Recent Libya History according to Randi Rhodes (rings true to me)

Okay, so Qaddafi is whack. He bombs a German disco, shoots down the Lockerbie flight, and other assorted attacks against the West.

Sanctions o'plenty are leveled against Libya. Qaddafi is persona non grata pretty much around the world.

Just about the time his regime is about to topple because of the hardships the sanctions caused, Big Oil gets a hold of Bush and says -- hey, this is the sixth largest oil country in the world and we want a piece of it -- can't you pull those pesky sanctions? Bushco works out a deal with Qaddafi presenting the story that he's THIS CLOSE to getting nuclear capability, but Qaddafi (suddenly a good guy) will cease and not only let inspectors come in to verify, he'll give us a bad ass who was a kingpin in the Lockerbie bombing! Wow! We need to give this guy another chance.

So now we're friends, Condi visits, dazzles Qaddafi, the oil companies move in to not only begin exploration, but to restore Libya's aging current oil infrastructure. France starts selling them jets! Who knows who else is selling them weapons? Everybody is happy!

But then, he's back to his old tricks, or they're just becoming known thanks to the Internet, YouTube, Facebook and the inspiration the Libyans draw from the people of Egypt.

Countries can't pretend like they don't know anymore. Talk of sanctions again. Big Oil, France and who knows what other profiteers are going "Sanctions? That'll hurt our business/industry/greed"

So France says hell yes, we'll go in first, we want to keep selling our planes to Libya. The US gets on board, Britain always does what the US does so they're there, too.

That's it in a nutshell and I paraphrased horribly but I think I got the salient points.

It's always the fucking money.

The end thus far.

Personal note: I'm still supporting this action and am hoping that regardless of the motivation, it will be over soon and these citizens will be able to carry on without being strafed by Qaddafi's jets, so this wasn't an argument either for or against, just a little background, according to Randi.

That should not in any way muddle the fact that action was asked for. No neocon conspiracies, no bullshit "expat" conspiracies, no bullshit "oil conspiracies."

from seeing the Egyptians succeed and knowing that citizens in other countries who have been oppressed are also rising up.

If it takes a financial scare/incentive to get France to act, so be it. As I said, regardless of the motivation, I just don't want these people to suffer any more.

Wish we could/would help other countries in need, too. We've got it bad here in so many ways, but we're nowhere near the oppression these people have been living under for so many years.

that and rots in a British jail.

he didn't do, and the guy is scary! What he's done to his own people, the squads he's trained, I even MORE want to see those poor people free from his terrifying regime! :scared:

creepy stuff right now. vibes to the rebels.

'something' in the lead up to the missile attack. Glad to know I didn't miss anything....sanctions weren't an option.

on behind the scene until WikiLeaks gets ahold of their e-mails! :7 Like I said, though, rings true to me. :hi:

drugs"), the war profiteering, the "military-industrial complex," the "prison-industrial complex," the bankster bailouts, the tax cuts for the rich, the "TRADE SECRET" code vote rigging, the filthy lobbying and all the rest of the bullshit we've been inflicted with, by our real rulers--our multinational corporate/war profiteer oligarchy--and rebelled with massive protests, and government overreaction prompted portions of the military to defect to the protestors, with arms, and civil war broke out, how restrained do you think our oligarchy would be in the use of military power to smash the armed rebellion? And WHO would have a right to create a "no fly zone" over the United States to stop the government from defending itself?

This is the question: The Gaddafi government was the legitimate government of Libya, recognized by the UN, by the U.S., by England, by France, by all of Europe, by all of the Middle East, by all of Africa, by the whole world. The U.S., England, France, Italy and others were happy to do business with this government. WHO has the right to take military action against Libya over an internal conflict? Everyone had the right to call for a ceasefire and negotiation, and to STOP doing business with Libya until its government agreed to an armistice and talks. But NO ONE had a right to use military force to support one side of a civil war.

A long long time ago--so long ago, it's hard to remember--war was considered a LAST RESORT. Now it has become a first resort--especially when the oil supply is at issue. That is very bad news, indeed. The U.S. and its allies will use force whenever they damn please, and invade whatever country they damn please, for whatever purpose they damn please. And in the U.S., that DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.

I agree that Libya presented a difficult dilemma. I strongly suspect, however, that the ranks of the democracy protestors in Libya were infiltrated, and that the rebellion was prematurely triggered to create conditions for U.S., British and European interference. They want to, and will, dictate who ends up ruling Libya. That's what they do.

And if the same situation occurred here, or in England, or in France, or in Italy, there would be NO QUESTION that the government has the right to defend itself against armed rebellion. In fact, they would help the U.S. government put down an armed rebellion here, in the interest of all of their multinational corporations, banksters and war profiteers. It's because Libya is an Arab/African country that they assume proprietary rights over its government and its oil. This has absolutely nothing to do with carnage or justice. Have we so quickly forgotten this week's carnage in the Forever War in Afghanistan, or the half decade of carnage that the U.S. inflicted on Iraq, or the carnage that our $7 BILLION in military aid has been used for in Colombia? Carnage means nothing to these powerbrokers! Absolutely nothing! This is NOT about democracy or justice. This is about OIL.

And I would have more respect for people calling for Gaddafi's head if they were also calling for Bush's head! But such low sentiments never do serve justice. I was appalled at the hanging death of Saddam Hussein. And I'm sure that that horrible image was exactly what the Bushwhacks wanted to impress upon the world, while avoiding a real trial in which their own filthy collaboration with Saddam Hussein might have been revealed. Death is never the answer. Life and truth are the answer. That's what we should aim at. Life. Truth. Killing MORE Libyans--with our planes and bombs--is NOT the answer to that situation. Negotiation was the right thing to do and it was not even tried (in so far as we can tell). Why? Because I think that this is what our actual U.S. rulers and their corporate allies in England and Europe wanted all along--the excuse to interfere and set up a government to their liking, for their maximum profit.

for all the war crimes (and others) he and his neo-cons committed (many of them similar to godhafi's crimes of torture).

BUT, WHen will that call for True Justice make it happen??????





http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x565627
p.s.: disgusting, isn't it?

...rather than reality.


If they'd all just stayed out of it, their business interest in Libya would not have changed.


And Gaddafi was not "up to his old tricks".

were imposed? They'd have to comply.

And I'm not sure what you mean by not "up to his old tricks" -- could you explain it? That was probably me and not RR saying it which is why I said I'd paraphrased poorly, but if you know something about him that we should, please explain.

It's up to you to explain what you mean by Gaddafi's "old tricks"? As far as I can tell, he just suddenly found himself in the middle of a massive wave of ME revolt. Until that happened just one month ago, there were no "old tricks" going on that I'm aware of.

my part.

Maybe "still up to" would have been better - I think he's always been pretty brutal towards his people, or segments of them anyway.

They'd have to impose the sanctions - how could they not? Members of the UN, supporters of freedom, etc.

If you don't agree with this, why do you think we're pursuing this?

I'm glad we are, by the way, as in the minority as I am, but I don't think a country takes action like this for purely altruistic reasons. It'd be nice, but I don't believe that's what we/they do.

"they" could have just as easily looked the other way.

Ain't going to be the Libyan people, that's for damn sure

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8369240/Libya-British-plans-to-strip-Gaddafi-of-oil-revenue.html

Qaddafi started trying to repair relations just before 9/11. In late August/early September 2001, he told the Bush administration that the oil leases he'd suspended after the 1986 bombings would expire in a year unless relations could be improved. Given the timing of that, I've never believed the bit about Bush's terror campaign having anything to do with Libyan-US relations. At the time it happened, there was no indication that it was anything but his own idea to try to normalize relations which, as I recall, he'd tried to do periodically in the years after Reagan.

Cameron was strongly on board way before Obama made up his mind.

The US is in this, but begrudgingly and slowly. That is the fact of it. We are not the leader in this, or the reason it came together.

Good point.

I'd never heard about his terror campaign having to do with Libya - always thought it was because Cheney had divvied up Iraq for the oil companies and they were waiting for the right opportunity to act on it. They "took advantage" of 9/11. That's always been my belief, anyway.

I'm not following about his suspending oil leases after the bombings in '86 - the suspensions were set to expire? I'm sure it's right in front of me in your post, but I seem to be missing something, just not understanding.