Why NATO Wants Gaddafi Out of Power In Libya

Stumbled across some interesting facts while researching more in the Libya situation.
I'm not saying that Gaddafi isn't a ruthless dictator (there is MUCH evidence that he is), but if you know history then you must know that the Western world has no problem with dictators UNLESS they start to act against the Western agenda or interests.

The question then is, why is NATO putting so much effort to take down Gaddafi all of a sudden?
To help protesters and rebels? Well, as long as those rebels are in line with the West's interests then they might turn out to be more ruthless or useless than Gaddafi.

Gaddafi actually posed a threat to NATO interests in Africa.

Things Gaddafi has accomplished:

1. the Great Man Made River project, in Libya which is probably the largest and most complex engineering project in the world was invested by Gadaffi, which is taking over 20 years to build and costing over 30 billion dollars to make it happen, ALL of the money used to help this project was purely from Libya, not a single dollar was borrowed from the outside world. This project is a great investment. , a huge complex irrigation system, it has also been dubbed the 8th wonder of the world.

This will help farmers cultivate land and provide fresh water to the masses the ability to grow crops with sustainability and able to produce enough crops that it will have to bring in migrant workers from overpopulated Egypt which will benefit Egypt and export crops which will stimulate its economy further. A long term sustainable project, which is criticized and envied by the west. A country that can provide for itself without the need to import anything and in debt to no country is frowned upon by America

Doesn't sound too sinister. However, a big reason most of Africa languishes in a Third World is because of their enormous debt to NATO member nations. Libya was attempting to escape of the enslavement of the endless European debt cycle, not something that the EU appreciates.

2. Libya has probably the best health care system in the whole of Africa, whereby infant deaths per 1000 is decreasing year on year, This currently stands at about 18/1000 which is better than most African countries. Figures from WHO shows that 71% have good access to clean water (2000), 97% access to good sanitation (2006)

Sounds like a good example for other African nations to follow. However, less sick Africans means less money for Western health providers reaping in profits from medicinal monopolies over the continent.

3. Compulsory Education: In the Libyan Jamahiriya education is free to everyone from elementary school right up to university and post-graduate education, both in Libya and abroad. Pre-university education is divided into primary, preparatory, and secondary education. Schools are everywhere. For nomads, there are mobile classrooms and teachers. Educations is compulsory between 6 and 15 yrs old.

Seems strange that a dictator would want to educate his people. Don't dictators want an uneducated, easily controllable population? Even if the education is biased toward Gaddafi's regime, offering free abroad education?? This contradicts the West's allegation that Gaddafi does not allow his citizens to leave the country.

In the 1990 Libya was put under US sanctions which restricted the amount of oil it was allowed to export and limit the amount of imports it was allowed to receive, including medical supplies and bare necessities such as foods.

This is a control which America has put in place in over 40% of the entire world, it wants to control the economy of the world. In 2001, the Act is amended to allow the US president to punish non-US firms investing more than $20 million annually in the energy sectors in Libya or Iran.

Is anybody surprised?? Not likely.

However, the straw that broke the camel's back and forced NATO to act with violence:

4. Gadaffi asked for having a United States of Africa, who was the 2009 chair person for the Arab union he stated this in June 2007 in guinea and again in February 2999 in Ethiopia. He said "I shall continue to insist that our sovereign countries work to achieve the United States of Africa."

The BBC reported that Gaddafi had proposed "a single African military force, a single currency and a single passport for Africans to move freely around the continent".

This would make it the 3rd most populated state after china and India. From one body they would have more power in world influence, and will be at less risk to threats, don't forget much of Africa was one body, but was split up by Britain and France.

The West stands on the backs of the impoverished nations in Africa and South America. This is why they have undermined liberation efforts for the last hundred years. Even when they cannot directly control the nations as colonies anymore, they still control them through economic means, and when that fails, military means.

NATO dominates the UN. They hold the most sway in the world's power structure, and they want to keep it that way.

Gaddafi was planning to only trade oil in the African denar. He was also spear-heading a movement to abandon the worthless dollar and euro in exchange for a gold backed system. Something else that the West will not tolerate.

Another suspicious fact, China shows support for an African Union. A smart move, since China would then be able to use the voting power of a United Africa to gain more power in the global power structure. That is only the obvious reason, many many more are hidden behind closed doors of TPTB for now.

If you recall, only several years ago, the US was trying to sell military-industry supplies to Libya.
When Libya doesn't buy because they have set up trade agreements with Russia and China, NATO provides itself with a reason to destroy the errant little dictator.

The war in Libya isn't about helping rebels. The rebels are NATO/Israel backed gangs.
Just like the gangs in Egypt, in Syria, etc.
It's about consolidating power in the hands of the bankers that have a strangle hold on NATO and a loose grip on the entire world.

A MUST WATCH VIDEO SERIES ON THE TOPIC:






Read more: wiki.answers.com...
Why the West Wants Gaddafi Out
Another good ATS thread on the topic: What You Don't Know About the Libyan Crisis

reply to post by thereisnotry

Seems strange that a dictator would want to educate his people. Don't dictators want an uneducated, easily controllable population? Even if the education is biased toward Gaddafi's regime, offering free abroad education?? This contradicts the West's allegation that Gaddafi does not allow his citizens to leave the country.

Agreed BooHoo to bad for the rebel swines now they arent going to anything when they will be puppets to the west, no free education, payable health care, Oh yes I am sure the rebels will be celebrating this one

Why is it every time when i look at pictures of the rebels, they look as if they are on high?

Didn't the "rebels" set up a Western style central bank in the first weeks of the "rebellion"? If that is true, it also supports your post's assertions.
Anyone who believes that NATO is in there because they care about the poor Libyan people will believe anything.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


They'll be celebrating their NATO-backed regime change and then get fat on Western dollars as they sell out everything their country has built over the past 50 years.

reply to post by louieprima


I hadn't heard about that. If they did, it was probably to make money flow from their puppet masters even easier.

The same tactic of "we need to help these poor people" worked to get the US people behind an invasion of Iraq (along with "WMDs" and a myriad of other preposterous claims). Then once we're there we murder over 100,000 innocent civilians, the same ones we were trying to "liberate".

If it ain't broke don't fix it. So they're casting that same lure and the Western world has bitten once again.

I won't be shocked if they use the same excuse to take direct action in Syria.

From what I understand, Gadaffi was insisting that all foreign oil
companies employ Libyan civilians while on Libyan soil.
That was reason enough for the american lead invasion.
Same old, same old, . . . so much for 'change'
. . . give Obama another peace prize ?
Least Gadaffi was protecting jobs for his people,
cant say the same thing for Obama.


.

reply to post by thereisnotry


I will point out that while the Libyan Government did finance the Great Man Made River itself, it has done so in conjuction with US company KBR, a UK company called Al Nahr Company Ltd and with technical support from UNESCO. This doesn't even cover the fact that the actual resources used to construct the project have come from Germany, Japan, Korea, Spain and Italy. It's hardly a lone venture on the back of hard-working Libyans alone and it makes no sense that this would be a cause of friction with the West, as we've done quite well out of it.

Education and housing wise, well, Saddam did the same in Iraq. Prior to the 1991 war, Iraq had the best Health and Education systems outside of the Western world. This is not really here nor there in the grand scheme of things. However, what it does show is that megolomaniac dictators with dreams of grandeur (Saddam and gaddafi both dreamed of pan-regional blocks with them at the helm) know they would need a well developed country to realise their ambitions.

As for Gaddafi and his talk of a United States of Africa, well, guess who he envisaged as the leader of this Union?

Give you three quesses....

reply to post by thereisnotry


Very good research here bringing to light the behind the scenes actions.

You also have to look at all these orchestrated rebellions around the middle east and now in Europe. I am sure they are all being done by the same people. I can't believe most people don't think about the fact that we are supporting Muslim Brotherhood. Most of these are the same people we were fighting against in Iraq.

We are seeing Muslim Extremists, Socialists/Progressives, Communists all working together to purport all these actions. What I find interesting is two of these groups are going to get a rude awakening when the Islamic Extremists turn on them. Most people don't realize how hardlined they are in their beliefs and are only truly working with others until they don't need them. To the extremists we are all infidels even if you think you are friends.

I appreciate the effort you put into making this but I'm still not sure how civilians taking up arms to fight and free themselves from Gaddafi's regime and the millions in Libya and now in Cairo celebrating the rebel victory can be orchestrated or a part of a scheme like you claim.

Seems like ATS enjoys having threads claiming outrageous things that rioters and looters in the UK were orchestrated by government and then civilians wishing to break free of oppression in Libya are orchestrated by outside forces.

Maybe a little too out there, far fetched and desperate to think that all governments are bad and a big reason I've been considering whether or not to take my intelligence, my rational thought and ideas and contributions out of ATS and let them go to waste as I regress back to the dumbed down version of myself to fit in with others since it seems even here, intelligence seems to be on a downward spiral.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by thereisnotry

 

I will point out that while the Libyan Government did finance the Great Man Made River itself, it has done so in conjuction with US company KBR, a UK company called Al Nahr Company Ltd and with technical support from UNESCO. This doesn't even cover the fact that the actual resources used to construct the project have come from Germany, Japan, Korea, Spain and Italy. It's hardly a lone venture on the back of hard-working Libyans alone and it makes no sense that this would be a cause of friction with the West, as we've done quite well out of it.

Education and housing wise, well, Saddam did the same in Iraq. Prior to the 1991 war, Iraq had the best Health and Education systems outside of the Western world. This is not really here nor there in the grand scheme of things. However, what it does show is that megolomaniac dictators with dreams of grandeur (Saddam and gaddafi both dreamed of pan-regional blocks with them at the helm) know they would need a well developed country to realise their ambitions.

As for Gaddafi and his talk of a United States of Africa, well, guess who he envisaged as the leader of this Union?

Give you three quesses....

Without a doubt, Gaddafi is no saint. Suppressing free elections is a sign that he very much afraid of losing that power that he covets, even though he asserts that his people love him dearly. Similar to Castro in Cuba, and even the plans of Huey Long in Louisiana.

Many of his intentions seem good though, like his activism against imperialism and the United States of Africa to bring the continent together in an EU fashion (though you are correct that he probably would not have been as happy with it if HE was not chosen to be the supreme ruler ).

My main point is that NATO and the MSM paints him to be an African Kim Jong il set on the destruction of his country and the world. When in reality he has actually done good and was respected by many world leaders including Nelson Mandela.

reply to post by curious7


There will always be citizens in a country willing to fight to change it, even in Western nations. I'm sure the rebellion in Libya is not entirely made up of NATO pawns, in fact I've read stories of many ex-Libyans returning to the country from safe havens in the US and Europe just to have a chance to oust Gaddafi.

That being said, an active mind cannot simply sit back and ignore the obvious underlying motives these world powers have for their actions that they do not make public. They contradict themselves in their stated beliefs and in their actions. There is proof that those in power tend to repeat these same tricks, just as history repeats itself.

If nothing else, my conclusions can be used as fuel to further discussion and dissection of this issue. Differing opinions are welcomed!

I promise not to throw a tantrum or refuse to back down in the face of good evidence like some do.

reply to post by thereisnotry


Well, Nelson Mandela is a questionable character himself, willing to kill innocents to further his own agenda, but lets not digress!

I don't for one second think that there isn't an alterior motive for this action in Libya and I have said as much from day one, but I do not think it is quite as nefarious or even secretive as some would have us believe.

I think we are using the cover of a "humanitarian" mission to prevent a destabalised southern flank of the EU developing, worseing the immigration problem and tipping the Med into chaos. The Politicans know that people would be cagey about taking action without a black and white scenario, so rather than tell us the truth, ie; this is for our own good, we claim it is for the Libyans own good. That way, we can feel warm and fuzzy, the Southern flank is secured against god knows what and maybe, just maybe, we get a free and democratic Libya out of the mix to trade and do deals with, without being made to feel guilty.

However, I suspect this is far to normal and boring for some and they'd rather an overblown conspiracy based on getting oil we already had, preventing a Gold Dinar or what have you. It's much more fun when you throw conspiracies like that around.

reply to post by stumason


While it may very well be as simple as that, invading and changing the regime of country is a big deal (or at least it should be). Was there no road of diplomacy that the Western powers could have used?
Maybe not, if Gaddafi was just too "crazy" to not be bribed into submission.
He hasn't backed down to international pressure despite the Arab league pulling their support for him.

That act in itself might be an attempt by the other nations to throw Gaddafi under the bus and possibly save their own asses. Syria is collapsing, Iraq has already been conquered, Egypt and Lebanon are both straining. Somila and Sudan are embroiled in civil war and poverty.

Remember that before we invaded Iraq, Hussein also threatened to stop trading oil using the dollar.

The western bank was set up in the first week or two of conflict, with the aims looking to keep the oil flowing, confront Libya on an economic front and to support the rebels. The African Union was against interference by NATO and US and have had their authority on African issues undermined. To keep the Continent divided so the plunder of resources can continue looks to be a valid aim with these actions.

The water pipeline and factories working on this project have been bombed. With such vital infrastructure considered as military targets it is further clear evidence of who is actually the target of this conflict. With the rebels taking control of the country expect the nation to be quickly in debt with a slide in health care, education and basic standard of living following. Generational conflict will continue with the lack of public support and means that this over throw has happened.

Any form of democracy will be a front to the military as it tries and maintain some form of order. The long term planning of the past will be replaced by short term crisis management from a divided government. Corporations will step in to take control of vital infrastructure while the public purse goes further into the red.

Same old, same old. The west(=all of us) never really abolished colonialism, we only slapped some different names on it.
We are still sucking the old colonies dry, when neccesary by proxy via some dictator. Problem is, lest we end upa 3rd world country too, we are sort of in a catch22.
Ethics (and gut-feelings) tell us there is something not quite right, but without leeching the 3rd world, our " civilization would collapse. No more oil, no more cheap clothing, no more coffee, bananas : lol:

For good measure, take a look inyour cupboard and start counting the amount of stuff that'sfrom some 3rdworld country.

Europe is trying it's darnest to produce most food stuffs and amenities itself (something not really applauded by the international bankers) but us dependent on Africa for quite a bit of goods. Same goes for the US

I have no idea how it works for Australia, but I can imagine they are depending on asia and oceania for a lot of stuff...

It'sall an inescapable quagmire,and the net-result of colonialism that never really went away.

reply to post by diakrite

I have no idea how it works for Australia, but I can imagine they are depending on asia and oceania for a lot of stuff...

It is cheaper to ship in orange juice pulp from Brazil than to grow oranges here. There is not much manufacturing here in Australia either as a lot of our stuff comes from China and other countries. A lot of your other points are part of the cultural issues behind these problems.

reply to post by kwakakev

Somewhat off topic..buuuut...Your oranges observation got me thinking: would the explosion of bunker-oil and jet fuel price be the incentive for Australia to start irrigating on a grand scale?

The climate is possibly too hot in the outback, but isn't queensland, and coastal states? Provinces? fairly green and mild, and thusly convenient for producing ones own foodstuffs. It can't be sheep everywhere.....

Have to shamefully admit my total ignorance concerning Australia....

reply to post by diakrite


You are exactly right. Our high standard of living depends on the domination of third world cultures. However, we know inside that this is not right, morally speaking. There are other options available that would help break our addiction to cheap foreign goods and labor.

Farm land is expensive, but vertical farming and indoor farming are fast becoming an affordable and efficient alternative. With an abundance of food and other agricultural products, the price would remain as low as it is with imports, plus the jobs would remain in-nation. HOWEVER, it would bite heavily into the profits of the importer-exporters that essentially own these third world plantations.

That's just one proposal, but I digress. This is somewhat veering from the original discussion.

Originally posted by ToneDeaf
That was reason enough for the american lead invasion.

American led invasion? Right. If anyone was "leading" this, it was England and France with NATO backing.

Originally posted by ToneDeaf
Same old, same old, . . . so much for 'change'
. . . give Obama another peace prize ?

Least Gadaffi was protecting jobs for his people,
cant say the same thing for Obama.

Save America now,

Replace Ob with Momar.

Don't worry about their country of birth , its probably the same or near.