Gaddafi- Captured Or Dead.

[AmScray 355]

The Chief Export of Libya: Circa 1988Nothing was ever really done to properly avenge Lockerbie. Flash forward to September 2001 the various terrorist-state leaders around the globe go into full on pant-shitting mode realizing that the gloves were now totally off in a way unlike anything we'd ever seen, heads were soon to roll and it may involve any one of them, or even all of them, on principle alone... As a result, we got lovely scenes like Yasser Arafat donating blood...Likewise, Gadaffi promptly fell to his knees and fellated Bush 2, understanding that the alternative involved much worse things than whatever Reagan threw at him... So, the fucker was playing ball, but has now been overthrown and/or killed, per reports.Who fills this void? Because you have to remember, this is the crapistan that celebrated the return of al-Megrahi in a big, national way. This is the country that generally opposed Gaddafi reconciling with the west. We may have traded the devil we knew for one we don't.

[All_In 0]

Disgusting what happened in Libya. He was an ally of the west, but i guess since he was brown it was no big deal to double-cross him. I guess the US is in favour of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries to take down legitimate, sovereign countries. What a load of bs the west has been spewing.

[AmScray 355]

He was an ally of the west, but i guess since he was brown it was no big deal to double-cross him.

Well, he did explode a civilian airliner... So 'ally of the west' is a bit of a stretch. As far as him not mattering because he has brown skin- that's absolutely true. Unfortunately, we're too far removed from the days when we could install a colonial Governor-General to lord over you stupid monkeys and properly manage your affairs, since you're totally incapable of doing it yourselves. We have to let you dumbasses draw leaders from your own lot, then just go in and blow you up when you do something that perturbs us. The real question here is, who fills the vacuum in Libya and will he be any worse than the last piece of shit?

[brvheart's I Phone 0]

Get him, All-IN!! We're all behind you!Allah Akbar!

[Mercury69 3]

Here is who will fill in the vacuum in Libya:As you can see, he already has mad tech skillz. Be wary, lest he invoke a cyclone on your assPS: Fuck Qaddaffi. He deserved to die.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Disgusting what happened in Libya. He was an ally of the west, but i guess since he was brown it was no big deal to double-cross him. I guess the US is in favour of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries to take down legitimate, sovereign countries. What a load of bs the west has been spewing.

Yeah. Disgusting how the (White) American Seal Team entered Libya and......wait......I mean, disgusting how the (White) CIA Drone invaded sovereign Libyan air space and......wait......disgusting how ("Brown") Libyan citizens rose up against a ("Brown") dictator and ended his 42 year reign of pro-terrorist rule.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Yeah. Disgusting how the (White) American Seal Team entered Libya and......wait......I mean, disgusting how the (White) CIA Drone invaded sovereign Libyan air space and......wait......disgusting how ("Brown") Libyan citizens rose up against a ("Brown") dictator and ended his 42 year reign of pro-terrorist rule.

NOW who's being racist

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

NOW who's being racist

What's wrong with being racy?Yeah baby!

[timwakefield 68]

I guess the US is in favour of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries to take down legitimate, sovereign countries.

In what way was Gaddafi's rule "legitimate?" He stole power in a military coup over 40 years ago, immediately abolished Libya's constitution, and never held elections then or since. He jailed or killed dissenters. "Legitimate" is not correctly descriptive. "Illegitimate" is closer. Also, the "country" was not "taken down," as you blatantly suggest. Just the military dictator of said country. Libya still exists.

Disgusting what happened in Libya.

I agree. The 42 years of Gaddafi's rule were disgusting. Fortunately it's over, and Libyans can hopefully now reinstate their constitution and the constitutional protections for all Libyan citizens.

[All_In 0]

In what way was Gaddafi's rule "legitimate?" He stole power in a military coup over 40 years ago, immediately abolished Libya's constitution, and never held elections then or since. He jailed or killed dissenters. "Legitimate" is not correctly descriptive. "Illegitimate" is closer.

he was the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country that had a seat at the UN and the african union.. he came to power in a bloodless coup.how many countries are/were the US allies of that have brutal dictators? mubarak to name one.

Also, the "country" was not "taken down," as you blatantly suggest. Just the military dictator of said country. Libya still exists.

infrastructure is severely damaged in libya due to the nato bombings, which the US had a lead role in during the initial phase. hundreds (thousands?) of civilians were killed by nato, ostensibly while protecting them! the country was stable, friendly with the west and most of the rest of the world, disbanded their wmd programme, was one of the most (if not the most) prosperous african nations, and supported the people of the world who have no voice (africans, palestinians, etc). they also severely restricted the flow of illegal african immigrants to europe with a partnership with italy.now the new reality is that the people who fought on the ground are in power (more accurately, will be the puppets of the west) and they have lost their country to the west, much like iraq.

I agree. The 42 years of Gaddafi's rule were disgusting. Fortunately it's over, and Libyans can hopefully now reinstate their constitution and the constitutional protections for all Libyan citizens.

and they will all dance around, sing and be merry? really, u think that, even after iraq and afganistan??and what about the west double-crossing him? how can anyone trust the US/west? they have a long history of double-crossing/going back on their word, dating right back to the beginning (and before) of the country. one of gaddafi's sons was touring a US air force base a few days before he went back to libya to help defend his country from an uprising.

[timwakefield 68]

he was the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country

So was Hitler, and he came to power in a legal election (unlike Gaddafi). What's your point?

and they will all dance around, sing and be merry? really, u think that, even after iraq and afganistan??

This is nothing like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[AmScray 355]

This is nothing like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Bush Doctrine is largely responsible for the Arab Spring. Anyone would've pursued Bin Laden regardless, but we can safely lay the riddance of Mubarak, Gaddafi, Hussein, hopefully al-Assad, the Taliban, etc, etc on the democratic empowerment Bush infused into the middle east. People will say this isn't true- that would've happened either way. No chance. I personally disagree with this outcome- I think those people are much better off being lead by cruel dictators- but to every flaming leftist douchebag who's always preaching about liberty and freedom and helping the oppressed, Bush punched the bully that caused solidarity in the schoolyard. Iraq is the most disgraceful war we've ever fought, but it may wind up having a hugely positive outcome.

[Balloon guy 158]

The Bush Doctrine is largely responsible for the Arab Spring. Anyone would've pursued Bin Laden regardless, but we can safely lay the riddance of Mubarak, Gaddafi, Hussein, hopefully al-Assad, the Taliban, etc, etc on the democratic empowerment Bush infused into the middle east. People will say this isn't true- that would've happened either way. No chance. I personally disagree with this outcome- I think those people are much better off being lead by cruel dictators- but to every flaming leftist douchebag who's always preaching about liberty and freedom and helping the oppressed, Bush punched the bully that caused solidarity in the schoolyard. Iraq is the most disgraceful war we've ever fought, but it may wind up having a hugely positive outcome.

Yugoslavia was arguably better off with the boot of the USSR on their necks, but dictatorships always end, and the backlash is always felt.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Yugoslavia was arguably better off with the boot of the USSR on their necks, but dictatorships always end, and the backlash is always felt.

Yugoslavia didn't really have the Soviet boot on their necks. They weren't allies of the West but they weren't part of the Warsaw Pact and they had no Russian troops on their soil. In fact they were one of the leading countries of the so called "Non-Aligned Movement".Yugoslavia was held together by their own Dictator Josip Broz Tito not by the Soviets.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...0,5740812.storyIt looks like he was worth around $200 Billion

[hblask 1]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...0,5740812.storyIt looks like he was worth around $200 Billion

People who protest the income inequity of capitalism, take note. Seriously, I don't want to f-ing hear it anymore.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

People who protest the income inequity of capitalism, take note. Seriously, I don't want to f-ing hear it anymore.

So, because Qadaffi was rich, no one ever again has the right to complain about their economic conditions...?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

People who protest the income inequity of capitalism, take note. Seriously, I don't want to f-ing hear it anymore.

I don't know whether to laugh since your comment is so absurd or cry because if you really are connecting the dots that you apparently are it means that you're going nuts.

[hblask 1]

So, because Qadaffi was rich, no one ever again has the right to complain about their economic conditions...?

The obvious point is that the difference between the richest people and the average person in centrally planned economies that lack rights is FAR more than in the supposedly evil capitalist economies. The people who complain the most about wealth inequity are the ones who support govt control of the economy -- something more like Libya -- over free markets. Qadaffi isn't an outlier for central planning, it's the expected and predictable result.

[hblask 1]

I don't know whether to laugh since your comment is so absurd or cry because if you really are connecting the dots that you apparently are it means that you're going nuts.

So using actual real-world data to determine where the distribution of wealth is most askew is "going nuts"? Uh..... OK [....backs away slowly....]

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The obvious point is that the difference between the richest people and the average person in centrally planned economies that lack rights is FAR more than in the supposedly evil capitalist economies. The people who complain the most about wealth inequity are the ones who support govt control of the economy -- something more like Libya -- over free markets. Qadaffi isn't an outlier for central planning, it's the expected and predictable result.

Libya under Gaddafi is a military dictatorship and in no way shape or form is comparable to a democracy with a mixed economy.It wasn't a centrally planned economy it was an economy stolen by Gaddafi for his personal benefit and for those who are his friends. Calling it a centally planned economy and thinking that it somehow has things in common with Western Democracies is a massvie stretch.

So using actual real-world data to determine where the distribution of wealth is most askew is "going nuts"? Uh..... OK [....backs away slowly....]

Yes, it's insane to think that a military dictatorship in a backward oil economy in Africa has any meaning what so ever for the economies of democracies in the West.Only blinded ideologues can see any connection between the two.

[hblask 1]

Libya under Gaddafi is a military dictatorship and in no way shape or form is comparable to a democracy with a mixed economy.It wasn't a centrally planned economy it was an economy stolen by Gaddafi for his personal benefit and for those who are his friends. Calling it a centally planned economy and thinking that it somehow has things in common with Western Democracies is a massvie stretch.Yes, it's insane to think that a military dictatorship in a backward oil economy in Africa has any meaning what so ever for the economies of democracies in the West.Only blinded ideologues can see any connection between the two.

So you admit that when people with power can use that power to extract riches from the rest of the economy they will do so, but you don't think that this happens in the "good" countries? By what magical forces do those with power over the reigns of government resist temptation in democracies?See, it's all a matter of degree. Given complete control, the people with power will steal unchecked. Given less control, they will steal slightly less.Given that, do you want people to be able to steal a lot, a medium amount, or none at all?

[Balloon guy 158]

Yugoslavia didn't really have the Soviet boot on their necks. They weren't allies of the West but they weren't part of the Warsaw Pact and they had no Russian troops on their soil. In fact they were one of the leading countries of the so called "Non-Aligned Movement".Yugoslavia was held together by their own Dictator Josip Broz Tito not by the Soviets.

So the 11 years between his death and the wars was not related to the collapse of the USSR?I think we could disagree here, but I don't care enough either way.Besides Henry's right and want him to keep at it on his points.

[Balloon guy 158]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...0,5740812.storyIt looks like he was worth around $200 Billion

I cannot understand how anyone could be stupid enough to have$200billion and stick around in a flea ridden country while the rebel army gets closer.Did he not have a travel agent?

[mrdannyg 274]

See, it's all a matter of degree. Given complete control, the people with power will steal unchecked. Given less control, they will steal slightly less.Given that, do you want people to be able to steal a lot, a medium amount, or none at all?

I won't pretend it is not without logical deficiencies, but I am a big fan of this post. I feel like someone could get elected using the bolded as a slogan.