Abridged from source. 

Source in title.

Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention

Garikai Chengu

Counterpunch: 20 Oct

Before the 2011 NATO intervention, Libya had the highest Human Development Index score on the African continent — the United Nations' composite measure of life expectancy, education, and standard of living for ordinary citizens.

Healthcare was free — including specialized treatment abroad, paid for by the state. Education from primary school through university was free. The government ran a housing program in which citizens received subsidized or provided housing. Mortgage interest rates were 0%. When Libyan couples married, the government provided $50,000 to help establish their household. Infant mortality rates were among the lowest in Africa. Female literacy had increased from 8% at the time of Libyan independence to over 80% under Gaddafi's rule. Libya's electricity was provided to citizens at extremely low or no cost.

This was also, without question, an authoritarian dictatorship. Political opposition was violently suppressed. Dissidents were tortured, killed, and disappeared. Gaddafi's personal rule was frequently brutal and occasionally bizarre. [I did like the Bedouin tents in New Jersey for his UN appearance!]

The architects have never accounted for these outcomes. They give speeches. They receive awards. They are not asked about the slave markets.

2 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Abridged from source. 

Source in title.

Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention

Garikai Chengu

Counterpunch: 20 Oct

Before the 2011 NATO intervention, Libya had the highest Human Development Index score on the African continent — the United Nations' composite measure of life expectancy, education, and standard of living for ordinary citizens.

Healthcare was free — including specialized treatment abroad, paid for by the state. Education from primary school through university was free. The government ran a housing program in which citizens received subsidized or provided housing. Mortgage interest rates were 0%. When Libyan couples married, the government provided $50,000 to help establish their household. Infant mortality rates were among the lowest in Africa. Female literacy had increased from 8% at the time of Libyan independence to over 80% under Gaddafi's rule. Libya's electricity was provided to citizens at extremely low or no cost.

This was also, without question, an authoritarian dictatorship. Political opposition was violently suppressed. Dissidents were tortured, killed, and disappeared. Gaddafi's personal rule was frequently brutal and occasionally bizarre. [I did like the Bedouin tents in New Jersey for his UN appearance!]

The architects have never accounted for these outcomes. They give speeches. They receive awards. They are not asked about the slave markets.

Muammar Gaddafi pissed off the wrong people when he tried to create his own petrodollar system and got pretty close to succeeding. The CIA had to take him out and the rest is history.

2 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Abridged from source. 

Source in title.

Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention

Garikai Chengu

Counterpunch: 20 Oct

Before the 2011 NATO intervention, Libya had the highest Human Development Index score on the African continent — the United Nations' composite measure of life expectancy, education, and standard of living for ordinary citizens.

Healthcare was free — including specialized treatment abroad, paid for by the state. Education from primary school through university was free. The government ran a housing program in which citizens received subsidized or provided housing. Mortgage interest rates were 0%. When Libyan couples married, the government provided $50,000 to help establish their household. Infant mortality rates were among the lowest in Africa. Female literacy had increased from 8% at the time of Libyan independence to over 80% under Gaddafi's rule. Libya's electricity was provided to citizens at extremely low or no cost.

This was also, without question, an authoritarian dictatorship. Political opposition was violently suppressed. Dissidents were tortured, killed, and disappeared. Gaddafi's personal rule was frequently brutal and occasionally bizarre. [I did like the Bedouin tents in New Jersey for his UN appearance!]

The architects have never accounted for these outcomes. They give speeches. They receive awards. They are not asked about the slave markets.

This is an interesting propaganda article. France was the first country to lead the intervention.

• Diplomatic and Strategic Lead: France, under President Nicolas Sarkozy, spearheaded the diplomatic push for international intervention, recognizing the Libyan National Transitional Council as the legitimate government and pushing for UN Security Council Resolution 1973. UK Prime Minister David Cameron aligned closely with Sarkozy, effectively following French decisions in the early stages.

https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/international/150916/mystery-what-really-fuelled-french-led-intervention-libya

14 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Muammar Gaddafi pissed off the wrong people when he tried to create his own petrodollar system and got pretty close to succeeding. The CIA had to take him out and the rest is history.

Are you taking those crazy pills again?

12 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

This is an interesting propaganda article. France was the first country to lead the intervention.

• Diplomatic and Strategic Lead: France, under President Nicolas Sarkozy, spearheaded the diplomatic push for international intervention, recognizing the Libyan National Transitional Council as the legitimate government and pushing for UN Security Council Resolution 1973. UK Prime Minister David Cameron aligned closely with Sarkozy, effectively following French decisions in the early stages.

https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/international/150916/mystery-what-really-fuelled-french-led-intervention-libya

The US did not destroy Libya alone. France under Sarkozy pushed hardest for intervention and was among the first to attack, while Britain also drove the campaign. Obama agreed after being told Benghazi faced an imminent massacre. The US then provided the backbone of the operation with cruise missiles, command, intelligence, surveillance and air-to-air refuelling, while France, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Canada and others carried out much of the bombing.

The UN mandate was sold as protecting civilians, but NATO quickly became the rebels’ air force and turned it into regime change. The rebels were also supported with money, weapons and training from Qatar, the UAE, France and other states, much like what later happened in Syria.

Gaddafi was a dictator, but removing him without any realistic plan for what came next destroyed the state and left militias, extremists and chaos behind. Blaming only the US is too simple. France and Britain pushed the war, the US made it militarily possible, and the wider NATO and regional coalition carried it out. The responsibility belongs to all of them.

32 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

Are you taking those crazy pills again?

Are you unable to read history or make a cogent argument? This is the very definition of trolling, and weak trolling at that.

I'm with Mick on this one

3 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Abridged from source. 

Source in title.

Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention

Garikai Chengu

Counterpunch: 20 Oct

Before the 2011 NATO intervention, Libya had the highest Human Development Index score on the African continent — the United Nations' composite measure of life expectancy, education, and standard of living for ordinary citizens.

Healthcare was free — including specialized treatment abroad, paid for by the state. Education from primary school through university was free. The government ran a housing program in which citizens received subsidized or provided housing. Mortgage interest rates were 0%. When Libyan couples married, the government provided $50,000 to help establish their household. Infant mortality rates were among the lowest in Africa. Female literacy had increased from 8% at the time of Libyan independence to over 80% under Gaddafi's rule. Libya's electricity was provided to citizens at extremely low or no cost.

This was also, without question, an authoritarian dictatorship. Political opposition was violently suppressed. Dissidents were tortured, killed, and disappeared. Gaddafi's personal rule was frequently brutal and occasionally bizarre. [I did like the Bedouin tents in New Jersey for his UN appearance!]

The architects have never accounted for these outcomes. They give speeches. They receive awards. They are not asked about the slave markets.

I am glad someone set the record straight concerning Gaddafi. During his time he was seen as the re-incarnation of the devil in the west.

But one must not forget: The oil revenue was massive in a country with a small number of citizens. The oil revenue could be liberally distributed among the small number of citizens. Left and right. THIS IS WHAT GADDAFI DID. Compared to other dictators, he lived a humble lifestyle.

And today? The country is divided by 3 warlords. I don't know about the amount of the oil revenue these days. But whatever the oil revenue is, the warlords are not giving it back to the population (like Gaddafi did). They keep it for themselves to line their pockets and to buy weapons.

Today, Libya is just another "failed state".

That's the problem with regime change when you don't have a clear (and good) plan for a new regime.

29 minutes ago, swissie said:

I am glad someone set the record straight concerning Gaddafi. During his time he was seen as the re-incarnation of the devil in the west.

But one must not forget: The oil revenue was massive in a country with a small number of citizens. The oil revenue could be liberally distributed among the small number of citizens. Left and right. THIS IS WHAT GADDAFI DID. Compared to other dictators, he lived a humble lifestyle.

And today? The country is divided by 3 warlords. I don't know about the amount of the oil revenue these days. But whatever the oil revenue is, the warlords are not giving it back to the population (like Gaddafi did). They keep it for themselves to line their pockets and to buy weapons.

Today, Libya is just another "failed state".

Today, Libya is just another intervened "failed state".

18 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Today, Libya is just another intervened "failed state".

In other words: The west had the goal to "intervene" to impoverish one of the few countries in Africa that were prosperous? Qui bono?

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

I'm with Mick on this one

He has a very youthful looking neck. Plastic surgery?

Edited July 11Jul 11 by atpeace

I am not sure he was well liked by anyone after the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I am pretty sure the UK was upset with him.

I was at uni with a Libyan guy who was crazy for Gaddafi but he got over it after Lockerbie.

28 minutes ago, Purdey said:

I am not sure he was well liked by anyone after the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I am pretty sure the UK was upset with him.

I was at uni with a Libyan guy who was crazy for Gaddafi but he got over it after Lockerbie.

What happened when the United States shot down Iran Air Flight 655 and killed 290 civilians? It expressed regret, admitted no legal responsibility, punished nobody and later paid compensation to the families.

Libya denied responsibility for Lockerbie but was subjected to years of blockades, sanctions and heavy penalties before eventually surrendering the suspects and paying compensation. Apparently, accountability depends on who fires the missile.

44 minutes ago, swissie said:

In other words: The west had the goal to "intervene" to impoverish one of the few countries in Africa that were prosperous? Qui bono?

Good question !

2 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Muammar Gaddafi pissed off the wrong people when he tried to create his own petrodollar system and got pretty close to succeeding. The CIA had to take him out and the rest is history.

HAD TO? What kind of a worldview is that? Other countries don't get to be sovereign, only the US? Petrodollars were worth the US murdering a sovereign leader???

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

The US did not destroy Libya alone. France under Sarkozy pushed hardest for intervention and was among the first to attack, while Britain also drove the campaign. Obama agreed after being told Benghazi faced an imminent massacre. The US then provided the backbone of the operation with cruise missiles, command, intelligence, surveillance and air-to-air refuelling, while France, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Canada and others carried out much of the bombing.

Politics

The UN mandate was sold as protecting civilians, but NATO quickly became the rebels’ air force and turned it into regime change. The rebels were also supported with money, weapons and training from Qatar, the UAE, France and other states, much like what later happened in Syria.

Gaddafi was a dictator, but removing him without any realistic plan for what came next destroyed the state and left militias, extremists and chaos behind. Blaming only the US is too simple. France and Britain pushed the war, the US made it militarily possible, and the wider NATO and regional coalition carried it out. The responsibility belongs to all of them.

Politics

The US frequently destroys other countries with no forward plan in place.

You've made my point about Obama as a highly-civilised warmonger who certainly did not deserve a Peace Prize. No hope, no change.

21 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

You've made my point about Obama as a highly-civilised warmonger who certainly did not deserve a Peace Prize. No hope, no change.

I agree, big mistake both from Novel Peace price committee and Obama receiving the price.

4 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Muammar Gaddafi pissed off the wrong people when he tried to create his own petrodollar system and got pretty close to succeeding. The CIA had to take him out and the rest is history.

The correct comparison is with the Gulf States

who have tiny populations and huge oil wealth

L.ibya had about 3 million ,large families and were

known in the Arab world as a "rich country poor people".

Millions were squandered on supporting terrorists and

later in his bid to become King of Africa".

As for the ridiculous petro gold claims he could

not control his own currency ...30% discount on the

"grey" market as every expat knows !

6 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Are you unable to read history or make a cogent argument? This is the very definition of trolling, and weak trolling at that.

If you’re referring to the claim that the CIA or NATO overthrew Libya because Muammar Gaddafi was going to destroy the “petrodollar” with a gold-backed African currency, the story appears to have originated from a combination of real events, leaked emails, and later speculation.

The key source was a 2011 email sent by political adviser Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton. The email claimed Gaddafi possessed large gold reserves and intended to create a pan-African gold-backed currency that would compete with the CFA franc used in parts of Africa. It also claimed French intelligence viewed this as a threat and that it influenced France’s support for intervention in Libya.  

After Clinton’s emails became public in 2015–2016, many commentators and alternative media outlets expanded this into the broader claim that the United States and NATO intervened primarily to protect the U.S. dollar or the “petrodollar system.”  

There are a few important distinctions:

• Gaddafi had publicly discussed greater African monetary independence and a gold-backed African currency at various times.  

• Evidence that Libya was close to launching such a currency is limited.

• There is no publicly available evidence from NATO governments showing that protecting the dollar was a stated or primary reason for intervention.  

• Historians and analysts generally point to the Libyan civil war, fears of civilian massacres in Benghazi, regional instability, European security concerns, and Libya’s oil resources as the main documented reasons for intervention, though debate continues about the relative importance of each factor.  

So the “Gaddafi was killed because of the petrodollar” narrative largely traces back to the leaked Blumenthal email and its subsequent amplification in alternative media and conspiracy-focused circles after 2015.  

Edited July 11Jul 11 by Effective altruism

6 hours ago, Hummin said:

The US did not destroy Libya alone. France under Sarkozy pushed hardest for intervention and was among the first to attack, while Britain also drove the campaign. Obama agreed after being told Benghazi faced an imminent massacre. The US then provided the backbone of the operation with cruise missiles, command, intelligence, surveillance and air-to-air refuelling, while France, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Canada and others carried out much of the bombing.

The UN mandate was sold as protecting civilians, but NATO quickly became the rebels’ air force and turned it into regime change. The rebels were also supported with money, weapons and training from Qatar, the UAE, France and other states, much like what later happened in Syria.

Gaddafi was a dictator, but removing him without any realistic plan for what came next destroyed the state and left militias, extremists and chaos behind. Blaming only the US is too simple. France and Britain pushed the war, the US made it militarily possible, and the wider NATO and regional coalition carried it out. The responsibility belongs to all of them.

I didn't like NATO getting involved. NATO is chartered as a defense organization for its member states. 

8 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

HAD TO? What kind of a worldview is that? Other countries don't get to be sovereign, only the US? Petrodollars were worth the US murdering a sovereign leader???

Sorry, forgot some people can't get the gist of subtle sarcasm.

Same as Iran. Highly progressive country until the US & Britain in 1953 orchestrated a coup and installed the Shah to essentially allow the theft of their oil. And look where we are now. Unforseen consequences.

China had a gold-backed yuan until quite recently. Wonder why they gave it up. The US dollar is backed by Tinkerbell & the Lost Boys--good enough, eh.