eyeball Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 I think Gaddafi did rather well, which goes to show, I suppose, better to be an ex-dictator in Libya than Italy. The Italians have an interesting history of dispatching tyrants, actually. I think the history of creating tyrants over and over again would be even more interesting and relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) You're presuming Gaddafi could have been taken alive. I have my doubts. He was not strictly a rational player, like. say, Ben Ali in Tunisia, who saw the writing on the wall, got on a plane and got the hell out with as much money as he could carry. Gaddafi, by remaining in Libya even after it was clear that the UN Security Council was moving against him, essentially wrote his own end. To get to him before the rebels did would have meant a lot of boots on the ground, precisely what NATO did not want to do. So there was no way to assure Gaddafi was taken alive. Well,that's the way it goes with dictators. Some leave a legacy some become forgotten as soon as they are dead. Chapter closed...History repeating itself. I suspect NATO could have kept him alive if they wanted to. Gadaffi has indeed a lot of questions to answer for. Don't forget that the same megalomaniac you talk about is the same person Tony Blair and Gordon Brown tried to reach him in the past through signing some lucrative contracts but still failed to get to the bottom of Lockerbie bombing, PC Evonne Fletcher's murder, his dealings with Pakistan (US's ally) and so many other unanswered questions. Beyond that, I'm not exactly sure what anyone would have expected if he had been captured and put on tiral. From what we've seen a bad guys who end up before the Hague, or any court for that matter, they don't exactly sit there and spill all their dirty secrets. Quite the opposite, they're defiant, usually refusing to recognize the court's legitimacy, and generally use the proceedings as a soapbox for their megalomania. And Gaddafi would have been the megalomaniac to end all megalomaniacs. Can you imagine what a farce he would have turned any investigation and trial into? This was a guy who, at a basic level, viewed his position and his country as a stage on which he could perform. Look I am not disputing that we could have got the answers we want from Gaddafi through court had he stayed alivebut surely it would have given some reassurance to the victims of Lockerbie bombing about the truth. What really baffles me is why there is this tendency to go after tyrants that are typically in oil rich countries? Why not people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe or they have no interest to serve in the name of democracy? Edited October 22, 2011 by kactus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 What really baffles me is why there is this tendency to go after tyrants that are typically in oil rich countries? Why not people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe or they have no interest to serve in the name of democracy? Because it is not about democracy, or human rights or any of that nice fluffy stuff the powers that be propagandize on us. It's about oil, it's about resources, it's about control and keeping that control. If our leaders were on TV saying, "We are invading Libya because he has some really good oil we want." How well do you think that would go over with the general public? If they showed their true intentions, they would not get the support from the population for that. So they package it as humanitarian aid, and we buy it up like idiots and fools and thousands of Libyan's are killed in the process. What NATO did to Libya is just horrific. I am ashamed that our governments commit these acts in our name when the reasons for the war (because it is a war no matter how anyone tries to term it) was 100% false. What really angers me more, is that I am now aware of the asshatery that has taken place and knew that this conflict would end bad for the Libyans. Now that Gadhafi is gone, what is next for this country? And are we going to help them or let them suffer in the bombed out streets and buildings we helped to destroy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 What NATO did to Libya is just horrific. I am ashamed that our governments commit these acts in our name when the reasons for the war (because it is a war no matter how anyone tries to term it) was 100% false. What really angers me more, is that I am now aware of the asshatery that has taken place and knew that this conflict would end bad for the Libyans. Now that Gadhafi is gone, what is next for this country? And are we going to help them or let them suffer in the bombed out streets and buildings we helped to destroy? Democracy, freedom of speech and the rest of these jazzy words are packaged in disguise to secure the ongoing "rebuilding projects" for oil rich Lybia. Only this morning a group of contractors left UK to seize this opportunity and not lose out on lucrative deals. Of course a new friendly lybian government that can fulfill this order is what is required whilst offering some sort of "democracy" to lybians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Hey I was willing to let you school me on it with facts, but you failed on that as well. I am willing to learn and both of you are failing. Ever consider the possibility that I don't feel compelled to provide "proof" disproving every stupid thing you say on MLW? Rather, I find it more amusing to allow you to continue living in your fantasy world where Canada is Israel's benefactor, giving Israel untold millions (or billions, even?) of dollars annually in foreign aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Only this morning a group of contractors left UK to seize this opportunity and not lose out on lucrative deals. Of course a new friendly lybian government that can fulfill this order is what is required whilst offering some sort of "democracy" to lybians. Canada got a head start. Eleven days ago our Foreign Minister John Baird visited Lybia with a contingent of Canadian companies to talk business. Seems everyone wants a piece of the action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Democracy, freedom of speech and the rest of these jazzy words are packaged in disguise to secure the ongoing "rebuilding projects" for oil rich Lybia. Only this morning a group of contractors left UK to seize this opportunity and not lose out on lucrative deals. Of course a new friendly lybian government that can fulfill this order is what is required whilst offering some sort of "democracy" to lybians. Why does it bother you that business sees an opportunity to provide services in Libya that are of value? There's a demand for certain business there, so business responds. There's nothing untoward about that on its face. What do you expect, businesses to give away their professional services and products for free? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Why does it bother you that business sees an opportunity to provide services in Libya that are of value? There's a demand for certain business there, so business responds. There's nothing untoward about that on its face. What do you expect, businesses to give away their professional services and products for free? Agreed...why would anyone be surprised now when Canada's prime minister (Paul Martin) was courting Gadaffy's favor way back in 2004 for oil services contracts. When the war broke out, hundreds of Canadian workers had to scramble to get the hell out of Libya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Agreed...why would anyone be surprised now when Canada's prime minister (Paul Martin) was courting Gadaffy's favor way back in 2004 for oil services contracts. When the war broke out, hundreds of Canadian workers had to scramble to get the hell out of Libya. It's the usual pathetic leftist knee-jerk animosity towards profit. Profit is treated like some sort of offensive four-letter-word, rather than the incentive required to bring people together through commerce for mutual benefit. And of course, those that hate profit the most are those that are unable to provide any real value to society through the creation of wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) Why does it bother you that business sees an opportunity to provide services in Libya that are of value? There's a demand for certain business there, so business responds. There's nothing untoward about that on its face. What do you expect, businesses to give away their professional services and products for free? I have no problem with that and businesses seizing opportunities. What i do have problem with is this whole "cooking up" stories prior to attacks and this whole notion of liberating libya under the context of "freedom" and "democracy" as a justification to attack tyrannies of oil rich arab countries when we knew what the true intentiontions were... Edited October 23, 2011 by kactus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 I have no problem with that and businesses seizing opportunities. What i do have problem with is this whole "cooking up" stories prior to attacks and this whole notion of liberating libya under the context of "freedom" and "democracy" as a justification to attack tyrannies of oil rich arab countries when we knew what the true intentiontions were... So the story of Ghaddafi's brutality is fake? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 So the story of Ghaddafi's brutality is fake? Where have you been for the last 42 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Where have you been for the last 42 years? In the U.S., most of the time within about 300 miles of New York City. Except on my trips to Canada and one trip to Portugal. And a few to Carribean Islands and Mexico. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) In the U.S., most of the time within about 300 miles of New York City. Except on my trips to Canada and one trip to Portugal. And a few to Carribean Islands and Mexico. Thought my point is clear but obviously it isn't...42 years of ruling and tyranny by Gadaffi and his systematic killings and torture of his people didn't seem to get much coverage in the past. Infact when he became a so called ally he wasn't so bad in the eyes of the west. Please read my previous posts on this thread. Thanks for giving a little insight in your little adventures around the world. I mean it it's a little more info than I expected. Edited October 24, 2011 by kactus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Thought my point is clear but obviously it isn't...42 years of ruling and tyranny by Gadaffi and his systematic killings and torture of his people didn't seem to get much coverage in the past. Infact when he became a so called ally he wasn't so bad in the eyes of the west. Please read my previous posts on this thread. Thanks for giving a little insight in your little adventures around the world. I mean it it's a little more info than I expected. It got plenty of coverage, especially when Libya was about to chair the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission, around the time of Lockerbie, and the time of the disco bombings in what was then called West Berlin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Why does it bother you that business sees an opportunity to provide services in Libya that are of value? There's a demand for certain business there, so business responds. There's nothing untoward about that on its face. What do you expect, businesses to give away their professional services and products for free? And if they don't we can always go in and lay down some humanitarian bombs!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 It got plenty of coverage, especially when Libya was about to chair the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission, around the time of Lockerbie, and the time of the disco bombings in what was then called West Berlin. You ask me if the brutality of Gadaffi is fake. I answered his brutality towards his own people has been going on for 42 years when we turned a blind eye and let him continue. So there is nothing new... While there many accusations of wrongdoings by Gadaffi he still wasn't tried and convicted. Nato claimed that there goal was to establish democracy in Libya. This was the basis. Democratic nations value the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. Killing Gadaffi who has not been through a court of law seems to defeat any claims made by Nato and the rebels. Practiocing democracy is about maintaning the rule of law not arbitrary killing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 You ask me if the brutality of Gadaffi is fake. I answered his brutality towards his own people has been going on for 42 years when we turned a blind eye and let him continue. So there is nothing new... While there many accusations of wrongdoings by Gadaffi he still wasn't tried and convicted. Not true....the US bombed Gadaffy's residential compound in 1986 for his role in terrorist bombings. Sanctions were imposed on Libya. Nato claimed that there goal was to establish democracy in Libya. This was the basis. Democratic nations value the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. Killing Gadaffi who has not been through a court of law seems to defeat any claims made by Nato and the rebels. Practiocing democracy is about maintaning the rule of law not arbitrary killing. Democracy and the rule of law has resulted in much killing, with or without the courts. Libya is not yet a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 And if they don't we can always go in and lay down some humanitarian bombs!!! This seems to be a stock non-intervention argument nowadays. "Oh my goodness, people will get killed, we'd best just stay home." I imagine there are a lot of folks in Europe who are probably pretty glad the US didn't have that attitude in 1941. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 You ask me if the brutality of Gadaffi is fake. I answered his brutality towards his own people has been going on for 42 years when we turned a blind eye and let him continue. So there is nothing new... While there many accusations of wrongdoings by Gadaffi he still wasn't tried and convicted. Turned a blind eye. The guy spent much of that time running a country that was an international pariah. Under the auspices of British, French and Italian politicians and business, an effort was made in the early 2000s to rehabilitate Gaddafi. It was commercial interests in Libya that turned Reagan's "mad dog" into "goofy Uncle Gaddafi", and no effort was spared in placating him, and the US went along with it somewhat unwillingly because Gaddafi seemed willing to play nice. But in the backs of a lot of American and British peoples' heads was playing Lockerbie. In fact, I'd say Gaddafi's undoing came when his agents put pressure on the British government to let Megrahi be sent back to Libya on humanitarian grounds, to assure the success of certain business deals. When it turned out the guy wasn't months from death like a Scottish court had asserted, I think a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic began to question this new portrayal of Colonel Gaddafi. Of course, when the Arab Spring came knocking and Gaddafi revealed himself to be as much the "mad dog" as he had ever been, well, the time had past. Nato claimed that there goal was to establish democracy in Libya. This was the basis. Democratic nations value the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. Killing Gadaffi who has not been through a court of law seems to defeat any claims made by Nato and the rebels. Practiocing democracy is about maintaning the rule of law not arbitrary killing. Revolutions are bloody things. Italian patriots shot Mussolini and his mistress and strung them up on meat hooks, and yet Italy became a democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) This seems to be a stock non-intervention argument nowadays. "Oh my goodness, people will get killed, we'd best just stay home." I imagine there are a lot of folks in Europe who are probably pretty glad the US didn't have that attitude in 1941. Libya was probably the most advanced country in Africa. Education and literacy rates improved since Gadhafi got to power. People were healthier, people had more opportunities. All that has been destroyed. Schools and hospitals were targets. The profits from the oil went back to the people to help improve their lives. Does this guy sound like a brutal tyrannic dictator? The real question is, Will Libya be better off after Gadhafi? And that answer will not come that easily in the next decade. Not only that, how many wars has Libya started during his reign? Edited October 24, 2011 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Libya was probably the most advanced country in Africa. Education and literacy rates improved since Gadhafi got to power. People were healthier, people had more opportunities. All that has been destroyed. Schools and hospitals were targets. The profits from the oil went back to the people to help improve their lives. Does this guy sound like a brutal tyrannic dictator? The real question is, Will Libya be better off after Gadhafi? And that answer will not come that easily in the next decade. Not only that, how many wars has Libya started during his reign? We are basically just playing craps. We have no idea if the revolutions we support will result in either better lives for their people, or more western friendly regimes. Were basically just rolling the dice and hoping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 We are basically just playing craps. We have no idea if the revolutions we support will result in either better lives for their people, or more western friendly regimes. That's OK...revolution is about change...not perfection. Canada didn't support another revolution closer to home that turned out quite well. Were basically just rolling the dice and hoping. Yep...no balls, no blue chips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 So this new leader of the NTC is calling for Sharia Law in Libya. Hmmm have we not seen this already? Don't see anything in the news on it yet, but heard it on the CBC coming into work today. But hey, it's for democracy and freedom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) Libya was probably the most advanced country in Africa. Education and literacy rates improved since Gadhafi got to power. People were healthier, people had more opportunities. All that has been destroyed. Schools and hospitals were targets. The profits from the oil went back to the people to help improve their lives. Does this guy sound like a brutal tyrannic dictator? The real question is, Will Libya be better off after Gadhafi? And that answer will not come that easily in the next decade. Not only that, how many wars has Libya started during his reign? Your attempt to revise history to turn him into a saint and his country into utopia speaks for itself. Go find out what Ghaddafi did in Niger to start with and what he did with the Amazigh. I won't even waste any more energy. The fact you defend this man and his regime as utopia speaks for itself. How many wars did he start? What a genius. How about you ask how many terrorists and how many murders did he finance. Edited October 25, 2011 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.