Venezuela the failed socialist state - Rising tensions.

[Mr Jack]

US Senator Marco Rubio tweeted a picture of Gadhaffi's corpse at President Maduro.

EDIT: Not his corpse, my mistake. His blood covered face on the way to being killed. The rebels videoed and distributed it. Marco Rubio plainly grabbed a copy and took a still from it.

Aye, and what a tool Rubio is. However, a discussion of the history of Libyan mess is still off-topic, no?

 

[RaohNS]

Not "fine", I'd say. But a Hell of a lot better than many regimes we deal with.

That would be my definition of fine.

heading in a very positive direction. The most difficult part for Western viewpoints is the "democracy" angle. Libya was not a democracy. HOWEVER, its history was very tribal and what Gadhaffi did create was a tribal council where the different factions of Libya felt represented. At least until one faction decided that with the aid of the West they could control all the oil for their own benefit. Regardless, it wasn't a democracy but it was a kind of balance of power that was working for the different tribes. When the Libyan government was smashed apart and its army broken up, it reverted to rival factions squabbling with each other. Last time I checked, Libya had two parliaments and three governments all simultaneously. How it would have handled Gadhaffi's passing I don't know but I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that it would have continued on its path - the ground work had been well-laid. And the aquifer project that I keep going on about would have transformed large parts of Libya giving it an amazing agricultural base and opening up a lot of new living space.

You clearly have read more than me on Libya. I do know Gaddafi was a clever man. He also didn't class himself as the President or ruler or the like.

People do not like to be wrong. That's why the tactic of getting in there first with your narrative is so beloved by propagandists.

I'm fine to be wrong. The issue is when people cannot see what's there in front of them (why the absolute **** is my phone inserting random ******* words based on 3 ******* letter ).

you first make someone believe something, most will not take contradictory information as a reason to change their mind, but as an attack that must be defended

First strike rule.

Yes, I believe that. It's well-evidenced that this was being explored and also very clear that Libya had the resource to do it. They had large gold reserves, a successful oil industry (hamstrung by limited access to Western equipment but still) and the good reputation to do it. As I mentioned above, Gadhaffi was the elected chair of the African union, Libya had on many occasions used its wealth to fund programs in other African countries and fund pro-African groups. They'd also helped keep the peace in some of the less stable African regions. So we know they had the capability and the opportunity and were at the minimum investigating it. Frankly, it would have made a lot of economic sense. There are downsides to a currency system that wide (look at the difficulties in Greece with the Euro for example). But then a lot of the countries that might have signed on to it are already penalised in such a way already because their currency is pegged to the Euro by France, which controls the issuing of their currency (14 nations belong to either the Central African Franc or the Western African Franc - both of which are French owned currencies). So it could well have been a net gain. But long-term successful or not, the question is whether or not Libya would have done it and it's very likely they were going to. This isn't "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" conspiracy theory. This is more "a lot of people don't know" level stuff.



In addition to Shell, lets throw in Goldman Sachs to the equation. The Libyan Investment Authority entrusted over a billion US dollars with Goldman Sachs. GS then "lost" nearly all of it. Libya pursued legal action against them and forced GS to a deal whereby they'd re-invest and get $5bn in preferred shares. GS and the US government are, as I'm sure you already know, more entangled than two octopuses *******. The prospect of LIBYA of all countries have a significant voting share in GS was unpalatable to say the least. Immediately with the NATO decision to attack you had asset freezing and to the best I've been able to find out, this was just quietly dropped. I say asset freezing, seizing is more likely. Who knows where Libya's gold reserves are today? It's a mystery.

Anyway, source for the above. It's the Guardian but hey - the truth shows up in the unlikeliest of places sometimes.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/may/31/goldman-sachs-libya-investment

Careful now harmony, you will be called a tin foil hatter. Interesting side discussion about Libya. Learned a nice amount.

 

[dowie]

Wrong. We didn't destroy a single city; we didn't target a single civilian building. It was the rebels and Gaddafi who destroyed Libya.
.

You’ve misread my post, I never claimed we did. Note the context, namely the post/scenario it is quoting.

 

[Sankari]

You’ve misread my post, I never claimed we did. Note the context, namely the post/scenario it is quoting.

So what was your point?

 

[Sankari]

So really, it was as a result of the rebels launching an internecine attack (or series of) that turned the Libya into the after of the famous before and after pictures doing their rounds?

Yes, it was the result of the civil war sparked by the rebels. Both sides—government and rebels—committed war crimes, killed civilians, and destroyed large amounts of infrastructure.

Were most people fed up with Gaddafi? Happy to see something of a verifiable nature.

The rebellion began with a Arab Spring protests in January 2011, and quickly developed into a civilian uprising, which culminated in civil war. The swiftness of these developments was entirely due to overwhelming public support (note the difference with Syria, where the government still enjoys majority backing). The Wikipedia article has plenty of details.

They also had the ability as they were being given arms and supported by Western backed air forces.

France was the only nation that supplied weapons to the rebels. Of course, the rebels were already armed; France just wanted to give them a few extra toys to play with. They consisted of light arms only.

Rumour has it

I'm not interested in rumours.

I prefer the before. Tinpot dictator and all.

Same here. Just like Iraq, which is why I was opposed to that war too. A functional dictatorship is still better than a dysfunctional war zone.

Having said that Evan, if you ever get the chance I would recommend his book (The Green Book), it's quite short but the guy wasn't stupid. A Marxist too.

I'm not interested. Marxism is a failed 19th century philosophy with no relevance to the 21st century.

He also predicted the next two conflict theatres in a speech in 2009, saying it was going to be him and afterwards Bashar Al Asad.

Did he? Need a source for that. Not a particularly prescient observation though, considering the instability of the region (and those two states in particular).

 

[Sankari]

Who knows where Libya's gold reserves are today? It's a mystery.

It's not a mystery.

Gaddafi sold one fifth of Libya's gold reserves shortly before his death, and most of that money has never been recovered because he was very good at hiding the wealth he stole from his people. Gaddafi was known to have multiple European bank accounts for this purpose.

However, Libya still has gold reserves, and they're still in Libya.

(Source).

So what's the mystery?

 

[dowie]

So what was your point?

It was a reply to the consequence of not getting involved - their second city destroyed, massacring thousands of civilians etc...

I've already said that - perhaps you might want to clarify what specifically you're getting at?

 

[h4rm0ny]

It's not a mystery.

Gaddafi sold one fifth of Libya's gold reserves shortly before his death, and most of that money has never been recovered because he was very good at hiding the wealth he stole from his people. Gaddafi was known to have multiple European bank accounts for this purpose.

However, Libya still has gold reserves, and they're still in Libya.

(Source).

So what's the mystery?

I don't really want to get drawn into a prolonged discussion on Libya but I had to laugh when I saw your graph. Why, I must ask, did you decide 2016 to 2019 was the relevant range for your graph when the war began at the start of the decade? Here's a graph that includes the start of the war (marked with an 'x').

Note that just perceptible drop at the very end of my graph is the change YOU chose to highlight. What we know is that a huge chunk of gold went missing after the war. You say that Gaddaffi sold it shortly before his death for his own gain. At a time when the rebels had largely won and he somehow exported 30 tonnes of gold to a mysterious unknown buyer(s) that have never been found. I say: "you got receipts for that?" It's missing. We don't know who has it. Hence, mystery.

The rebellion began with a Arab Spring protests in January 2011, and quickly developed into a civilian uprising, which culminated in civil war. The swiftness of these developments was entirely due to overwhelming public support (note the difference with Syria, where the government still enjoys majority backing). The Wikipedia article has plenty of details.

The rebels were already in negotiations with Western oil firms. This is a known fact. It wasn't a civilian uprising. The rebels were an armed faction that seized military installations and as Mr. Jack pointed out, contained disaffected soldiers from the Libyan army. There was not "overwhelming public support" for their actions. Well, except in Western media.

France was the only nation that supplied weapons to the rebels. Of course, the rebels were already armed; France just wanted to give them a few extra toys to play with. They consisted of light arms only.

I don't really get how you imagine throwing in "only France" or "light arms only" changes anything at all in what was said. And by the way, Qatar was also supplying weapons. Later on they supplied soldiers to make up the numbers of your "popular uprising", too.

Anyway, short answers to a topic I'm not really interested in discussing and isn't really relevant. I reply only because I can't believe the degree of revisionism that is taking place. There seems to be a sudden surge of this as I saw an article showing how Iraq had benefited from our invasion last week as well! Amazing.

 

[stockhausen]

[SNIP] And by the way, Qatar was also supplying weapons. [SNIP]

I believe that The UAE were also interfering in Libya?

It really is quite disgraceful the way wealthy nations interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states

 

[Orionaut]

I

.

Sorry Guys, But!

Oh look! Two "Gee-Wizz" graphs!

But of the two, yes, the first is by far the most egregious!

 

[Mr Jack]

Oh look! Two "Gee-Wizz" graphs!

When I rule the world making a bar chart with an axis that does not start from 0 will be punishable by death.

 

[Sankari]

I don't really want to get drawn into a prolonged discussion on Libya but I had to laugh when I saw your graph. Why, I must ask, did you decide 2016 to 2019 was the relevant range for your graph when the war began at the start of the decade? Here's a graph that includes the start of the war (marked with an 'x').

I didn't create the graph, I simply screen grabbed the first iteration. It makes no difference to my argument no matter how far you go back. What's your point?

Note that just perceptible drop at the very end of my graph is the change YOU chose to highlight. What we know is that a huge chunk of gold went missing after the war.

Do we? Where's the evidence for this? Also, 'after the war'? The war is still ongoing. Or did you mean after the first phase of the war?

Also, remember your original claim? You claimed that all of Libya's gold reserves were gone. I've shown this is false. You're now moving the goalposts to 'but we don't know who bought it', which is completely irrelevant.

You say that Gaddaffi sold it shortly before his death for his own gain. At a time when the rebels had largely won and he somehow exported 30 tonnes of gold to a mysterious unknown buyer(s) that have never been found. I say: "you got receipts for that?" It's missing. We don't know who has it. Hence, mystery.

Nobody's looking for the gold, they're looking for the money that Gaddafi got for selling it. The gold is irrelevant, and the identity of the buyers is not a 'mystery', it's just something that's not currently known.

Qassem Azzoz said 29 tonnes of gold - worth $US1.7 billion ($1.6 billion) - were sold to local merchants beginning in April as the sanctions-hit regime sought to gather much-needed cash.

The price represents a significant discount on current international spot prices.

"The gold was liquidated in order to pay salaries and to have liquidity, in Tripoli in particular," Mr Azzoz said.

According to central bank officials, some of the gold likely made its way out of the country to neighbouring Tunisia and beyond, circumventing international sanctions.

(Source).

But shortly before he died, Gaddafi sold a fifth of Libya’s gold reserves, and most of the proceeds from this sale are still missing. The so-called Panama Papers could now shed light on the search for this incredible fortune.

Through a network of cryptic corporate investments, secret front companies and hidden bank accounts, Gaddafi had managed to set aside a fortune since the fall of the Libyan king in 1969. Oil had made Libya and, in turn, Gaddafi, rich. The former military captain is said to have been in possession of between $100 million and $200 million. Dozens of international lawsuits and investigations are still underway, with the return of funds as their central aim.

Documents made available to Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) by an anonymous source calling itself “John Doe” have now implicated two of Gaddafi’s most trusted advisors: one of his greatest protégés, and his chief investor. The former earned millions through obscure appointments through the state, while to this day the latter is probably hiding billions of dollars at the behest of and for the Gaddafi clan. Both of these men had been on Interpol’s wanted list for several years.

(Source).

The rebels were already in negotiations with Western oil firms. This is a known fact.

Who cares? The West was already buying Libya's oil, so what's your point?

It wasn't a civilian uprising.

Yes it was. The role of the rebels came after the civilian uprising.

The rebels were an armed faction that seized military installations and as Mr. Jack pointed out, contained disaffected soldiers from the Libyan army.

Yep. None of this disproves anything I've said.

There was not "overwhelming public support" for their actions.

Prove it. Try refuting the Wikipedia article, for a start.

I don't really get how you imagine throwing in "only France" or "light arms only" changes anything at all in what was said.

I didn't claim it changed anything, it was just an observation.

And by the way, Qatar was also supplying weapons. Later on they supplied soldiers to make up the numbers of your "popular uprising", too.

But Qatar is not the West.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

When I rule the world making a bar chart with an axis that does not start from 0 will be punishable by death.

Harsh, but fair.

 

[RaohNS]

Yes, it was the result of the civil war sparked by the rebels. Both sides—government and rebels—committed war crimes, killed civilians, and destroyed large amounts of infrastructure.

So the first stone principle was rebel led.

Did he? Need a source for that. Not a particularly prescient observation though, considering the instability of the region (and those two states in particular).

Youtube the Gadaffi predicts his own death or some other such thing. It was a speech he gave to the Arab League in 09 time. On phone at the moment and it often deletes my text when I flick between ages. Had this happen yesterday with a mega post but cba retype.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I believe that The UAE were also interfering in Libya?

They've been bombing Libya since the war "ended" and they've funded groups there. I don't recall at what point that started, though. I mentioned Qatar because they had actual soldiers in the "popular uprising", but it wouldn't surprise me.

It really is quite disgraceful the way wealthy nations interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states

Not sure why the winky. Is it implying you think I'm okay with it when it's "my side"? My whole position in this unwanted tangent has been critical. I'm similarly critical of the looming US actions against Venezuela. I think Socialism is flawed, I think in the main Venezuela has brought itself to this pass. But you can criticism by me elsewhere I think about US sanctions and the UK seizing Venezuela's gold. Just because someone falls over by themself, doesn't mean you run up and mug him which is what the USA looks poised to do.

When I rule the world making a bar chart with an axis that does not start from 0 will be punishable by death.

This at least, we can agree on. Hate it. However, I was just extending Evangelion's chart and their source didn't allow adjusting it. To visually compare effectively, I had to use the same source.

 

[RaohNS]

Noted Evans attempt at trying to cover up the gold issue. Nice one harmony

 

[Orionaut]

This at least, we can agree on. Hate it. However, I was just extending Evangelion's chart and their source didn't allow adjusting it. To visually compare effectively, I had to use the same source.

Fair enough, on the scale of Gee-Wizzery, your retort wasn't so bad, But Evangelion's example would have put a Cabinet Minister to shame!

 

[Mr Jack]

However, I was just extending Evangelion's chart and their source didn't allow adjusting it. To visually compare effectively, I had to use the same source.

Fair enough, on the scale of Gee-Wizzery, your retort wasn't so bad, But Evangelion's example would have put a Cabinet Minister to shame!

I think you've both misunderstood @Evangelion's point, I believe he wasn't pointing to the change during the chart but the fact that the chart shows that Libya still has 116ish tonnes of gold, and that this (according to the text) is about three quarters of their maximum holdings.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I think you've both misunderstood @Evangelion's point, I believe he wasn't pointing to the change during the chart but the fact that the chart shows that Libya still has 116ish tonnes of gold, and that this (according to the text) is about three quarters of their maximum holdings.

I don't see how you can make that point with a graph that begins six years after the events your point is supposedly about. And Evangelion was also using it as a counter-argument to my saying large quantities of Libya's gold were missing after the war - hence their wishing to show a very small drop. I believe thirty tonnes of gold, a quarter of an entire nation's reserves, going missing is quite sufficient for me to raise an eyebrow at. If it's not enough for you to find concerning, then you must have a great deal more cash than I supposed.

Anyway, Venezuela anyone? Very different situation as there's no possibility of the US looting Venezuela's gold in an invasion because we've already got it tucked up under Threadneedle Street and told them they can't have it.

 

[Mr Jack]

I believe thirty tonnes of gold, a quarter of an entire nation's reserves, going missing is quite sufficient for me to raise an eyebrow at. If it's not enough for you to find concerning, then you must have a great deal more cash than I supposed.

It's funny you should mention that; I actually got an e-mail from Gadaffi's wife trying to find someone to help her get the gold out out of the country. It's been a bit delayed, but it should turn up next week. I only had to transfer $50k to her for the transfer costs!