Libya: A Premature Victory Celebration

[Block]

There are all sorts of Arab regimes that only exist because of western support, and his was one of them.

No. Just no. He ruled despite a couple of assassination attempts on him from the West. He'd become more friendly since 9/11, but he was in power all on his own.

[Alkaloid]

No. Just no. He ruled despite a couple of assassination attempts on him from the West. He'd become more friendly since 9/11, but he was in power all on his own.

So the west weren't selling him weapons then? Because that's always struck me as being pretty supportive.

[Crateria]

There are all sorts of Arab regimes that only exist because of western support, and his was one of them.

No. Just no. He ruled despite a couple of assassination attempts on him from the West. He'd become more friendly since 9/11, but he was in power all on his own.

Thinkking about it, maybe he means support for the pro-west king before him caused him to have anti-western support from the populance, thus meaning he'd be able to come to power and not have many oppose him?

[Block]

No. Just no. He ruled despite a couple of assassination attempts on him from the West. He'd become more friendly since 9/11, but he was in power all on his own.

So the west weren't selling him weapons then? Because that's always struck me as being pretty supportive.

Russia sold the arms mostly. Pre-9/11 Lybia was pretty much considered a rogue state by much of the West, after, when Bush made his retarded With Us or Against Us speech, Qathafi agreed to stop his weapons programs and relations with the West got better, but it still wasn't friendly.

[Alkaloid]

Why is pre 9/11 relevant? In 2009, about 350 000 000 Euros worth of arms export licenses were granted to EU countries to export arms to Libya. This included ammunition, small arms, planes, electronics, tear gas and chemical weapons. Now, given that the EU is part of the west, from this it is reasonable to assume that Gaddafi had western support, no? Who supported him more than 20 years ago doesn't really matter.

[Block]

Why is pre 9/11 relevant? In 2009, about 350 000 000 Euros worth of arms export licenses were granted to EU countries to export arms to Libya. This included ammunition, small arms, planes, electronics, tear gas and chemical weapons. Now, given that the EU is part of the west, from this it is reasonable to assume that Gaddafi had western support, no? Who supported him more than 20 years ago doesn't really matter.

It's relevent because he's been in power for a lot longer than you seem to think. 350,000 euros of arms is small small potatoes. Tiny. One tank costs more than that and he had Battalions of them. He was not in any measurable way supported by or dependant upon the west.

[Alkaloid]

It's relevent because he's been in power for a lot longer than you seem to think. 350,000 euros of arms is small small potatoes. Tiny. One tank costs more than that and he had Battalions of them. He was not in any measurable way supported by or dependant upon the west.

Million. 350 Million Euros. No, in global arms dealing terms, its not a lot of money, but its not a pittance either. And if selling someone military equipment including chemical weapons isn't support, what the fuck is? I don't mean support as in propping up his whole regime, I mean support as in 'yes, we think this is an appropriate way to run a country and have no issues with it.' from 2004 when the embargo was lifted, an increasing number of weapons were being sold to him. How is that not support? I don't generally notice the police selling guns to street gangs as an example of their 'we don't support gangs' policy.

[Vaporous]

That still doesn't matter unless you somehow establish that his regime "only exist[ed] because of western support" when it existed for decades without it.

I don't mean support as in propping up his whole regime, I mean support as in 'yes, we think this is an appropriate way to run a country and have no issues with it.'

and this is moving the goalposts.

[Block]

It's relevent because he's been in power for a lot longer than you seem to think. 350,000 euros of arms is small small potatoes. Tiny. One tank costs more than that and he had Battalions of them. He was not in any measurable way supported by or dependant upon the west.

Million. 350 Million Euros. No, in global arms dealing terms, its not a lot of money, but its not a pittance either. And if selling someone military equipment including chemical weapons isn't support, what the fuck is? I don't mean support as in propping up his whole regime, I mean support as in 'yes, we think this is an appropriate way to run a country and have no issues with it.' from 2004 when the embargo was lifted, an increasing number of weapons were being sold to him. How is that not support? I don't generally notice the police selling guns to street gangs as an example of their 'we don't support gangs' policy.

Apologies, I read that part wrong, the total amount. However you said his was a regieme that only existed due to western support, and that's just not the case. My point about pre-9/11 status was that he'd held power for a long time with the West being actively hostile to him, so he clearly didn't need Western support.

[Lord MJ]

Eeek Posted this in the wrong thread

[Alkaloid]

My point about pre-9/11 status was that he'd held power for a long time with the West being actively hostile to him, so he clearly didn't need Western support.

Ok, yes, Libya was not wholly reliant on Western support for its entire existence, and never was. Crateria claimed that Gaddafi couldn't cooperate with the west if they demanded something from him because being friendly toward the west is a kiss of death to an Arab government. This is incorrect, as there are several Arab governments that do cooperate with the west or operate with western support, Libya already being one. So, Libya has western support, but does not exist wholly because of western support, but there are Arab governments that do. It's more accurate to say he relied on the west choosing not to remove him from power.

and this is moving the goalposts.

No, its differing definition of the word support.

[K. A. Pital]

The populations [of Iraq and Afghanistan] are against the Islamists, but don't want to anger them. If France and Britain hadn't intervened, Qathafi crushes the Rebels, and there isn't even a concern about extremists.

You must clearly be joking. You forgot how the Taliban won in a civil war against moderate forces? Yep. That's what I was talking about - some people don't even know basica facts.

[Block]

The populations [of Iraq and Afghanistan] are against the Islamists, but don't want to anger them. If France and Britain hadn't intervened, Qathafi crushes the Rebels, and there isn't even a concern about extremists.

You must clearly be joking. You forgot how the Taliban won in a civil war against moderate forces? Yep. That's what I was talking about - some people don't even know basica facts.

No, I didn't forget that. However that doesn't reflect the current situation on the ground. What I was saying is that a lot of Afghans like what the Americans/Coalition are bringing: better roads, electricity, sewage, etc. but are afraid to be seen as supporting the US occupation because they know we're leaving and think that when the Taliban fighters come back across the border without the US being there, they'll win. I don't particularly disagree with them. Many Afghanis don't support secularization too, but many more do now than did 10 or 15 years ago.

The two sentences you quoted are two different ideas and two seperate regions that I'm talking about.

[Alkaloid]

What I was saying is that a lot of Afghans like what the Americans/Coalition are bringing: better roads, electricity, sewage, etc.

They would probably love it, but not many are getting it, and it is costing them a hell of a lot more than it should.