Gaddhafi: a bad guy or ok guy?

Youtube: Reasons why Gaddhafi was attacked


Youtube: Why Gaddhafi was an "ok" guy and better than the other rebel islamic radicals

I read from various mainstream and alternative media that Gaddhafi was killed. Libya's new government is implementing sharia law, thus reducing the rights of many people and libyans. I really enjoy NATO making the world a little more dangerous by letting al qaida have control of an oil country and letting 30,000 shoulder fired rockets dissapear.

NATO and the rebels also committed a war crime by killing Gaddhafi when he was flying a white flag and surrendering. French planes strafed Gaddhafi's convoy that was clearly displaying white flags in the middle of the day. Then the rebels finished off Gaddhafi. I am sure many people have seen videos of an alive and wounded Gaddhafi being hit and beaten up. If these rebels showed more compassion, even though Gaddhafi supposedly did horrible things, it would show the world that they are the good guys.

Mainstream media is also biased. They never showed Libyans that supported gaddhafi. The mainstream media never reported the 1million man march that supported gaddhafi in Tripoli. According to the Russians, who were monitoring Libyan airspace activity, there were no evidence that Gaddhafi forces bombing "protestors", protestors that were made up for partly or mostly jihadist and islamic radicals.

Gaddhafi may not have been a good guy, but he is probably better than what will be propped up. How can a transitional government declare sharia law, when there was no vote by the people to see if they want to implement it? Not really democratic is it? What makes democracy so good? All USA has is a dictatorship under the republican and democratic party who are following orders of the higher ups. I doubt Libya would be interested in western stuff like "Keeping up with the Kardhasians" or the newest Justin Bieber song "Mistletoe"

This whole middle east situation is a sham. Al Qaida is a product of the CIA that is used to create chaos and to keep USA fighting these wars.

Youtube: Reasons why your government is trying to screw you

 

Good guy? Meh.
Good leader? yes.

My judgement is:



He isnt the nicest guy in the world, but he did a ton of shit.

 

i agree. dictators will fuck you up if you challenge a dictator's rule. although, i dont have first hand experience in libya (never even set foot in africa). i could only gather the true picture from the biased main stream media and the crazy alternative media. but, gaddhafi did seem to have done a lot. seem they are a lot better off than the majority of americans or other western countries.

People may argue Lockerbie Pan Am Flight 103, but that was just one incidence like 30 years ago? It may or may not be linked directly to Gaddhafi.

 

I was in Tunesia but never in Lybia, anyway imo for a dictator gaddhafi did good, thus don't really like the fact that NATO is covering behind the evil dictator sign, you simply don't shoot an enemy who's surrendering if you don't have to, even if he were an evil dictator.

BTW wtf alucard, are you into justin bieber if you did so much research on him?

 

As i said, he wasnt a good guy, yet a good leader which was good for the country.

Kill a thousand infants with my bare hands to solve poverty, sickness and world peace across the globe?
i wouldn't hesitate for a second.

Gadaffi wasn't a saint, but he did good things.

 

Whats so good about democracy? Ok sure.

Everyone can argue about specific instances where democracy fails, or any other kind of regime fails. Of course goverments alone can't solve all the worlds problems, or even their own. Goverments are not the cause or solution to everything that happens. But seriously, go to almost any established 1st world democracy, looks around the poorest areas, the jails, the hospitals and the schools. Look at the distribution of wealth and the freedoms people have. Its not perfect buts it works pretty well because for a party to stay in power the people need to believe that the party serves their best interests more than another party.

By a large the things that people talk about being bad in our democracy would still be bad under any other type of governance. Propaganda, erosion of civil rights, economic systems, market/trade regulation and restriction, tacation, etc. They are not problems exclusive to democracy. I'm sure that one day these democratic processes will need to be refreshed, things will need to be rethought, the way it works will need to be changed in a fundamental way - but the premise being that it can happen with the vote and political activism rather than wholesale slaughter.

And of course the news is bias here, but it is not state controlled. Information has never been so free as it is today despite many attempts to control and curtail it.

For instance if you start a single policy political party (we have many in the UK - anti immigration/green/anti european union) and you gain some seats the major parties must acknowledge that and change their poilicies accordingly or else lose their power.

Al Qaida was not the product of the CIA however appealing that cloak and daggers story is. Yes the west has funded wars, was it a good idea? Probably not. Was sending a foriegn occupation force to fight the war for them a better idea? Definitely not. What about just leaving the guys we favoured to fight their warr unaided and likely to loose? Also a bad idea.

And regarding a transitionary goverment - they need to make decisions that can keep order in turbulent times under huge pressure. They can't form a cohesive well trained and honest police force out of thin air, stuff like that takes alot of time. Sharia law is probably better than no law or martial law enforced by revolutionaries.

In short there are no silver bullets, no immediate solutions. But given the natural resources they have and the potential jobs and wealth it could generate surely anything is better than having a dictator at the helm of the ship who didn't think twice about the wide use of deadly force to resolve civil unrest.

 

If Gadaffi had been toppled and they'd set up a Western-style government, then it would be an improvement. But given that they now want to implement Sharia law, quite frankly Gadaffi was the better option.

Gadaffi did do some good, and people saying otherwise are retarded. He also did a huge amount of bad. But due to stuff he did, Libya holds the highest literacy rate in Africa, they had ultra-modern Healthcare, and various other things that African countries in general just don't have. And above all, he made this stuff available to the public, to keep them sweet and stop rebellion. Obviously this only worked for so long, you can only give people so much before they want more, and there's only so much a dictator can promise. But it's the same reason why some towns in South America love the fact they're ruled by drug cartels. Because for less rights, they get a better quality of life.

On the other hand, media was never particularly free, he funded terrorism, and it was very much a state in which insulting Gadaffi would get you in a lot of trouble, as well as anyone connected to him.

But if the NTC go ahead with what they plan, then quite frankly Gadaffi's rule would have been the better option. Whether or not the people who actually live there agree with this, I don't know. A lot of them actually felt Gadaffi wasn't conservative enough. It's a case of accepting that holding a conservative view doesn't make you a right wing American Nazi, it's something people in other countries hold towards their own beliefs, and right-wing in the muslim world is the preference to Sharia law.

So realistically, it's a case of if the party that eventually gets elected in (if it's all done properly) actually has the option of not implementing, or lifting Sharia law. All I'm saying overall is, to act like Gadaffi was a good thing is retarded. But going in there and saying "omg how can u be so stupid he is dictator" is just as bad. Just because a country doesn't have free elections doesn't mean that they're all enslaved in poverty. In some cases, it's infinitely better than democracy because the person in charge doesn't have to worry about making tough decisions which could affect his next election.

France and Germany with reference to the way they're handling the European Debt Crisis being the perfect examples of this.

 

I don't know about good or bad, but i'm sure he's a dead guy.

 

Did I mention GDP once? I'm talking about quality of life based on healthcare available, literacy levels, etc.

 

Then that's your opinion, however short sighted it may be. If you have the option between living in poverty but getting to vote on who puts you in poverty, or not having that option and having a decent quality of life, then only a fool chooses the former.

 

That depends, I generally find that no matter how nice my house is, if I am living in constant terror of something bad happening, it's very hard to enjoy it.

Not living in constant terror is something you often find only in countries where the idea of personal rights and freedoms are part of the law, and not just a funny joke.

 

It's all about examples though. Libya had a decent setup for the most part, whereas what you said there could apply to Russia in some areas, or former Soviet states at least. There's no one-size-fits-all for it.

 

Stabilized the region / was a psychopath.

 

True, but there is going to be an element of it in any situation where the ruler is trying to keep himself in power by any means possible, there will be an element of police state bullshit.

Plus, as living in britain or any first world power demonstrates, no amount of cushy living actually makes people happy for long.

 

only candidates backed by special interests groups and lobbyist will become our president, at least in USA. the candidates are handpicked anyways. you dont really vote for the guy you want, you just vote for whatever the parties bring up and vote for the lesser evil (although deception is rather common).

RON PAUL for 2012. Most of his monetary support comes from individual donations, not corporate donations. He obtained the most monetary support from military personnel than ALL the other republican party nominees put together and more than obama did in 2008.

RON PAUL! WOOOOO *i was a democrat*