Libya

Recommended Videos

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
Rex Fallout said:
We claim to the rest of the world that we are defenders of democracy and then we ignore atrocities like Tianenmen Square. Disgraceful.
I hear you and I can only cynically say that the world is full of liars and thugs regardless of their politics.

Also, I've a question about democracy: What happens if you "free" country, give them democracy and they decide via democratic vote that they don't want democracy? They've decided that they don't like "aimless freedom" and instead prefer a more unified, constricting semi-freedom.
 

Andreas55k

New member
Oct 15, 2009
167
0
0
I think i would slowly step down...

I am myself a person who respects a revolution greatly, so if my people does not want me, Then i shall not lead them :)
 

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
Generic Gamer said:
Quotey stuff
Point taken on the oil to expense ratio.
But there is the other oil-based incentive, in that taking out oil refineries in Libya for a while raises all of the prices by two dollars (last I checked) and that gives everyone else a lot of money.

But the oil part would be a shallow economic investment over time, really I imagine the biggest benefit would be having an American puppet country to support them, which is the nature of politics, really.

Build support where you can and use it, while you can.

HankMan said:
Well as I would be the One leading the revolution...
"I am Bolo Santozi, Leader of DA REAPERZ!"

But seriously, touché.
 

AceAngel

New member
May 12, 2010
775
0
0
Ghadaffi did alot for his people.

First of all, he lead the revolution against the old ruler, and since he was an ambitious leader, with the support of everyone, he became the new leader. Kinda like what happened in Venezuela with Chavez, you know, drive tank in palace, people see him as fearless and support him for his position in power.

Secondly, he offered his people two options, that either they make a committee to run the country, and that they would have a majority in the shares and decisions (including oil) and that we would run as diplomatic figurehead only. However, in doing so, the country would have to run on a Western system of taxes and inflation as well banking. In Libya, you could buy for 1 dollar, about a bag of rice or 4 sets of flat bread, or hell, even 4 PS1 games, but this is as long as he stays in power with his black-market schemes. People chose the later, gave up all rights so they don't pay taxes or could get rice for dirt cheap.

He also set up an account for national widows and orphans. If you're widow, you get payed about 600$, and little plus for each child you have. Moreover, if you're a single guy, working, and earn under 200-250$, you get payed an extra 400$ to make it national standard.

There were no taxes, you had rights as an international worker to get a retirement fund that you could draw out later, and people were pretty happy with life.

What else? Oh yes, if you live in an apartment, the apartment becomes yours, and you're exempt from taxation by the landlord, unless they do the service of payment and bill on your behalf, in which case, they could charge a 'working fee'.

Ghadaffi is no angel mind you, he ruled with an iron fist, but considering most the locals didn't work a single day of honest work in their life which wasn't knee-deep in illegal goods, and those that did work, had the work ethic of a Sloth on Sleeping Pills, I would say they had a pretty easy life many people.

I spent a good amount of time there since my father was an engineer for certain companies, and let me tell you something: There was no need for change, I mean hell, Libya wasn't even affected by the Economic Crisis because of the way it was built, no one cared and no one lost money.

You know what is the worst part in all of this? If Ghadaffi wins, the little punks who run around with guns (which riddled my old home with bullets, if I was living there right now, I would be dead, and this wasn't even a war-related conflict, the local mob attacked a police station on assumption that the police was going to turn them in) will not only be executed, but the good people, who have families and had no relation to war will also be streamrolled because frankly speaking, the big guy can't trust anyone.

Both parties are at wrong here, and taking into account that many of the 'outskirt farmers' and immigrant workers are running away, leaving everything behind, I would say the 'rebels' are as much of a cancer as the original leader was.

But whatever, I guess people who didn't even spend a month there, have all the right to make philosophical statements they want, mine would be "The devil you know, is better then the devil you don't know".
 

conflictofinterests

New member
Apr 6, 2010
1,098
0
0
There's a serious problem going on in that area, and people are dying/were going to die aside from any political unrest that happened there. People don't have jobs, food is undergoing mind-boggling amounts of inflation, even under the best political circumstances these people were down for the count. It makes sense that after their peaceful protests didn't solve anything they might have a) escalated or b) fucking snapped.

As for the future of the country, I think I agree that you aren't going to see someone vaguely reasonable come to power, or be allowed to come to power because after you've been backed against a wall like that, I don't think it's easy to come back to equilibrium or calm. Yes, this should have been resolved when the people were protesting peacefully, but now this is unlikely to be anything but a blood-soaked area until food availability becomes reasonable again.
 

Rex Fallout

New member
Oct 5, 2010
359
0
0
Booze Zombie said:
Rex Fallout said:
We claim to the rest of the world that we are defenders of democracy and then we ignore atrocities like Tianenmen Square. Disgraceful.
I hear you and I can only cynically say that the world is full of liars and thugs regardless of their politics.

Also, I've a question about democracy: What happens if you "free" country, give them democracy and they decide via democratic vote that they don't want democracy? They've decided that they don't like "aimless freedom" and instead prefer a more unified, constricting semi-freedom.
Interesting that you say people would be against having freedom. In any case if that were to happen then i suppose the people would have a dictator, who in turn would lead to holocaust and concentration camps, re-education camps, poverty, starvation, war... all that good jazz, and then revolution would happen again. Look at history, the people chose Hitler to be in power, and millions of innocent people were slaughtered because it went from democracy to dictatorship.
 

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
Generic Gamer said:
Not that I think it's any kind of secret that self interest is helping spur on the UN, I think it's taken for granted that most acts like this are half out of a desire to help and half out of fear of what happens if help isn't given.
I'm not so world weary that I believe the actions of the UN to be 100% selfish... but there's a good deal of selfishness in there.

AceAngel said:
But whatever, I guess people who didn't even spend a month there, have all the right to make philosophical statements they want, mine would be "The devil you know, is better then the devil you don't know".
Was that directed at myself or people in general talking about a place they've never been to?
I mean, I won't pretend I know everything about Libya.
I don't really know all that much about my home country, either as I've never really needed to.

I had figured the Colonel was a stable ruler with a mean streak via the news reports during my life time, but I wouldn't personally know.

Also, I agree with you on the philosophical statement there, sir.

conflictofinterests said:
As for the future of the country, I think I agree that you aren't going to see someone vaguely reasonable come to power, or be allowed to come to power because after you've been backed against a wall like that, I don't think it's easy to come back to equilibrium or calm. Yes, this should have been resolved when the people were protesting peacefully, but now this is unlikely to be anything but a blood-soaked area until food availability becomes reasonable again.
Really? Angel's post up there made it sound like a stable, though different area.
Up until the present violence, of course.

Rex Fallout said:
Interesting that you say people would be against having freedom. In any case if that were to happen then i suppose the people would have a dictator, who in turn would lead to holocaust and concentration camps, re-education camps, poverty, starvation, war... all that good jazz, and then revolution would happen again. Look at history, the people chose Hitler to be in power, and millions of innocent people were slaughtered because it went from democracy to dictatorship.
That is debatable, as Angel up there noted quite a stable Libya from his experience and the Colonel was a dictator, I do believe.

If I were a dictator (I know this is easy to say), I would be what is known as a benign dictator.
Promote education, healthcare, but the only thing differing from any other "good" country would simply be that I am the all-knowing ruler, nothing else.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Booze Zombie said:
There are reports of the rebels capturing mercenaries and setting them on fire in a police station
Technically, you're allowed to do whatever you want to mercenaries, they specifically aren't protected by wartime conventions the same way soldiers or civilians are.

Having said that, the same will likely happen to everyone else, civil wars are always particularly bloody.

Dwarfman said:
The West do not open up on their own population with live ammunition. We have this little thing called freedom of speech. And please don't quote Iraq at us in defence of your quote, most of any civiliian casualties from protests there at the hands of the West were made right after the successful invasion, or by paid mercenaries who shouldn't have been there, or by insurgents trying to destabilize the region further.
Well...not recently, no. But British forces in Ireland and US forces in Kent State and Detroit have opened up on protesters, easily within living memory.

Generally I support UN involvement...it's not an invasion of a nation due to obvious bullshit justifications, there really really are reasons to get involved this time, and involvement will be limited to air support in support of revolutionaries (with special forces finding targets for them, admittedly).
 

Dwarfman

New member
Oct 11, 2009
918
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Dwarfman said:
The West do not open up on their own population with live ammunition. We have this little thing called freedom of speech. And please don't quote Iraq at us in defence of your quote, most of any civiliian casualties from protests there at the hands of the West were made right after the successful invasion, or by paid mercenaries who shouldn't have been there, or by insurgents trying to destabilize the region further.
Well...not recently, no. But British forces in Ireland and US forces in Kent State and Detroit have opened up on protesters, easily within living memory.

Generally I support UN involvement...it's not an invasion of a nation due to obvious bullshit justifications, there really really are reasons to get involved this time, and involvement will be limited to air support in support of revolutionaries (with special forces finding targets for them, admittedly).
The Irish in my blood would like to know who you think is British? Just Remember Southern Ireland has never really been truly part of the empire or commonwealth, heck the Normans had such a hard time they built a wall around Ulster to keep the Irish at bay!

That being said I didn't know about Detroit or Kent State in the US. When did this happen? I'm assuming back in the sixties and seventies when their government forgot they were a democracy.

I agree with your support of UN involvement. It shouldn't just be one gunho nation and its allies jumping in for the mext fight. This is something that needs to be dealt with and observed by the world at large.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Dwarfman said:
The Irish in my blood would like to know who you think is British? Just Remember Southern Ireland has never really been truly part of the empire or commonwealth, heck the Normans had such a hard time they built a wall around Ulster to keep the Irish at bay!
Well, yes, technically Northern Island isn't part of Britain (in modern terminology, it used to be called "Lesser Britain"), but it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland, so British soldiers were still firing on their own people when they killed civilians there (though perhaps not in their minds).

Dwarfman said:
That being said I didn't know about Detroit or Kent State in the US. When did this happen? I'm assuming back in the sixties and seventies when their government forgot they were a democracy.
Detroit riots in 67, with tanks, machine guns, random beatings, male soldiers and police enjoying strip searching women and taking pictures of it, and 40 odd casualties.

I'm told the black soldiers in the units sent to Detroit were taken out and beaten up before the operation, because the rioting was at least partially racially motivated and they didn't trust them...beating people up instead of just excluding them makes them more trustworthy, I guess.

Kent State in 1970, US troops shot up a bunch of hippy universtity protestors, killing 4 and wounding a few others.
 

Lord Kloo

New member
Jun 7, 2010
719
0
0
hmm, I see your very good point there.. It is a bit odd with all this Libyan stuff because its not like the UN bothers to do anything when Mr. Mugabe or North Korea shoot their rebels and civilians so I don't see why they interfere here..

OT: Personally if I believed either that I should be the head of my country or that the people need me here, or I'm a power grabbing bastard then yes.. in all cases I would probably be forced to remove the 'cancerous cells' (rebels) to preserve the rest of 'the body' (country)..

If anything, if I was a despot I would probably kill peeps to stay in power and so do a lot of governments (even the democratic ones), hell British government brought Dr. David Kelly to suicide (or murdered him) to keep him silent about the fact that the 'WMDs' in Iraq were not so real as expected..

The world we live in eh.. bit of an odd place.. :p
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Lord Kloo said:
hmm, I see your very good point there.. It is a bit odd with all this Libyan stuff because its not like the UN bothers to do anything when Mr. Mugabe or North Korea shoot their rebels and civilians so I don't see why they interfere here..
In this case, though, a large rebellion seems to having formed, there's someone to do the dirty work for them if they are given a little help.
 

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
Jedihunter4 said:
You are an idiot, sorry but the UN, the UN! the flipping UN who are so overly cautious its unreal have said this needs action and have made a resolution! they have more information about the situation than the public will ever get, if your even questioning it, you have either just been listening to the Libyan state run TV which is full of lies. Or have not looked into this at all, they are going in primarily to protect protesters, the civilians, the Libyan government ordered by Gaddafi put snipers on a roof an sparadicly fired into unarmed civilians, he has called in air strikes on villages full of women and children who just held some placards up. I dont agree with all the bargaining that has happened for year before an allowed him to stay in power so we wont get into that but what the UN is doing now is the right thing, after with UN help hopefully they can hold their own democratic elections and run their country as they see fit.
Firstly, my I.Q is well above average.

Secondly, I highly doubt they'll do anything but put a different dictator in charge if the rebels have anything to say; if the U.N has anything to say, the western powers get a puppet state in the middle east.

It's simple as.