Benghazi still broken

funny... whole time i was reading this i was wondering who would be benefiting from this continued chaos... something is being stolen and all the rest of this is a either a distraction from the bad hand or a power struggle among thieves... and as i read i saw, it is a bit of both...

"“Where is all the money from the oil? Why are they not spending it to help us?” one female teacher said. “These politicians sit in their hotels in Tripoli and forget about us.”
The bigger issue is what status Benghazi will have in the new Libya and stake in national oil supplies of 1.6 million barrels a day – much of it from the east. "
 
robert l. bentham said:
"“Where is all the money from the oil? Why are they not spending it to help us?” one female teacher said. “These politicians sit in their hotels in Tripoli and forget about us.”
Click to expand...

And what has happened to the pan African currency backed by gold that the central bank of Libya had been stockpiling for that purpose and ... for that matter, what has happened to the central bank of Libya that was wholly owned by Libya, a public bank for the benefit of Libyans?
 
Libya's banking system was built for one man and he's dead.
 
Glaucus said:
Libya's banking system was built for one man and he's dead.
Click to expand...
Simplistic and wrong. However, the new one is definitely for the benefit of a small number of non-Libyan families. It was, under Gaddafi, outside of and independent from Basel. Now it has been brought into the family, as it were and Libya is no longer in control of its economy.
 
Are you suggesting Gaddafi shared the oil wealth with his people? I think the evidence suggests otherwise.
 
Glaucus said:
Are you suggesting Gaddafi shared the oil wealth with his people? I think the evidence suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...
Which evidence? He built the underground river. People had health care. You think the new owners of the oil will spend any on Libya - because the new owners of Libya aren't Libyan - the guys from Benghazi who moved to Tripoli are just managers.
 
I remember seeing on television an interview with a Libyan who was simultaneously glad Gadafi was gone, but furious at the hike in petrol prices.

I don't for a second think Gadafi was some kind of saint, but in terms of basic infrastructure he seemed to have put a lot of effort in to maintain for the people as a whole a comparatively good quality of life.
 
The quality of a dictator is irrelevant. They are all unwilling to share power and that always leads to their undoing. What makes democracy so enduring is that everyone has a fair shot at corruption.
 
the_leander said:
I remember seeing on television an interview with a Libyan who was simultaneously glad Gadafi was gone, but furious at the hike in petrol prices.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing green flags in Tripoli and millions of people out in support of Gaddafi, and even thousands standing around institutions and palaces as human shields in the mistaken belief that NATO wouldn't risk killing civilians. Some said that the people had no choice or were afraid not to demonstrate but if that were the case then perhaps one would have felt that more than just a majority of Libyans would have been out supporting him.

On the other hand I remember watching many interviews after the fall of Tripoli where people would not directly say anything against their new overlords while they thought the cameras were running but would make tangential complaints about things that were wrong rather than directly denounce the new power.
I don't for a second think Gadafi was some kind of saint, but in terms of basic infrastructure he seemed to have put a lot of effort in to maintain for the people as a whole a comparatively good quality of life.
Click to expand...
In the 1950s under King Idris, the standard of living in Libya was among the lowest in the world. Idris, aided by the British, ruled out of Benghazi and the British got oil, Idris and his friends got money and everyone else got ... not so much. Under Gaddafi, the Libyan standard of living rose to become the best in Africa, education was free to boys and girls. Literacy rates for young people are close to 100% for both sexes. Medical care was free and high quality. The wealth was being spread around and the despite sanctions from time to time the quality of life for the average person remained high. Libya had it's own state bank and was debt free, had gold holding on a per capita basis far higher than the US (gold is still important between countries) and was aiding African nations to improve their standard of living too. For the vast majority, life under Gaddafi was pretty good.

Now Libyans are having to rebuild infrastructure that NATO destroyed (and they aren't getting reparations from NATO, but they are being made to borrow from the World Bank and take on debt) and the state bank has been closed and a new Private bank has been set up as the state bank (with ownership primarily being foreign). The plans for a pan African currency based on gold have been crushed and the oil profits are once again flowing to US and UK approved partners.
 
Glaucus said:
The quality of a dictator is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Oh no, I very much disagree. There is definitely a difference between a competent dictator and ruthless oligarch.
What makes democracy so enduring is that everyone has a fair shot at corruption.
Click to expand...
You seem to think history only started with the French Revolution. Democracies come and go - they are among the least enduring form of human government and are in the minority in history. Democracies seem to have a hard time lasting more than a couple of hundred years.
 
Well, if you can find me a dictator that has lived for more than a couple of hundred years you might have a chance of convincing me.
 
Glaucus said:
Well, if you can find me a dictator that has lived for more than a couple of hundred years you might have a chance of convincing me.
Click to expand...
Find an elected government where all the members have lived (and been re-elected) for 200 years and you might have a point. Systems last longer than people.
The Shang Dynasty lasted about 700 years. The Zhou Dynasty, almost a thousand.

The Roman Republic lasted about 500 years (the lower classes having won considerable concessions from the ruling classes 500BC - though slaves didn't have much say). The system had already become very top heavy again by the time the Emperors took over in the late BCs. Emperors held sway for 600 years (though Constantine had to move headquarters) and after that Europe was ruled by the religious wing of the Empire, the Holy Roman Church - who got to pick and chose the local Kings, more or less. Far more of human history is under kings and emperors than elected representatives and even less under direct democracy.
 
There was a Libyan girl on my University course last year. She's back home now and I just read a pretty heartbreaking message from her on Facebook. Needless to say she isn't remotely impressed by "liberal intervention" or whatever other ludicrous label you want to put on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top