Why the French bombed Libya - according to Sydney Blumenthal

[EdwardBernays]

France was one of the main driving forces behind the 2011 bombing on Libya, they also flew the greatest number of air strikes.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Proposal_for_the_no-fly_zone

Why? Well according to "Sid":

"On April 2, 2011 sources with access to advisors to Salt al-Islam Qaddafi stated in strictest confidence that while the freezing of Libya's foreign bank accounts presents Muammar Qaddafi with serious challenges, his ability to equip and maintain his armed forces and intelligence services remains intact. According to sensitive information available to this these individuals, Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli.

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French.franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:

a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

b. Increase French influence in North Africa,

c. Improve his internal political situation in France,

d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa"

https://www.foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_DecWebClearedMeta/31-C1/DOC_0C05779612/C05779612.pdf

More here: http://levantreport.com/tag/sidney-blumenthal/

[Nyan]

1. I wish I could K & R hundred times.

Because it's so important.
It's so important to shed this notion that European countries are somehow more noble and they do what they do out of concern for human rights. Otherwise, we will make the same mistake again and again on behalf of our so-called allies who have their own interests and agendas that end up doing great harm to humanity.
France still views Africa -specifically its former colonies- as its sphere of influence.
They were not going to allow for pan-African governance that would give them political and economy autonomy -and Libya, being an African country with the highest HDI in the continent, was key to that change, which could very well have come true if Gaddafi had lived.
And how horrible would that have been? More African kids would have been able to eat. They would have been able to go to school because they would have benefited from economic uplift. It would have been empowering for the marginalized people in the continent. They might have been able to elect their own democratic socialists as they were about to in Ivory Coast, had the French not intervened using UN as a front, causing civil war.
And they used NATO as a front in Libya. US government was more than happy to do their bidding.
Now the religious fanatics are running wild in Libya, and nobody's quite sure how we get out of this.
BTW, France didn't oppose Iraq War because they cared about human lives or stability of the region. It's because they had nothing to gain from it, which I'm sure many people know by now.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro

[EdwardBernays]

2. Obviously

Very few people on DU really want to think about these issues too closely. Of course very few want to think about what the US does abroad either. Sad really.

Anyway - I'm glad at least one person found it useful. ☺

[joshcryer]

3. Haha, are you really defending Laurent Gbagbo?

What socialists in the Ivory Coast are you talking about?

Of course France had it's own interests at heart, no country 'helps' another without taking its interests into consideration. For France it's more about cocoa. That's it.

[EdwardBernays]

4. Own interests is one thing

But bombing civilians and overthrowing governments for internal political and financial gain is nothing to be blasé about.

[joshcryer]

5. Sure. That's what the UN is for.

And the UN invoked the right to protect, for the first time ever.

[EdwardBernays]

6. The UN

Does what it's members instruct it to do.

[Nyan]

7. No. I'm defending people's right to elect whomever they want.

And cocoa was more important than human lives, was my point.

[joshcryer]

8. And they did, Gbadgo lost those elections.

Tried to install a military junta. That France would stop the junta is uncontroversial.

[Nyan]

9. Two leaders both claimed victory

Last edited Thu Jan 7, 2016, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

and France and Nigeria basically picked one side, while there were ongoing disputes over the counting of the ballot box. It all should have been resolved internally.
And btw, which is your point? France did it to stop the junta and let democracy blossom in Ivory Coast? Or did they do it for cocoa?

[joshcryer]

10. Would a military junta be good for cocoa?

Some might argue yes, especially since there are still militant elements there causing issues. Some seem to still think military juntas and dictatorships are necessary in African or Arab states, I disagree.

[Nyan]

11. Hey, would Sadsam Hussein have been better for Iraq

or what we have subjected them to there for decades now? Why does anybody outside of territory get to decide what's good for them?
Dubya has won because of SCOTUS. Now, I don't think that should have happened. I think Gore should have put up a fight. But I would NOT have liked it if say, Canada and France came in with UN telling us what we should do.
And no. I'm not one of those people who think military dictatorship is good for anybody. I think people all over the world are the way they are and they have the systems that they do because of many factors including the vicious legacy of imperialism and colonialism, which essentially, is a form of expansionist capitalism.
I also think people should get to decide for themselves what works best for them, and we, outsiders, should realize by now that we don't get to dictate terms of progress for them. They should change and grow on their own terms.

[joshcryer]

12. Had Bush not invaded...

...the Arab spring would have come to Iraq. And people would still be making the same arguments.

[Nyan]

13. That's hypothetical,

hence, irrelevant.
We simply don't know what would have happened. So there's no point in arguing about that.