bloody socialist lunatics spending their oil wealth on 'scroungers'....
***********************
Libya
Housing
Between 1970 and 1986, the government invested some LD2.8 million... in housing...the construction of 277,500 housing units...

Social Welfare
The social security program instituted in 1957 had already provided protection superior to that available in many or most developing countries, and in the 1980s the welfare available to Libyans included much more than was provided under the social security law: work injury and sickness compensation and disability, retirement, and survivors' pensions. Workers employed by foreign firms were entitled to the same social security benefits as workers employed by Libyan citizens.

Subsidized food, inexpensive housing, free medical care and education, and profit-sharing were among the benefits that eased the lives of all citizens. The government protected the employed in their jobs and subsidized the underemployed and unemployed
******************
report from the US Library of Congress and US Dept of State

lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/lytoc.html

We invaded him to stop him setting a bad example

It kind of forgets to mention you get free housing at a Gaddafi re-education camp if you dont do as you are told !

I guess veritas is right and all those millions of now-free Libyans were wrong. Makes you wonder why they are all celebrating doesnt it?

Please explain how something is illegal when it was requested by the people (who are the new government), sanctioned by the UN, supported by the Arab League, and almost every country in the world ?

In The Know wrote:
It kind of forgets to mention you get free housing at a Gaddafi re-education camp if you dont do as you are told !

I guess veritas is right and all those millions of now-free Libyans were wrong. Makes you wonder why they are all celebrating doesnt it?

Please explain how something is illegal when it was requested by the people (who are the new government), sanctioned by the UN, supported by the Arab League, and almost every country in the world ?

The UN mandate didn't mention regime change ITK,that's why the real villans will go unpunished elsewhere.
This was about revenge and oil....oh and u missed a gr8 chance to show up those nasty looneys cuddling up to Gadaffi! Best chance you'll have in ages Because it was ur favorite Labs,not ur tories who lied and cheated to cuddle up to Gadaffi.

In The Know wrote:
It kind of forgets to mention you get free housing at a Gaddafi re-education camp if you dont do as you are told !

I guess veritas is right and all those millions of now-free Libyans were wrong. Makes you wonder why they are all celebrating doesnt it?

Please explain how something is illegal when it was requested by the people (who are the new government), sanctioned by the UN, supported by the Arab League, and almost every country in the world ?

I think everyone here will be pleased that Gaddafi is gone. The point is that the media/politicians are painting this in their usual 'black and white' way. Veritas's points above are valid, as are yours. Why can't people accept that things are more complex than they are being depicted by the media and the political class?

Veritas posted a very good link on a thread I started. Do have a look at it and post your thoughts.

www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/31/the-top-...e-war-against-libya/

I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts on that thread: www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=co...catid=2&id=73743

ITK is not an expert on the Libya situation. He lives far away in a whole other country and gets all his information from the propaganda apparatus. Anyone who trust what they read in the newspapers or see on television is extremely naive. I would ignore him.

You have re-education camps in the UK too. Except you don't call them re-education camps, you call them prisons or "correction" facilities or what have you. But ITK won't see it that way of course because he's too jingoistic to hold his country to the same standards he has for other countries that he's never even been to.

And please, don't tell me you have courts and fair trials. Those are not courts you have but lynching mobs. And they are anything but fair.

TED wrote:
ITK is not an expert on the Libya situation. He lives far away in a whole other country and gets all his information from the propaganda apparatus. Anyone who trust what they read in the newspapers or see on television is extremely naive. I would ignore him.

You have re-education camps in the UK too. Except you don't call them re-education camps, you call them prisons or "correction" facilities or what have you. But ITK won't see it that way of course because he's too jingoistic to hold his country to the same standards he has for other countries that he's never even been to.

And please, don't tell me you have courts and fair trials. Those are not courts you have but lynching mobs. And they are anything but fair.

By jingo...not heard that one since my 'o' level history studies.
On the whole agree with u,but we do enjoy ITK,every forum needs a clown

ITK...it remains to be seen if new regime..same same old regime.

It was a illegal invasion of Libya by the West for regime change.

They can say the people wanted it but what about the people who didn't and supported Gaddafi ?

Of course he was a scoundrel but the indications so far is that the new leaders may be bad also...rounding up all people with black skin.

Many similarities here with Saddam and Iraq...before Saddam and Gadaffi the people had nothing..after them they had hospitals, welfare, infrastructure building , jobs and so on.

Personally..I hope it all works out for the Libyan people.

david wrote:
I think everyone here will be pleased that Gaddafi is gone.

Debatable - given the covert "support" many have made for the Gaddafi regime previously.

The point is that the media/politicians are painting this in their usual 'black and white' way. Veritas's points above are valid, as are yours. Why can't people accept that things are more complex than they are being depicted by the media and the political class?

The ONLY point is that the people wanted rid of Gaddafi !
There is NO evidence at all that ANYONE (who didn't have a gun in his back or was paid by the regime) supported him. I have asked numerous times for people to produce this "evidence" of support .... no one has.

Even now the "military" holding out in Sirte and doing so using the locals as human shields.

How do you think a band of bandits have managed to overturn a brutal regime? At the time of the NATO bombing everyone (inc many on here) said it would not work - that you cannot achieve results without troops on the ground.

The ONLY troops on the ground were the terrified people of Libya - who overcame their fright and fought off a brutal and well armed military force (who, admittedly, started deserting as soon as they could see the writing on the wall, and didnt fancy a trip to the ICC).

The new government MAY not be any better (from whose point of view anyway?) - but that is NOT the point. The choice of government is up to the Libyan people - not us ! If they eventually make the wrong choice that is their fault. I note that no one has pointed out that NONE of the interim council is standing at the forthcoming elections - the revolution was purely to "clear the way" for such elections.

I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts on that thread: www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=co...catid=2&id=73743

will get back to you

david wrote:
I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts on that thread: www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=co...catid=2&id=73743

David

There is nothing "new" in this.
The Libyans need to sell oil - they have little other income.

Is it not right that we should pitch for that oil, given our need for it?
Is it not also right that having come to the aid of the Libyan people (when they requested it) that they should treat us as a preferred "friend" ?

The Libyans only produce around 12% of the world's oil - in comparison with Iraq that is tiny. To infer that we "organised" this revolution - to gain control of the oil - is simply absurd.

Innocent Accused wrote:
The UN mandate didn't mention regime change ITK.

It was to "protect the people" (from the Gaddafi killing machine).

Gaddafi could have stopped - but chose (gambled?) not to.
He even declared a "ceasefire" and then broke it within hours.

The fact he is gone is a situation purely of his own making.

veritas wrote:
ITK...it remains to be seen if new regime..same same old regime.

It was a illegal invasion of Libya by the West for regime change.

Its quite delusional, veritas to ignore the fact that the people rose up before we ever got involved !

Selective facts ?

veritas wrote:
Many similarities here with Saddam and Iraq...before Saddam and Gadaffi the people had nothing..after them they had hospitals, welfare, infrastructure building , jobs.


... and torture chambers !

Shall we bring back Hitler too?

In The Know wrote:
Innocent Accused wrote:
The UN mandate didn't mention regime change ITK.

It was to "protect the people" (from the Gaddafi killing machine).

Gaddafi could have stopped - but chose (gambled?) not to.
He even declared a "ceasefire" and then broke it within hours.

The fact he is gone is a situation purely of his own making.

Simplicity only works if it's correct
Protecting the people did not include regime change,specifically left out at the insistance of some security council permanant members.

The fact he is gone is purely down to NATO going beyond its mandate,quite a difference.All to do with revenge and oil.

The long term repercusions are that the UN security council will be very unlikely to authorise similar action in the future.

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
Many similarities here with Saddam and Iraq...before Saddam and Gadaffi the people had nothing..after them they had hospitals, welfare, infrastructure building , jobs.


... and torture chambers !

Shall we bring back Hitler too?

Or perhaps blair and bush

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
ITK...it remains to be seen if new regime..same same old regime.

It was a illegal invasion of Libya by the West for regime change.

Its quite delusional, veritas to ignore the fact that the people rose up before we ever got involved !

Selective facts ?

Some people rose up,and a lot of others fought to stop them taking over.
Selective facts,you make them up each time to suit your News International inspired world view

In The Know wrote:
david wrote:
I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts on that thread: www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=co...catid=2&id=73743

David

There is nothing "new" in this.
The Libyans need to sell oil - they have little other income.

Is it not right that we should pitch for that oil, given our need for it?
Is it not also right that having come to the aid of the Libyan people (when they requested it) that they should treat us as a preferred "friend" ?

The Libyans only produce around 12% of the world's oil - in comparison with Iraq that is tiny. To infer that we "organised" this revolution - to gain control of the oil - is simply absurd.

If the facts don't fit your view then simply consider them absurd.
So why ignore all those worse cases like Syria,Iran,North Korea etc?
The problem is reading the Sun in a saloon bar will not help to cover the absurdity of people connected to the Tories profiteering out of this.
Political donations connected to an illegal interference in a regime,that then goes on to give your croonies trade advantages is not absurd,it's a matter for legal investigation.

In The Know wrote:

The Libyans only produce around 12% of the world's oil - in comparison with Iraq that is tiny.

12 percent is "tiny"? We're not talking about a bag of crisps here. 12 percent of a bag of crisps would indeed be "tiny". 12 percent of a bag of chips would also be "tiny". 12 percent of a packet of 3 condoms would be absolutely bloody useless. 12 percent of the world's oil still represents a fucking huge amount of oil. Context and perspective are so important. Don't you think? Do you think?

In The Know wrote:
david wrote:
I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts on that thread: www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=co...catid=2&id=73743

David

There is nothing "new" in this.
The Libyans need to sell oil - they have little other income.

Is it not right that we should pitch for that oil, given our need for it?
Is it not also right that having come to the aid of the Libyan people (when they requested it) that they should treat us as a preferred "friend" ?

The Libyans only produce around 12% of the world's oil - in comparison with Iraq that is tiny. To infer that we "organised" this revolution - to gain control of the oil - is simply absurd.

ITK you've completely missed the point. I'll re-quote from the article:


'The deal with Vitol was said to have been masterminded by Alan Duncan, the former oil trader turned junior minister, who has close business links to the oil firm and was previously a director of one of its subsidiaries.

Mr Duncan’s private office received funding from the head of Vitol before the general election. Ian Taylor, the company’s chief executive and a friend of Mr Duncan, has given more than £200,000 to the Conservatives.

Vitol is thought to be the only oil firm to have traded with the rebels during the Libyan conflict. Oil industry sources said that other firms including BP, Shell and Glencore had not been approached over the deal. One well-placed source said this was “very surprising” because other companies would have been keen to be involved.

So this is not just about trading with the rebels. It's about cronyism at best, or corruption at worst. Alan Duncan and the Tories lining the pockets of their friends in Vitol. The fact that they were the only oil company invited is outrageous and needs to be investigated.

That is what this is about.

Innocent Accused wrote:
If the facts don't fit your view then simply consider them absurd.
So why ignore all those worse cases like Syria,Iran,North Korea etc.

I DONT ignore other cases (although I understand that you may disregard anything that doesnt suit YOUR case) ! I have repeatedly said that after we deal with Gaddafi then Syria and Assad must come next.

The conspiracists on here will believe that we are planning to invade Syria to get the sand, though .... as they dont have any oil !