Good or bad?
Redpill me on Gaddafi
Other urls found in this thread:
Short answer "good", with an "if"
Long answer "bad"…with a "but"
To generalize, he's the same case as with Assad and Saddam.
Greatly improved the lives of countless citizens of his country before being betrayed by imperialist dogs.
Great leader and political theorist
Did absolutely nothing wrong and was disposed of because he wanted to abolish the satanic system of petro dollar
no worse than any famous western "moderate" leader. in fact he's probably better than most
Same fucking thread gets posted every week. He massacred communists and gassed Kurds, stop deluding yourselves
What the fuck are you talking about?
He gassed dissidents that happened to be kurds. Also seen how the went to suck uncle sam dick after they totally deserved it
Better than the other dictators of the era, but his secularism and leftism are greatly exaggerated, and the society he created has extremely varied periods, from arguable semi direct democracy early on to totalitarianism for a brief later period. Frankly, I am not sure WHAT Gadaffi wanted. Politically, he switched from being the guard watching over democratic assemblies to the controller of said assemblies, with varying levels of violence, and economically he has done everything from free market capitalism, to worker's self management, to central planning.
Simply put, he is too complex to discuss in a simple imageboard post and "Gadaffi is /ourguy/!" is a dumb statement because he did so many things, you could take any single one and use it to claim he supported a certain thing, despite contradictory decisions later or earlier.
If you haven't yet, watch Hypernormalization by Adam Curtis (it is on Youtube). There is a good section of the film that deals with Gaddafi and how he was portrayed in Western media, though not as much about how is actual rule was carried out.
Why did people rebel?
Islamists always had a minor foohold on Libya. Austerity measures and increasing unpopularity, corruption and worse allowed them to recruit en masse, and uprisings allowed them to get further western funding. That's not to say that all of the protestors were actually Islamists, though.
Gaddafi is worshipped here in Northern Ireland.
All I know about him is that he funded/trained the Provisional IRA
Pretty much this. This was all happening around the time of the Arab Spring as well - there was a revolutionary mood within the the zeitgeist and, similar to what was already happening in Syria, western powers hoped that they could use the burgeoning rebel groups already formed within the country by funding and arming them to better destabilize the nation's leadership.
But yeah, the austerity and western intervention are good ways to stoke home-grown rebellions, and then you can find a way to dump money, training and arms on them - and there you go. You get the whole neo-colonial struggle out of the way and none of your own people have to die. Worse case scenario the dictator becomes more oppressive to the rebel groups the west is funding, which inevitably creates more instability and sympathy for the rebels. Again, look at Syria, looks at Venezuela (all of south america, really). That's been the US's go-to option for overthrowing dictators since desert storm, basically. (Well there were a few invasions here and there, but always with the help of local resistance).
Muammar Qaddafi is what happens when Harvey Weinstein is put in charge of a dictatorship
The Libyan government had stored over 7 billion dollars in gold and was planning on using it to launch an African currency. It was one of the most prosperous countries in Africa at the time. After its government was destroyed, its leader raped with a bayonet to the applause of western audiences, the plan was not only destroyed with it but the majority of the gold itself went mission. It is estimated that at least 1 billion dollars of it was looted by ISIS (the then nascent "state") and used to fund its phenomenal growth.
could actually implement succdem policies unlike U.S. that can't even get a single one passed
Good evidence why we need to have this thread every week then, huh. People don't have to be "our guy" for us to put a firm an resolved opposition to American intervention and imperialism, wherever it occurs. Anyone who stood boldly and decry the bombing of Libya by US and French forces has been 100% vindicated by History, and we should be reminded of this important lesson often.
He was a BEAST and he was BASED
One day he had all the camels in Tripoli shot because he found that they made the city look backwards.
Libya was the playground of a petulant child, it was like that episode from the twilight zone It's a Good Life.
Gaddafi sold his oil for gold instead of USD, which is prohibited by Jewmerican OPEC.
This threatens the integrity of the Jewmerican petrodollar system, so they killed him.
The reason why the US can destroy him was because his nation isn't as big and powerful as Russia or China.
Right now, both Russia and China are actively trying to destroy the petrodollar system through BRICS. Russia and China are selling their oil using their own currencies right now, and China had even made Yuan redeemable in gold. This makes the fraudulent USD obsolete, and is accelerating the collapse of the USD.
If Gaddafi waited for a few more years before selling his gold for oil, he wouldn't have died.
stopping the nuclear and space program was a mistake…
This is some grade-propaganda good job. Someone who knows one story they heard on NPR while they were shilling for the war and that was good enough to justify the hell that was about to be unleashed. The destruction of Libya was indefensible, both now, and then.
Libya having immense oil reserves isn't Gadaffi's doing. There's a peculiar libidinal investment many here have for tinpot dictators hidden by their Mussolini made the trains run on time sort of sympathizing.
he didnt put the oil in the sand obviously
but what he choose to do with it was the important thing
he could have used the oil to become some Saudi arabia/gulf state feudal slave state
instead he attempted to use it to raise the standard of living for the people of his country
along with his Anti-petrodollar plan which would have destroyed the U.S-Gulf states hegemony which i m o was what likely what got him killed
he wasnt a socialist obviously
he wasnt even leftist t b h
but i still respect him for his actions so to speak
Really? Got receipts? Just how socialist is he on a scale from SuccDem to Marxist-Leninist? From what I know private property's still very much a thing in Syria so I'm gonna guess his party just thinks the working and middle class should get a fairer share of the country's wealth.
Ah, but do you ever think that opposition to military intervention could ever be correct, even if the state is not liberal? Are those who oppose the Iraq war "Saddamists"? The Syrian war, "Assadists?"
To ask another, more pointed question: did (and do you still) support the US intervention in Libya?
i knew a dude from libya, he lived there all his life and returned there during the civil war. we spoke about libya a few times, and from what i remember life was decent if you weren't part of the wrong ethnic clan. there was definitely a market economy but with heavy government involvement. the government subsidized everything from car purchases by private individuals to apartments and land purchases.
i also remember he said there was endless corruption, the secret police extremely cruel and used for family and clan disputes by gaddafis family.
havent heard from him since near the end of the civil war. rip wherever you are osama you glorious bastard
He's waaaay below SuccDem.
I don't like Assad much, but I'm downloading that image just to piss classcucks who somehow defend Assad, but think Maduro is worse than Hitler and Stalin off
Good conditioning. I use an exemplary case which you take as me making a literal statement of that being all the madness there was to Gadaffi, yet you shift from this literalness by making up that I stated that Libya should have been attacked for Gadaffi's camel massacre.
You're wrong about Saudi-Arabia and in particular the gulf states having becoming feudal slave states due to their oil money. This is besides the point however.
Let's say that I'm king of anonland, over which I have absolute power. Oil is discovered in anonland and I can do with the revenue whatever the heck I want. With those riches I try to conquer a neighboring country, I build myself a palace, I buy a harem of virgin bodyguards, I create a secret police to unleash terror on all I don't like and I spend billions on fleets of luxury cars, yachts, airplanes, jewelry and every other commodity. Not only do I do that, but I also build hospitals, schools and infrastructure.
Would say then, that I'm a most noble master for sharing the income of my nation with the people who happen to reside in it, or would you say that the resources of my nation aren't my personal property in the first place and that using a logic that assumes as such is pure slave morality? Do you also thank noble master Trump for providing you with schools, roads and welfare instead of him just using all state income to build Trump towers for himself?
There's a difference between opposing intervention and treating the people of those places as personal property of their dictators who should be happy for every scrap they get. The Libyan civil war was inevitable, better that happened as fast as it did then it dragging out like it did in Syria.
You don't belong here, leave while you still can
Maduro is a literal jew who ran Venezuela to the ground and keep the oil price in check for his fellow chosyn's delight.
Thanks for that, the documentary is really good.
Take the Ba’ath Salts
It's realpolitik, user. Would you rather have a cunt who's at least running the nation semi-competently and standing up to Western imperialism, or a totally collapsed failed nation divvied up between various groups which has been rendered totally harmless? Socialism doesn't exist and won't for the foreseeable future, might as well take what we can get.
gaddafi a good boy
The totally collapsed failed nation is an inevitability already present in such semi-competency. To support the Gadaffi's of this world for the consequences the collapse of their rule have is like using the barbarity of the Haitian slave revolt as a reason to support slavery.
There's no realpolitik in supporting the idea that the masses are barbarous and that they need an absolute ruler, no matter how much of a monster he might be, to keep them from falling to their instincts.
CIA asset who went rogue and consequently got raped by Hillary's bayonets
stop reading RT, dipshits
and i stopped reading
Even the most cursory of research would show that Gaddafi and the CIA/M16 were on very friendly terms until the last few years of his life.
Every post about Gaddafi that is not contextualized by the "intervention" which overthrew him is incorrect.
That was Saddam bro
He was actually French and was essentially playing a character his whole adult life.
This but unironically
I support both but seriosomemte, Maduro is Noooooooo where NEAR as competent as Sheikh Assad or Chavez (PSCE)
Insulting to the Colonel, he has much more in common with Nasser