WikiLeaks cables expose Washington’s close ties to Gaddafi

[Karmadillo]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/wiki-a27.shtml

US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks on Wednesday and Thursday expose the close collaboration between the US government, top American politicians and Muammar Gaddafi, who Washington now insists must be hunted down and murdered.

Washington and its NATO allies are now determined to smash the Libyan regime, supposedly in the interests of “liberating” the Libyan people. That Gaddafi was until the beginning of this year viewed as a strategic, if somewhat unreliable, ally is clearly seen as an inconvenient truth.

The cables have been virtually blacked out by the corporate media, which has functioned as an embedded asset of NATO and the so-called rebel forces that it directs. It is hardly coincidental that the WikiLeaks posting of the cables was followed the next day by a combination of a massive denial of service attack and a US judge’s use of the Patriot Act to issue a sweeping “production order” or subpoena against the anti-secrecy organization’s California-based Domain Name Server, Dynadot.

<edit>

Cables from 2008 and 2009 raise concerns about US corporations not getting in on “billions of dollars in opportunities” for infrastructure contracts and fears that the Gaddafi regime could make good on the Libyan leader’s threat to nationalize the oil sector or utilize the threat to extract more favorable contracts from the foreign energy corporations.

more...

[geek tragedy]

1. Ah yes, Communists weeping over the plight of a dictator.

Compelling theater. Allow me to wipe away the tear from my face over the overthrow of a dictator by his own people.

[krabigirl]

2. is this the 50s? communists? lmao

[geek tragedy]

3. The author is quoting as Trotskyist publication.

So, yes, quite literally old school Communists.

The article is also the typical pack of lies one expects from the old school Leninists.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Could you please point out the lies?

[geek tragedy]

6. First lie:

"Washington now insists (Qadaffi) must be hunted down and murdered"

That is a flat-out lie. Anyone who insists it is not a lie is in fact a liar.

[EFerrari]

10. Brits have admitted they are huntng him. Ellen Ratner reported it

Friday on Thom's show.

[geek tragedy]

14. So, the WSWS took "the British are helping track him down "

to "Obama wants to murder him."

Classic disinformation from Lenin's heirs.

[EFerrari]

17. The hilarious red baiting doesn't help your position.

Do you have evidence that the United States objects to hunting Gaddafi down like an animal? I hope so. It would make me feel better about this whole clusterf#ck.

[geek tragedy]

24. Your burden to prove your fellow travelers' unsubstantiated

accusation.

Your use of overdramatic, overemotionalistic lanaguage like "hunted down like an animal" doesn't make your side's talking points any more truthful.

Again, condolences that your side lost in Libya. Your angst at the plight of poor Col. Qadaffi is quite touching, and your loyalty to him and the cause admirable.

[sabrina 1]

35. Our side did lose in Libya. If you are American, or European. The US is once again viewed as an

enemy of the Arab World and since the Brits have now admitted that NATO violated the UN Resolution by being actively involved in Regime Change, (maybe check out some media other than our own propagandized media here) the credibility of the US, already in the gutter since the Bush years of violations of International and Domestic laws, has now plunged even further.

As the world's press has pointed out, this was no humanitarian intervention. It was the US involved in yet another Oil Grab. All that goodwill the American people had earned by removing Republicans from power, has slowly been lost and speeded up with this, (and next up, Syria to continue to check off the PNAC's list of ME countries to invade) latest venture and the ugly spectacle now taking place with the US and European Colonialists vying for the spoils of their latest war on a resource rich Arab nation.

We the American lose each time our Government acts like an Empire rather than a Democracy. And then we have the nerve to ask the question 'why do they hate us'.

Now feel free to respond with more of that rightwing prepared attack propaganda for Democrats if you wish.

Here, let me help, we are all 'pinko-commie, Qadaffi-loving, limp-wristed, latte-drinking, volvo-driving, America-hating Lieberals' for living in the Real World and not falling for the Faux 'rah, rah support the troops' propaganda intended to keep America at war for oil rather than bring the troops home and focus on making this a country not dependent on stealing the resources of others.

[geek tragedy]

39. Most Arabs do not sympathize with Gadaffi the way that

the Kucinich/McKinney crowd does.

The Arab League were the ones who requested the no-fly zone, and in the Arab world Gadaffi was hated so much that Youtubes mocking Gadaffi made by Israelis became popular.

You assume all of your anti-American propaganda is factually proven, when in fact it is just your side's articles of faith. YOur basic faith is that the United States government is always the bad guy, is the root of all evil, and is incapable of acting out anything but evil motives.

You don't need facts to sustain this faith in the inherent evil of the US. You just need to say "of course, it's the US. They're always the greater evil in any fight."

So, you can go sit between Hugo and Muommor and Bashir. You belong on that side.

[stockholmer]

43. the Arab League, LOLOL, a bunch of brutal dictatorial monarchists, or US/UK/France puppet Vichyists

Now there is a MORAL STAMP worth its weight in............................... blood petrol.

[geek tragedy]

44. As opposed to Assad and Gadaffi, who are the new champions

of the anti-American left at DU.

[stockholmer]

59. it is the stance of true American PATRIOTS to be against a USA empire

You really are a war-monger, eh?

I guess you would have called George Washington a commie scum when he warned of foreign entanglements. And don NOT give me that 'times have changed' rot. Tyranny and empire are tyranny and empire no matter what millennium you exist temporally in.

[sabrina 1]

48. Classic!

Or did you forget this :sarcasm: ?

Very funny imitation of the far-right 'we hate liberal commies' Bachman/Bush/ supporters.

Actually, I am hoping you really ARE trying to be funny. You do a perfect imitation of the Pro-War, Pro-Neocon, Pro Bush rightwingers' prepared responses to Democrats who opposed the PNAC gang's policies for this country of invading every ME eastern country so we 'reorganize' the entire region.

So, now that I'm done laughing, what do you think of the fact that the US, as I have repeatedly said but was contradicted by those who support the PNAC vision of the US, was not getting what it wanted from Qadaffi after all. I mean most of us knew that, having read the Wikileaks cables months ago.

Just curious, since you have not commented on the substance of the OP.

[joshcryer]

51. Please don't be dishonest, the Wikileaks cables show that the west was normalizing relations...

...with Gaddafi and that indeed they were getting what they wanted. I posted this to you before, but it's silly that you keep posting that the west wasn't getting what it wanted. Gaddafi was their buddy.

The final nail in the coffin for Gaddafi was his http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294913/LIBYA-POSTPONES-GENERAL-PEOPLES-CONGRESS-WALKS-BACK-FROM-WEALTH-DISTRIBUTION-AND-PRIVATIZATION-PLANS.html">walking back his promises to redistribute the oil wealth to all Libyans. Any credible analysis shows that Gaddafi fucked himself by doing this.

Nevermind that he started http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294687/110-LIBYAN-COMPANIES-PRIVATIZED-HEAD-OF-LIBYAN-PRIVATIZATION-AUTHORITY-REPORTS-ON-CONTINUED-PROGRESS.html">privitizing stated owned companies, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294693/LIBYANS-SEEK-RENEWED-COMMITMENT-FROM-U.S.-IN-RETURN-FOR-PROGRESS-ON-HEU-SHIPMENT.html">reopened relations with the United States, indeed, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294709/LIBYAN-MINISTER-OF-ECONOMY-WELCOMES-U.S.-TRADE-MISSION.html">welcoming http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294767/U.S.-COMPANIES-WIN-2-BILLION-WORTH-OF-INFRASTRUCTURE-CONTRACTS-AS-REWARD-FOR-POLITICAL-RELATIONSHIP.htmlUS] link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294881/LIBYAS-MINISTRY-OF-ECONOMY-AND-TRADE-WELCOMES-COOPERATION-WITH-U.S.-1.-U.html">contracts, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294860/LIBYA-FURTHER-PRIVATIZES-FUEL-DISTRIBUTION.html">privitizing fuel distribution, opening the country up to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294864/GERMAN-OIL-FIRM-RWE-MAKES-TWO-MORE-DISCOVERIES-IN-LIBYA.html">more foreign oil prospectors. Gaddafi's Libya was a http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294881/LIBYAS-MINISTRY-OF-ECONOMY-AND-TRADE-WELCOMES-COOPERATION-WITH-U.S.-1.-U.html">boon to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294891/OPPORTUNITIES-FOR-U.S.-FIRMS-AS-LIBYA-INVESTS-BILLIONS-IN-NATIONAL-INFRASTRUCTURE-DEVELOPMENT-TRIPOLI-00000942-001.2-OF-002.html">foreign investors, a http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294929/LIBYA-INVESTMENT-CLIMATE-STATEMENT.html">true http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294934/LIBYA-COMMERCIAL-ROUND-UP-FOR-DECEMBER-2008-AND-JANUARY-2009.html">boon for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294882/LIBYA-COMMERCIAL-ROUND-UP-FOR-OCTOBER-2008-OIL-AND-GAS.html">capitalism and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294919/RISKY-BUSINESS-AMERICAN-CONSTRUCTION-FIRM-ENTERS-JOINT-VENTURE-WITH-GOL.html">American companies. Meanwhile he http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294923/AL-QADHAFIS-FEINT-LIBYAN-OIL-NATIONALIZATION-UNLIKELY.html">didn't nationalize the foreign companies.

[sabrina 1]

57. Please do not accuse me of being dishonest I have read all of the

Libyan cables months ago, and a lot more. You seem incapable of simply saying you disagree with someone. If they don't agree with you they are 'dishonest'. Which is why I give little credibility to what you say or anyone else who starts out with 'your are dishonest' or 'you are a commie'.

[joshcryer]

65. No, they're dishonest when they say one thing but the cables say the exact opposite.

That's what dishonest is, not being honest.

Quote a part of the cables supporting your dishonest claims, you won't be able to.

[sabrina 1]

73. How many of the cables did you read?

[joshcryer]

77. Every single one of them that have titles which reference the United States.

Every.single.one.

Look, if you weren't patently dishonest it'd be easy to refute what I say. Simply provide a link to a cable and provide a direct quote indicating that I am wrong. Please, do it, I'm begging you!

[sabrina 1]

79. If you have read all the cables, the earlier ones released last year

also, as you claim, and some of which were posted her by me and others, then it is you who is being dishonest, or maybe just interpreting things they way you want to see them.

France, Switzerland, Britain, the US all were having difficulties with Qadaffi. Such as his demands for the release of the Lockerbie bomber eg. Are you aware of the contortions and the hoops Western Policians were made to jump through to explain to their own citizens why they agreed to do this? But, they knew he would not quit until they handed over the bomber, and were willing to risk their own political reputations for the Big Prize he was holding back until they did. Shameless, devoid of any morals beings that they all are.

And once he got that from them, he wanted more. His next demand was to have the US Congress remove any record of him being called a terrorist. And when they balked at that, he reminded them of his other willing Customers, Russia and China and Chile as he was 'tired' of their recalcitrance.

He held up huge contracts for months, years, as he dangled them all on strings, forcing them, Blair, Sarkozy, the US et al, to kow tow to his demands. He cost them huge sums of money has he played his games. But still, they wanted the oil. France had the most at stake as he threatened to allow immigrants from other parts of African to 'flood their shores' if he did not get what he wanted.

So the lie that he was so cooperative and willing to give them what they wanted, is just that, it is a lie. Read the European cables, I said 'Libya' not just US/Libya, to see how there was no way he was going to be left in power. To deny that is just plain silly.

[joshcryer]

80. One.simple.link. One.simple.quote.

You cannot provide such a link or a quote because, as usual, you are not being truthful about the content of those cables.

He was renormalizing relations like crazy.

All you have to do is provide a quote. A link. Simple.

[geek tragedy]

53. And you are doing your best impersonation of the knee-jerk

anti-American leftist who will always sympathize with any dictator so long as he and the United States are enemies.

The same kind of anti-American knee-jerk reactionary who will oppose the overthrow of a dictator because the United States supports his overthrow.

You would prefer that Assad and Gadaffi be free to massacre and enslave their own people than for the US to have lifted a finger to help the anti-dictatorship forces.

The substance of the OP is old hat. The US and other countries cooperated with Gadhaffi--to their shame--until the Libyan people started to revolt against the evil dictator.

At which point, people such as yourself threw in with the dictator and against the Libyans who were risking their lives to overthrow him.

No doubt you are rooting for Assad in Syria.

[sabrina 1]

63. So it was not just an imitation of the far right.

'Anti-American' and 'leftist' as an epithet, how did I know that would show up?

Now back to reality. So, what your are saying is that the US supporting, not just like us 'leftists' who 'love Saddam' and Mubarak, and Ben Ali, and Karamov, and Qadaffi who merely wanted to give them hugs :eyes:, but by arming them, by helping them to keep their people oppressed, by using THEIR torture prisons to send US detainees to etc. etc which WE on the 'LEFT' had opposed when Bush was doing it and continued to oppose it and still do, now that this administration is doing it makes it all okay.

It's fine by you I guess, that this Government is still supporting dictators that make Qadaffi look like a kitty cat while people like me, who was opposed for years to the support for Qadaffi, Mubarak, Ben Ali, Karamov, Uribe and all the other dictators we were and still are supporting. Where were you?? I don't recall ever seeing you oppose any of these policies.

Did you support Bush's wars too? All he was doing was removing a brutal dictator, after all, according to what we were told, so unless you are extremely inconsistent and make your judgements only on party politics, although no one on the left would ever do that would they, I assume you must have supported Bush's wars.


What I am rooting for is for the US to become an independent country not dependent for its energy resources on the theft of those resources by either the support of Dictators who destroy their own people, or by bombs when those Dictators are no longer useful, which usually involves the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians as in Iraq.

How dare you accuse me of being a supporter of Dictators. It is against DU rules aside from the absolute lie that it is and which anyone who knows me, knows to be a lie. If you cannot make your case without hurling false, vile accusations against your fellow DUers then you have no case.

I supported the Libyan revolution and was one of the first people here to draw attention to all the others. Back up that vile and false accusation or have the decency and the guts to withdraw it.

Clearly you have no case to argue as is evident by your resorting to baseless, insults.

[joshcryer]

68. Can you ever have a discussion without making it personal?

Lots of "did you support Bush's wars" type bullshit. Half of that post doesn't even address the issues.

[sabrina 1]

72. Always, but with those who initiate with personal attacks, it is

necessary to speak their language.

The Iraq war question is very relevant to the topic. If people do not want to state their position on US foreign policy, that is their choice. I respect those who at least attempt to explain the inconsistency of opposing Republican interventions in Arab/Muslims nations while supporting Democratic interventions, although it is a very difficult thing to do. Will they switch positions again if a Republican returns to office? America has to decide what kind of country it wants to be. Knee-jerk support for a policy because their team is doing it while opposing the exact same policy when the other team was doing it, probably explains the mess this country is in.

Edited to ask, since you are apparently so concerned about 'personal attacks' do you have any problem with the commenter's vile accusations against DUers who disagree with him or are simply biased in that regard iow 'it's okay if it's someone who agrees with me to personally attack other DUers'. Hilarious, the hypocrisy one sees here sometimes. Which of course is why I ask about the support for the Bush wars V Obama's Wars.

[joshcryer]

40. Libyan people asked for our help, EU and the US will be on good standing with Libyans...

...for a very long time, they will be a major force for change in the middle east.

[sabrina 1]

55. the Libyan 'people' did not ask for our help.

A small group of protestors asked for the exact opposite. Funny how now you are no longer denying that their country is about to be occupied, just like Iraq.

I hear the 'boots on the ground' are ready and waiting in ships off the coast of Libya. And the Brits are no longer denying it was their 'revolution'. So, please don't waste people's time denying it.

Black African bodies were found, murdered by the 'rebels' who claim 'all of them are mercenaries', outside of the Compound.

And I see one of the first drafts of a new Constitution wants an Islamic State under Sharia Law. Well, if that's what they want, I am sure WE will not be stopping them. And if they don't want Black Africans in their country, who are we to tell them to stop killing them?

Iraq, all over again. The Women in Iraq who used to have equal rights including equal pay, are now scared to go out in the street and their Arab Spring was crushed by our puppet government there.

Anyhow, tell me, is NATO going home now?? Halliburton, BP, Shell? Which faction of the Rebels will now take charge, the Islamists who actually started the protests, tribes, and which ones? Will the hold elections, or do they want Democracy and if they don't, what will WE do? Leave?

Most of the world was not born yesterday. This is simply a repeat of centuries of Western interference in Arab affairs, always under the pretext of 'we're just here to help, well some of them'.

[joshcryer]

66. Have you seen the "who are the rebels" article in Articles and Editorials?

The rebels control their destiny. Slanders of the rebels are just typical authoritarian untruths.

What happens if Libya doesn't turn into Iraq all over again? Will you apologize for being so ... unfair to these kind and wonderful people who are being slandered because of the actions of a few?

[stockholmer]

41. 'fellow travelers'??!!??, why don't you go red-bait on National Front or Free Republic?

:thumbsdown:

[geek tragedy]

46. This post is based on Communist accusations directed

at the US government.

The WSWS is a Communist publication, run by Trotskyists, i.e. Communists.

[stockholmer]

62. pray tell, when is the last time a Trotskyist dropped 'smart bombs', flew drones, invaded multiple

countries, imposed sanctions, led clandestine coup d' etats , carpet bombed civilians, established a global ring of secret detention/torture sites, propped up (and then took down) viscous thug dictatorial regimes in resource rich nations (whilst ignoring hundreds of thousand of deaths by equally repressive regimes in resource poor lands) employed ruthless, murderous private military subcontractors by the 10's of thousands, all resulting in the deaths of well over 2 million people of colour in a 20 year time span?

[joshcryer]

71. A Trotskyite would deny that they've ever had a chance to implement it, but Russia was imperialist.

Russia's imperialism is a direct result of Trotskyism. Trotsky was famously against democracy, but he championed the Russian invasions.

[stockholmer]

75. 1940- Trotsky took an icepick to the brain in Mexico for his disapproval of the Stalinist tyranny

[joshcryer]

76. Trotsky never accepted that his ideas lead to Stalinism. Vanguard until death.

[stockholmer]

78. do you accept that the ideas espoused in the US Constitution naturally led to W Bush and empire?

[sabrina 1]

74. 1000% n/t

[Number23]

81. +1000 It is hard to believe what is posted here nowadays

[2banon]

96. That statement caught my eye immediateley...

As a critic of the guy I voted for and for his implementation of status quo foriegn and domestic policies, I did a double take on that statement, and decided to avoid reading the article because I'm pretty sure this administration did not lay down this particular gauntlet.. It's really important to critisize on factual basis not conjured up bull shit just to make a point or express dissent.

And oh by the way, regardless of when the Wikileaks cable release on this subject occurred, the coziness with Lybia isn't news.. so, I'm not sure why it's even being discussed other than to conjur up hunt and kill bs.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. which parts are untrue?

It could be you missed the factual part of this. I can see why--it looks like you've gotten very emotional about this, which often causes people not to apprehend the real nature of a thing. Obviously I'm not referring to the "wipe away the tear" statement--that was clearly figurative language. But it does appear that your bloodlust celebratory mood may be causing you to miss some obvious truths.

By the way, what's the real reason we bombed Libya? Was this a humanitarian slaughter on our part, nothing more, nothing less?

[geek tragedy]

7. The US cooperated with Libya until his own people rebelled against him.

Most folks of your and the diarist's ilk have shown a remarkable amount of bitterness over the fact that Qadaffi lost.

As for which parts of the anti-American Communist publication's piece are untrue, one can start with their LIE that the Obama administration is insisting that Qadaffi be 'murdered.'

[DisgustipatedinCA]

8. I still didn't catch the real reason we bombed Libya.

Did we do this for humanitarian reasons?

[geek tragedy]

12. "Real reason" meaning the most evil, diabolical purpose

your crowd can imagine, or has read in your favorite anti-US propaganda outlet?

As far as the 'real reason' in mainstream circles, it's that Obama got burned by not being bold enough on Egypt, the Arab league requested the intervention, and the UK and France pushed and pulled Obama into this. Now, one can freely speculate as to whether the UK and France would have been so keen to do so if Libya had no oil.

But, that's too mundane of an analysis for the "US is the root of all evil" crowd.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

16. that's not what I asked.

I'll ask for a third time. I'd request that you gather some courage and attempt to answer my question: why did we invade Libya. I don't care what the "mainstream" thinks, and I don't care what you surmise "my crowd" thinks--you're not very good at that, by the way. Again, I'd like to ask you about something about which you should be an authority: your own opinion.

Why did we invade Libya? (3rd request for information)

[geek tragedy]

22. We did not invade Libya, genius.

Why did we participate in the air strikes. I laid that out--Obama got dragged into it by the British, French, and to a lesser degree the Arab League.

Oil was a concern, as always, but not the sole driving force. Also involved was the fact that you did have a popular uprising being suppressed by mass murder, and that there was a chance go prevent that mass murder from succeeding in its goal to preserve a dictatorship.

[Fumesucker]

13. Nah, we're just watching the end zone victory dance with a measure of disgust..

Twice in the last few days I've read Obama boosters saying quite literally "Obama took Qadaffi OUT!"..

Which is in marked contrast to the earlier talking points from the Obama booster club that the Libyan rebels and NATO were doing the heavy lifting in Libya.

Success has a thousand fathers while failure is an orphan.

[geek tragedy]

15. The Libyan people took Qadaffi's regime out.

The US helped level the playing field so that Libya's form of government would not be determined by Qadaffi's tanks and bombers.

[Fumesucker]

18. Here's a post right here claiming it was Obama that took out Qadaffi..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1817821&mesg_id=1818897

And here's another one..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1810753&mesg_id=1810845

[geek tragedy]

20. And there are plenty talking about how Obama would

have gunned down protestors like Qadaffi did, had they protested and demanded he step down.

Such folks have not heard of the "Tea Party" apparently.

Also, plenty of people talking about how Libyans could not have wanted to get rid of Qadaffi, because his economic policies were so progressive and in fact better than Obama's.

Yes, it's a Democratic website, so there will be excess praise for Democrats.

But, there are also pro-Qadaffi sycophants here.

[Fumesucker]

21. I linked to posts proving my point..

Can you do the same thing regarding your claim of "pro Qadaffi sycophants"?

[geek tragedy]

23. Links:

"Gaddafi was the one keeping The Imperialists & NeoLiberals OUT of Africa.
The "NeoLiberals" & The World Banks, & The Global Oil Corps, & the IMF are the ones are drooping NeoLiberal Freedom Bombs on Gaddafi.
"They" are the ones who will turn Libya into a NoeLiberal Free market HELL, just like Iraq."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4975724#4976628

"Since you seem to think the US wouldn't crack down in the same way, get a large group of people and tell Washington DC you no longer are the legimate government and want them to step down. Do this with the backing of China also. See what the response from the government is. Get back to me mmkay."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4976537&mesg_id=4976605

"Qaddafi did more for his people's economic welfare than Obama seems to intend to do. He used the money to loosen the economic death-grip on the continent of Africa.but he's much more dangerous than Qaddafi ever was; he has the world's most sophisticated killing machine at his fingertips and uses it whether he has the legal permission from Congress to do so or not. His violation of US law to start and sustain this power-grab truly brings the core of his character in question: if you believe in democracy, you obey the laws and mechanisms of it, especially when killing lots of foreigners. . . Who's "better"? Both have waged wars of aggression, both have engaged in political assassinations, both have suppressed dissent, although Qaddafi has obviously been MUCH more repressive; then again, Obama simply CAN'T suppress dissent the way Qaddafi was able to, so it's hard to compare. . . .The blood is on the hands of the interventionists; it's all their fault, and the tally won't be made for many years now. We sit here in relative peace and comfort, but the lives of every one of the 5 million or so Libyans is seriously disrupted, although some are going to do quite well. Those nameless "innocent civilians" we care so much about are probably going to have a much worse time in the next few months and years than they would have had had we stayed out and let Qaddafi put down the rebellion. Very few people contest that he would have done so in rather short order.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1826268#1832867

So, according to some extreme leftists at DU, Obama would likely massacre dissidents here if he could, Qadaffi is the economic savior of Africa, the Libyan people would have been better off had Qadaffi massacred those rising up against him, and that Qadaffi himself bears no personal responsibility for any of the bloodshed that has occurred there.

Whether it's love of Qadaffi or hatred of Obama/the United States is unclear.

[Fumesucker]

25. Could it be *distrust* of the motives of the USA?

After all, the track record of American involvement in the Middle East is hardly one of distinterested philanthropy, from the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian leader in 1953 to the support for the House of Saud to the invasion and deposition of Saddam, very little of this has lead to positive outcomes for the actual people of the Middle East.

And in absolute terms, Obama wields orders of magnitude more power than Qaddafi ever did, from a strictly neutral viewpoint Obama _is_ more dangerous than Qaddafi.

[geek tragedy]

26. Dangerous, to whom?

People are free to distrust. But, praising a dictator goes several steps to far.

Also, remember that the no-fly zone was (a) enacted by the UN and (b) requested by the Arab League. Not even China and Russia objected.

[Fumesucker]

27. Obama does not have his finger on a massive nuclear trigger?

As I said, from a strictly neutral viewpoint in terms of capabilities Obama is far more dangerous than Qaddafi ever dreamed of being.

You might recall Secretary of State Clinton's remarks about "obliterating" Iran when she was a candidate for president.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/22/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422

[geek tragedy]

28. If one is a political dissident in Syria,

I would wager that Assad is much more dangerous than Obama.

[Fumesucker]

29. Assad does not have the capability to destroy civilization..

Obama does, nuclear war wouldn't kill every single human being but it would effectively end human civilization for quite some time if not permanently.

Syria has an incarceration rate of 93/100,000..

The USA?

715/100,000..

:shrug:

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/world.htm

[geek tragedy]

32. Okay you win. Assad is much better than Obama.

I suggest you move to Syria, now that the workers' paradise of Libya has been despoiled by the evils of Obama.

Maybe you could found "Baathpartyunderground" considering Assad is more your cup of tea than typical Democrats like Obama.

[Fumesucker]

70. Ah yes, anyone who points out inconvenient facts is a dictator lover..

:eyes:

You know that particular strawgodzilla wore out its welcome when the Republicans threw it at anyone who questioned the absolute necessity of overthrowing Saddam by invading Iraq.

You really should pick better company.

[geek tragedy]

83. Not saying you love Assad, just that you prefer him to Obama.

Surely, Syria is not perfect in its form of government, but clearly it oppresses its citizenry less than does the United States.

Your stat about incarcerations improved that.

[Fumesucker]

84. You'll note that Obama seems to be all in favor of continuing the drug war..

And it's the drug war that has mostly driven the US to having the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Perhaps if a loved one of yours was incarcerated on some stupid drug charge you'd get the picture a bit better, apparently some people just can't recognize a problem unless it's made blatantly personal.

As I said originally in this thread, some of us are just really put off by the end zone victory dance on the part of a lot of Democrats, it's unwarranted after the rhetoric about how the whole Libyan situation was under control of the Libyan rebels and NATO and it's unseemly to boot.

[geek tragedy]

85. What does your incarceration rate comparison

prove about Syria vs the US in terms of the drug war?

What does it prove about anything?

If it doesn't prove anything, why did you bother?

[Fumesucker]

86. It proves that the US incarcerates a much larger percentage of its population than a dictatorship..

A dictatorship like Syria.

Come on, do some more victory dance, Obama took out Qaddafi and it's time to celebrate!!1!!one1

[geek tragedy]

87. Perhaps the US should adopt Syria's approach to drug 'crimes?' nt

[Fumesucker]

88. Which nation am I describing?

The powerful and connected get away with virtually anything.

The powerless and unconnected are subject to zero tolerance of any infraction, no matter how minor.

[geek tragedy]

89. Better question:

Which nation in the history of humanity are you NOT talking about?

[Fumesucker]

90. At one time I wouldn't have been talking about the USA...

[geek tragedy]

91. Nixon made tapes, otherwise he would have suffered no consequences. nt

[Fumesucker]

92. The Republicans basically told Nixon he had to go...

Can you even imagine that happening today under any circumstances?

The Republicans telling a Republican president he has to resign.

[geek tragedy]

93. So, that makes us no better than Syria?

Btw, should we adopt Syria's law on drug offenses?

[Fumesucker]

94. I answered your previous question..

Why don't you extend the same courtesy to me and answer my question?

[geek tragedy]

95. Because you keep on moving the goalposts.

You cite the drug war and incarceration rates as some kind of proof that the US is as low or lower than Syria.

Of course, what you don't mention is that drug offenses draw the death penalty in Syria.

And so it goes.

[stockholmer]

54. who told you that? THE GAY GIRL IN DAMASCUS BLOG (CIA Fronted Hoax) lololol

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2011/06/11/another-cia-blunder-kidnapped-us-lesbian-in-syria-psyop-exposed/



The psy-ops were the work of Tom McMaster, a 40-year-old American man, and his wife Britta Froelicher, an activist with the American Friends Service Committee , an cointelpro-like organization linked to the US intelligence/CIA community since the Cold War.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/06/11/the-cia-500

http://orange2k.freeservers.com/companies.html

[geek tragedy]

58. Anyone who denies that Assad is a brutal dictator

is either a moron or a paid shill for the Assad regime.

Which are you?

[stockholmer]

67. so,I can put you down as supporting the invasion of Saudi Arabia (instead of selling them 80 Billion

plus in arms), invasion of Bahrain (now they are truly progressive, they get the Saudis to come over the bridge and slaughter a couple thousand of their protestors), Venezuela (why, because he is a COMMIE, the neo-cons told me so), Israel (those pesky Palestinains just ask to be slaughtered, so I guess we can take Israel off this list), Indonesia, Thailand, Mynamar, North Korea (ooopsie, they have NUKES, no can do), etc etc, plus the big one, China (well, maybe not, as where would you shop if WalMart cheap-death goods are gone).


here are some of the past/present US-backed 'champions of liberty', dont they just give you a warm-fuzzy feelin!


Chile Gen. Augusto Pinochet 1973-1990 3000 murdered. 400,000 tortured.

Argentina Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla 1976-1981 30,000 murdered.

Indonesia Suharto 1965 coup against left-leaning Sukarno, 1975 support of East Timor genocide 500,000 dead after 1965 coup; 100,000-230,000 dead in East Timor; more, more, more.

Guatemala Armas, Fuentes, Montt
Iran The Shah of Iran
Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s in Paris

Egypt Sadat, Mubarak 1978-2011

Iraq Saddam Hussein

Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979

Paraguay Stroessner. US supported throughout (state.gov says US has supported Paraguayan development since 1942) ($142M between 1962 and 1975) 1954-1989

Bolivia Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970-

Angola Jonas Savimbi/UNITA (didn't actually win his revolution, but killed or displaced millions) 1975-1989

Zaire Mobutu

Kuwait a monarchy

Morocco

Tunisia

Algeria

Jordan

Panama Noriega was US-supported for years till he got greedy with CAI drug money

Haiti Papa Doc, Baby Doc (Baby Doc is BACK, of happy days!)

Dominican Republic Trujillo, a military dictator for 32 years with US support for most of that time; Belaguer, Trujillo's protege, installed after US Marines intervened to put down an attempt to restore the democratically elected government of Juan Bosch 1930-61, 1965-78

Honduras

El Salvador 1980s

Nepal monarchy since 1948

Cuba Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro

Brazil Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support 1965-67

Uzbekistan Kamirov "The Boiler", $150M from the Bush administration for an air base.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess put me down as a moron, for believing in the principle of self determination for a nation-state's people.

[geek tragedy]

82. Self-determination means not having a dictator.

Apparently, you support the right of third world dictators to oppress their people without interference from the outside world.

[stockholmer]

47. no, it is about the Anglo/Americans/NATO war mongers and their banker overlords staying the HELL OUT

the business of EMPIRE.

[joshcryer]

52. The Libyan rebels control their destiny and the WSWS is the one meddling...

...in their affairs.

[stockholmer]

56. if you think the so-called 'rebels' control anything in the true sense, then you are delusional

[geek tragedy]

61. If you say so. nt

[joshcryer]

69. Please see this post in Editorials, the west's leverage will diminish as NATO leaves:

The post in question is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x623161">here. Note my agreement with this editorial http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=623161&mesg_id=623763">here. :hi:

The Libyan rebels will not allow NATO manipulation, full stop, period.

[joshcryer]

36. Firstly, the cables that were released Wed./Thurs. were small compared to the Jan./Feb. release.

To credit these cables for exposing "the close collaboration between the US government,top American politicians and Muammar Gaddafi" is nonsense, since this was known about for, oh, 6 months, well into 6 months. Washington has in fact not "insisted" that Gaddafi "must be hunted down and murdered." The Cables have in fact not been "virtually blacked out by the corporate media," as there are currently over 500 links for the cables on Google News in the past 24 hours. Ooh, good oh boogiemen! Scary conspiracy!

Naturally the WSWS article mostly ignores the western connection with Gaddafi (which I have been http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=512443&mesg_id=512557">talking about since the beginning) and more focuses on the lamentably that the west "turned their back" on Gaddafi.

Worse yet, the WSWS starts the racist and Islamaphobic spiel that says the United States "armed and led in the operation to overthrow Gaddafi (...) Islamist forces concentrated in eastern Libya." No mention of the western mountain contribution to the overthrow of Gaddafi, no mention of the cities of Misrata and Zawiya which rose up in the early stages against Gaddafi, just typical right wing authoritarian view of things. Did I mention racist and Islapmaphobic? Because it is.

Meanwhile "Islamic terrorists" are the left and right wing's Emmanuel Goldstein to be used in our collective "two minute hate."

The cable "AL-QADHAFI: TO RUSSIA, WITH LOVE?" was released on Jan 31, not August 23/26, so it appears again that WSWS's analysis is late to the party, as they make no indication that this cable has been around for almost 6 months.

Finally, the other cables that "express concerns" about various business deals are true, but WSWS is implicitly lying because the other cables released in the same time period show that Gaddafi backed down on nationalization, on wealth redistribution, and indeed handed out contracts like they were candy.

[joshcryer]

31. Authoritarian Trotskyites are very popular on DU.

They surge to anything that bashes the United States.

[geek tragedy]

33. Now we have people saying Assad> Obama.

These people are clinical.

Fortunately, they are politically irrelevant.

[joshcryer]

38. They'll be first against the wall along with the CEO's and bankers.

There's no fundamental difference between an authoritarian Trotskyite and a CEO and banker. NONE.

[sabrina 1]

34. Lol, you need to forward into the present. Commies are long

gone, (well, except for our allies in China) remembered only by the far right who apparently still fear them and are certain they are currently residing in the WH getting ready to round them all up.

Are you sure you meant to say that here? :eyes:

[joshcryer]

37. Do you know what Trotskyism is? WSWS are adherents of authoritarian communism.

And they're a marginal group of liars, for the most part, and it is indeed amusing to see a post from them here again since the troll that used to post them all the time was happily banned.

[sabrina 1]

42. How about addressing the content of what was posted rather

than advocating for censorship. I am far more wary of people who advocate for silencing those whose views they disagree with and who advocate censorship, than I am of those whose reporting of events may or not be biased. I trust that adults are capable of sorting out the truth for themselves rather than have some 'authority' try to do it for them.

Aside from all that, the European and Asian press are now reporting the facts.

This article merely reproduces the Wilileaks cables which most of us who have been following Libya since at least 2006, have already read.

Maybe you do not like the fact that those cables, which you are surely not calling 'lies', prove wrong those of you who tried to claim that the US had no need to remove Qadaffi. To anyone observing the situation over the past number of years, that was a laughable claim. But the Diplomatic Cables here are proof that to the Western Colonialists he was standing in the way of their profiteering.

Interesting that you ignored the actual content of the OP.

[joshcryer]

50. I take it you didn't read post #36. I did address the "content of what was posted."

Meanwhile I have been trumpeting the Wikileaks cables as you damn well know because I've showed them to you in our discussions. My take away from this WSWS article is the fact that they're pointing out the close ties Gaddafi's government had, this is back peddling from their views in the past about how Gaddafi supposedly wasn't friends with the United States.

Basically it went from "anti-imperialist being attacked" to "friend of the United States back stabbed." That's my take away.

All of them collaborated with, armed and supported the Gaddafi regime, as US and European corporations reaped vast profits from Libya’s oil wealth.

Meanwhile WSWS http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/pers-j20.shtml">calls the rebels:

The TNC is a disparate alliance of ex-Gaddafi regime officials, tribal chiefs, exiled businessmen and other operators including CIA assets and Al Qaeda operatives of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

WSWS are extremely vile people.

[sabrina 1]

60. Well, if they are vile for reporting the makeup of the rebels

so is the Guardian, the Independent and just about every other reputable media outlet around the world. It is no secret anymore, not that it ever was, that there were 'boots' or maybe since they were not in uniform, they were 'slippers' on the ground from the Western intel organizations who have 'interests' in Libya, all along.

Your 'take' on the cables is just that, your biased 'take'. For me when I first read them, I was still a supporter of the original people who started the protests but not of the 'new leaders' and had to regretfully rethink what I was actually supporting without bias which was very hard to do at the time. But I will never, ever support Imperial interference in Arab countries. You do as you wish, that is your choice.

[joshcryer]

64. A small group of about 200 men does not "represent the makeup of the rebels."

But the vile WSWS portrays them as such. If you think the cables represent a Gaddafi that was not friends with the US I cannot believe how that is even remotely supported.

[Starry Messenger]

9. k&r

[msanthrope]

11. I was missing WSWS!!!! I miss their inane, batshit-crazy viewpoint.

Here, they accuse 'Washington" when we really are talking about McCain and Lieberman's cables. Wonder why they distort that.

[Fearless]

19. It's all about oil no doubt.

[joshcryer]

30. HAHAHA, black is white. WSWS pointing out Gaddafi's ties with the west that I've been pointing...

...out for 6 months. :puke:

Fucking goddamn delicious beyond comprehension. Fucking beautiful.

[WillyT]

45. K & R !!!

:kick:

[amborin]

49. K&R