3 ms·

I see the media has helped you understand the way the world really is, and how Libya was before the liberation and enlightment process happened. Before this in

I see the media has helped you understand the way the world really is, and how Libya was before the liberation and enlightment process happened. Before this intervention, Libya was considered to be the Switzerland of the African Continent (relatively speaking of course). http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26686 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26686 You're notions that it was some type of a hell hole, are misplaced to the wrong pivotal point in its history. It's all been the same formula... 1. Arm a number of "protestors". 2. Get said protestors to attack military and gov personnel and vehicles with ak47s and rocket launchers. 3. Let them go back into their homes. 4. Claim response is unprovoked mass slaughter of innocent lives. 5. Get video showing innocents caught in the cross fire. 6. Start calling the leadership despots and monsters. 7. Claim that our side is now the majority of the populace. 8. Fight the evil! 9. Divvy up the tasty pie.

afterburner 15y ago
You're either willfully ignorant, or not looking back far enough. I think it's option 1. (You also speak as if foreign ground troops landed in Libya, which they did not.) But here's a taste anyways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi_1969.E2.80.932011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Libya_under_Muammar_Gadda...
- powertower 15y ago
  > or not looking back far enough So you're using the past, and not the reformed Gaddafi, as an excuse for causing more mayhem and deaths than the evil Gaddafi could have imagined in his wettest dreams? > (You also speak as if foreign ground troops landed in Libya, which they did not.) Sorry, not interested in defending against made up conversations. > But here's a taste anyways: Most of that is debatable, but if it is true, then: 1) that's way in the past and 2) that sounds like pretty much the norm for that region and time and 3) not even close to what the US has been involved in / has caused. From your link and section: > From 1977 onward, per capita income in the country rose to more than US $11,000, the fifth-highest in Africa, while the Human Development Index became the highest in Africa and greater than that of Saudi Arabia. This was achieved without borrowing any foreign loans, keeping Libya debt-free. In addition, the country's literacy rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years, equal rights were established for women and black people, employment opportunities were established for migrant workers, and welfare systems were introduced that allowed access to free education, free healthcare, and financial assistance for housing. The Great Manmade River was also built to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country. In addition, financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs. > You're either willfully ignorant Some would claim that the ignorant one is the one who thinks Libya is now in a better position, or the one who can't see pass what is spoon fed to him.
  - afterburner 15y ago
    You are defending Gaddafi. A dictator who has ruled for 40 years, and threatened to slaughter thousands (recently) when his rule was threatened. That behaviour is not indicative of any kind of major shift from his earlier self. I guess you think Gaddafi bombing his own people would have been preferable? That the country was rich because of oil is not very comforting given the ruthlessness of the man at the top. Can you imagine that a people might not want to be ruled by such a man? A man that would bomb them to hold on to power indefinitely? And do you really think that the only possibilities here are dictatorial rule by a power-hungry asshole vs negligent puppet kingdom? This is not a defense of interventionism. It is amazement at your defense of a tyrant.

afterburner 15y ago

You're either willfully ignorant, or not looking back far enough. I think it's option 1. (You also speak as if foreign ground troops landed in Libya, which they did not.) But here's a taste anyways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi_1969.E2.80.932011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Libya_under_Muammar_Gadda...

powertower 15y ago
> or not looking back far enough So you're using the past, and not the reformed Gaddafi, as an excuse for causing more mayhem and deaths than the evil Gaddafi could have imagined in his wettest dreams? > (You also speak as if foreign ground troops landed in Libya, which they did not.) Sorry, not interested in defending against made up conversations. > But here's a taste anyways: Most of that is debatable, but if it is true, then: 1) that's way in the past and 2) that sounds like pretty much the norm for that region and time and 3) not even close to what the US has been involved in / has caused. From your link and section: > From 1977 onward, per capita income in the country rose to more than US $11,000, the fifth-highest in Africa, while the Human Development Index became the highest in Africa and greater than that of Saudi Arabia. This was achieved without borrowing any foreign loans, keeping Libya debt-free. In addition, the country's literacy rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years, equal rights were established for women and black people, employment opportunities were established for migrant workers, and welfare systems were introduced that allowed access to free education, free healthcare, and financial assistance for housing. The Great Manmade River was also built to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country. In addition, financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs. > You're either willfully ignorant Some would claim that the ignorant one is the one who thinks Libya is now in a better position, or the one who can't see pass what is spoon fed to him.
- afterburner 15y ago
  You are defending Gaddafi. A dictator who has ruled for 40 years, and threatened to slaughter thousands (recently) when his rule was threatened. That behaviour is not indicative of any kind of major shift from his earlier self. I guess you think Gaddafi bombing his own people would have been preferable? That the country was rich because of oil is not very comforting given the ruthlessness of the man at the top. Can you imagine that a people might not want to be ruled by such a man? A man that would bomb them to hold on to power indefinitely? And do you really think that the only possibilities here are dictatorial rule by a power-hungry asshole vs negligent puppet kingdom? This is not a defense of interventionism. It is amazement at your defense of a tyrant.