[Bobboau]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14605391

This week has been amazing in the Libyan uprising, after months of stalemate the rebels have suddenly gone on the offensive, and looks like they might be getting ready to take the capitol.

[achtung]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/20/libya-gaddafi-tripoli-escape-reports?cat=world&type=article

There are reports/rumors gaddafi has fled.

[JCDNWarrior]

It's a mess... I'm rather disgusted with the way Libya's being treated. They actually were developing out to be a very strong nation, their irrigation project, the gold Gadaffi owned, the oil that Libya posesses, don't believe for a second this is 'humanitarian' or 'liberation'. It's bombing rival countries to the stone age because you fear any form of resistance.

Also they've suggested many things about Gadaffi, like fleeing to Venezuela (another future target). This with the war drums against Iran and Syria...

And the rebels, most of them that i saw in the videos, be it on local TV here or CNN/ABC/RT/etc. are not even Libyans, they're European and even American. They're mercenaries, working for others - notice they set up a oil trading company and a central bank in the first weeks - combined with the reports of special forces on the ground destabilizing the area.

But hey, what to expect?

Libya was mentioned -by name- to be attacked by the government of the USA and NATO (Working for the goals of others above them) - another sign Obama is simple 'same as the old boss', the two party system just two sides of the same coin..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyEJ6Aja-UQ

(I'm sorry but stuff like this, seeing how the globalists take down another country, and there are some people that cheer the death of more innocents because their country didn't sell out...)

[achtung]

It's a mess... I'm rather disgusted with the way Libya's being treated. They actually were developing out to be a very strong nation, their irrigation project, the gold Gadaffi owned, the oil that Libya posesses, don't believe for a second this is 'humanitarian' or 'liberation'. It's bombing rival countries to the stone age because you fear any form of resistance.

Also they've suggested many things about Gadaffi, like fleeing to Venezuela (another future target). This with the war drums against Iran and Syria...

And the rebels, most of them that i saw in the videos, be it on local TV here or CNN/ABC/RT/etc. are not even Libyans, they're European and even American. They're mercenaries, working for others - notice they set up a oil trading company and a central bank in the first weeks - combined with the reports of special forces on the ground destabilizing the area.

But hey, what to expect?

Libya was mentioned -by name- to be attacked by the government of the USA and NATO (Working for the goals of others above them) - another sign Obama is simple 'same as the old boss', the two party system just two sides of the same coin..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyEJ6Aja-UQ

(I'm sorry but stuff like this, seeing how the globalists take down another country, and there are some people that cheer the death of more innocents because their country didn't sell out...)

You're seriously defending gaddafi's regime? Really? This was a textbook popular uprising that was sparked by the fervor created by the "Arab Spring."

Can you avoid ****ting up any thread with your conspiracy bull****? It's getting old fast.

[Shade]

Indeed. The Libyan people got the ball rolling. Yes, they are recieving outside assistence now, but they're the ones who decided they'd had enough of Gadaffi, they're the ones who asked, pleaded for that outside help, and they're still the ones doing the majority of the fighting. And helping them is the right thing to do.

My own country has fighter jets down there, and I'm glad they're there and doing what they can to help. In this case, it's something to be proud of. There are many times when something may not get done for various political reasons (see Syria - that place is just as bad now as Libya was prior to the intervention), or when something gets done for the wrong reasons (see Iraq), but Libya is a case where something is getting done, and getting done for the right reasons.

[Nuke]

i just hope they can assemble a new government without it becoming a corrupt bureaucracy or another dictatorship.

[achtung]

i just hope they can assemble a new government without it becoming a corrupt bureaucracy or another dictatorship.

I hope so too. The real challenge comes when the battles are over. The UN is supposed to be providing oversight.

[Scotty]

i just hope they can assemble a new government without it becoming a corrupt bureaucracy or another dictatorship.

Nuke?  Appealing the better part of human nature?

This is supr srs gaise.

[headdie]

To be fair theou, Libya is used to a strong willed dictator in power, there will be social and cultural fights that were suppressed before that could make the next decade of more very nasty if someone charismatic and acceptable to all cant be found to centre a new government around

[Bobboau]

...

can I ask, what makes you so sure that the Bilderbergs were not simply caught off guard by an actual popular uprising, and then ordered the Iluminati and the Free Masons to move their pupet governments into action, not because they truly wanted to lose their tool Gadafi, but because they were worried that if they did not act it might damage the carefully crafted image of supporting freedom that they have been crafting for the last 400 years to keep the population under control in preparation for the reptilians in the year 2013? it would be such a shame if they lost complete control over everyone because they showed their cards to early.

[Luis Dias]

Well at least JDCN picks up his ideas both at the left and at the right, and if you see the video, it is somewhat scary to think that the US was planning to invade 7 countries. I'd like more confirmation than one single general reading some paper in the tv.

My wife keeps telling me that the uprising in the arab world is US driven / manipulated / created by. I don't buy that theory because it contradicts the facts on the terrain, however it isn't that far out to say that the US has been in the dark making a lot of calls in the backstages. It is even most likely.

[Unknown Target]

Well just to throw my hat into the ring of "suspicious circumstances" for the Libya war, I know I'm not the only one that noticed the discrepancy in response times between Libya (which is where the UK and France get most of their oil, if I'm not mistaken) rebelling and subsequent NATO/UN action, vs. something that is a much greater humanitarian crisis, Syria, only now getting strong words from Obama for the country's leader to step down.

Plus the conduct of Obama in the Libya war has been rather unsettling, I heard some reports awhile ago that I'm pretty sure I confirmed with some reputable news sources that he was arguing with Congress that he doesn't need their permission to continue committing American resources to the conflict.

I'm not really trying to defend JCDNWarrior's theories, I'm just pointing out some things that I find rather dissatisfying with the whole affair.

That being said, has anyone watched the video he linked? I've seen it before. Does anyone have a response to it? Personally I don't think that the "Arab Spring" was planned or orchestrated by anyone outside of the rebels, but the plans that Wesley Clark refers to (whom I remember most everyone respecting during his tenure as the commander of CENTCOM) are curious - though I imagine the prime drivers behind them would be the now disgraced Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, etc., and thus I doubt they have continuance with the current state of affairs.

- Luis responded before I hit enter. I wrote a small paper awhile ago talking with my professor about the "success" of George W. for bringing democracy to the Middle East. It was just a theory, don't jump on me, but the idea was that maybe the exposure to US troops and whatnot created the distillation of the idea, though perhaps less so because people didn't think of it before and more so because people in the area saw one dictator topple and realized that it was possible? I'm not saying GWB or the US are particularly commendable in any of this, other than the idea that they toppled one dictator so again, others saw someone who was just sort of assumed to be "invulnerable" going down and questioned their assumptions of other dictators?

But really, what would US driven/manipulated revolutions look like? What does that even mean? The Pentagon has a program to send suitcases full of networking equipment to these areas so that people can set up local ad-hoc networks if their net access gets taken down. But other than that, what would US manipulation entail, really? I mean, besides the obvious ones like NATO supplying arms and suspected special forces operators in places like Libya.

I just don't see how these things could be "manipulated"; they're popular movements. Otherwise, what are they? That being said, I guess when it's all over and it comes time to pick the next leader, we'll see who comes out on top and how US friendly they are.

Also, anyone want to weigh in on Egypt's renewed protests?

[StarSlayer]

But really, what would US driven/manipulated revolutions look like? What does that even mean? The Pentagon has a program to send suitcases full of networking equipment to these areas so that people can set up local ad-hoc networks if their net access gets taken down. But other than that, what would US manipulation entail, really? I mean, besides the obvious ones like NATO supplying arms and suspected special forces operators in places like Libya.

The CIA used to be very proficient at this sorta crap back in the day, during the era when containing Communism overrode the foresight to see what would shake out after the Soviets crumbled.  The Shah of Iran and all the various dictator twats orchestrated in South America spring to mind.

[Luis Dias]

Yes I agree that the toppling of Sadam may have been a huge wake up call to a lot of people in these arab countries and say "wait a minute this is possible, these guys aren't immortal after all!" This was one of the arguments in favor to the iraq war.

Then we had the elections in Iran that was a kind of a test bed that was, IMO, a very enlightening experience. First, people learnt to use the new technologies in their favor. For the first time in history, people who preferred democracy inside a heavy dictatorship could speak to one another and join forces. The "green revolution" almost happened. Second, people learnt that toppling a government through democracy or street demonstrations wouldn't be enough. It would require a lot more preserverance and strenght, perhaps even go to war.

And then this year an utterly frustrated merchant put fire on himself, and it spread like wildfire. People say, "One person does not have that much of a power!", well yes and no forsure. The thing is, the terrain was flooded with gunpowder, all it needed was a slight spark, a tiny fuse.

And be aware, the iranians are watching. And learning. Iran's theocracy has its days numbered. I'll give them less than ten years (too many variables lol).

[achtung]

Well at least JDCN picks up his ideas both at the left and at the right, and if you see the video, it is somewhat scary to think that the US was planning to invade 7 countries. I'd like more confirmation than one single general reading some paper in the tv.

My wife keeps telling me that the uprising in the arab world is US driven / manipulated / created by. I don't buy that theory because it contradicts the facts on the terrain, however it isn't that far out to say that the US has been in the dark making a lot of calls in the backstages. It is even most likely.

The United States can't even manage its own finances, how do you suppose we're orchestrating all of these amazing revolutions across the middle east? We're not what we used to be during the Cold War.

...

I'd say the discrepancy between NATO action in Libya and Syria is mostly to blame on resource limitations. Nobody is going to get involved in a land war, and considering the financial situations the western world is facing right now, about all we can reasonably afford is supporting ~1 revolution at a time. Syria will probably get its protection, but the West isn't going to provide it any time soon. Maybe the Russians/China should step up to the plate for once.

I also think your theory of GWB bringing democracy to the middle east an interesting one. I'd thought of it before, and it makes a bit of sense. While neither Afghanistan or Iraq are shining beacons of peace and prosperity, the actions there shook up the pot, stirring everyone around. I doubt it was the direct intention, but the actions in those two countries have surely played a part, if even a tiny one, in the recent unrest.

Egypt never really revolted, and it has slipped into military rule. While I detest violence, the "revolution" was much too easy. The people protested, and all of a sudden the old guard's military is in power? That doesn't look right. I think that qualifies as, "here's the old boss, same as the old boss."

[Bobboau]

"the discrepancy in response times between Libya vs. Syria"

the difference is we were not already committed to supporting another rebellion when Libya needed us. go look back at the big Libya thread, you will see at some point someone asked, 'what do we do if another country needs the same thing, we cannot support an infinite number of these things' the response was something to the effect of 'just because we can't support every rebellion doesn't mean we shouldn't support any of them'. the reason for the difference is because Libya got there first, if Syria keeps on keeping on after our presence is no longer needed in Libya, then I have a feeling our CVBGs will be moving to the northeast a few hundred miles.

and Obama had to be drug into this fight kicking and screaming.

and the way a manipulated rebellion would look is exactly the same as how a natural rebellion that just happened to be ideologically compatible with our foreign policy would look like.

[Luis Dias]

The United States can't even manage its own finances, how do you suppose we're orchestrating all of these amazing revolutions across the middle east? We're not what we used to be during the Cold War.

For one, how can you possibly know this? Are you knowledgeable of the whereabouts of american agents?

For two, I'd say that america's reach on the world has never been higher, with so many countries being attacked / occupied.

I'd blame the discrepancy between NATO action in Libya and Syria is mostly to blame on resource limitations. Nobody is going to get involved in a land war, and considering the financial situations the western world is facing right now, about all we can reasonably afford is supporting ~1 revolution at a time. Syria will probably get its protection, but the West isn't going to provide it any time soon. Maybe the Russians/China should step up to the plate for once.

Russia and China won't, for obvious reasons, support a popular uprising. This is so utterly obvious that I don't know what you are smoking here .

Egypt never really revolted, and it has slipped into military rule. While I detest violence, the "revolution" was much too easy. The people protested, and all of a sudden the old guard's military is in power? That doesn't look right. I think that qualifies as, "here's the old boss, same as the old boss."

Lets see what happens. In Portugal we had the luck of our army being commanded by very enlightened generals when the revolution happened who were respected and drove our country to full blown democracy. It may be so that Egipt might not be so lucky.

[achtung]

The United States can't even manage its own finances, how do you suppose we're orchestrating all of these amazing revolutions across the middle east? We're not what we used to be during the Cold War.

For one, how can you possibly know this? Are you knowledgeable of the whereabouts of american agents?

For two, I'd say that america's reach on the world has never been higher, with so many countries being attacked / occupied.

I'd blame the discrepancy between NATO action in Libya and Syria is mostly to blame on resource limitations. Nobody is going to get involved in a land war, and considering the financial situations the western world is facing right now, about all we can reasonably afford is supporting ~1 revolution at a time. Syria will probably get its protection, but the West isn't going to provide it any time soon. Maybe the Russians/China should step up to the plate for once.

Russia and China won't, for obvious reasons, support a popular uprising. This is so utterly obvious that I don't know what you are smoking here .

Egypt never really revolted, and it has slipped into military rule. While I detest violence, the "revolution" was much too easy. The people protested, and all of a sudden the old guard's military is in power? That doesn't look right. I think that qualifies as, "here's the old boss, same as the old boss."

Lets see what happens. In Portugal we had the luck of our army being commanded by very enlightened generals when the revolution happened who were respected and drove our country to full blown democracy. It may be so that Egipt might not be so lucky.

I don't know where our agents are, but I know it takes more than a handful of agents to start a revolution, unless the revolution was already festering amongst the populace to begin with. Government agents aren't supermen.

I know that Russia, stepping far out of its typical shoes, has actually condemned Assad's actions. While far from sending hardware, it sends a clear message. China has a vested interest in Africa and the Middle East. They are constantly looking for ways to edge into good energy/mineral deals. They probably won't do anything, but it would be nice if they did.

I don't know enough about the Egyptian generals to say for sure, but they seem like they're pretty comfortable with power in their hands. We'll see what happens though. I hope for the best, of course.

[Luis Dias]

Condemning Assad's actions and endorsing a "revolution", regime change or some other "change" is completely different. Russia will not support any change of the status quo into something that can be manipulated by the USA / Israel. And nowhere did I suggest that agents started the revolutions, so again you are smoking the real thing man .

[Shade]

I know I'm not the only one that noticed the discrepancy in response times between Libya (which is where the UK and France get most of their oil, if I'm not mistaken) rebelling and subsequent NATO/UN action, vs. something that is a much greater humanitarian crisis, Syria, only now getting strong words from Obama for the country's leader to step down.

It's always easy to forget the details after proper conflic has begun, but as it happens, the UN was able to intervene only because the Arab League requested it, thereby making it difficult for countries like Russia or China to justify blocking a resolution. The league has made no such request regarding Syria, which makes it just about impossible to get a similar resolution to intervene in that mess. As for Obama only now talking about Assad stepping down, I don't know what's up with that - I do know that around here, they've been wanting him gone for months, and been vocal about it. Should a resolution miraculously happen, I have no doubt we'd be sending fighter jets there as well.

Also, let's not forget that Obama wasn't exactly the leading figure when it came to Libya. It was Cameron and Sarkozy who more or less dragged him into it, and the French were the first to deploy aircraft there.

As for the oil angle, I have only one thing to say. What the hell? Seriously, did you miss the whole last five years or so? Prior to the uprising, Libya as an oil exporter was stable and by and large non-belligerant towards the UK and France, Gaddafi was well on his way to rehabilitating his country's international relations, and, in the name of stability and political expediency, everyone was pretty much willing to look the other way when faced with the various minor atrocities inflicted on the Libyan people. In short, as far as energy security goes, the worst thing France and the UK could have done was to get involved in Libya. If they'd just kept looking the other way when minor atrocities became major atrocities, everything would be fine and, hell, Gadaffi would probably be grateful to boot.

Also, as an aside, the oil market doesn't work that way - You don't go down to the market and browse around various booths of "Libyan Oil", "Saudi Oil", "Norwegian Oil" etc., you simply buy a type of oil and that's it. The oil market is better compared to a big pool which every oil-exporting nation contributes to, and which buyers then tap into. So from the buyer's viewpoint, it actually matters relatively little whether one oil-exporting country might not like you or not, or even refuse to trade with you altogether. From your point of view, you're still just buying from a large pool, even if a small corner of it is off-limits. And at any rate, until a couple years ago, the UK was a net exporter of oil, thanks to their extensive north sea oil fields. These days they're having to import a bit, but it is still a pittance compared to what is locally extracted.