Libya 17

I heard some pretty ridiculous news coverage on the CBC Radio 6:00 o'clock news about releasing their money. Some "expert" said that unlike Iraq or Tunisia, there was no infrastructure or bureacracy in place to administer the running of the country. It seems that Libya, despite boasting the best education and health services on the African continent, was solely run on the whim of it's deranged despot.

I've seen photos of Tripoli, and it sure doesn't look as devasted by decades of civil strife and foreign occupation as Kabul.

And here is an interesting take on a US architecture firm engaged to expand one of Libya's universities:

Quote:

Working in a country that has had a highly contentious relationship with the United States for decades and is led by a man—Moammar Gaddafi—most would describe as a dictator might give some firms pause, but this is nothing new for RMJM, which designed the Olympic Green Convention Center for the Beijing Olympics and the Okhta Center tower in St. Petersburg, Russia, for state-owned energy company Gazprom. "We do a lot of due diligence on the people we work for," RMJM CEO Peter Morrison told ARCHITECT last spring ("The House of Morrison," May 2008). "If we believed there was something morally deficient, we wouldn't work for these clients."

The project in Libya, a branch campus in Bani Walid for the 7th of October University that will serve more than 3,000 students, is being designed by the Global Education Studio, based in RMJM Hillier's Princeton, N.J., office. Construction on the 123-acre campus is expected to begin in 2009 and finish in 2010. Firm principal and studio director Gordon Hood spoke with ARCHITECT about design inspirations, dealing with the desert environment, and the development potential of a country with enormous amounts of open land and an equally large checkbook to pay for new construction.

How did the firm end up getting into Libya?
The Libyan government has a procurement arm called ODAC [Organisation for the Development of Administrative Centres], and they contacted us to see if we were interested in doing education work. We met them at our office in London and showed them our capabilities.

Obviously, Gaddafi was not a leader of a democracy but to suggest that the country had no bureacracy or infrastructure is a blatant lie. It just supports that racist meme that these countries that NATO liberates are backwards and without capabilities of governing themselves without MUCH needed western intervention.

ETA: http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/libya-open-to-american-architect...

Erik Redburn wrote:

... Actually, I recall that quite a few of the native Libyan rebels did ask for help from the West, it was broadcast widely in the early stages when they were first driven back. It helped give the US-UN the emotive justification to 'intervene'.

Reread UNSCR 1973

and Barack Obama's speech to the nation when he committed the U.S. to the war on Libya.

In both cases, the stated reason was to protect civilian and civilian areas - Benghazi is mentioned by name in UNSCR 1973.

Barack Obama refers to a speech where Gadhafi threatens to kill those who rose up against him in Benghazi.

Neither UNSCR 1973 nor Obama's speech talk about

Picking sides

Waging a war of offense

Regime change.

A decent analysis from the G&M:

Quote:

...

Who will get the prizes? The NTC has already said it will reward the countries that bombed Col. Gadhafi’s forces. “We don’t have a problem with Western countries like Italians, French and U.K. companies,” Abdeljalil Mayouf, a spokesman for the rebel oil company Agogco, was quoted by Reuters as saying. “But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.”

He was referring to the trio of countries that did not back strong sanctions on the Gadhafi regime, and which were sometimes critical of the bombing campaign, although they did want Col. Gadhafi out of the picture. Russia has already admitted that it’s doomed to become an early casualty of the new Libyan oil campaign. “Our companies will lose everything there because NATO will prevent them from doing their business in Libya,” Aram Shegunts, director-general of the Russia-Libya Business Council, told Reuters.

But it may not be that simple. Libya has no government, constitution or regulators. Tribal conflicts may tear the NTC apart. Depending on who forms the government, anti-Western sentiment may set in, making life difficult for any European and North American oil company.

While it is probable that the companies with existing leases – Italy’s Eni and France’s Total, among them – will be able to resume their operations when the violence ends, there is no guarantee that the coveted new leases will be awarded soon or automatically favour the countries that dropped the smart bombs. China plays the long game and is happy to sponsor infrastructure projects in exchange for preferred bidder status. You can bet that it will ultimately emerge as a big name in Libyan oil, as it has elsewhere in the parts of Africa that are rich in resources.

Corruption and backdoor deals are bound to return. One former oil company boss, who did not want to be named, said his Libyan adviser once instructed him to earn points with the government by sponsoring a showing of paintings by Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, one of the dictator’s sons, in his home country. He refused and the company’s lease acquisition effort produced nothing. Libya’s new regime could well insist on favours and kickbacks in exchange for a piece of the oil action.

What is certain is that access to oil will dominate the Libyan agenda in the next year or so. Any new Libyan government will need strong oil exports to rebuild the economy. Oil companies will do anything they can to tie up the Mediterranean’s last great conventional reserves. The rebels may savour their victory, but the revolution is not entirely theirs. Libya is looking suspiciously like an oil war and the countries that delivered the bombs want their rewards.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/eric-reguly...

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

 

I don't know about all that but you have to respect him for putting his life on the line for what he believed in. R.I.P.

I can't help but wonder what he'd thought of all his fellow Canadians here on babble saying he's Al CIAda.

Crow's beak: You seem to have misunderstood the tone and content of much of what was posted here.  I don't think any of us was suggesting that all the rebels were Al CIAda by any means.  The AlCIAda veterans are a minority.  My concern and that of others, I am sure, is that those represent a real danger to the future of Libyan society because they were precisely the most ideologically motivated, the most single-minded and the most experienced and those with the most training in irregular warfare. (And perhaps, if it is indeed true that they are AlCIAda and not simply AlQaeda, they are to be feared as they will work to the benefit of the west.)

  I am sure that the majority were inspired to join the rebellion for a variety of reasons. 

Erik Redburn wrote:

My only point was that there were some Libyans who asked for this intervention.   Sorry if that adds some complexity to the picture.

Hey, you know me.

Simple is boring.

It does raise questions of:

When those Libyans asked for intervention.

Where they were (Libya or the U.S. or elsewhere) when they asked for intervention.

How many of them compared to the rest of the Libyan population (were they a majority, a minority or is this unknown.)

Who were they - were they democrats, monarchists, undetermined anti-Gadhafiyites, other?

Gadhafi was a bad man.

Mugabe is a freedom fighter! Look it up. Not sure about the others... Tired, go sleep now...

Frmrsldr wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

My only point was that there were some Libyans who asked for this intervention.   Sorry if that adds some complexity to the picture.

Hey, you know me.

Simple is boring.

It does raise questions of:

When those Libyans asked for intervention.

Where they were (Libya or the U.S. or elsewhere) when they asked for intervention.

How many of them compared to the rest of the Libyan population (were they a majority, a minority or is this unknown.)

Who were they - were they democrats, monarchists, undetermined anti-Gadhafiyites, other?

It looked to me like they were the guys fighting Qaddafi on the ground, therefore it would have been Libya.  Whether they represent a majority, do you have any better idea tha I do, does anyone yet?  My point being again that it wasn't quite that straighfwd.

Frmrsldr wrote:

WilderMore wrote:

Gadhafi was a bad man.

So is Robert Mugabe.

So is the military junta in Burma (Myanmar.)

We're not militarily intervening, waging Wars of Aggression and attempting regime change on the countries they rule.

So, what's your point?

Maybe they'll go after Mugabe and snatch control over the gold mines next. Don't give the US/NATO any encougagement frmrsldr.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I wrote: And yes the USA is my country... right or wrong is another thing, but it's still my country.

What do you think I meant by that, especially the highlighted remark? I curious as to where you get "unquestioningly support" out of that...

Where you say ...right or wrong is another thing,... in the highlighted remark.

What do you mean by that?

I don't see you questioning the U.S.A.'s or Obama's involvement in this War of Aggression on Libya.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Also it seems you flip flopped on your support based on NATO helping the rebels...

I have flip-flopped on my support of the rebels, simply because I don't know who the rebels are anymore.

I have never changed my opposition to the U.S. and NATO's military intervention, regime change and War of Aggression on Libya (i.e., the U.S.A.'s and NATO's support or helping the rebels.)

Supporting the rebels

versus

Supporting the U.S. and NATO's supporting the rebels are two different things.

Don't confuse them.

I'm sure Leeza Leeza is really flattered.  Good thing she got her book out before this hit the press.

Or not?  She'll be hounded by this on her book tour, poor thing.  But at least she can seek refuge in her piano from all the flak. 

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Sure... Even though I might disagree with what my country is doing, it's still my county. Administrations and policies come and go, but the country stays. That is what I'm part of: my country as a people.

Absolutely.

The United States of America is the country - the land and its people.

But it is not the government.

The government is the representatives of the people that stays or goes at the will of the majority of the people.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I'm sticking with the rebels. They can boot NATO out next if need be,...

Like government (Gadhafi) forces did?

As for Gadhafi's support of Condi Rice,

well perhaps he's returning his support for her that she showed for him.

Shows the hypocrisy of two different administrations.

Doesn't it?

The Rape of Libya

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/liby-a26.shtml

"Five days after 'rebels' entered Tripoli, under the cover of NATO bombing and led by foreign special forces, the abject criminality of imperialism's takeover of Libya is becoming increasingly evident.."

US, NATO Plan Libyan 'Stabilization' as Fighting Continues

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/liby-a25.shtml

"Even as fighting continues in Libya, Washington and NATO allies are preparing to 'stabilise' the oil rich North African country, including through the possible deployment of froegn troops. The reality, which has emerged more and more openly over the past week, is that the events in Libya are not the result of a 'revoution' or 'people's power' but an operation planned and executed by US, British, French and Italian imperialism..

These powers set out to conquer a country that boasts the largest oil reserves on the African continent in order to install a puppet regime that would do the bidding of the Western energy conglomerates.

Yes the imperialists have enjoyed the support of a whole layer of ex-lefts and liberals who have helped promote this war of aggression as a campaign for human rights and 'the protection of civilians.."

Over 200 African Leaders: NATO's Libyan War Part of Plan to Recolonise the Continent

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26200

"A group of African intellectuals has written an open letter criticising the NATO-led military attacks on Libya, saying Africa runs the risk of being re-colonised. 'NATO has violated international law - they had a regime change agenda, said one of the signatories. 'The recolonisation of Africa is becoming a real threat,' he told reporters.."

Disaster Capitalism Swoops Over Libya - by Pepe Escobar

http://www.voltairenet.org/Disaster-capitalism-swoops-over

"Think of the new Libya as the latest spectacular chapter in the Disaster Capitalism series. Instead of weapons of mass destruction, we had R2P short for 'responsibility to protect'. Instead of neo-conservatives, we had humanitarian imperialists. But the target is the same: regime change.

And the project is the same: to completely dismantle and privatize a nation that was not integrated into turbo capitalism..."

Libya's New Man in Ottawa is Former Regime Envoy

http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/107

"Abubaker Karmos, who had worked for Libya's mission in Canada before he said he defected in late March, was accredited as the NTC's charge d'affaires ad interim. He was appointed to his new job by Mahmoud Jibril.."

SNC, Petrocan, etc will already have scheduled meetings with this Ghadafi turncoat appointed by the other Ghadafi turncoat. Minister Baird, on is recent trip to Libya, said he was 'very impressed' with the TNC. No mention made of Jibril's wacking of their military commander another Ghadafi turncoat, Abdel Younes. Yep, looks like 'democracy' to me...

Caption:  I murder civilians:

Tragicómix
Adan

The Myth of Libyan Liberation

by CONN HALLINAN

In his essay, "Top Ten Myths about the Libyan War," Juan Cole argues that U.S. interests in the conflict consisted of stopping "massacres of people," a "lawful world order," "the NATO alliance," and oddly, "the fate of Egypt." It is worth taking a moment to look at each of these arguments, as well as his dismissal of the idea that the U.S./NATO intervention had anything to do with oil as "daft."

Massacres are bad things, but the U.S. has never demonstrated a concern for them unless its interests were at stake. It made up the "massacre" of Kosovo Albanians in order to launch the Yugoslav War, and ended up acquiring one of the largest U.S. bases in the world, Camp Bond Steel. It has resolutely ignored the massacre of Palestinians and Shiites in Bahrain because it is not in Washington's interests to concern itself with those things. Israel is an ally, and Bahrain hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Cole accepts the fact that Qaddafi would have "massacred" his people, but his evidence for that is thin, and he chooses to completely ignore the deaths and casualties resulting from the NATO bombing.

The U.S. is interested in a "lawful world order." That would certainly come as a surprise to the Palestinians, the Shiites in the Gulf, and peasants in Colombia who suffer the deprivations of death squads aided by the U.S.  (see the Washington Post story of 8/20/11) etc. The U.S, supports international law when it is in its interests to do so, undermines it when it is not, and ignores it when it is inconvenient. I wish Cole were correct but he is not. The record speaks for itself.

Okay, spot on for the NATO alliance, which is exactly the problem.  Africa has increasingly become a chess piece in a global competition for resources and cheap labor. It is no accident that the U.S. recently formed an African Command (Africom)-the Libyan War was the organization's coming out party-and is training troops in countries that border the Sahara. It is already intervening in Somalia, and a recent story in the New York Times about an "al-Qaeda threat" in Northern Nigeria should send a collective chill down all our spines. NATO has already "war gamed" the possibility of intervention in the Gulf of Guinea to insure oil supplies in the advent of "civil disturbances" that might affect the flow of energy resources.

NATO represents western economic and political interests, which rarely coincide with the interests of either the alliance's own people, or those of the countries it occupies. The Libyan intervention sets a very dangerous precedent for the entire continent, which is why the African Union opposed it. Who will be next?

Ummm, Egypt? Certainly the U.S. has "a deep interest in the fate of Egypt," which ought to scare hell out of the Egyptians. But overthrowing Qaddafi was important because he had "high Egyptian officials on his payroll"? Is Cole seriously suggesting that Libya's 6.4 million people have anything to do with determining the fate of 83 million Egyptians?

Opposition to the Libyan War is not based on supporting Qaddafi, although Cole's portrait of the man is one-sided. For instance, Libya played an important role in financing the African Bank, thus allowing African nations to avoid the tender mercies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Libya also financed a continent-wide telecommunications system that saved African countries hundreds of millions of dollars by allowing them to bypass western-controlled networks.  He also raised living standards. This does not make him a good guy, but it does say that Libya's role in Africa cannot be reduced to simply "sinister."

Lastly, the charge that this was about Libya's oil is "daft"? Libya is the largest producer of oil in Africa, and the 12th largest in the world. Its resources are very important for NATO's European allies, and over the past several years there has been competition over these supplies. The Chinese have made major investments. During the war China, Russia, and Brazil supported the African Union's call for a ceasefire and talks, and pointed out that UN Resolution 1973 did not call for regime change. One of the first statements out of the Transitional National Council following Qaddafi's collapse was that China, Russia and Brazil were going to be sidelined in favor of French, Spanish, and Italian companies. Quid pro quo?

The war was not just over oil, but how can anyone dismiss the importance of energy supplies at a time of worldwide competition over their control?  The U.S. is currently fighting several wars in a region that contains more than 65 percent of the world's oil supplies. Does he think this is a coincidence? Sure, the companies that invested in Libya will take some initial losses, but does Cole think those Libyans beholden to NATO for their new positions will drive a hard bargain with the likes of Total SA and Repso when it comes to making deals? If I were those companies I would see the war as a very lucrative investment in futures. In any case, when the U.S., China, and Russia are locked in a bitter worldwide battle over energy resources, to dismiss the role of oil in the Libyan War is, well, daft.

Special Forces are taking over the U.S. military. Africom is increasingly active on the continent. NATO has just finished its first intervention in Africa. With Qaddafi gone, every country that borders the Mediterranean is now associated with NATO, essentially turning this sea into an alliance lake.

This is not a good thing.

(from counterpunch.org)

Hoodeet wrote:

The Myth of Libyan Liberation

by CONN HALLINAN

In his essay, "Top Ten Myths about the Libyan War," Juan Cole argues that U.S. interests in the conflict consisted of stopping "massacres of people," a "lawful world order," "the NATO alliance," and oddly, "the fate of Egypt." It is worth taking a moment to look at each of these arguments, as well as his dismissal of the idea that the U.S./NATO intervention had anything to do with oil as "daft."

Massacres are bad things, but the U.S. has never demonstrated a concern for them unless its interests were at stake. It made up the "massacre" of Kosovo Albanians in order to launch the Yugoslav War, and ended up acquiring one of the largest U.S. bases in the world, Camp Bond Steel. It has resolutely ignored the massacre of Palestinians and Shiites in Bahrain because it is not in Washington's interests to concern itself with those things. Israel is an ally, and Bahrain hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Cole accepts the fact that Qaddafi would have "massacred" his people, but his evidence for that is thin, and he chooses to completely ignore the deaths and casualties resulting from the NATO bombing.

The U.S. is interested in a "lawful world order." That would certainly come as a surprise to the Palestinians, the Shiites in the Gulf, and peasants in Colombia who suffer the deprivations of death squads aided by the U.S.  (see the Washington Post story of 8/20/11) etc. The U.S, supports international law when it is in its interests to do so, undermines it when it is not, and ignores it when it is inconvenient. I wish Cole were correct but he is not. The record speaks for itself.

Okay, spot on for the NATO alliance, which is exactly the problem.  Africa has increasingly become a chess piece in a global competition for resources and cheap labor. It is no accident that the U.S. recently formed an African Command (Africom)-the Libyan War was the organization's coming out party-and is training troops in countries that border the Sahara. It is already intervening in Somalia, and a recent story in the New York Times about an "al-Qaeda threat" in Northern Nigeria should send a collective chill down all our spines. NATO has already "war gamed" the possibility of intervention in the Gulf of Guinea to insure oil supplies in the advent of "civil disturbances" that might affect the flow of energy resources.

NATO represents western economic and political interests, which rarely coincide with the interests of either the alliance's own people, or those of the countries it occupies. The Libyan intervention sets a very dangerous precedent for the entire continent, which is why the African Union opposed it. Who will be next?

War is not fought for humanitarian or generous reasons.

Hoodeet/Conn Hallinan wrote:

Special Forces are taking over the U.S. military. Africom is increasingly active on the continent. NATO has just finished its first intervention in Africa. With Qaddafi gone, every country that borders the Mediterranean is now associated with NATO, essentially turning this sea into an alliance lake.

(from counterpunch.org)

Fascist Italian dictator Benito Mussolini once described the Mediterranean as "Mare Nostrum."

Vengeance in Tripoli: Rebels Settle Scores  -  by Kim Sengupta

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/vengeance-in-tripoli-rebe...

"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.

Around 30 men lay decomposing in the heat. Many of them had their hands tied behind their back, either with plastic handcuffs or ropes. One had a scarf stuffed into his mouth. Almost all of the victims were black men...

The atrocities have apparently not been confined to Tripoli: Amnesty International ahs reported similar violence in the coastal town of Zawiyah, much of it against men from sub-Saharan Africa, who, it has been claimed, were migrant workers..."

Libya: The Horror Inside Tripoli's Abu Salim

http://www.channel4.com/news/libya-the-horror-inside-tripolis-abu-salim (and vid

"conditions in there are dreadful - just dreadful.."

Here's what your respresentatives bought you with their support for this Libyan war under the leadership of NATO's Canadian General Charles Bouchard. War crimes charges now!

'Victory is Ours'  -  M Gaddafi

http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/08/victory-is-ours-brother-leader-muam...

"Oppressed people around the world, the battle has begun..Take back your resources into your hands. Do not be afraid of power, possess it. It is your power, wealth and arms that the governments, banks and militaries stole from you. You cannot ask others to fight and die on your behalf, to defend you. This is your human responsibility...

When you do this, the world will be free."

Escobar: Al Qaeda Asset is Military Commander of Tripoli (and vid)

http://rt.com/usa/news/al-qaeda-libya-commander-escobar-269/

"Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar said an al-Qaeda asset is now leading the military of rebel-controlled Libya. According to Escobar, Abdelhakim Belhadi, who commanded a military offensive in Libya over the weekend, has become the de facto commander of the Tripoli armed forces. Abdelhakim Belhadi, who commanded a military offensive in Libya over the weekend has become the de facto commander of the Tripoli armed forces. Escobar says Belhadi trained in Afghanistan with 'a very hardcore Islamist group.'

This would be the successor to the late unlamented, Gadhafi torturer,turncoat and TNC Military Commander Younes. Of course his killing skills pale by comparison to our own Charlie 'The Butcher' Bouchard. What a perfect duet to preside over the birth of the new Libyan satrapy.

French Plan to Topple Gaddafi on Track Since Last November

http://www.voltairenet.org/French-plan-to-topple-Gaddafi-on-

"According to right-wing Italian journalist Franco Bechis, plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010. The timing of events which set the stage for the miltiary intervention against Libya is presented below.."

Libya Rebels Free Al Qaida Supporters (and vid)

http://libyanfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/libyan-rebels-free-al-qa...

"I wouldn't be surprised if the next step of the Empire would be to stress how dangerous these people are and that we need boots on the ground to protect civilians against these AQ people. That would be an evil plan: first get rid of your enemy Gaddafi with the help of other enemies (Al Qaida fighters). As soon as Gaddafi is out of the way, you get rid of the AQ elements and take full control.."

How American Brainwashed the World

http://www.mathaba.net/news?x=628323

"These videos record US fabricated lies..."

Umpierrez

NDPP wrote:

Military Colonization: The Return of the Cruise Missile Left

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26201

an audio interview with Canadian Professor Max Forte:

"The laptop bombardiers are happy with the results in Tripoli. But it requires a framework that supports intervention in order to invade a country. Maximillian Forte takes us on a journey through 'liberal imperialism' and the 'NATO Left'.."

pretty weak argument, but it suits the suddenly pro-Ghaddaffi far Left ...

I look forward to the world community welcoming back rebel Libya at the UN General Assembly in September

btw,

a Canadian right-winger (no, not the same DaveW) gives pretty much the same argument as Forte,

http://tinyurl.com/3px4ja6

but the argument collapses in that no one really believes these are lovely democrats; they are Cyrenaic regional rebels who suddenly saw their opportunity in February to FINALLY overthrow a 40-year dicator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U82W56dvNnM

 they would have been crushed without French air support; bravo, said many Libyans:

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110322/163148341.html