|
agrielaios posted:Could anyone recommend sources to read about recent 40 years in Libya? I was looking around for information about what the situation in Libya was pre recent events to get the idea as to what were the reasons for the uprising, and found some facts: 1. Controls the weather 2. Is a worldwide fashion trendsetter 3. Doesn't pee like everyone else
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Kim Jung-Il facts 4. Can pee into the wind and not get wet
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
Qaddafi sure was benevolent. Ask his oldest friends, the men that he collaborated with in the Green Revolution. The few he didn't kill he imprisoned for decades on end. Or ask prominent Shi'ite cleric Musa al-Sadr, who was abducted in a 1978 visit to Libya and hasn't been seen since. Or ask the people of Chad. Or...etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
etalian posted:No he pretty much pursued the standard divide and conquer policy, people close his his tribe got reward while most of the country withered. At least according to its HDI levels and GDP per capita, Libya was one of the most advanced Arab states. You can't deny there was actually a expansive safety net in Libya, even if there was probably favoritism. You can't deny the guy did some stuff right, especially in regards of social spending and infrastructure at least prior to the 00s. Gaddafi was did horrendous stuff, like Pinochet, but his focus on state spending and infrastructure wasn't his fault. Seriously, Libya's per capita income (from oil production) makes it the wealthiest state in Africa with a "high" development index.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
Guys I looked at some charts and the numbers only went up during his rule. Why are people mad??
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
I didn't research it much, but here's a seemingly reputable article which states that residential electricity in Libya does indeed cost money. (Linked to the google cache since the actual site requires membership.) "8 dinars per liter of oil (0.08 EUR)" does not make sense. I'm seeing that the average conversion rate in the year before the revolution was 1 EUR = 1.7 LYD, so 8 dinars would be 4.71 EUR, not 0.08.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:37
|
|
|
Hydrogen Oxide posted:Guys I looked at some charts and the numbers only went up during his rule. Why are people mad?? Did people revolt against him because of him being a dictator or him implementing liberal economic policies that raised unemployment to high levels?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:38
|
|
Cock Democracy posted:I didn't research it much, but here's a seemingly reputable article which states that residential electricity in Libya does indeed cost money. (Linked to the google cache since the actual site requires membership.) Ye, some of those things I posted may be outdated, hence the need for good overall review of the situation in recent 40 or so years. Because that's all weird. With the mess (sometimes bloody) that some 1st world countries are making at their own territories and at territories of other countries - we don't see that many revolts in those.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
When they came for the people working to peacefully overthrow Gadhaffi over the last forty years, I said nothing, because I didn't give a poo poo. When they open fire on unarmed protest rallies and killed thousands, I said nothing, probably because MLP was on. When they linked me to the man responsible for it all being knocked around by a crowd, I lost my shut because poo poo, I dunno, I only just started paying attention to the situation or something but I felt a pressing need to whine to the Internet about MAN'S INHUMANITY without bothering to think about which side was which. Or I decided to be living proof of Stalin's statement that one death is a tragedy, and a million is a statistic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Did people revolt against him because of him being a dictator or him implementing liberal economic policies that raised unemployment to high levels? A combination of both similar to all the other Arab Spring uprisings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:46
|
|
|
etalian posted:A combination of both similar to all the other Arab Spring uprisings. I agree, which is why Gaddafi and his regime's mistakes did to be looked with context and put against other regimes in the region. It is also why the US should get the gently caress out of Bahrain and Yemen and stop supporting both regimes, which especially in Yemen have been bloody and corrupt. I guess it comes off as kind of weird to celebrate the beating and summary execution of one dictator, but kind of ignoring an other guy the US is actively supporting. There has been a lot of put downs in this thread against people asking similar questions, and it really hasn't been answered. Why Gaddafi but not Saleh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I agree, which is why Gaddafi and his regime's mistakes did to be looked with context and put against other regimes in the region. It has been answered, you just refuse to ever accept any answer. These are not the same things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
farraday posted:It has been answered, you just refuse to ever accept any answer. These are not the same things. Wait so why is Saleh's regime so different than Gaddafi's? Sorry, if I haven't see the answer in the last few pages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:There has been a lot of put downs in this thread against people asking similar questions, and it really hasn't been answered. Why Gaddafi but not Saleh? Probably because Libya was more compelling for intervention especially when the rebels reached their breaking point and Gaddafi suddenly becoming very vulnerable. Also being a grassroots movement helped for Libya, while a good amount of break-away groups in Yemen are getting helped out by bad bad Iran. So Libya got the help since it provided a change of heart opportunity to get rid of a crazy leader without any need for more direct dirty involvement, Iraq train wreck nation building or loss of life on US side. Yemen on the other presented a more complex situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
etalian posted:Probably because Libya was more compelling for intervention especially when the rebels reached their breaking point and Gaddafi suddenly becoming very vulnerable. So why is the US actively assisting the Saleh regime with advisors and has been moot about coming up with any solution? Rebels being backed by Iran isn't an answer, since the rebels have plenty of reasons to be pissed. It isn't like the US is just being hands off here, Saleh has gotten their direct support. You can point to Al Qaeda or Iran, but the many of the rebels/Islamists only came after Saleh has drove the country into the ground and honestly have good reason to be pissed. Even if Saleh gets mild criticism from the West, the US gave over 300m in military support last year and actively has troops within the country. I am for getting rid of them all, but the US has always has had "do as I say, not as I do" mentality to democracy and self-determination. This is why I think it is so dangerous to cheer lead wars, especially when things can't be distilled into black and white.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 05:17
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Wait so why is Saleh's regime so different than Gaddafi's? Sorry, if I haven't see the answer in the last few pages. It's a 473 page thread, I assure you it has come up. First, you just changed the question, perhaps not consciously, I will answer the first question. Why Ghaddafi not Saleh? 1. International agreement. Cover, cooperation, whatever you want to call it Arab states proved willing to argue for a military response to the burgeoning Libyan civil war. while the GCC has established an ignored roadmap for transition in Yemen they do not appear to be in any hurry to suggest a military solution. 2. Local coherence. While the NTC hardly was a universal Libyan organization it provided a convenient and as of now still fairly inclusive umbrella for Libyan anti ghaddfi forces. In contrast the oppositional parties in Yemen have remained divided or have been played off each other by Saleh's family/cronies while he was out of the country. 3. Violence! Sure there has been violence in Yemen, but the protesters themselves have still maintained their desire to be non violent. This seems like a strnage problem but where does that leave an intervention? We get to be their proxy violence? Yeah that is a disaster not even waiting to happen. It would be terrible from the word go. The willingness of Libyans to get their hands dirty, as it were, greatly assisted the ability of military intervention to both go ahead and be successful. Base don what I understand the protesters in Daara want, what they're effectively asking for is blue helments not a no fly/drive zone. 4. Exit strategy. The NTCs coherence provides any country contemplating foreign intervention a clear out. No such out exists in Yemen and the ongoing uprising in the north is likely to make the whole thing even more complicated for any country that does get involved. 5. Benefit. Maintenance of economic connections with Libya and stability of cross Mediterranean states more valuable than Yemen geopolitically. Failure to respond well to Tunisia(France) further pushes for immediate action in a neighboring state with closer ties than just responding to any Arab state. And why not 6. Instability fairly endemic in Yemen and current crisis not seen as major split from past crises.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 05:17
|
|
|
farraday posted:It's a 473 page thread, I assure you it has come up. None of them those reasons actually address, the US and the West supporting the Saleh regime directly. If it was a choice between Libya and Yemen of who gets "first in line" of support it would be a coherent arguement, but currently it is why did we did bomb Libya, but training/supplying and arming Saleh's forces?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:None of them those reasons actually address, the US and the West supporting the Saleh regime directly. If it was a choice between Libya and Yemen of who gets "first in line" of support it would be a coherent arguement, but currently it is why did we did bomb Libya, but training/supplying and arming Saleh's forces? As I said you're not interested in an answer you'll just shift the posts to something else. Why did we intervene in Libya and not Yemen?... Wait I mean why are we supporting Saleh... no wait I mean.....
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
farraday posted:As I said you're not interested in an answer you'll just shift the posts to something else. I have been asking that exact question since the line of this conversation started, it hasn't shifted. You just didn't read what I wrote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I have been asking that exact question since the line of this conversation started, it hasn't shifted. You just didn't read what I wrote. So what you're saying is that once the mountain of why there was an intervention in Libya and not Yemen you're out of metaphorical breath and can't continue on on your own. You have in your apparent ignorance of Yemeni instability conflated any opposition to Saleh to the protesters so that US actions against AQAP is therefore supporting Saleh against the protesters somehow. I don't understand your mind. Unless you have proof of US support for Saleh against the protesters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
How about 'there should be interference in Yemen also but until then getting rid of Gaddafi is better than doing nothing'?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
farraday posted:So what you're saying is that once the mountain of why there was an intervention in Libya and not Yemen you're out of metaphorical breath and can't continue on on your own. The US by giving Saleh money is implicitly supporting him, even if it is to "fight terrorism". Also, the Al Qaeda finds fertile ground in Yemen because of Saleh not despite him. The US is actively fuel on the fire in Yemen, they are a giant part of why it is so unstable in the first place. Your "mountain" of evidence is meaningless because intervention in Yemen isn't on the table and probably will never be, as long as the US supports him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
agrielaios posted:Could anyone recommend sources to read about recent 40 years in Libya? I was looking around for information about what the situation in Libya was pre recent events to get the idea as to what were the reasons for the uprising, and found some facts (that may be outdated because I've just started to dig through the information): I hear things in the UEA are also pretty awesome if you're actually a citizen and Muslim and a guy. But if you're not and/or you're a foreign worker like most people there ... well, it's hell on earth. Do your above stats apply to like, the Gaddaffi family exclusively?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
dj_clawson posted:I hear things in the UEA are also pretty awesome if you're actually a citizen and Muslim and a guy. But if you're not and/or you're a foreign worker like most people there ... well, it's hell on earth. I was wondering about things like this, in Qatar and the UAE. Do you think they could have protests, or is the majority of the population too satisfied enough to really get things going?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 06:14
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:At least according to its HDI levels and GDP per capita, Libya was one of the most advanced Arab states. It's fairly easy to throw a few crumbs to the people, even while running one of the most corrupt governments in the world, when a country of 6 million people produces 1.8 million barrels of oil a day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 06:15
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The US by giving Saleh money is implicitly supporting him, even if it is to "fight terrorism". Also, the Al Qaeda finds fertile ground in Yemen because of Saleh not despite him. The US is actively fuel on the fire in Yemen, they are a giant part of why it is so unstable in the first place. Intervention will probably never be on the table regardless of whether or not the U.S. funds anti-terrorist activities in Yemen. Unless Yemen has a credible resistance movement (like the NTC), the chances of a Western-backed intervention are none, nada, nil. So, in this case, what would you like the U.S. to do? Burn bridges in a country that is unwilling to fight for its independence by withdrawing any financial support and possibly ruin relations or wait until an actual resistance movement develops and there is somewhere to which they can shift support? The U.S. (and NATO) wasn't exactly fast-moving in their support of Libya until the resistance developed into an armed rebellion. The situations are completely different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:It's fairly easy to throw a few crumbs to the people, even while running one of the most corrupt governments in the world, when a country of 6 million people produces 1.8 million barrels of oil a day. Despite this apparent ease, a lot of countries don't, however.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 06:26
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:I was wondering about things like this, in Qatar and the UAE. Do you think they could have protests, or is the majority of the population too satisfied enough to really get things going? Ne...never's to strong a word, but almost certainly not. The Qatari and Emirati citizens are too comfortable and too afraid of the 3/4ths or so of their respective countries in slave-like "guest worker" conditions to want to upset the balance, and the "guest workers" have 0 legal power (many of them had their passports confiscated). If the decision is between "mow the guest workers down in the streets" and "reform the system," the Qataris and Emiratis will cheer on their armies, and the guest workers know it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 06:33
|
|
|
LYE-OONS posted:Intervention will probably never be on the table regardless of whether or not the U.S. funds anti-terrorist activities in Yemen. Unless Yemen has a credible resistance movement (like the NTC), the chances of a Western-backed intervention are none, nada, nil. So, in this case, what would you like the U.S. to do? Burn bridges in a country that is unwilling to fight for its independence by withdrawing any financial support and possibly ruin relations or wait until an actual resistance movement develops and there is somewhere to which they can shift support? It is kind of hard for a "creditable" resistance movement to be "successful" when the military gets has training, funding and equipment from the US. I don't see how keeping the Saleh regime around is helping anybody, especially since it he left and then recently came back. The West had a giant window in order to push Saleh out of power but they didn't. I don't see support flipping like that anyway. Also, Chaebol makes a good point, we don't invade plenty of countries that have oil and give jack poo poo back to their people. The Saudis are about as corrupt as Gaddafi was. That said, I honestly hope the NTC can get their poo poo together and rebuild Libya and transfer that oil wealth directly to the people. Some of their leaders have poor records in that regard, but it is only fair to give time. That said, it would a grave mistake to dismantle many of the economic programs Libya had unless they were to replace them with even greater ones. One real worry, if that the NTC might be pressure to pursue "shock therapy" like Russia did in the 90s and privatize state assets which would be a giant mistake. Let's all hope that doesn't happen
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is kind of hard for a "creditable" resistance movement to be "successful" when the military gets has training, funding and equipment from the US. You know gently caress all about the Yemen movement don't you? There are literally existing parties which refuse to cooperate with each other for various reasons along with non antagonistic generals and tribes that have solid control on the ground. If they were able to form a unified leadership they could and it has very little to do with the military stopping them from doing so. farraday fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Oct 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Despite this apparent ease, a lot of countries don't, however. Most countries don't have the per capita oil revenue Libya does, though. And throwing a few crumbs to the masses is a good way to keep them from rebelling, even while robbing them blind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
farraday posted:You know gently caress all about the Yemen movement don't you? There are literally existing parties which refuse to cooperate with each other for various reasons along with non antagonistic generals and tribes that have solid control on the ground. If they were able to form a unified leadership they could and it has very little to do with the military stopping them from doing so. Come on you don't think the Yemen military and its US assistance has any ramification on the status of things in that country? Also, one big reason they don't united if because some of the groups don't want to be part of Yemen period and if you know Yemen's history, that makes a lot of sense. The celebration over Gaddafi's death obscures the fact, that despite for Libya and Syria, the US's support for the Arab Spring has been mostly cold and in the case of Yemen we are still supporting the dude. At best, I can see the US acting like it did in Egypt and issue vague statements of concern and at worst, I could see it spending even more money and sending more troops/advisors to support Saleh. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Oct 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 07:17
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Most countries don't have the per capita oil revenue Libya does, though. And throwing a few crumbs to the masses is a good way to keep them from rebelling, even while robbing them blind. Those "crumbs" are pretty damned important to the Libyan people, however, and even if Qaddafi was the literal irl reincarnation of Hitler, Libyan development matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 07:21
|
|
|
I remember reading the twitter propaganda over the summer and thinking it was some of the most shameless bullshit I had ever seen, but now the pro gadaffi crowd just remind me of that journalist from Apocalypse Now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4 "The heads. You're looking at the heads. I, uh -- sometimes he goes too far, you know -- he's the first one to admit , "Hes Crazy!" "Wrong! Wrong! If you could have heard the man, just two days ago, if you could have heard the man! You going to call him crazy?" I wonder what they thought they were accomplishing , it's not like people who browse twitter are going to affect anything . It's what you would use to let people know what you had for breakfast, not what you would use to influence governments. Ghetto Prince fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Oct 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
Here's the basic timeline of the Libyan economy: In the 1950s Libya was quite poor, until the discovery of oil in 1959 caused a massive increase in wealth during the following decade. Under the monarchy the distribution of wealth wasn't terribly fair, had a lot of domination by foreign interests, and also by the fact that the king was Cyrenaican, from the east of the country, and favored it over the western regions. This combined with other political matters at the time led to the coup in 1969, where Gaddafi ended up in control of an already rapidly growing economy in an oil-rich state. This is not a standing start. Almost immediately, Gaddafi saw to nationalization of the oil industry and making a mixed economy. A good amount of money got spent on education, housing, and general subsidies to the population. A good thing, but importantly also helped to consolidate power and to still favor those he found most loyal. Notably, a lot of the east, which had supported the monarchy when they had it good, has been passed up on infrastructure spending for pretty much his entire reign. A lot more went into large amounts of arms spending, military adventures in Chad and Egypt, trying to buy all sorts of chemical and nuclear weapons, funding all sorts of terrorist organizations, and most importantly building the nest egg for that $200 billion he died on. By the late 1970s, Libya was a wealthy country even so. It had a GDP higher than Spain, Italy, South Korea, or New Zealand. This was about when Gaddafi went past nationalizing the oil industry to nationalizing the rest of the economy and strongly curtailing the private sector and property ownership in general, and when he really got into writing about economic theory. Coincidentally, this is when the Libyan economy relatively flatlined. I'm not going to blame the end of rapid expansion on nationalization, at least not alone: big factors were oil prices dropping in the 1980s, and economic sanctions imposed on the country following the terror sponsoring. Still, the economic reforms led to more of the country being run by cronies, more points at which money could go into Gaddafi's pockets, and a notable brain drain of educated and skilled workers who left the country in its wake. While some ambitious infrastructure projects were undertaken (like the irrigation) little progress to this date has been made otherwise toward building any sort of manufacturing base or expanding the Libyan economy past just selling oil, tying the country's wealth to oil production alone for as long as it lasts. Also, as noted, less loyal areas have seen less of the wealth, while Gaddafi's friends and tribesmen get the best of the best. So cut to 2010: Libya is a country doing very well by African standards. This says a lot of how low African standards are, especially once you look past some state media control and see how things are in the parts of the country that got less of Dear Leader's favor. It says a lot of how Libya is pumping more oil per capita than almost anywhere in Africa too, and has been doing so for a rather long time. Its GDP was up to $90 billion. Per capita, that's nearly half that of Spain, Italy, South Korea, or New Zealand. Sum total, it's nearly half of what Gaddafi personally had in the bank. There's a pattern to be seen here. To make a long story short, Libya has long had good living standards for its region, largely on account of being in a pretty lovely region and having really massive resource wealth for such a small country. The economic miracle is a myth: it was a kleptocracy with a little more bread and circuses than some others. The biggest parts of its growth were before any real economic reforms took hold, and planning since has been slipshod at best. Whether or not privatization is a bad idea, "neoliberalism ruined it" is also a myth, since the stagnation and formation of the status quo happened during, though not strictly because of, the period of full nationalization. If Libya had been an economic miracle, or even competently or fairly managed after decades of oil wealth and infrastructure investment in a lightly populated country, we'd be comparing its economic situation and standards of living to Norway, not to Egypt. Throwing some crumbs to the people was nice and all, and maybe more brutal thieving dictators should do it, but I'd rather support just getting rid of brutal thieving dictators in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Come on you don't think the Yemen military and its US assistance has any ramification on the status of things in that country? There is literally an insurgency which controls whole provinces. Islamist connected with AQAP(probably?) laid siege to another province for three months this year before being driven off late last month. So no I don't think the US military assistance is making it hard for a creditable resistance movement to be successful. You are constantly underplaying the extent to which Yemen is a failed state. Saleh for all his corrupt faults does not and cannot have the control in Yemen that any of the other dictators had. Your point is and was beyond idiotic. Feel free to learn something about Yemen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
Don't forget Gaddafi provided training and equipment to the RUF during the Sierra Leone Civil War. Ever watch Blood Diamond?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
Qaddafi did build some infrastructure, he also put in place some social programs. Maybe he did it out of the kindness of his heart, maybe he did it to elevate certain portions of the population above others and insure their loyalty, maybe he did it to stoke his ego so he could go around African Union Summits talking about how well off Libyans were compared to other Africans. Whatever. He also violently suppressed political freedoms for decades, turned his country into a playground and personal bank account for his family, embezzled a sum so staggering it made him easily the richest man in the world, and pissed off the citizens of his own country enough that they were willing to do the dying on the ground necessary to remove him. He was an egotistic dictator, but he was still human, possessing both flaws (many) and virtues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 07:27
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Those "crumbs" are pretty damned important to the Libyan people, however, and even if Qaddafi was the literal irl reincarnation of Hitler, Libyan development matters. Is anyone seriously arguing Libyan development doesn't matter? The question, as I saw it anyway, was the quality of Gaddafi's management of Libya, and from what I've seen I'd say it was pretty abysmal. Killer robot really covered it better than me, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Is anyone seriously arguing Libyan development doesn't matter? The question, as I saw it anyway, was the quality of Gaddafi's management of Libya, and from what I've seen I'd say it was pretty abysmal. Killer robot really covered it better than me, though. The issue is that right now there is a prime opportunity to paint Qaddafi with a single stroke, including his economic legacy, in order to reverse the economy in the direction of providing less for the Libyan people, which would be a very bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 07:36
|
|