Gaddafi Captured and Killed.....

Those actions do have to be condemned - resoundly and unanimously.  But the truth is that we simply don't know if the course of history was served well by this or not.   Justice and human rights are such a cornerstone of civil and free societies that a farcical trial with a foregone conclusion certain to end up in some gruesome death on YouTube all the same is no great prize either.  A trial is a guarantee of nothing, and always carries costs and risks.  Dictators past like Pol Pot and Mussolini wrought widespread influence and destruction as convicted figureheads. If a quick and merciless severing of the head of the snake saves ten thousand more lives because the country doesn't descend into a protracted civil war for example, can we really privately hold up first world justice as the only acceptable paradigm for critical events in third world upheavals?  I don't think much of the history that we revere would have looked that great by the harsh light of a cell phone camera.  There is evidence that the US war on terror has been an erosive factor on civil and human rights, and I think Americans and the rest of us should closely consider a few things that continue to be done in the name of that war, but I don't buy the slippery slope argument for people like bin Laden and Gaddafi.  Our institutions and the things we value are strong enough to handle such blatant exceptions.  Even if we really shouldn't say that out loud.

Obviously, things like this can happen and the world will carry on either way.  I don't think it's too much to want something a little better though.  We should always be trying to get it a little more right than last time.

Anally fucked by a knife ... wow.

Here's some basic facts about LIBYA that we don't hear about...

In 1951 Libya was one of the poorest countries in the world.

Then...
While under Ghaddafi's rule:

Gas was .14 cents a gallon
Literacy rate is 83%
Newlyweds received a $50,000 contribution towards the purchase of a home
The government pays 50% of the cost of a new vehicle
Farmers get everything needed to start up... home, livestock, etc.
Schools are free
Electricity is free
Healthcare is free
1.7 million people were defiant against Nato bombing, not against Ghadaffi
Banks are state owned

Of course the media will never print those facts.  They have everything to lose by saying anything remotely positive about a nation they're taking oil from ... whoops, I mean "liberating."  If the US is all about liberating people, then why not help the people of North Korea?  Because there's nothing to gain.

Another issue is that Libya was moving towards a new currency, i.e. not trading with the US dollar.  Wall street sure as hell didn't like that.

Learn more here - http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=TB6MJnzhMYY

Kennedy wanted to shift to a silver currency too.  But that would've taken power away from the private banking cartel.  Look where that got him.

Always follow the money trail.

[QUOTE]

[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b] Here's some basic facts about LIBYA that we don't hear about...

In 1951 Libya was one of the poorest countries in the world.

Then...
While under Ghaddafi's rule:

Gas was .14 cents a gallon
Literacy rate is 83%
Newlyweds received a $50,000 contribution towards the purchase of a home
The government pays 50% of the cost of a new vehicle
Farmers get everything needed to start up... home, livestock, etc.
Schools are free
Electricity is free
Healthcare is free
1.7 million people were defiant against Nato bombing, not against Ghadaffi
Banks are state owned [/QUOTE]
=======

I agree with what you wrote, but...weren't you the guy who slammed me about a year and a half ago for saying pretty much what you are saying now?

He wasn't a gentle guy by a long stretch, and Libya wasn't a free country by any definition, but still - if you weren't into politics, you'd have been better off in Libya than in any other country in Africa with the *possible* exception of South Africa.

It's really the same as in Cuba. You can't speak your mind, and opposition is brutally crushed, but they won't let you starve in the street or die because you can't afford healthcare.

Or, as Billie Holiday put it, comparing Northern and Southern racism: "Southerners would call you 'nigger' to the face, but they would never evict a family in winter simply because they can't afford the rent."

You can't compare Libya to Cuba. No matter what one thought of Castro, he was nowhere near as brutal as Gadaffi, for whom to describe as 'wasn't a gentle guy by a long stretch' is a massive understatement. He was loathsome. Yes, he did 'good' things for the country, however ultimately the people feared and hated him, and are relieved that he is gone. That should be the only thing that matters.

I totally agree, Microwave. (Miracles happen, lol).

[QUOTE]

[b]Amazon wrote: [/b] You can't compare Libya to Cuba. No matter what one thought of Castro, he was nowhere near as brutal as Gadaffi, for whom to describe as 'wasn't a gentle guy by a long stretch' is a massive understatement. He was loathsome. Yes, he did 'good' things for the country, however ultimately the people feared and hated him, and are relieved that he is gone. That should be the only thing that matters.[/QUOTE]
===========

The thing is...Gaddafi came to power in 1969. He turned into a vicious despot during the 1980s. There was a period of some 10-15 years during which he did good things for his country and his people. Also, during the 1970s and early 1980s, he and his diplomats worked feverishly to ameliorate military dictatorships throughout Africa and Asia.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:  "he thing is...Gaddafi  came to power in 1969. He turned into a vicious despot during the 1980s.
There was a period of some 10-15 years during which he did good things for his country and his people. Also, during the 1970s and early 1980s, he and his diplomats worked feverishly to ameliorate military dictatorships throughout Africa and Asia."

Yes, he became a vicious despot. When he became one doesn't matter; the people were not likely to be less forgiving than if he had been a vicious despot since day one. I think this is a fascinating discussion, and an important one as well. However can we please not talk about how nice a man Gadaffi was? His people obviously hated and feared him, and it's all very well for those on the outside to talk about how he did good things during the 70's or at any other time, since we or our families weren't there. It's also too close. In time, there may be attempts to rehabilitate him (or not), but with the people having just attained freedom, I think it's insulting to talk about whether he was 'good' when they obviously don't think so.

Plus, it's irrelevant. If we are discussing whether or not his killing was justified or whether or not the world would have intervened if he was leader of North Korea instead, his doing good things at one time or another isn't all that relevant. I'm not saying that nobody can discuss his good works, so please don't accuse me of violating your freedom of speech, :D but I know from personal experience that it can be, at the best, frustrating, and at worse, horribly insulting when someone talks about the good things that certain people who terrorized one's family and community may have done.

I agree, Amazon - it is easy to judge from the outside if you are not a victim. However - did the NATO have the right to interfere in Libya when they do not interfere in - for example - Saudi Arabia?  Or Syria? What good can it do for the future of the Libyan people when the defeated Gaddafi troops can say that the winning rebels were bombed into power by oil-hungry NATO troops and are just puppets of an ouside power? Gaddafi came into power by overthrowing a king who had been brought into office by England and France. He was a national hero for many Arabs and to bomb him out of power was a mistake that will haunt the world in years to come. Gaddafi, his son and many followers were killed under the protection of NATO - that is what will stay in the minds of the people in Sirte and elsewhere. They were certainly not the civilians whose safety was protected by NATO - just look at the ruins and the many dead bodies.

It isn't as simple as "his people hated and feared him", I'm afraid. This'll take some explanation, but I hope you'll humor me and read on:

Libya is a really, really old country. It was already there as a society before the birth of the Roman empire. However, it was never one country until 1951.

Libya consists of three regions, populated by three distinct 'tribes', who aren't always on good footing with one another. In the west of Libya, there is the region around Tripoli. This area traded mostly with the western mediterranean, notably the peoples of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia as well as Spain. It was a more or less separate country, and was traditionally recognized as a separate country: Tripoliteia. Gaddafi was from this area, and he was and is quite popular there. This is also the reason why the NTC had to fight so hard to conquer this region.

In the east of Libya, there is the region around Benghazi, called Cyrenaïca. This is the area which has most of the oil, and historically, it was a region that traded mostly with Egypt, Greece and the levant (the region of Israel and Lebanon). It was culturally close to the Byzantines and later the Osmans, whereas the western region Tripoliteia was culturally tied to the Moors and Berbers.

To the south of Tripoliteia lies a third area, mostly populated by darker-skinned people like the Tuareg, who are often discriminated against by both the Tripoliteians and the Cyrenaïcans.

Cyrenaïca and Tripoliteia each seek to dominate the country, leading to tribal friction. Gaddafi was a Tripoliteian, and had much support there and little in Cyrenaïca. The NTC is Cyrenaïcan (Benghazi) and has little support in Tripoliteia.

I don't personally see a solution unless Libya is divided into two countries.