Colonel Gadhafi has been killed

[Crateria]

Can we hope for Libya to stabilize itself now, or do we have to expect a repeat of what happened in Côte d'Ivoire ("Rich African country get rid of dictator, get politically instable, and do not recover from it even decades after the facts") ?

It all depends on whether or not Libya's groups start fighting against each other, the West stays out of Libya's business and if Libya becomes a democracy. I'm not too hopeful about all of this. Congrats to offing Gaddafi, though.

[weemadando]

It all depends on whether or not Libya's groups start fighting against each other, the West stays out of Libya's business and if Libya becomes a democracy.

ha. Ahahahahah. AHAAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'm not too hopeful about all of this.

Damn straight we're not. How many corporate reconstruction teams were already in the safe areas? I'm sure I've seen stories about nearly all the big oil groups having teams in trying to negotiate for control of fields and facilities with the transitional gov't while "helping them restore their infrastructure".

[Crateria]

It all depends on whether or not Libya's groups start fighting against each other, the West stays out of Libya's business and if Libya becomes a democracy.

ha. Ahahahahah. AHAAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You seem to labor under the illusion that I believe that this will end well for the people of Libya, asshat. Knock that shit off.

We both know that they're fucked six ways from Sunday.

[Tolya]

I would say that political instability is the way for Libya unfortunately. From what I have seen, there is no strong leader and the main goal of the uprising was just to depose Gadhafi. I would like someone to rise with the goal to rebuild Libya, since this is what really it's all about.

[folti78]

Yup, more like Libyan Civil War Act 2, where the various rebel groups will turn on each other while they try to gain control of the country and it's oil resources.

[Crateria]

I would say that political instability is the way for Libya unfortunately. From what I have seen, there is no strong leader and the main goal of the uprising was just to depose Gadhafi. I would like someone to rise with the goal to rebuild Libya, since this is what really it's all about.

Probably a Saddam type dictator will do that. However the West will continue to screw over Libya and overthrow him as well, insuring another round of civil war.

[folti78]

I would say that political instability is the way for Libya unfortunately. From what I have seen, there is no strong leader and the main goal of the uprising was just to depose Gadhafi. I would like someone to rise with the goal to rebuild Libya, since this is what really it's all about.

Probably a Saddam type dictator will do that. However the West will continue to screw over Libya and overthrow him as well when they he no longer serves their interest, insuring another round of civil war.

Fixed for you.

[Crateria]

I would say that political instability is the way for Libya unfortunately. From what I have seen, there is no strong leader and the main goal of the uprising was just to depose Gadhafi. I would like someone to rise with the goal to rebuild Libya, since this is what really it's all about.

Probably a Saddam type dictator will do that. However the West will continue to screw over Libya and overthrow him as well when they he no longer serves their interest, insuring another round of civil war.

Fixed for you.

Heh. My statement was meant to imply that though. If he starts building up infrastructure and even beginning to deviate from the path that the West wants him to follow (read: murderous rape of the country) then he's a dead man.

[Samuel]

Bah, Ghadhafi managed to get away with pissing off the west and sponsoring terrorists for decades. As long as the oil flows, no one in the western world cares if he spends it on healthcare, golden cars or a palace in Dubai.

[Crateria]

Bah, Ghadhafi managed to get away with pissing off the west and sponsoring terrorists for decades. As long as the oil flows, no one in the western world cares if he spends it on healthcare, golden cars or a palace in Dubai.

But the West would prefer he waste it on trivial shit rather than something that his people would need. The fact that they don't care at the moment doesn't mean overall they want his people to be healthy. The primary goal of the West is keeping the Third World permanently enslaved to them, working their lives away to give the West everything worthwhile while they receive the bare minimum to continue running.

[Samuel]

Proof that the first world wants the third world permanently poor? That sounds rather crazy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 8rank.html

The majority of the worlds exports are from rich countries or ones that are industrializing. While an improvment in living standards could raise wages (and hence import costs) for the first world, the amount of benefit you'd gain from holding down. Especially since Libya exports oil and oil products whose costs don't reflect local wages (I'm pretty sure the main costs are capital).

[Simon_Jester]

Bah, Ghadhafi managed to get away with pissing off the west and sponsoring terrorists for decades. As long as the oil flows, no one in the western world cares if he spends it on healthcare, golden cars or a palace in Dubai.

But the West would prefer he waste it on trivial shit rather than something that his people would need. The fact that they don't care at the moment doesn't mean overall they want his people to be healthy. The primary goal of the West is keeping the Third World permanently enslaved to them, working their lives away to give the West everything worthwhile while they receive the bare minimum to continue running.

Actually, one of the things that's made Middle Eastern politics and history so perverse in the past century is that the 'oil economy' that foreigners are interested in is pretty much separate from what's going on in the rest of the national economy. A massive oil industry can exist side by side with rural farm communities that live much as they did a thousand years ago, and there's simply no point in trying to keep Libya poor as long as the oil keeps going.

Meanwhile, countries where the developed world's corporate interests profit from cheap labor are often ones where they have little power to keep the price of labor artificially low (like China), or where they basically don't bother to interfere in local politics (like India).

So no, Qaddafi wasn't toppled for the "crime" of building highways or trying to raise his people's standard of living, much as you might like to think so, Crater.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm glad survived long enough to fear the bullets they riddled his body with.

Now the proper SDN question becomes, which is better? Qaddafis drain pipe or Saddams spider hole? Saddams hole has a clear advantage of concealment, with Qaddafi's pipe had two exits and a concrete liner to make him .000000000002% more likely to survive a ISD turbolaser impacting somewhere in Libya.

[Crateria]

So no, Qaddafi wasn't toppled for the "crime" of building highways or trying to raise his people's standard of living, much as you might like to think so, Crater.

I never said he was. The West prefers the Third World to be weak and malleable to its desires, but this doesn't guarantee their intervention to bring down their living standards. However, overall they'd want their puppets to be much weaker and broken than they. If they want to make Libya into a war torn poverty-filled hell hole, they will do so. We have yet to see if they want it to turn out this way.

[Broomstick]

It's a shame he won't have the indignity of being put on trail, but at least it's closure for the Libyans.

Well, if it helps, the video I saw on TV tonight didn't grant him any dignity. An obviously seriously wounded man, unable to stand, clearly disoriented, being manhandled upright then propped against the hood of a vehicle while being heckled and jeered. Reports are he was slapped with shoes as he was being loaded into an ambulance, and somewhere between the storm drain his bloody self was pulled out of and the hospital he acquired a bullethole in his forehead. Meaning someone shot a helpless, unarmed man at point-blank range. That ranks pretty damn low on the dignity scale.

Another dead man whom I will shed no tears for.

I was a little surprised that US TV showed video that graphic during the evening/primetime slot

[Crateria]

It's a shame he won't have the indignity of being put on trail, but at least it's closure for the Libyans.

Well, if it helps, the video I saw on TV tonight didn't grant him any dignity. An obviously seriously wounded man, unable to stand, clearly disoriented, being manhandled upright then propped against the hood of a vehicle while being heckled and jeered. Reports are he was slapped with shoes as he was being loaded into an ambulance, and somewhere between the storm drain his bloody self was pulled out of and the hospital he acquired a bullethole in his forehead. Meaning someone shot a helpless, unarmed man at point-blank range. That ranks pretty damn low on the dignity scale.

Damn, that's gotta hurt. A brutal end to brutal man.

[Crateria]

Proof that the first world wants the third world permanently poor? That sounds rather crazy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 8rank.html

The majority of the worlds exports are from rich countries or ones that are industrializing. While an improvment in living standards could raise wages (and hence import costs) for the first world, the amount of benefit you'd gain from holding down. Especially since Libya exports oil and oil products whose costs don't reflect local wages (I'm pretty sure the main costs are capital).

It's the US government's little attack dog's report, and you trust them to be honest? Really, Samuel, I thought you knew better.

Just kidding. Interesting report BTW. Then if they don't want them to be poor, they want them under their thumb. Does that sound more correct to you?

[Broomstick]

Bah, Ghadhafi managed to get away with pissing off the west and sponsoring terrorists for decades. As long as the oil flows, no one in the western world cares if he spends it on healthcare, golden cars or a palace in Dubai.

Well, the US cared that he spent some money on a bomb for Pan Am Flight 103. Although, yeah, Gaddafi might have been pissed about that bomb we dropped into on of his bedrooms (which he happened to not be in that night). Then again, the US was pissed about that Berlin bombing that took out a bunch of Americans....

I'm not sure you can say "the west didn't care" and "Gaddafi got away with it". I don't think justice was served, but there were provocations and consequences for years.

[Thanas]

Guys, let's have some class and not celebrate the gruesome details of the death of a guy? We're all pretty glad he is gone, but let's not go into "I hope he felt as much as possible or died with as little dignity as possible" territory.

(not directed at anyone in particular).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The official Libyan statement is that his ambulance was shot up in a crossfire between NTC troops and Qaddafi loyalists while leaving the area in which he was captured. If you believe that...

That said, I don't doubt it's at least partially true. Sort of like how the Tsar and his wife and children weren't executed until there was some risk of their being liberated by White forces, it's likely enough that there was some Qaddafi loyalist unit in the area launching an attack, so the men guarding the ambulance executed him on their own initiative to keep him from potentially being rescued by his loyalists.

[Zinegata]

I find the narrative that "The West allowed Gaddaffi to be deposed because he was no longer useful to them!" rather silly, given that Gaddaffi WAS in fact actively cooperating with the West - by giving up his WMDs, opening his country to oil interests, etc.

And he was in fact about to crush the rebellion a scant few months ago, until the West finally had enough of him shooting up innocent civilians and intervened.

[Samuel]

Given how we acted towards the other Arab dictators who also shot innocent civilians I don't think our humanitarian claims hold much water. Of course, it is possible that the Libyan rebels were much better at agitprop and exploiting the world media.

[Barlestone]

The decision to intervene in Libya but not in Syria was probably made because of the greater ease of securing diplomatic support for the former, I think. Gaddafi had pissed on Arab nations as well as western ones in the past, so there was Arab League support for at least the initial stages of the intervention. It’s hard to imagine a similar level of support for western intervention in, say, Syria, which would make the diplomatic and PR aspects of such an intervention much more problematic.

[K. A. Pital]

I find the narrative that "The West allowed Gaddaffi to be deposed because he was no longer useful to them!" rather silly, given that Gaddaffi WAS in fact actively cooperating with the West - by giving up his WMDs, opening his country to oil interests, etc.

And he was in fact about to crush the rebellion a scant few months ago, until the West finally had enough of him shooting up innocent civilians and intervened.

You mean shooting up armed rebels, of course? Because even the most ardent TNC supporters ditched the claims of "peaceful uprising" long ago. "Civil war" doesn't sound like "innocent civilians". And for god's sake Abdelhakim Belhadj and Libyan Islamic Fighting Group are probably the farthest you could find from an "innocent civilian" - that person leads the Libyan wahhabist faction close to Al-Quaeda and supplies lots of boots on the ground (including radical islamists from other Gulf nations who came to Libya to fight Gaddafi). LIFG is basically controlling a lot of the TNC's manpower. How is that group "peaceful"?

Proof that the first world wants the third world permanently poor?

Subservient, not poor. If the two coincide, so be it. If they diverge, so be it. Power! The king of words. You can be rich or poor, irrelevant, but you have to serve the West. And god forbid you actively fight against the West. Or sponsor IRA.

[open_sketchbook]

It's not even "serve the West". It's "serve the Rich", and it's like that everywhere and with everyone. While most of the folks who carve the world up are in the West, by no means are they the only ones; it's just like that because the money is power and most of the money is in the West. Most of the time, the local 1% colludes with the western 1% to divide things up a little bit more finely between themselves. Saudi princes, Chinese chairmen and American CEOs are well known for putting aside their superficial differences to gleefully join forces in fucking everyone over.