(Close Window)
Topic: Libya...
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Feb 24, 2011 04:26AM)
Yup, I brought it up.

Hope no more people get hurt or killed.

And they achieve what they set out to do.

Well, we can hope, can't we?
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 24, 2011 08:30AM)
I have no idea what to say about all of this. Just watching and waiting.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 24, 2011 09:02AM)
Dear Pakar Ilusi.

I hope that good people achieve their worthwhile aims, and that the designs of evil men are thwarted.

I hope that it can happen without any more bloodshed, but I remember what Thomas Jefferson once wrote.

It would be difficult for the people of Libya to establish a government any worse than what is there now.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 24, 2011 09:48AM)
Woland,

Perhaps on this one we can march together. :)
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (Feb 24, 2011 10:21AM)
Libya...is a mess.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 24, 2011 11:42AM)
Well, landmark, I am sure we are in lockstep on removing Qadhdhaffi, but I wonder what will come afterwards, even though it would be surprising if it could be any worse.

W.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 24, 2011 01:34PM)
"Nothing read in any post attributed to me can be 100% trusted as being written by me. "

Including that?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 24, 2011 02:44PM)
Libya? That charming country that almost killed me and my ship in the 80s? May their leader and his cronies be found hanging by meat hooks.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Feb 24, 2011 10:23PM)
And that Gadhaffi sure can ramble and ramble on about some weird theories as to why it is all happening...

Almost seems like he's gone over the deep end long ago.

Sad old man.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 24, 2011 10:24PM)
Did he stop spelling his name with a Q?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 24, 2011 10:31PM)
Gaddafi Fleeing with Gold, or “Going to go like Hitler”?

Short URL: http://www.goldalert.com/?p=11035
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 24, 2011 11:09PM)
Flee with the gold....

Did you see Saudi Arabia shook loose some funds for the people? I wonder if Chavez is starting to sweat a little.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Feb 24, 2011 11:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-24 23:24, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Did he stop spelling his name with a Q?
[/quote]

I like to spell it like that. ;)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 24, 2011 11:20PM)
I thought was a Q also. I was going with the hip new way to spell it.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 25, 2011 08:18AM)
About 20 years ago or more, Gadhafi announced the way he would like his name written with Roman orthography. I guess he figures the G is closer to the Arabic sounds than is the Q.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Feb 25, 2011 08:54AM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-25 09:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
About 20 years ago or more, Gadhafi announced the way he would like his name written with Roman orthography. I guess he figures the G is closer to the Arabic sounds than is the Q.
[/quote]

Thanks Magnus, that's how they spell it in my Country btw... ;)
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Feb 25, 2011 01:52PM)
I pray that the evil murderous dictator prevails- because the alternative is much much worse
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Feb 25, 2011 02:40PM)
If it says Libya Libya Libya on the label label label you will like it like it like it on your table table table. Just because.

Glen
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 25, 2011 03:35PM)
Oh come on now magicfish, the lefties feel the militant islamist are a good group of lads just frustrated by the existance of certain countries, religions, races, tribes, languages, and uppity women. They should do just fine running things if they take over.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 25, 2011 04:55PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-25 14:52, magicfish wrote:
I pray that the evil murderous dictator prevails- because the alternative is much much worse
[/quote]
Kaddafi with a K?

Seriously, I believe it's a transliteration thing. The Arabic sound is one that we don't have in English, and the G is a little closer. Similar to what happened to Chinese transliteration a while ago.

Even more seriously, what do you think is much much worse than an evil murderous dictator for four decades?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 25, 2011 05:17PM)
A yappy evil murderous dictator of four decades.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 25, 2011 05:36PM)
A yappy evil murderous dictator of four decades who wants to show you a little something with cards . . . don't worry it won't take too long . . . something like . . . maybe . . . SAM THE BELLHOP!!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 25, 2011 09:35PM)
Someone sent him a latter to ask. The reply came direct and was discussed on the news. That was a while ago. So what's really going on?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Feb 25, 2011 09:38PM)
Remember in history class when you had to analyze what was going on in different parts of the world during the few years leading up to WW2? Well folks, in the future, if there is one, kids will be analyzing these years for the same reason.
There were pacifists and politically correct lefties in 1939 as well. Thank God The allied triumvirate didn't listen to them. Here's a tip. Don't listen to them now.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 25, 2011 09:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-25 22:38, magicfish wrote:
Remember in history class when you had to analyze what was going on in different parts of the world during the few years leading up to WW2? Well folks, in the future, if there is one, kids will be analyzing these years for the same reason.
There were pacifists and politically correct lefties in 1939 as well. Thank God The allied triumvirate didn't listen to them. Here's a tip. Don't listen to them now.
[/quote]

Fish, this can either be the beginning of a series of peaceful revolutions, like with egypt, or the start of something terrible. That won't be determined by HOW other countries get involved, it will be IF.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Feb 25, 2011 09:47PM)
Are you kidding? Egypt? Peaceful? Wow. Don't kid yourself, Egypt is in dire straits.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 25, 2011 10:06PM)
Everything is relative Magicfish...compared to the Russian Revolution it was rather peaceful....I'm certain the military in Egypt after being in charge for decades will give it up, they are likely tired of it. Then they can share their tanks and gun boats with other friendly and peace loving arab nations, they would make wonderful parade floats after glueing flowers to them. Hey! Maybe they'll abolish govt and become pirates and join the Somalia Anarchy train!
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 25, 2011 10:12PM)
As Santa points out, as far as revolutions go, VERY peaceful. The point was that the revolters were peaceful. All the violence was being perpetrated by the pro mubarak crowds, or police inserted instigators.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Feb 25, 2011 10:13PM)
I realize, Santa, that the revolution itself was somewhat peaceful compared to the Russian or the French. The issue is that now the way is clear in Egypt for you no who. Same in Libya if kgquaddaaffiii falls.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 25, 2011 10:15PM)
Well....they had the guns. I walked right through an anti US protest in Israel the Arabs were putting on in full uniform. Had I seen the English version of their signs first rather than after going through I would have maybe walked slower, the looks on their lil' faces was so cute! You would'a thought I smacked their mamas.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 25, 2011 10:16PM)
Right now, the military is running things. Not that great of an option, but they have, so far, shown themselves to be decent with the people.

As far as leaving things open for islamic rule, as much as I don't care fro religion, and even more so don't care for "rules" at all, why the bigotry towards islam?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 25, 2011 10:21PM)
You're kidding right?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 25, 2011 10:49PM)
Which part, about the military, and the people getting along? At least they were last I heard.

Or asking about islam? In that case, are you asking if I'm kidding by saying there's bigotry, or kidding in wondering WHY there's bigotry?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 25, 2011 11:15PM)
It has been centuries since any of those countries were ran by other than Muslims. The problem is when fundimentalist Islamist take over, that is a completely different thing, ask any lib, they'll tell you. They tend to oppress their people, sponser terror activities, and are pretty much ****** bags. Your normal run o' the mill Muslim is fine, it's the crazy ones that people worry about for the most part. I don't think anyone believes that, say, a Baptist will be running Egypt six months from now and a Mormon leading Libya.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 26, 2011 02:19AM)
So far there has been very little evidence the people in any of these countries want theocracy - the great masses of them clearly want democracy. The same was actually true in Iran in the early days of the Revolution - and the ayatollahs claimed to have the same thing in mind but with the Shah's army distrusted the Revolutionary Guards were able to accumulate power and the current hideous situation came about.

Both Eygpt and Tunisia are in the fortunate position of having armies the people have some trust in and institutions that can ease the way forward - as a believer in democracy for all, I think we have to hope for the best, and acknowledge those two countries stand a decent chance of becoming moderate Moslem democracies. Libya is very different - unlike in most countries, the Libyan armed forces are not a distinct entity. Also the public servants and civil institutions only know how to serve the Ghaddafi family - the colonel has been in power for over 40 years and has brooked no dissent, let alone opposition. The thing that may save them is the tribal structure which he co-opted after unsuccessfully trying to destroy. If the tribes can get along for a while, as they seem to be doing now, there is a chance for the place.

There seems little chance of much Iranian influence - most North African Moslems are Sunni - there's only really Bahrain of the present protest countries where there's a chance of Shia contagion. Importantly it's obvious the people do not want radical Islamist leadership - they do not want theocracy or autocracy - their every word is for democracy - and they are dieing for those words, so I believe them.

Hopefully the democratic countries can help them achieve that goal at the expense of the ambition of Khamenei, bin Laden and similar nut jobs.

*** Just to the north of me is the world's most populous Moslem country - Indonesia - and it is - a moderate Moslem democracy. The Indonesians managed to get rid of Suharto, a general in the Mubarak/Ghaddafi mould, just over a decade ago, and have established a thriving and successful democracy, which is actually so mature they now have the balls to go after local extremists. Before Suharto's downfall there was very real fear that without the strongman, extremists would flourish - the opposite has been the case.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 26, 2011 10:18AM)
Well, Destiny, I don't think the Iranian people in 1979 wanted 40 years of state-run mullah-run terror, either. But that's what they got, because Khomeini and his gang were organized, and ruthless. Same as in St. Petersburg in 1917-1918. Same as in Paris in 1789-1792. To believe that the same actions repeated again and again will (magically?) produce a different result this time is . . . . insane? Google exec Wael Ghonim found himself booted off the platform as soon as al-Qaradawi made the scene . . . . in Egypt the high command of the military has ruled the country since 1952, and since 1952 has been involved in a deadly struggle with the Ikhwan. It appears that the military high command is still firmly and absolutely in control. But the fact that they found it necessary to depose Mubarak has created an opening for the Ikhwan. A violent struggle is likely to ensue, and I am not certain of the outcome, this round.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Feb 26, 2011 12:11PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-26 00:15, MagicSanta wrote:
It has been centuries since any of those countries were ran by other than Muslims. The problem is when fundimentalist Islamist take over, that is a completely different thing, ask any lib, they'll tell you. They tend to oppress their people, sponser terror activities, and are pretty much ****** bags. Your normal run o' the mill Muslim is fine, it's the crazy ones that people worry about for the most part. I don't think anyone believes that, say, a Baptist will be running Egypt six months from now and a Mormon leading Libya.
[/quote]

I concur.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 26, 2011 01:55PM)
What they should want is no government. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e2aRfqp1sY
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 26, 2011 05:10PM)
Thanks for the response. I imagined most didn't want ANY kind of fundamentalist in charge.
Just referring to islam didn't make that clear
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 26, 2011 05:17PM)
Well, you gotta use a little bit of common sense. Did you think people had no problem with Budhist or Jewish fundimentalist taking over as leaders of countries with close to 100% Muslim populations?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 27, 2011 01:06AM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-26 11:18, Woland wrote:
Well, Destiny, I don't think the Iranian people in 1979 wanted 40 years of state-run mullah-run terror, either. But that's what they got, because Khomeini and his gang were organized, and ruthless.
Woland
[/quote]
And because under the Shah, with explicit US help, anyone to the left of the Islamic fundamentalists were ruthlessly exterminated. By eliminating democratic elements, the Shah and the US set the stage for the fundamentalist revival.

Egypt is in slightly better situation; though Mubarak outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, it had more legitimacy and was always composed of both non-fundamentalists as well as fundamentalists.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 27, 2011 06:42AM)
Well, landmark, that statement is completely false. The Shah did not eliminate his opposition, in fact they were still around when Dhimmi Carter gave them the green light to topple his regime. It was Khomeini and his gang (whom the New Duranty Times and the rest of the American liberal intelligentsia claimed were moderates who were going to create a truly humane regime) who did that. The American left is indulging in the same sort of fantasies about the Ikhwan, because to leftists, anybody who wants to destroy their own country and their own culture must be, at heart, a good guy. Lefties imagine that everyone else who is opposed to capitalism and opposed to the United States must be motivated by the same sort of thoughts and feelings that motivate them. But they aren't. And eventually the lefties will sip their lattes and read about it in the pages of the New Duranty Times, and move on to their next fantasy. But the people of Egypt will pay a heavy price - as the Iranians have paid a heavy price.

To return, however, to the topic - for the Libyans, almost anything would be better than daffy Qadhdhafi.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 27, 2011 01:59PM)
I know this will hurt a lot of feelings but there are some countries where clearly a strong hand was needed to keep people from behaving like barbarians in the year 938 AD. There are millions of people out there just chomping at the bit to murder millions of other people because they followed a different mullah four hundred years ago or because their tribe considered themselves better than another tribe. In the countries in question even after these turn overs of control the group with the most ability to dominate everyone else will take over. It is hard to have a democracy in a place where the losing side is always pondering how to kill off the winning side.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 27, 2011 02:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-27 14:59, MagicSanta wrote:
It is hard to have a democracy in a place where the losing side is always pondering how to kill off the winning side.
[/quote]

All things considered, I think it works pretty well in the USA.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 27, 2011 02:34PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-27 15:32, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-27 14:59, MagicSanta wrote:
It is hard to have a democracy in a place where the losing side is always pondering how to kill off the winning side.
[/quote]

All things considered, I think it works pretty well in the USA.
[/quote]

I heard Conor Cruise O'Brien make the case that the Achilles heel of democracy is that it relies on a series of short-term popularity contests, with large disincentives for long-term planning. As he noted, the West has been very fortunate for 200 years with almost all of the elected governments playing nicely. It's sobering. But what alternative is there?

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 27, 2011 02:49PM)
Worst form of government except for all the others?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 27, 2011 04:52PM)
Actually, I think the Italians had the right idea for many years. Don't allow a government to remain in power for more than a year or so, and that limits the damage they can do . . . .

W.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 27, 2011 05:04PM)
A day is a long time in politics.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 27, 2011 08:18PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-27 07:42, Woland wrote:
Well, landmark, that statement is completely false. The Shah did not eliminate his opposition . . .

Woland
[/quote]
"An immediate consequence of the coup d'état was the repression of all political dissent, specially the liberal and nationalist opposition umbrella group National Front as well as the (Communist) Tudeh party, and concentration of political power in the Shah and his courtiers.[102] . . .

As part of the post-coup d'état political repression between 1953–1958, the Shah outlawed the National Front, and arrested most of its leaders.[105] The Tudeh, however, bore the main brunt of the repression.[106] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 27, 2011 08:38PM)
I reallllly don't think communist have any highground when it comes to complaining about oppression, murder, or anything else of that nature.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 27, 2011 08:50PM)
Well, landmark, there's no doubt that the Shah had a heavy hand. But the actions of the Shah, as harsh as they might have seemed to the students who used to have a protest table demanding action on the Washington mall, were nothing compared to the cruelties of the Khomeini regime. Just as the Tsar's repressions were child's play compared to the crimes of the Bolsheviks.

Oh, and those same students were back a year after the fall of the Shah, with an almost identical table, protesting Khomeini and demanding action against him.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 27, 2011 09:07PM)
I was responding to your statement that the Shah did not eliminate his leftist opposition. He did for the most part. And that was important because it left the field wide open for the fundamentalists to become the major opposition to the Shah. So in a sense, the anti-leftism of the Shah and the US were directly responsible for the Khomeni regime. I am assuming that the Egyptian Army and the US will not repeat the same mistake, but we'll see.
Message: Posted by: edh (Feb 27, 2011 09:13PM)
I wonder why Gadhafi didn't promote himself to general when he took power.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 27, 2011 09:45PM)
Just wondering....they are banning travel to Libya to teach 'em a lesson. How many of you had Libya on your vacation list and more importantly how many added it to your bucket list since the riots started?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 27, 2011 09:46PM)
Well, landmark, the Egyptian military high command took control of Egypt in 1952, when they exiled King Farouk. The military have ruled Egypt ever since, first through the figurehead General Naguib, then through the megalomaniac dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser, then through the military dictatorships of Anwar Al Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. Nothing in Egypt has changed. There has been no revolution. The military high command is still in charge of the country. Tahrir Square has been cleared. There is no constitution. There is no parliament. There will be elections . . . that will be as open and honest as the elections that have been held since 1952. The only danger to the military is that the apparent upheaval will create a breathing-space in which the Ikhwan can grow powerful enough to prevent themselves from being crushed, again, and this time come to dominate the country. Right now, doesn't look like that will happen, but time will tell.

As for your arguments about the Shah, I am reminded of Robespierre's defense against the Montagne when he was accused of using the Terror to eliminate his opposition; had he done that, how could they be opposing him now?

(And yes, the first use of the term "the Terror" to describe a political institution was during the French Revolution.)

Woland
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 27, 2011 09:46PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-27 22:13, edh wrote:
I wonder why Gadhafi didn't promote himself to general when he took power.
[/quote]

Perhaps because the title President comes with the title of commander-inichief of all armed forces ?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 27, 2011 11:04PM)
How can you not love this Woland fellow?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 28, 2011 04:19AM)
Thanks, MagicSanta . . . by the way, that question about Colonel Qadhdhafi is interesting. There have been many coups staged by Colonels, one by a Master Sergeant . . . most of them retain their rank . . . something about young men with a mission . . . or something.

W.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 28, 2011 07:03AM)
More jealous, like Iago?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 28, 2011 09:15AM)
Good analogy. I think it has something to do with the fact that 1) in most of these countries there are probably a lot more colonels than there are generals, and 2) the generals are probably OK with the way things are, that's why they were picked to be generals. The colonels are likely to have the moxie and enough direct contact with the troops to pull it off.

W.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 28, 2011 02:08PM)
I don't know if this is anarchy in action or the spontaneous emergence of popular government, [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0226/Across-liberated-eastern-Libya-volunteerism-and-a-pulling-together]but it seems like good news:[/url]

[quote]As US officials struggle to understand the quickly unfolding events, a predominant concern is that chaos and civil war could emerge after Mr. Qaddafi’s one-man rule is dispatched – if he doesn’t manage to sow it himself first.

But Umm Ahmed, head of the management committee for Benghazi’s new transitional city council, has a message for Washington: Don’t worry.

“Yes, there are no police, no institutions. Law and order as defined doesn’t exist,” she says. “But in practice, Benghazi is incredibly safe. Safer than it was under Qaddafi. People are all volunteering, the banks are opening. We surprised even ourselves.”[/quote]

[quote]Jalal Galaal, a businessman who’s acting to bring together the city council and local interests, says businessmen and government officials started showing up last week at the courthouse – a focal point for protesters – asking what should be done.

“The guy who runs the gas pumping station that feeds the power plants here showed up and said 'I need help,' ” says Mr. Galaal. “We simply told him to get his people together and come up with a list. Wahda Bank said it needed protection. I think we sent a few guards, but once they saw things were safe here, they mostly organized things for themselves.”[/quote]

Let's hope that things continue developing in a positive direction.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 28, 2011 04:11PM)
Sounds good to me. So far, we're together on this W.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 28, 2011 09:15PM)
I found this an interesting read

It shows that all our divergent opinions here hold some truth.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/2011225181951493541.html
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 28, 2011 09:59PM)
What's sad is how well they will work now will all be tossed aside once they write their constitution, and try to institute structure, pretty much ignoring the structure they created themselves without it being institutionalized.

In the mean time, things seem to work quite well. As long as they don't try to keep everything operating via *communism, they may be good.

*Communism CAN work, either in small communes, unto themselves, or on a larger scale, but only temporarily.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Mar 1, 2011 02:31AM)
Yes - what a shame they won't want to live in La La Land.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2011 07:52AM)
US sending warships.
Okay, I don't like it.
I heard a Libyan on the radio (yes one isolated person means nothing but FWIW) who says the protesters don't want US interference, especially not air power. They have bad memories of US air power in the Middle East.
The oil boys will be there faster than you can say Dick Cheney.
What do you think?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 09:29AM)
For once, you are right. One isolated person's voice means nothing.

It will be to Libya's advantage to be able to do business with companies from countries that have been avoiding dealing with the Qadhdhafi regime.

Libya has a population of 6 million people and normally pumps 1.6 million barrels of oil per day. At a low-ball average price of $50 a barrel, that would work out to a gross income of close to 100 million dollars a day, roughly 30 billion dollars a year. Despite, that, from all accounts, the country is a shambles.

Woland
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 2, 2011 09:35AM)
He ain't lost the fight yet.
Message: Posted by: Erwin (Mar 2, 2011 09:42AM)
He unveiled his secret weapon this afternoon. Expect two fingers in the eyes if you plan to interfere in the affairs of the State of the Masses.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 01:37PM)
I will miss the wardrobe changes.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 01:59PM)
Imagine what would happen if the people still didn't love Guadafi....
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 2, 2011 02:41PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-02 10:29, Woland wrote:

It will be to Libya's advantage to be able to do business with companies from countries that have been avoiding dealing with the Qadhdhafi regime.
[/quote]
Which countries are those, or which are you thinking of? There were about 70 or more Canadian companies operating in Libya at the start of 2011, and Canada is said to be one of the smaller players in Libya. Various U.S. companies have been lobbying to keep access to Libya open for a number of years now:

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/02/23/u-s-companies-lobbied-to-keep-libyan-market-open-for-business-2/

Not to mention Russia and others. So, I mean, it just seems like the big players are already in Libya doing business. So, I am just wondering who is missing.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 2, 2011 02:54PM)
[img]http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Libya/images/2011%20Oil%20Exports%20by%20Destination.gif[/img]
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 02:55PM)
Papua new guinea...they are chomping at the bit to get in there.

Petrolium related companies are still widely controlled by the DOC. Interesting since a lot of military manufacturing isn't. This means if a company from the US goes to Libya every item, from pencils up, are restricted and require licensing. Neat huh?
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Mar 2, 2011 02:58PM)
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7p4x2Hg9GTY/TW00_6NkEmI/AAAAAAAACrk/ia3_aXPpIiw/s1600/Ships%2BHappen.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 03:05PM)
An apt cartoon, Scott. Up until a few weeks ago, the Libyan regime was the darling of the international community. In 2003, Libya was elected to the Chairmanship of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Didn't they know about Qadhdhafi then? Of course they did.

At the moment, it's clear that Qadhdhafi is the bad guy. After that, who knows what will happen. Again, as I've said, it is very hard to think that anybody would be worse than Qadhdhafi.

W.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 2, 2011 03:08PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-02 16:05, Woland wrote:
An apt cartoon, Scott. Up until a few weeks ago, the Libyan regime was the darling of the international community. In 2003, Libya was elected to the Chairmanship of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Didn't they know about Qadhdhafi then? Of course they did.
[/quote]
Not to mention, in 2004 Bush lifted sanctions.

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132937,00.html[/url]
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 2, 2011 03:09PM)
Two tea drinkers confused about international politics? For shame, Scott! We don't need that sort of partisan humour here. Lol.

Anyway, I present ... Gaddafi's bunker: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L1hWPGVcB0[/url]

Around 1:40 into the video, you can learn some of which countries' companies have their stamps on the bunker equipment. Any guesses?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 2, 2011 03:28PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-02 16:05, Woland wrote:
Up until a few weeks ago, the Libyan regime was the darling of the international community.

W.
[/quote]

:rotf: Now that is about as much nonsense as I've ever read at the Café. And that's saying something.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 03:29PM)
So he bought things made in Switzerland and America. That's supposed to be outrageous?

W.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 2, 2011 04:03PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-02 16:29, Woland wrote:

So he bought things made in Switzerland and America. That's supposed to be outrageous?
[/quote]
No, not at all. And no one made any such claim about it being outrageous.

It was just something I came across that coincidentally fit into the whole 'which countries are doing business with Gaddifi' thing.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 2, 2011 04:22PM)
American intervention, why not, it worked so well with somalia.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 05:14PM)
The fact that Qadhdhafi owned something manufactured in the United States doesn't necessarily prove he bought it from an American company.

W.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 2, 2011 05:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-02 18:14, Woland wrote:

The fact that Qadhdhafi owned something manufactured in the United States doesn't necessarily prove he bought it from an American company.
[/quote]
Well, sure. But given how many U.S. companies were / are openly operating and / or lobbying to do business in Libya, there is no reason to imagine that he did not.

Woland, I'm honestly not trying to start an argument. But I still wonder about your earlier comment about companies in countries not wanting to do business with Gaddafi. Which countries did you have in mind?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 06:14PM)
I'm confused by the issues here. I realize lefties love it when people in small countries kill each other off, they can blame the govt of the US. Lets face it, the left has been slaughtering the peasants in countries for decades, it is their thing, makes them feel good. That explains why they don't want the US to stop the killing, better the killing than looking like the US cares about lives eh?

As for US companies they have been trying to get contracts in Libya ever since the poor Lockerbee bomber was sent home to gasp out his last few breaths in his homeland, say, what side do you think he is on? Oh well. Back to companies, they returned after the ban was lifted but after companies from other countries that are less worried about things like oppression were already in there. They can do so legally, they being US companies, and I'm not sure how effective it has been. I know, I know, of all the companies in the world the US ones are the ones that pollute and build upon the ground up bodies of the worker, yeah yeah, but they were allowed in. Regan started the ban, Bush the Younger lifted it....there, everyone happy?

Oh, there is one consideration you need to remember. Antiboycott language in contracts. Biiiig issue in the Middle East and North Africa. If you have a contract that states that you cannot do business in Israel while doing business with Allah Oil in country X then you cannot accept that contract. Antiboycott...remember it. I'm not sure if Libya has that language in it but Saudi Arabia was notorious for slipping in into banking documents and other forms and they, by law, had to be rejected. Good times!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 2, 2011 06:49PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-02 19:14, MagicSanta wrote:
I'm confused by the issues here. I realize lefties love it when people in small countries kill each other off, they can blame the govt of the US. Lets face it, the left has been slaughtering the peasants in countries for decades, it is their thing, makes them feel good. That explains why they don't want the US to stop the killing, better the killing than looking like the US cares about lives eh?

[/quote]

I want names. Who are these "lefties that love it when people in small countries kill each other off." Out with it!

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 06:51PM)
You, Landster, Balducci when it doesn't interfere with his closet capitalist true self, the usual suspects. I admit I don't care if they kill each other off.
Message: Posted by: critter (Mar 2, 2011 08:16PM)
I'll bet Libya has awesome food. There's this Gyro stand at my school that has this Middle Eastern Muslim guy working it who plays the Muslim chant music all the time. Clashes strangely with the music from the espresso stand across the aile from it. The Muslim dude's stand always smells good. Might try it sometime if I ever have cash on me.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 08:22PM)
Forget gyro, you want Shawarma....oh yeah baby! If you are ever in San Jose there is a falafal joint that has been there at least 40 years on Stevens Creek Blvd right before you get to highway 680 on the downtown side.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2011 08:37PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-02 19:51, MagicSanta wrote:
You, Landster, Balducci when it doesn't interfere with his closet capitalist true self, the usual suspects. I admit I don't care if they kill each other off.
[/quote]
John, Balducci, and I, or the peasants? :angrypirate:
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 08:41PM)
The peasants, I love you guys. If I go to NYC I want to do two things, hang out with Landmark and irritate Derick Vernon.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 2, 2011 08:53PM)
Santa is correct, Shawarma is pretty tasty.

[quote]
On 2011-03-02 21:41, MagicSanta wrote:
If I go to NYC I want to ... irritate Derick Vernon.
[/quote]
Lol. Whatever did he do to you? You ever catch his posts at Genii?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 2, 2011 09:14PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-02 19:51, MagicSanta wrote:
You, Landster, Balducci when it doesn't interfere with his closet capitalist true self, the usual suspects. I admit I don't care if they kill each other off.
[/quote]

Aww you're so cute, Santa. I'm trying to figure out which death and destruction I've ever supported. Give me time, I'm sure it'll hit me eventually.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 09:17PM)
Dear Magnus,

That you were unaware of how the international elite lionized Qadhdhafi and his regime does not make it any less true. Just one example, [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362029/Gaddafi-supported-Blairs-cronies-ex-MI6-chiefs-LSE-millions.html]the illustrious career of the tyrant's son, Saif-al-Islam (it means "the Sword of Islam") Qadhdhafi at the celebrated (and very left) London School of Economics:[/url]

[quote]The Boston-based Monitor Group is an influential organisation which advises governments as well as major corporations on international issues.

Yet it carried out an intriguing task for the student Gaddafi. When Saif arrived at the LSE in September 2002 to do his doctorate (The Role of Civil Society in the Democratisation of Global Governance Institutions: From ‘Soft Power’ to Collective Decision-Making), he needed interviews with powerful people on which to base his thesis.

No fewer than 40 such interviews were carried out on his behalf by the Monitor Group. His resulting thesis, and the PhD which the LSE awarded him, was based on these interviews, none of which he did himself.

In addition, a row has erupted over Gaddafi Jnr’s apparent plagiarism of whole sections of other people’s work for his thesis. This brings another Blair crony into the unsavoury episode, economist Lord Desai, the academic who interviewed him about the thesis and who insists he found everything satisfactory.

Six years earlier, when Saif had arrived at the LSE he was welcomed by its then director Anthony (now Lord) Giddens — Blair’s favourite New Labour philosophical guru. As well as dreaming up the ‘Third Way’, he also advocated, in a Reith lecture, ‘casual coupling’ sex without responsibility on the grounds that in a high-divorce society, there is ‘an implicit understanding that family relationships are impermanent’.

In 2007, a year before Saif completed his heroic PhD, Giddens visited Gaddafi Senior to talk to him about democracy. Afterwards he wrote an article for The Guardian, confidently predicting that Gaddafi would lead the way to political reform. ‘As one-party states go, Libya is not especially repressive. Gaddafi seems genuinely popular,’ he wrote. This despite the thousands known to have been killed by Gaddafi’s henchmen.

Saif hadn’t yet been cavorting with Peter Mandelson or Nat Rothschild on billionaire Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s yacht at that time — all this was to follow. But it was obvious to everyone that the oil-rich dictator’s son was the heir apparent.

Some see the LSE’s Professor David Held as among the biggest fools, if you like, in this unsavoury saga. For four years, as Saif did his thesis, the international politics specialist was his adviser. He was also put on the board of the LSE’s North African research programme, a charity set up and funded by Saif Gaddafi. Professor Held introduced Saif to the audience when the dictator’s son — astonishingly, you may think — delivered the Ralph Miliband Memorial lecture, an annual occasion dedicated to Labour leader Ed Miliband’s Communist father who taught at the LSE and remains one of its most revered figures.

‘I’ve come to know Saif as someone who looks to democracy, civil society and deep liberal values as the core of his inspiration,’ boomed Professor Held. ‘I look forward to how he will apply these.’ Hmm...

The ‘wise’ professor has since admitted he seems to have got Saif wrong. At the LSE, there seems to have been hardly anyone — other than Fred Halliday — who didn’t.

Just the other week, Professor Held and LSE colleagues Dr Alia Brahimi and Dr Kristian Coates Ulrichsen jointly published an article about the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, which completely failed to see an uprising occurring in Libya.

They talked of ‘the failures of corrupt and repressive autocratic regimes’, but found that Libya was less likely to undergo any revolution. ‘In Libya,’ they wrote, ‘more pronounced tribalism has drawn larger circles of people into the regime’s orbit and given them a stake in society.’

Dr Brahimi, 30, who is of Algerian-American background and was educated at Stowe and Oxford, met Saif on a number of occasions and believed she had got to know and understand him.

Perhaps not surprisingly, it was the glamorous Dr Brahimi whom the university authorities chose to fly to Crete for a meeting with Saif in order to obtain his ‘objectives and expectations’ on how his £1.5million donation should be spent. They also met in London, most recently just before Christmas.

‘I’ve got nothing to apologise for,’ she said last night. ‘Saif told me he was keen that democratic reform should happen soon in Libya.

‘He was saying: “Let’s have civil society workshops all through Ramadan.” He couldn’t have been more in favour of liberal reforms.’

She admits now that she and her colleagues were ‘fooled’.[/url]

Saif-al-Islam delivered the Miliband Lecture!

Wake up, Magnus, and smell the schawarma . . . .

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 09:18PM)
Come John...you likely have a special name for it. Landmark, we had a special place for Derick to go nuts once and he got mad and left after we teased him.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 2, 2011 09:40PM)
LOL Woland. That diatribe is a long way from your earlier statement that "up until a few weeks ago, the Libyan regime was the darling of the international community." As near as I can tell, you've excerpted an article that criticizes the LSE's involvement in Saif Gaddafi's (the dictator's son) PhD thesis, claiming that a Boston-based group did much of the data gathering and that the thesis was partially plagiarized.

How is this evidence that "up until a few weeks ago, the Libyan regime was the darling of the international community"?

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 2, 2011 10:32PM)
I think China will move puppet government into Libya like they have done in the US and the UK.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 10:39PM)
I'm sure Guadafi is loved by many different countries....they want his oil after all and if there was any love lost for the US by Libya that is enough to think they are wonderful. Yemen already tried the ol' " it is the fault of the US and the evil Jews! " routine but it hasn't worked yet, I bet Guadafi tries it next. I noticed the protesters, to insult Guadafi, put up signs saying "Guadafi the Jew!".
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 3, 2011 03:51AM)
Well, Magnus, it's just one piece of evidence. One example.

Another example is the fact that Libya was made the Chair country of the UN Human Rights Commission in 2003.

From Chairman of the UNHRC to pariah -- that's a swift change.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 3, 2011 08:33AM)
I recommend you read how they came to chair that committee, Woland. The Libyan candidate was the only nominee. To force the issue, the USA called for a vote in protest. 33 countries voted for the only candidate running, 3 voted against and 17 abstained as a protest. Immediately following the vote, criticism was fast and forceful from pretty much every Western nation and every NGO you could imagine.

Following the vote, a BBC correspondent wrote "this was widely seen as part of the unofficial quid pro quo Libya had negotiated in return for financing the newly-created African Union, the successor to the Organisation of African Unity, which was formed last year.

Defending Libya was Seif Gaddafi: "We have a better human rights record than our neighbours. Sure, we are not Switzerland or Denmark; we are part of the Third World and part of the Middle East. But we are better than our neighbours".

I don't see how any of this adds up to Libya being "the darling of the international community" by any stretch of the imagination.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 3, 2011 11:58AM)
Well, Magnus, obviously the ONLY nominee MUST have been the darling of the international community at the UN.

Q.E.D.


W.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Mar 3, 2011 12:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-03 12:58, Woland wrote:
Well, Magnus, obviously the ONLY nominee MUST have been the darling of the international community at the UN.

Q.E.D.


W.
[/quote]

Much good it's doing them now. :P
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 3, 2011 12:32PM)
People are so fickle . . . .

There are some thoughts about Libya's erstwhile foreign friends (The Top Ten Toads) from Walter Russell Mead of Bard College [url=http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/03/03/the-mead-list-worlds-top-ten-gaddafi-toads/]here.[/url] It is really too long and too good to excerpt. There are some pictures of Qadhdhafi in his motley regalias, with Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair.

Here is a sample:

[quote]Anybody can suck up to a bloodspattered, psychotic dictator for money. This is presumably what happened to the clueless (and in many cases poor) traditional tribal rulers and elders of Africa who, presumably in exchange for oil money stolen from the Libyan people, pretended to confer the meaningless title of Africa’s “King of Kings” on the Exalted Loon.

But it takes a special kind of ugly to betray human rights on the scale of the UN’s infamous “Human Rights Commission,” a body whose members not only refused to resign en masse rather than see Libya seated on it, they went on to elect (by secret ballot, to protect the abjectly depraved from the just contempt of the civilized world) a representative of Gaddafi’s Libya to the chairmanship of this self-parodying collection of imbeciles and lickspittles.

It was not enough to elevate a representative of one of the world’s most repressive regimes to this position of honor; the preposterously misnamed “Human Rights Commission” went on to ban an actual and authentic human rights group from its meetings (Reporters Without Borders) for daring to criticize this decision.

Said Reporters Without Borders about the Gaddafi henchwoman Najat al-Hajjajia selected to lead the UNHRC: “Censorship, arbitrary detention, jailings, disappearances, torture; at last the UN has appointed someone who knows what she’s talking about.”

To the everlasting shame of all concerned, there was no mass resignation of countries from this panel in protest of these monstrosities; a special dishonorable mention goes to the professional staff of this organization who held their noses and cashed their checks even as a human rights organization was set in the service of evil and oppression.[/quote]

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 3, 2011 02:11PM)
This is fine, Woland. But again, it's irrelevant to your claim that "up until a few weeks ago, the Libyan regime was the darling of the international community."

Perhaps you'd like to amend it to "a handful of Westerners were deceived, bought out or were just plain foolish enough to support a handful of Libyan thugs". I'd agree with that. Heck an even bigger handful of Westerners were and are prepared to ignore human rights abuses if there's a buck to be made.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 3, 2011 02:32PM)
The presiding officials of the UN and all of the UN ambassadors, their superiors in their home governments, and so on, are hardly a handful of Westerners. The prime ministers of the UK, of Italy, France, and other world leaders are hardly a handful of Westerners.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 3, 2011 02:46PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-03 15:32, Woland wrote:
The presiding officials of the UN and all of the UN ambassadors, their superiors in their home governments, and so on, are hardly a handful of Westerners. The prime ministers of the UK, of Italy, France, and other world leaders are hardly a handful of Westerners.

Woland
[/quote]

What words or actions of these people indicate that ""up until a few weeks ago, the Libyan regime was the darling of the international community."

Seriously. Do you you have quotations? Actions? Votes you can attribute to any of these officials?

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 3, 2011 03:05PM)
Did you read W.R. Mead's complete article?

A few examples:

[quote]Blair went a lot farther than that; Baroness Symons, his special representative to the Middle East, made the gratuitously disgusting comment that Libya’s people “recognised and valued” Gaddafi’s regime.[/quote]

[quote]In 2008 Berlusconi pledged $5 billion in “reparations” for Italy’s sins while it kept Libya under colonial rule for much of the 20th century; the next year he sent the Italian air force to put on a special show for Gaddafi’s birthday.[/quote]

[quote]“Written off not long ago as an implacable despot, Gaddafi is a complex and adaptive thinker as well as an efficient, if laid-back, autocrat. Unlike almost any other Arab ruler, he has exhibited an extraordinary capacity to rethink his country’s role in a changed and changing world.“ (Benjamin Barber)[/quote]

[quote]"First, although Libya is far from a democracy, it also doesn't feel like other police states that I have visited. I caught no whiff of an omnipresent security service -- which is not to say that they aren't there -- and there were fewer police or military personnel on the streets than one saw in Franco's Spain. The Libyans with whom I spoke were open and candid and gave no sign of being worried about being overheard or reported or anything like that." (Stephen Walt) [/quote]

Of course this sort of thing, particularly from the academy is nothing new. We got the same sort of tripe about the CCCP from Lincoln Steffens and the Webbs, for example.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 3, 2011 03:56PM)
John, I checked and there is no one from the International Community who has used the words 'darling' to describe anything. The fact is when Guadaffi acted like he was open to the West the West generally welcomed him with open arms. So Woland is correct in that relative to his stand a few years ago he became the darling of the int'l community as that is a term used for something like that. It is as if someone was called 'the toast of the town', it doesn't mean that a photo exist of a now brown and crusty person popping out of a table top appliance.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 3, 2011 04:10PM)
Well, I'm not going to waste much more time over this. If you dig long enough--as Woland undoubtedly has--you can find comments like the ones above. Not one of them praised the Libyan state as the original quotation suggested. Instead we get a comment that Libyans value the regime, reparation payments over actions taken long before Gaddafi seized power, comments that Gaddafi is intelligent, and that as police states go, there are far worse.

How any of these add up to "up until a few weeks ago, the Libyan regime was the darling of the international community" is beyond me.

Santa, maybe you and Woland have very low standards for "darling" and "toast of the town". The claim that I responded to suggested that "the international community"--whatever that is--thought very highly of Gadaffi's regime. Sorry, nothing posted to support this proposition goes any further than "things could be more repugnant, I suppose..."

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 3, 2011 04:17PM)
Well, Magnus, at least you wouldn't find Stephen Harper in that crowd, and I say "Thanks, Canada!" for that, too.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 3, 2011 04:18PM)
I doubt they found his regime to be wonderful but they certainly were making an effort to make him feel at home with, the hope I think, of bringing about change when he saw the awards that could be had for playing ball. He didn't see it though and realized he needed a firm grip to keep control.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 3, 2011 04:27PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-03 17:18, MagicSanta wrote:
I doubt they found his regime to be wonderful but they certainly were making an effort to make him feel at home with, the hope I think, of bringing about change when he saw the awards that could be had for playing ball. He didn't see it though and realized he needed a firm grip to keep control.
[/quote]

I agree with you.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 3, 2011 04:30PM)
I figured you would. I hope they toss Guadaffi's arse out and they get their oil flowing and actually use it for some good for the people but I doubt it. Someone else will step in and start his forty years.
Message: Posted by: spatlind (Mar 3, 2011 08:54PM)
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-historical-narrative-that-lies-beneath-the-gaddafi-rebellion-2230654.html

Last two paragraphs are interesting
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Mar 3, 2011 09:06PM)
Is there one single person here who ever entertained a single doubt, for even a moment, that Ghaddafi was behind the Lockerbie bombing?

The fact that governments and international organisations could turn a blind eye to that, shows the problems in international diplomacy.

Even if it's deemed convenient not to punish such actions, they should not be ignored. The truth should be acknowledged.

There was a lot to be said for the South African Truth and Reconciliation process.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 4, 2011 09:14AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-03 15:32, Woland wrote:
The presiding officials of the UN and all of the UN ambassadors, their superiors in their home governments, and so on, are hardly a handful of Westerners. The prime ministers of the UK, of Italy, France, and other world leaders are hardly a handful of Westerners.

Woland
[/quote]
I'm confused about your position. Are you saying that Berlusconi and Sarkozy are leftists? And why the conspicuous absence of the US govt on your list?. In 2004 (Bush the Lesser was president then, remember?), the US resumed diplomatic relations with Libya after over 20 years. The US also revoked the status of Libya as a terrorist state and unfroze its assets. In 2006, Libya established an embassy here. And of course substantial more trade was allowed with Libya.

So unless by international darling you mean to include the US as led by Bush, your statement is disinformation, misinformation, or you think Bush is a leftist.

Santa, I'm still not getting clear what your incident was with Vernon's son.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 4, 2011 09:26AM)
In the paragraph you quote above, I don't think I used the term leftist. I was pointing out that the Qadhdhafi regime was treated quite nicely by the UN and by "the international community." But since you brought it up, leftists such as Hugo Chavez also loved Qadhdhafi.

W.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 5, 2011 08:49AM)
Sometimes you do have to go to Canada to get the real news. [url=http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/world/adopt+report+praising+Libya+record/4363104/story.html]The Ottawa Citizen reports:[/url]

[quote]The UN Human Rights Council is set to adopt a major report hailing Libya's human rights record -- despite moving to suspend the Arab country's council membership amid an international outcry over attacks on civilians.

The report shows countries applauding and commending Libya as they note "with appreciation the country's commitment to upholding human rights on the ground."

Even Canada "welcomed improvements" Libya made "in its respect for human rights," according to the report, which is scheduled for a vote before the Geneva-based 47-member council March 18. But the Canadian government also made several critically framed recommendations to the Gadhafi regime, including one calling for reinforced measures aimed at fully investigating torture claims.

The 23-page report was compiled as part of the council's "Universal Periodic Review" -- a process the UN bills as a rigorous scrutiny of the human rights records of each UN member state every four years.[/quote]

You gotta love the UN. Libya -- still the darling of the international community.

Woland
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 5, 2011 09:08AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-02 23:32, tommy wrote:
I think China will move puppet government into Libya like they have done in the US and the UK.
[/quote]
who whoa whoa. A little consistency please. I thought you said the US was the almighty Satan. Now it's China? Lol make up your mind, son.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 5, 2011 01:50PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-04 10:26, Woland wrote:

In the paragraph you quote above, I don't think I used the term leftist. I was pointing out that the Qadhdhafi regime was treated quite nicely by the UN and by "the international community." But since you brought it up, leftists such as Hugo Chavez also loved Qadhdhafi.
[/quote]
The U.S. companies I mentioned a page or two ago, the ones that have been steadily lobbying for the past 6 or 7 years to do / keep doing business with Qaddafi and Libya, that include,

BP, Occidental, Marathon, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Caterpillar, Ratheon, Motorola, Dow Chemical, Halliburton,

I have to wonder how many of their fantastically wealthy CEOs are leftists.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 5, 2011 02:51PM)
I wonder why Woland keeps leaving out the US position since 2004.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 5, 2011 03:27PM)
BP isn't American but why wouldn't those companies be interested in doing business where business is available and legal?

One thing that bothers me, and I have no horse in this race, is the people who view Halliburton as a great evil company. There are only a couple, literally, companies in the US that has the ability to do major building or logistics jobs with the personel and equipment to get it doing right away. Halliburton is one of them and may be the only one really left for major jobs. It made absolute sense to hire them for the job they got in Iraq because no one else was going to be able to do it unless perhaps a giant Chinese company could but I think they wanted an American company. I'll tell you this, I've a inlaw who drove a truck for Halliburton in Iraq and he is an American whos parents are Arabs so he has the look and last name that is pretty clearly Arab. Halliburton knew that if caught he would be killed immediately so they transfered him to a safe job and kept his hazard pay in place since he was willing to drive those trucks. Not bad of them. As for their accounting practices it is odd but not uncommon for big jobs to have cost change and then audits find and correct errors, that is why audits exist.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 5, 2011 04:07PM)
Where have I equated the international community that lionizes Qadhdhafi with leftists? To be sure he is well loved by leftists and racists like Minister Farrakhan, but not only by leftists. Up until a few weeks ago the Libyan regime was everybody's darling. That was my point.

W.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 5, 2011 04:14PM)
Really man....they contribute things to you and others never stated. That is my realm. Seeking to do business doesn't mean anything other than the belief one can make money selling equipment, doesn't make 'em lefties.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 5, 2011 09:47PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-05 17:07, Woland wrote:
Where have I equated the international community that lionizes Qadhdhafi with leftists? To be sure he is well loved by leftists and racists like Minister Farrakhan, but not only by leftists. Up until a few weeks ago the Libyan regime was everybody's darling. That was my point.

W.
[/quote]
But you conspicuously left out the US. Why? Perhaps the motives that everyone else had were not so dissimilar from Bush's.