So I read the rebels document detailing how their government would function. It goes something like this.
The state will do this; the state will do that; guarantee the “right” to medical care, education, and other state services. There is also some element of sharia (or mixing religon and government theocracy). But since democracy is basically just tyranny of the majority and only the worst come to power, what makes me think the rebels are no different than when Gaddafi was in power?
I would like to add that what good does it when we finance opposition groups in certain countries only for them to be very statist, perhaps even more so than the previous government that was in power?
sigh
I’m sure government medical care in Libya will be top-notch.
And I’m not sure why you think it’s inconsistent for the US to support ‘statist’ governments. Do you think any recent president, particularly Barack Obama, is interested in creating laissez-faire nations abroad? As for ‘democracy’ in Libya… we’ll see what happens.
Think what a real “democratic” movement, interventionist in nature, would do in the middle east and north africa. What do Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria (among others) have in common? What would a sweeping democratic change bring? (Watch to the very end)
The point is to get them in debt to us. They are taking loans from the FED’s discount window (The “rebels”) The rebels are militants flown in from Yemen, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. They are al qaeda, being manipulated by the West.
Qaddafi is liked all over Africa. He is the head of the African Union. He built what the Libyans call “The 8th Wonder” a huge irrigation system. He was double crossed by the banks and by CIA/NATO. What the Western news audience is seeing right now is ‘moralization’ propaganda. Qaddafi is much stronger thn the media is making him out to be. There are many conlicting stories saying that he and his commanding son are killed or POW’s. You would see pictures if this was true.
Webster Tarpley spent some time in Libya last month and says that NATO routinely bombs news organization centers and will destroy “unauthorized” communication devices (meaning people not from the MSM). There is a narrative that has been sold well in Libya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AubBU12uu0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PSzZI5iy5U
You didn’t actually think that the rebellion was about freedom, did you?
The Muslim Brotherhood that was behind the “Arab Spring” first gained prominence when it pushed to get the French out of Algeria. The problem was that all Algerians were French citizens (with full citizen rights) and had even voted overwhelmingly to remain so. This did not matter to the Muslim Brotherhood, of course, because their aim was not Islam, but socialism. The group’s rhetoric was to get the foreigners out of Algeria, when they themselves were the “foreigners”.
It of course does no good to support these groups, since it is not in our national interest, and is certainly not in the interests of Liberty. And of course they will be far more statist than Qaddafi (in my day we spelled it with a ‘q’-- and so did he), because that’s the type of government that our current regime loves.
The reporting of the this event clearly shows that the mainstream media is either entirely stupid or deliberately misreporting the events. The creation of the central bank by the “rebels” and the likelihood of increased oil exports is the USA govts attempt to increase foriegn demand for the dollar (an increase in sie of the oil trade in dollars) and to create a nation who will actually borrow from the Americans in exchange for help to remove someone they dislike.
I remember hearing the actually cause of the 2nd Iraq was that Saddam was going to divest himself of his dollar reserves and buy euros and then to beging trading oil in euros. The American’s fearing the domino effect and what would be a huge reduction in the demand for the dollar had to act.
Betting on either currency right now would be like betting on which of two solid objects would reach the bottom of a well first when dropped at the same time. Had he tried, he would have been no better off in the end (in addition to involving himself in a war and getting executed).
When the oil boom first hit the Middle East, almost every country valued their oil in dollars, thanks largely to Kissinger’ dealings. The two major holdouts were Iraq and Iran. It’s funny how most of the major trouble since then seems to have originated in that region.
Then is much of the perceived American wealth fiat brought about by an artificially high dollar price propped up by oil? (Excuse if I sound extremely ignorant, I am)