Is the implication that Qaddafi sitting at the top of an extractionist, confiscatory, oppressive, autocratic state mechanism made Libya “prosperous?”
Because… no. That’s not how prosperity works. Or rather, that’s the bullshit the capitalists and their lackeys in America like to present as prosperity: massive wealth inequality and oppressive living conditions for the bottom 90% are ok because look at how wealthy the wealthiest people in the country are!
Obviously creating and supporting the conditions for a persistent power vacuum once Qaddafi was murdered isn’t great. But I’m very skeptical that the regular people of Libya would be any better off today if that asshole were still alive and exploiting them with his cronies. Unless Qaddafi controlled the weather somehow…?
A new report by the British Parliament shows that the 2011 NATO war in Libya was based on an array of lies.
“Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK’s future policy options,” an investigation by the House of Commons’ bipartisan Foreign Affairs Committee, strongly condemns the U.K.'s role in the war, which toppled the government of Libya’s leader Muammar Qaddafi and plunged the North African country into chaos.
“We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya,” the report states. “UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”
The Foreign Affairs Committee concludes that the British government “failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element.”
You could voice a similar skepticism about the moral virtue of Saddam Hussein while still acknowledging that Iraq was immeasureably better off under his leadership than it was under the conditions the US led coalition created. The point of the post is that the conditions they are complaining about were created by (in part) the people complaining about it.
I think there’s an argument to be made that leaders in the global south who are powerful enough to pursue an independent policy without caring that much about US and western interests incidentally create better conditions domestically because they don’t sell their entire country’s fate to global capitalism. I’m not sure what loudly denouncing a dead man accomplishes if you’re going to to acknowledge that the conditions we created are manifestly causing the problem.
Obviously creating and supporting the conditions for a persistent power vacuum once Qaddafi was murdered isn’t great. But I’m very skeptical that the regular people of Libya would be any better off today if that asshole were still alive and exploiting them with his cronies.
Very surprised you aren’t being shouted down by now. Last time I mentioned that being oppositional to the US on certain geopolitical matters doesn’t automatically make you a leftist icon, I was labeled as a lib.
Qaddafi was really good about dancing between the geopolitical left to the right depending on what he would personally gain from it. He was no martyr for the cause, nor did really care about anything but maintaining his control of the status quo.
The best I can say about him is that he wasn’t a racist, and that occasionally his fixation on whatever current project he was currently hyper focused upon would actually benefit the people in a meaningful way.
Lol, shout down means to drown out or to be silenced. I just happen to believe that honest discord is an important aspect of self criticism…
Libya being bombed back to the bronze age and open-air slave markets being established.
Again, no one is celebrating or advocating the US intervention in Libya. He was just stating that Gaddafi wasn’t some endless spring of socialist prosperity.
We can recognize that Gaddafi was a powerhouse for stability in the region, and that the US intervention created a horrible power vacuum which is responsible for its current situation.
We can also do so without participating in historical revisionism, one I suspect is being driven by the US’s desire to install a puppet strongman in his place.
“Oh look these people are so backwards that only a despotic madman can rule… hey who’s this? Oh its my choice for Libya, the despotic madman, but this time he’s our despotic mad man!”
When I said that I was aping an example of what the state department or western media would say, which is why it’s in quotes.
Rest assured the US is not done with it’s project in Libya, there’s just too much money being left on the table. Sooner or later there will be some liberal with a bleeding heart for the poor “savage nobles” of Libya.
I’m sure they are already looking for their version of a more amenable and controllable Gaddafi. They just have to do a little historical revisionism to explain that it wasn’t the “despotism” that was the problem, but the man himself, and that the strongman leader is the only thing that works in Libya.
Is the implication that Qaddafi sitting at the top of an extractionist, confiscatory, oppressive, autocratic state mechanism made Libya “prosperous?”
Because… no. That’s not how prosperity works. Or rather, that’s the bullshit the capitalists and their lackeys in America like to present as prosperity: massive wealth inequality and oppressive living conditions for the bottom 90% are ok because look at how wealthy the wealthiest people in the country are!
Obviously creating and supporting the conditions for a persistent power vacuum once Qaddafi was murdered isn’t great. But I’m very skeptical that the regular people of Libya would be any better off today if that asshole were still alive and exploiting them with his cronies. Unless Qaddafi controlled the weather somehow…?
The implication that NATO bombing Libya’s infrastructure into rubble, and decapitating its leadership might have left it lawless hellscape.
U.K. Parliament report details how NATO’s 2011 war in Libya was based on lies
WEIRD!
https://www.telesurenglish.net/analysis/Libya-Before-and-After-Muammar-Gaddafi-20200115-0011.html
This is beautiful
liberals and defending slavery, like a clock kek
Sounds a little bit like you’re talking out of your ass and have no clue what Libya was like under Gaddafi in the first place.
You could voice a similar skepticism about the moral virtue of Saddam Hussein while still acknowledging that Iraq was immeasureably better off under his leadership than it was under the conditions the US led coalition created. The point of the post is that the conditions they are complaining about were created by (in part) the people complaining about it.
I think there’s an argument to be made that leaders in the global south who are powerful enough to pursue an independent policy without caring that much about US and western interests incidentally create better conditions domestically because they don’t sell their entire country’s fate to global capitalism. I’m not sure what loudly denouncing a dead man accomplishes if you’re going to to acknowledge that the conditions we created are manifestly causing the problem.
Very surprised you aren’t being shouted down by now. Last time I mentioned that being oppositional to the US on certain geopolitical matters doesn’t automatically make you a leftist icon, I was labeled as a lib.
Qaddafi was really good about dancing between the geopolitical left to the right depending on what he would personally gain from it. He was no martyr for the cause, nor did really care about anything but maintaining his control of the status quo.
The best I can say about him is that he wasn’t a racist, and that occasionally his fixation on whatever current project he was currently hyper focused upon would actually benefit the people in a meaningful way.
God forbid someone shout at them about Libya being bombed back to the bronze age and open-air slave markets being established.
Lol, shout down means to drown out or to be silenced. I just happen to believe that honest discord is an important aspect of self criticism…
Again, no one is celebrating or advocating the US intervention in Libya. He was just stating that Gaddafi wasn’t some endless spring of socialist prosperity.
We can recognize that Gaddafi was a powerhouse for stability in the region, and that the US intervention created a horrible power vacuum which is responsible for its current situation.
We can also do so without participating in historical revisionism, one I suspect is being driven by the US’s desire to install a puppet strongman in his place.
“Oh look these people are so backwards that only a despotic madman can rule… hey who’s this? Oh its my choice for Libya, the despotic madman, but this time he’s our despotic mad man!”
Gaddafi was not above criticism and had eccentricities, but calling him a “despotic madman” is pure vibes-based politics.
When I said that I was aping an example of what the state department or western media would say, which is why it’s in quotes.
Rest assured the US is not done with it’s project in Libya, there’s just too much money being left on the table. Sooner or later there will be some liberal with a bleeding heart for the poor “savage nobles” of Libya.
I’m sure they are already looking for their version of a more amenable and controllable Gaddafi. They just have to do a little historical revisionism to explain that it wasn’t the “despotism” that was the problem, but the man himself, and that the strongman leader is the only thing that works in Libya.