It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If Gaddafi wasn't defeated, would Chad still be the 7th poorest country in the world?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Not many people know about the history of US and French interference in Libyan affairs.

One particular example is the Chadian-Libyan Conflict between 1978 - 1987.

Gaddafi wanted to reclaim Chad as it was still under an indirect colonial rule under the French. With the defeat of Gaddafi's forces by largely US and French interference, ended Gaddafi's expansionist projects toward Chad and his dreams of African and Arab dominance and reduced Western Dominance/Influence.

I hope people are beginning to get a glimpse of the parallels to the Chadian interference by the US and France, and today's Libyan Interference by NATO.

Now take a look at the Chadian and Libyan economic statistics from 2010:

GDP (nominal) per captita of Libya = $11,314
GDP (nominal) per capita of Chad = $767

The Government of Libya heavily subsidizes rent and utilities. Well, before this year's Libyan Civil War anyway.
And what about Chad? Chad is highly dependent on foreign assistance. Its principal donors include the European Union, France, and the multilateral lending agencies.

Libya had the highest living standards in Africa and was ranked 55th out of 172 countries (before NATO and Rebel interference) according to the Human Development Index - 0.755
Today, Chad has one of the lowest living standards ranking 166 out of 172 countries according to the Human development Index - 0.295


So basically, under the French influence (even after Chad's independence from France in 1960!), Chad remains to be the 7th poorest country in the world, has 80% of the population living below the poverty line, and has a huge debt which will probably never be paid.

What if Gaddafi controlled Chad and removed the French influence? Would Chad still remain the 7th poorest country in the world?

Now tell me, If France couldn't (or didn't) improve the lives of the Chadian people in the whole time they've controlled and influenced Chad, what hope is there for NATO and the UN to "improve" the lives of the Libyan People after Gaddafi is gone?

From here you can begin to see the true side of things - NATO intelligence agencies have been false flagging attacks in their own countries (like the Lockerbie Bombing) to put the blame and demonise Gaddafi over the years, so that they can pile up a long list of lies to justify a future war with Libya - which is taking place now, ofcourse.

Why?

Because Gaddafi wanted a more independent Africa less dependent on Western Influence and Dominance, particularly from multinational corporations who get tons of cheap labour there. I can't believe how many times I have stressed this around because people are still under the false impression that Gaddafi was an "evil dictator" who "oppressed his people".

As we can now see the picture more clearly, it is becoming more obvious that we have yet another country down the drain in the long list of countries NATO Governments have "tried to help".

edit on 31-8-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: .




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Don't post this information. People might have to acknowledge that foreign aid isn't really aid at all, that all it does is undermine third wold country's economies, and that it actually brings in more money that it costs....




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
I have stressed this around because people are still under the false impression that Gaddafi was an "evil dictator" who "oppressed his people".


he was an evil dictator who was complicit in the murder of thousands of Britons. So he gets no sympathy from me.

As for Chad - are you now saying that invading a country is justified if your living standard is higher than that of the country you invade? Hmmm, Hitler should have used that one, could have saved us a whole big war!



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


We are still giving foreign aid to a country which "could have" solved most of its problems if we just allowed Gaddafi to take control of it.

This is just one of the many examples we "could have" stopped/reduced foreign aid to countries who wouldn't need aid had we allowed them to mind their own business.


edit on 31-8-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: .



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 



You have obviously not read the full post but I guess that was expected....



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Who said Colonel Ghadaffi has capitulated? Dont be a fool... wae is just about to start...



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by John0Doe
 


Even if he is captured or killed, his supporters will still be around for a very long time until everyone of them is either dead, or agree for peace/surrender.

A disorganised and forced revolution by these Rebels (backed up by UN and NATO) comes at a price you see.




top topics



 
5

log in

join