Lybia has first election after Gadhafi

There are 54 comments on the Pasadena Star-News story from Jul 7, 2012, titled Lybia has first election after Gadhafi. In it, Pasadena Star-News reports that:

Jubilant Libyans chose a new parliament Saturday in their first nationwide vote in decades, but violence and protests in the restive east underscored the challenges ahead as the oil-rich North African nation struggles to restore stability after last year's ouster of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Pasadena Star-News.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Jul 11

Berlin, Germany

#42 Jul 19, 2012
Marine Corp Pat wrote:
And to think, after decades of attempts - from Reagan to Bush 43 Ė it took this brilliant Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama to get KaddafiÖ Osama bin Laden and Muammar are both burning in Hell cursing the American people for electing Barack Obama President of the United States, LOL!
You're giving Obama far to much credit for getting Gaddhafi. But for getting bin Laden you're dead right.

Since: Jul 11

Berlin, Germany

#43 Jul 19, 2012
Outta Luck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there are still problems in the middle east...as I put it. BUT...Obama has had more success over there than W did. W fought wars there his whole 2 terms and all he managed to do was Make Haliburton rich and remove Saddam so our enemies could move in and take over. Speaking of Arse kissing, W and his predecessors were in the Middle east to kiss Isreal's ass. Obama has done no ass kissing in the middle east he has done plenty ASS KICKING!!!!!!!He got Pakastan to apologize for being mad at us for accidentally killing those soldiers in a drone strike. That's impressive.
The fact that conservative radio spends 6 hours a day talking about how horrible Obama is, is a testament to how good he has been.
when W was in office the same bloated talking radio heads spent all day explaining how the dumb stuff W did was amazing, a testament to how bad W was.
Lybia still has a long way to go. Getting over 40 years of rule by a dictator wil not take 1 election. Lybia has a huge reserve of oil....HUGE! Getting them into the global capitalist markets will actually be good for the people if their newly elected officials set the bar high and try to run the country in ways that will not only line their pockets, but the people's too. I think lybia will be a good ally in the mid east, if we play the game fairly with them. It is a golden oppurtunity, hopefully we can beat China to the punch, but they are a tough competitor.
Obama has a much better chance of getting Lybia to work with us than Mit does. Even Lybians will be able to see Mitt is a robot trained by a bizzare religious cult.
At last an absolutely rational comment that I can almost entirely agree with.

The only thing I don't quite agree with is that we now have easier terms for buying Libyan oil. That's not entirely true. Gaddhafi was well known to be always very eager to get his oil to market regardless of who the buyer was. He simply needed lots of cash to finance his greedy family, his greedy regime members and his pet hobbies. That's why Libya was never an OPEC member. While OPEC countries throttled their oil output to try to raise world oil prices Gaddhafi often used this to sell even more oil.

Also, it was well known in the oil business that corrupt Libyan officials often sold ship loads of Libyan crude "under the table" at cut prices pocketing the money for themselves. There are signs that Gaddhafi knew about and tolerated this as part of his system of securing power. Like any Mafia boss will tell you, if you have proof of an high up being corrupt you can get him to do anything you want.
arthur

Australia

#44 Jul 19, 2012
Ditto Dog wrote:
<quoted text>
You're giving Obama far to much credit for getting Gaddhafi. But for getting bin Laden you're dead right.
People like me who hate terrorists worry Obama and co have helped alqaeda more than binladen by giving them new areas to gather strength.Like libya and Syria.

Since: Jul 11

Berlin, Germany

#45 Jul 19, 2012
arthur wrote:
<quoted text>People like me who hate terrorists worry Obama and co have helped alqaeda more than binladen by giving them new areas to gather strength.Like libya and Syria.
I disagree. First of all, I donít think anyone has any influence on the Syrian civil war least of all the US.

And are you really so certain that Gaddhafi would have won straight out if NATO hadnít taken the rebelsí side? Without NATO Libya could very easily have developed into something like Syria where there are now any number of groups fighting, everyone of them with their own agenda, with al Qaeda right in the middle of it all. Last of all, Obama has done the most to all but entirely destroy al Qaeda in Pakistan by authorising predator attacks. In that way G. W. Bush was a peace dove in comparison.
arthur

Melbourne, Australia

#46 Jul 19, 2012
Ditto Dog wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. First of all, I donít think anyone has any influence on the Syrian civil war least of all the US.
And are you really so certain that Gaddhafi would have won straight out if NATO hadnít taken the rebelsí side? Without NATO Libya could very easily have developed into something like Syria where there are now any number of groups fighting, everyone of them with their own agenda, with al Qaeda right in the middle of it all. Last of all, Obama has done the most to all but entirely destroy al Qaeda in Pakistan by authorising predator attacks. In that way G. W. Bush was a peace dove in comparison.
Yes I am certain ghaddafi forces would have won.The RINGS OF DEATH,that were to be defended to the last man and the last round had been breached in benghazi.What was left on tv looked like a mob of armed civilians who would simply have thrown their guns away once the tanks rolled up.

Since: Jul 11

Berlin, Germany

#47 Jul 19, 2012
arthur wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I am certain ghaddafi forces would have won.The RINGS OF DEATH,that were to be defended to the last man and the last round had been breached in benghazi.What was left on tv looked like a mob of armed civilians who would simply have thrown their guns away once the tanks rolled up.
That's not the impression I got when I was there in Feb. 2011. Sure Benghazi and Misurata would have been blood baths. But this was not like any of the earlier localized unrests that Gaddhafi had been able to put down before anyone noticed. This was something far bigger that encompassed the whole of the country and most of the army.

This time the protesters had managed even to take large parts of Tripoli for a short time and had seen what was possible in Egypt and Tunisia. This time they were far more determined and encouraged and would not have been discouraged so easily by anything that Gaddhafi could have done in Benghazi. They would have gone underground, regrouped and with help from defectors and others from outside formed something simulator to the Free Syrian Army to start an insurgency like we are seeing now in Syria. And it would have been a far longer drawn out, bloodier war. That's the kind of war al Qaeda likes, ones that are murky in which it's difficult to define who is fighting and what agendas they have.
Tony

Broken Arrow, OK

#48 Jul 19, 2012
NOT one single American soldier was killed or injured in Lybia.
arthur

Melbourne, Australia

#49 Jul 19, 2012
Tony wrote:
NOT one single American soldier was killed or injured in Lybia.
The Americans were in the sky.

Since: Jul 11

Berlin, Germany

#50 Jul 19, 2012
Tony wrote:
NOT one single American soldier was killed or injured in Lybia.
How then? They just fired some tomahawks in the general direction of Libya and then left the rest up to the French and Brits.
Oliver Cromwell

Blackburn, UK

#51 Jul 19, 2012
Ditto Dog wrote:
<quoted text>
How then? They just fired some tomahawks in the general direction of Libya and then left the rest up to the French and Brits.
They left the rest up to the other War criminals.

Since: Jul 11

Berlin, Germany

#52 Jul 19, 2012
Oliver Cromwell wrote:
<quoted text>
They left the rest up to the other War criminals.
Well, your entitled to your opinion of course. I'd rather say we did exceptional well. Gaddhafi gone, free elected government in power and oil revenue coming in. Maybe they should now concentrate on strengthening internal security, diminishing rogue rebel brigades and such, but that will come. And the whole thing hardly cost us anything.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#53 Sep 15, 2013
Lets celebrate Gadhafi final departure

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#55 Sep 28, 2013
The death of Moamar Gadhafi and the life of NATO

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#56 Sep 28, 2013
The death of Andrew Breitbart..the life of Acorn

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

John McCain Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bachmann Calls Bush's Bailout Decision an Act o... (Nov '11) 4 hr swedenforever 19
News Senators Want China Disinvited From Naval Exerc... 13 hr idiotsareunited 1
News McCain: Torture 'damaged' U.S. security Thu swedenforever 4
News Rumsfeld Resigns as Defense Secretary Democrats... (Nov '06) Thu swedenforever 11
News John McCain calls Jade Helm 15 hysteria - bizarre' Wed Jay R 141
News Congressman Shrugs Off Dreamers' Patriotism, Sa... May 20 spud 3
News Congressman Shrugs Off Dreamers' Patriotism, Sa... May 19 tomin cali 3
More from around the web