notion of free markets and democracy.


Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Only 5% of their oil went to the USA, most of Libya's oil went to Europe and China... why do you keep saying the USA?

I don't say the "USA."

I say the "American Empire."

The U.K. and France used to be Empires.

Now they're just fawning and gushing satraps of the American Empire.

Remember after the first week/month of steady carpet bombing, NATO countries were whining that the American Empire had to conduct more sorties and sell them more bombs, rockets, missiles and ammunition because they were running out (of the military hardware) and the cash to continue the war?

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

@ Frmrsldr: American Empire not the USA? So is there more than one country in this empire of yours? That doesn't make sense.

@ Fidel: Don't look at me; I don't have a handin the world energy market. Libya is a member of OPEC. Talk to them about market pricing and energy policy.

As of November 2010, OPEC members collectively hold 79% of world crude oil reserves and 44% of the world's crude oil production, affording them considerable control over the global market. The next largest group of producers, members of the OECD and the Post-Soviet states produced only 23.8% and 14.8%, respectively, of the world's total oil production.


So empire central should continue using 20M bbls a day because they must continue to be reliant on others for their way of life? 

Is that what you are saying? 

Better idea. Force the oil companies to cough up some of the profits sooner than later, and invest that money into creating sustainable national energy policy. And not cosmetic fixes but investing in alternative energy supplies, conservation and efficiency etc, and even designing a new economy that isn't based on finite supplies of energy from dead plants.  Cold war baloney about two vokswagens in every driveway and mcmansions for everyone was a colossal lie. Biggest lie of the last century. It was a terrible lie that they pushed on hundreds of millions of people the world over.

If you have two choices: perpetrating false flag terrorism and mass murder with increasing frequency or pursuing sustainable national energy policy, which would you choose?

If you know full well you are headed straight for the cliff edge, and you refuse to let off on the gas, then whose fault will it be in the end, really?

Uncle Sam and the rest of the gladio family should book a session with Dr Phil.


Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

@ Frmrsldr: American Empire not the USA? So is there more than one country in this empire of yours? That doesn't make sense.

Um, yeah.

Empires by definition are made up of a number of countries.

There is the controlling "mother" country or "heart" of the Empire (in this case the U.S.A.) the subjugated colonies (like Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) then there are the fawning, enabling, satrap "allies" like Portugal, Spain, France, the U.K., Holland, Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Japan, for example (countries that were former Empires themselves) and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, for example (countries that were former members of Empire, i.e., former colonies.)

howeird beale

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:


Only 5% of their oil went to the USA, most of Libya's oil went to Europe and China... why do you keep saying the USA? Also are you saying Libya sold its oil above the world market price?


the question's obviously too baffling for these guys to grasp, Bec:

"So if everyone else sells apples for a dollar, you think Libya can get two dollars for its apples?"


Are there any left chatrooms that have a better level of discourse than the gibberish you see here? I mean, almost no one here gives any indication of actually being, or indeed having ever been an activist, (witness the utter lack of sentences including phrases like "we organized" as opposed to "someone other than me should organize") and as far as left/ socialist analysis goes its just awful

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Apparently Bec has never heard of the British Empire (about half a bilion people) or the Roman Empire (comprising the territories of more than 50 modern states). I guess they don't teach that stuff in Amurrican schools.

howeird beale

M. Spector wrote:

Apparently Bec has never heard of the British Empire (about half a bilion people) or the Roman Empire (comprising the territories of more than 50 modern states). I guess they don't teach that stuff in Amurrican schools.


res ipsa loquitur


the thing proves itself bec

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Why don't you two get a [url=]room[/url]?

howeird beale

snide, non-too-subtle homophobia now?

class dude, real class, I take it all back, youre not thick at all


Canada's Lack of Ground Presence in Libya Decried

"Philip Lagasse, a defence expert at the University of Ontario, said that there is the chance Canada's super-secret special forces unit, Joint Task Force 2 is operating in Libya..

...the Canadian government has indicated a desire to see Canada more militarily active on the world stage, which would seem to makes such a spy service even more required."

Seems only logical that Canada's special forces are there murdering away too,  with Charlie 'The Butcher' running the show - you haven't forgetten JTF2...?


Conservative Minister Misspeaks Over Extension of Libya

"Government House leader Peter Van Loan 'misspoke' Saturday when he told a radio program the Conservative government wants to extend Canada's military role in Libya beyond its scheduled end date. The Conservative MP for York-Simcoe was asked about comments made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week which indicated that Canada would stick with the NATO-led mission until the end.

'Yes, it will be our intention to extend the mission for a little bit, at least, and we'll have to do that by going to Parliament,' Van Loan said on CBC Radio's The House. 'That's what we have done for the previous motion where we have garnered all-party support for the mission, and I think I'd be optimistic that there'd be good support for that.'

Van Loan's director of communications, Fraser Malcolm, later clarified that the MP had 'misspoke', saying that the decision to seek an extension is in the hands of Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Defence Minister Peter MacKay; to then be put to Parliament for approval.

NDP Defence critic Jack Harris said he was surprised at Van Loan's comments. 'The military mission was to protect civilians from Gadhafi and his regime.[and western oil companies] 'We're in a very different space now obviously then we were in March, or even June,' Harris said. 'We should be working on winding it down..."

STOP NATO: Updates on Libyan War, NATO to Continue to Bomb Libya into Total Submission


Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

M. Spector wrote:

Why don't you two get a [url=]room[/url]?


Only if you had to sit there in handcuffs and watch... knowing you was next, leftist bully boy.


yeah take that to the mods butthole...


PS Hi catchfire, sorry man, I know your over worked and stuff...

[edited after sobering up, alcohol and the internet don't mix sometimesFoot in mouth]

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

M. Spector wrote:

Apparently Bec has never heard of the British Empire (about half a bilion people) or the Roman Empire (comprising the territories of more than 50 modern states). I guess they don't teach that stuff in Amurrican schools.

Or maybe I just don't argee the USA is an empire no mattrer what you and whom ever says or thinks?... we have allies, not minions.


Looming Tragedy: Vision of the 'New Libya'  -  by Felicity Arbuthnot

"As Eid, the great post Ramadan celebration of that month of abstinence, self-sacrifice and reflection, dawned on Libya, marked this year on August 31st, the NATO 'liberated' country, after 7 months, looks a lot like 'liberated' Iraq after 8 years.."

Libya Exit Timetable Premature: NATO (and vid)

"Today NATO is not an organisation of defense; it is an organisation of aggression. 'We will continue our operation until the threat against the civilian population is gone,' Rasmussen said.."



Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Or maybe I just don't argee the USA is an empire no mattrer what you and whom ever says or thinks?... we have allies, not minions.











Diego Garcia?



South Korea?

Herr Harper and his penis envy complex over Uncle Sam and his Military Industrial Complex?

Satrap and enabler of the American Empire, former most recent Great Empire - Great Britain?

The over 700 permanent U.S. military bases around the world?

The Ancient Roman Empire had the Foreign Legions of Rome.

The French Empire had/has the French Foreign Legion.

The German Third Reich had the SS Foreign Divisions.

The American Empire has NATO/ISAF. Had/(has?) SEATO. Has CENTCOM. Has AFRICOM. Has the Pentagon/CIA that has been meddling, installing, propping up rightwing fascist military cattleprod and plier expert tinpot dictators in Latin America and the Caribbean since the 1950s. The Pentagon/CIA has been meddling and attempting, often successfully, to put into power individuals and groups in almost every country and region around the world.

Even on the Antarctic continent the American Empire has a military and "scientific(?)" presence.


NDPP wrote:

'Yes, it will be our intention to extend the mission for a little bit, at least, and we'll have to do that by going to Parliament,' Van Loan said on CBC Radio's The House. 'That's what we have done for the previous motion where we have garnered all-party support for the mission, and I think I'd be optimistic that there'd be good support for that.'


According to Mr. Van Loan, apparently U.S./NATO "success" in the war on Libya will make all the difference.


7 Points on the War Against Libya  - by Domenico Lo Surdo

"...By now even the blind should be able to see and understand what's happening in Libya. 1. It is a war promoted and waged by NATO...

...Today the mission to murder Gaddafi or to assassinate heads of state or others disliked by the West, is a right proclaimed openly. The Corriere della Sera of August 26, 2011 had a headline saying triumphantly: 'They Hunt For Gaddafi and Children From House to House.'

As I write British Tornados, with the collaboration and information supplied by France, have pledged to bomb and destroy Sirte in order to exterminate an entire family...

I want to quote Immanuel Kant. In a paper of 1798, he wrote: 'What is an absolute monarch? It is that one, when he is in command says: 'War must be' and in effect the war follows -

It is a lesson to treasure: the 'absolute' monarchs' of our time, the tyrants and planetary dictators of our time sit in Washington, Bruxelles and in major Western capitals."


The Untold Story in Libya: How the West Cooked Up the 'People's Uprising'  -  by Russ Baker

"What! Did the West just engineer the overthrow of another unpopular regime to get at an easy supply of oil?

 As I write this, a new day is dawning in Libya. The 'people's revolt' against yet another tyrant is unquestionably exciting, and the demise (political or otherwise) of Muammar Quaddafi, will, of course, be widely hailed. But barely below the surface, something else is going on, and it concerns not the Libyan 'people', but an elite.

In reality, a narrowly based Libyan elite is being supplanted by a much older, more enduring one of an international variety. The media, as is so often the case, has botched its job.

What the media has so relentlessly characterized as the 'spontaneous uprising' of February 2011 was hardly spontaneous. It began even before the Arab Spring itself commenced in Tunisia during December of last year - and it was orchestrated by the West..."

howeird beale

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Apparently Bec has never heard of the British Empire (about half a bilion people) or the Roman Empire (comprising the territories of more than 50 modern states). I guess they don't teach that stuff in Amurrican schools.

Or maybe I just don't argee the USA is an empire no mattrer what you and whom ever says or thinks?... we have allies, not minions.

Uhh, yeah, that's where we part ways, dude. i wouldnt agree that everyone who does business with the US is their slave (China anyone?) but the idea that America doesnt have puppet regimes is ridiculous and leads me to think you've never read a book. I mean, South Vietnam? please.

And America has managed to turn willing allies into enemies, allies like Ho Chi Minh, who was treated like a busboy when he approached the Americans seeking liberty for his people in Paris in 1919, and was a gallant ally against the Japanese in WWII:

Vietnamese Declaration of Independence (1945):

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. [sounds like Commie talk to me, Zeke]

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America m 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free."


"We are convinced that the Allied nations which at Tehran and San Francisco have acknowledged the principles of self-determination and equality of nations, will not refuse to acknowledge the independence of Vietnam.

A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eighty years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the Fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent"

and then watched his people returned to colonial bondage under France as his reward.

I mean c'mon, man. Noreiga in Panama? Hussein in Iraq? Ngô Đình Diệm (CIA assassinated President of South Vietnam)? These people were all US flunkies before they were rebranded as its enemies. They're like secret policemen under Stalin: thanks for loyally torturing and murdering all those uppity peasants, we'll reward you with your own torture and murder.

Afghanistan could have been an ally, too. The people weren't exactly pissed to see the back of the Taliban. But, no. America had to put in a drug running family of fucking thieves. I brought this up to an intelligent, apolitical sun reader I work with, ie- why do they put these effen thieves in? His answer cut to the heart of it: "They know they're not gonna be there long, of course they're thieves."


Libya Inc. Coming Waste, Fraud and Other Forms of Plunder  -  by Stephen Lendman

"Like in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, wherever America and its Western allies show up, pillaging is sure to follow.."


Libyan Islamist Says NTC Executive Committee SHould Resign

"A Libyan Islamist military commander who helped defend Benghazi against Muammar Qaddafi's forces has called on the interim cabinet to resign because they are 'remnants of the old regime'. In an early sign of division among the victors in Libya's six month civil war, Ismail al - Salabi also took a swipe at secular groups he said were trying to give Islamists a bad name and create political strife that would only benefit Qaddafi..

The role of the executive committee is no longer required because they are remnants of the old regime. They should all resign, starting from the head of the pyramid all the way down.' Salabi told Reuters in the eastern city. He was referring to the National Transitional Council's de facto cabinet, which is headed by Mahmoud Jibril, who once headed Libya's state economic think-tank under Qaddafi.."

BBC Bombshell: The Dark Side of The 'War on Terrorism' (and vid)

"Sharia will now be a source of future legislation in Libya.."


A New Constituency for Imperialism   -   by Peter Schwartz

"...During the Yugoslavia War 12 years ago, many elements from among the pacifists and the Greens supported the bombing of a defenceless country by NATO. But with the war in Libya, this development has reached a new stage.

It is mainly the representatives of well off layers of the middle class who are bidding adieu to their former pacifist, liberal or 'leftist' views. These layers are strongly represented in the milieu of the Greens, the Social Democrats, trade unions and the petty-bourgeois left. They are responding to a sharp class polarization, which has deepened since the outbreak of the international financial and economic crisis three years ago. The support that racist demagogues like Geert Wilders or Thile Sarrazin find in these layers is another side of the same political phenomenon.

The working class must prepare for the coming class struggles. With their support for the rape of Lybia, the Greens, Social Democrats and groups like the NPA may be perfectly clear where they will stand - on the side of the ruling class.."


... thanks for the intro Wink

anyway, for real elections and civil resurgence in rebel Libya, a civilian mission needed ASAP:

[Ban]called for "prompt action" to "deploy a civilian mission as rapidly as possible."

He spoke after leaders and envoys from 60 nations and world bodies such as the United Nations and NATO met in Paris for talks with Libya's rebel-led National Transitional Council to map out Libya's future after the ouster of longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Ok, good points, we have allies and minons... still say no to empire though.


DaveW wrote:

... thanks for the intro Wink

anyway, for real elections and civil resurgence in rebel Libya, a civilian mission needed ASAP:

[Ban]called for "prompt action" to "deploy a civilian mission as rapidly as possible."

He spoke after leaders and envoys from 60 nations and world bodies such as the United Nations and NATO met in Paris for talks with Libya's rebel-led National Transitional Council to map out Libya's future after the ouster of longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi.


Yes, of course this secondary invasion is inevitable - all the usual hustlers, PGOs (pro-governmental organizations), international social workers and other sucking parasitic vermin to feast on the rotting, carpet bombed corpse of Libya.


Letter From Tripoli: A Carnage of the Innocent  (vid)

Against the War on Libya: for George Carlin (vid)


NDPP wrote:

The Untold Story in Libya: How the West Cooked Up the 'People's Uprising'  -  by Russ Baker

 Just to add a kink to the thread:

   Yes, it does seem that the CIA helped organise Libyans to rise up against Gadaffi, and maybe not just for oil but for the same reason the US invaded Iraq - because the leaders of those nations were talking about using a currency other than the US Dollar for international trade [oil mostly].

  Saddam said he was going to trade oil in Euros

  Gadaffi said he was going to establish the "African Gold Dinar", using real gold.

  And before they could finish the sentence, the US military sent them scurrying underground!!


  I never could understand why any Libyan would still support Gadaffi, but now I see he would be a hero to many because a pan-African/Gulf states/Mid-east currency, especially one based on gold, would empower those nations greatly.

Such a move would obviously threaten the world's financial system as it is now; the bankers would lose control of the world's finances and they would be much the poorer for it.



Video here [Canadian site!] -

Opinion here>

- that link from this page:

where we have Sarah Palin in a bathing suit holding a phalic symbol? >


MI6 Protected Gaddafi Son from Death

"British Intelligence, now vigorously hunting for Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi, have particpated in an international operation to protect him from death threats in Britain.."

When Hannibal Lector urges you to disarm, best take pause to consider...


DaveW wrote:

anyway, for real elections and civil resurgence in rebel Libya, a civilian mission needed ASAP:

[Ban]called for "prompt action" to "deploy a civilian mission as rapidly as possible."

He spoke after leaders and envoys from 60 nations and world bodies such as the United Nations and NATO met in Paris for talks with Libya's rebel-led National Transitional Council to map out Libya's future after the ouster of longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi.

We've heard this same bs with regard to a "civilian surge" that is meant to correspond with Obama's 2010 Afghanistan troop surge a number of times.

Most recently it was at the last NATO summit.

The one where it was decided to escalate U.S./NATO/ISAF military engagement/presence until 2014.


China Offered Gadhafi Huge Stockpiles of Arms: Libya Memos  -  by Grame Smith

"China offered huge stockpiles of weapons to Colonel Moammar Gadhafi during the final months of his regme, according to papers that describe secret talks about shipments via Algeria and South Africa.."

it will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere - it'll be rich indeed if the West tries criticizing China for not adhering to a supposed arms embargo. Obviously an ambit to further scotch any designs China may have for a piece of Libya's oil action, as well. Ever notice how investigative journalism emerges when there's elite interests to be served by it?


It's a TOTAL War, Monsieur  - by Pepe Escobar

"...Or perhaps AFricans see right through the FOL's [Friends of Libya]  agenda; the new Libyan status as a barely disguised Western colony and the neo-Orwellian fable of humanitarian imperialism."


Manipulating Video Images: Sloppy Journalism or War Propaganda?
The BBC's Fake Images from Tripoli

Michel Chossudovsky wrote:
Green Square Tripoli. Libyans are seen celebrating the victory of Rebel forces over Ghadaffi in this BBC News Report (see below)

Examine the footage: It's not Green Square and it's not the King Idris Flag (red, black green) of the Rebels.

Its the Indian flag (orange, white and green) and the people at the rally are Indians. Perhaps you did not even notice it.

And if you did notice, "it was probably a mistake".

Sloppy journalism at the BBC or outright Lies and Fabrications?

Witnessing the Transition to Fear in Tripoli

Lizzie Phelan wrote:
I had also tried to expose the links of the rebels to Al Qaeda, which NATO was on the other hand fighting in places like Afghanistan. Since the admission by the rebels that the assassination of former rebel commander Abd al Fatah Younis was carried out by Al Qaeda-linked groups within their ranks, the presence of the extremists threatened to become clearer as the then Libyan government prepared to release files and phone recordings exposing Al Qaeda's involvement in the crisis and how the west had worked with them.

But following the fall of Tripoli only unflinching acceptance of the new Libya would guarantee your safety, my Wafalla friend urged me to get home and speak about what was happening.

With fighting still raging on the roads out of the country, and them being particularly unsafe for anyone without rebel protection my only prospect of getting home was via the Mediterranean.

Lizzie Phelan reporting on the NATO-al-Qa'eda joint terrorist operation in Libya.


'What I Learned About Libya' (and vid)

"I ask all reading this to do whatever they can to oppose this New World Order, NATO, the UN & our corrupt politicians" - ALL of them...


Petition: Charge NATO With War Crimes

sign and pass it on...



Pro Gaddafi Forces Agree to Yield Town

"Libya fighters and tribal leaders in the besieged town of Bani Walid agree on a peaceful takeover of the town, a report says.."


Fidel wrote:

Witnessing the Transition to Fear in Tripoli

. . .

Lizzie Phelan reporting on the NATO-al-Qa'eda joint terrorist operation in Libya.

Huh, Lizzie Phelan is still publishing her nonsense? Thought she would have kept a low profile after getting out of Tripoli last week (after claiming to have been kidnapped by NATO) and deleting her Gaddafi-propaganda-filled blog and twitter feed.


Whatever your opinion of the messenger may be, don't say the message is  a fabrication.

There IS fear among Ghaddafi supporters, among Blacks, among women, among members of tribes from the western and southern regions (of the people from Cyrenaica), among non-fundamentalists, among anti-imperialists.  It's a legitimate fear. 


duncan cameron


old-regime crowd leaving town in a hurry:


... the government in Niger sought to play down both the scale and composition of the convoy, and said Colonel Qaddafi was not traveling in it.

In a telephone interview, Marou Amadou, Niger's minister of justice, described the group as a "small convoy" of unarmed people. Niger had allowed the convoy to cross into its territory for purely humanitarian reasons, he said.

Additionally, Moussa Ibrahim, the colonel's spokesman, told Syrian television that Colonel Qaddafi was in "excellent health, planning and organizing for the defense of Libya" and was still in Libya.

"We are fighting and resisting for the sake of Libya and all Arabs," The Associated Press quoted him as saying. "We are still strong and capable of turning the tables on NATO."





Libyan Hunt: Gaddafi Hides, Bystanders Busted:

"Libyan rebels have failed to arrest the ousted leader Muammar Gaddafi, now in hiding and preparing for a guerilla war. Instead they are targeting those they suspect of being paid Gaddafi supporters, with hundreds of innocent black people suffering.."

Gaddafi's Disappearing May Be Calculated Move

"Sending his family away and keeping in hiding is a calculated move on Muammar Gaddafi's part..

'This is a smart move on the part of Gaddafi, who wants to maintain power. I think he is going to go underground and lead a guerilla war. In a few months, when the Rebel NTC and the tribes start fighting one another, he can make a political comeback. And now he has got part of his family outside of the country, where they can help make that political comeback on the international scene. I think it is a very calculated move on his part.."

Phony Leftists Exposed: War of Ideas Breaks out Over Battle in Libya

"By directing their enormous joint military and economic power against a poorly armed non-industrialized country of 6 million people, the imperialist states of North America and Western Europe have imposed a criminal regime on the Libyan people. Part of Libya's continued resistance to this attempted imperialist takeover of an African state is the ideological struggle within the left and workers' movement internationally. The only legitimate position for the left in the imperialist countries is to support the Libyan resistance to imperialism, whatever form it takes.

The NTC is not a real government at present, but a racist gang of hoodlums and mercenaries looting homes and museums in Tripoli and other cities. This is fitting, as its US and European Union masters aim to loot all of Africa as freely as they did until the 1960s.."


Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Apparently Bec has never heard of the British Empire (about half a bilion people) or the Roman Empire (comprising the territories of more than 50 modern states). I guess they don't teach that stuff in Amurrican schools.

Or maybe I just don't argee the USA is an empire no mattrer what you and whom ever says or thinks?... we have allies, not minions.

NO, don't listen them Bec. You Know what you Know.
The US's 700+ foreign bases are just their to support the local economies and to ensure Freedom--not US interests:

America's Empire of Bases
by Chalmers Johnson

U.S. Military Bases and Empire
The Editors
Monthly Review    more on Imperialism

A Century of US Military Interventions: from Wounded Knee to Libya

ABOVE ALL, don't listen to the writers of the US world-dominance-oriented Defense Plan, people who obviously didn't have the advantage of your education:

Dick Cheney's song of America:
Drafting a plan for global dominance

Harpers Magazine
Finally, Rumsfeld expresses the key concept of the Plan: preventing the emergence of rival powers. Like the original draft DPG of 1992, he states that America's goal is to develop and maintain the military strength necessary to “dissuade” rivals or adversaries from “competing.” With no challengers, and a proposed defense budget of $379 billion for next year, the United States would reign over all it surveys...

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

America is a very different type of Empire.  It has no rule of law unlike the British or Roman Empires. In Canada the only rights recognized for FN's are those derived from British law.  America does not seek to rule it merely seeks to destabilize so that its predatory corporations with their mercenary security forces can dominate the corrupt governments that the military installs.  So it is really not an empire in the sense of the British or Roman empires but more like a well armed criminal conspiracy with no rules or ethics except raw power and greed.


Topic locked