Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Qaddafi’s Death: Barbarism and Hypocrisy
I never mourn the death of a dictator.
Good riddance to Muammar Qaddafi, who terrorized his people for 42 years.
But neither do I cheer summary executions of anyone, no matter how brutal.
Just as the United States was wrong to rub out an unarmed Osama bin Laden, so, too, the Libyan rebels were wrong to murder the captured Qaddafi.
You can see the rebels parading Qaddafi around still alive.
You can see them bouncing his head up and down after he’s apparently dead.
The answer to barbarism is not more barbarism.
Amnesty International is right to ask for an investigation into Qaddafi’s death.
Nor do I applaud President Obama’s triumphalism.
“Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives,” he said. This may yet prove to be a precedent for future U.S. bombing wars, where a subsequent President will illegally attack another country with impunity, and will get away with it because he hasn’t put ground troops in harm’s way. During this Libya War , the Obama Administration used the lack of a threat to our service members as a justification for not invoking the War Powers Act.
President Obama crowed that the Libya War demonstrates “the strength of American leadership across the world.” Rather, it shows that might makes right.
And the hypocrisy of the U.S. position could hardly be greater. In 2003, the Bush Administration rehabilitated Qaddafi, who became an ally of the United States in the “war on terror.” In fact, the CIA used Qaddafi’s intelligence service to torture detainees that the U.S. sent over to Libya.
The CIA “rendered” eight or nine detainees to Qaddafi’s intelligence service, and sent questions along with for the torturers to ask, according to Human Rights Watch, in an interview with Democracy Now.
The CIA may even have had agents present during some of the questioning.
In 2008, Condoleezza Rice visited Qaddafi in Libya.
The next year, Obama shook his hand, and John McCain offered him arms.
When it was convenient for Washington to support Qaddafi, it did so.
When it was convenient to attack him, it did so.
But the Obama administration didn’t attack Bahrain when it cracked down on people fighting for democracy against that kingdom. No, Washington even let Saudi Arabia, another kingdom, invade Bahrain to help put down the nonviolent uprising.
For the people of Libya, long oppressed by Qaddafi, this is a day of liberation.
But it is no vindication of U.S. policy.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
113 Comments so far
Show Allzeofredo...Thanks for remembering that. THE USA MURDERED KADDAFI'S LITTLE BABY GIRL, and did a lot of other things that too few remember. USA exceptionalism... We get to kill all the kids we want........
two sentences struck and raises further attention ...
"Good riddance to Muammar Qaddafi, who terrorized his people for 42 years."
-what were "civilized" West doing during 42 years ?
-"Good Riddance" assuming by West, because West think terrorizing people of other country is their Birth Right and not the dictator of the country ?
and second
"For the people of Libya, long oppressed by Qaddafi, this is a day of liberation."
-Liberation ? really ?
- you call, next phase of continuous abject poverty for next generations - who knows for how long- a Liberation ?
- Nation going under debt of World Bank, IMF etc on the name of Development, while Big Corp stealing the resources of Nation a Liberation ?
and finally... this was published by "The Progressive". What do "The Progressive" define Progressive as ?
Well, it's what American democracy looks like -- which ought to tell you something about the American people.
True. But "democracy" and "Amereichan Democracy" are two very, VERY different things indeed.
Lybia today is still as much a bunch of mutually antagonistic tribes as was all of North Africa in Roman times. The only reason Rome was able to create Roman prefectures there with reasonable stability was that if any one tribe stepped out of line, all its members, at least men and children would be murdered, women raped and sold into slavery, and its real estate would have been razed or given to legionaries. No more tribe. Problem solved.
Not just Arabs are barbarians as the commenter above cited Ali as saying, most cultures start off as barbarians, some might become civilized, but most of those wind up again as barbarians.
It will interesting to see where the newly freed Lybian tribes go with each other.
Decidedly Homeric, Iphones in hand, body dragged around the Gates of Troy. Sorry Lord Buddha, nothing much changes.
We the people are the government, it is not situated in Washington DC, it is us.
I as a citizen am offended that our representatives are trashing the highest values of our democracy. How to deal with? Vote.
"How to deal with? Vote"
Voting is not enough. Too many Americans are voting who don't have a clue as to what is going on. An uninformed vote (or what is more likely the case, a misinformed vote) is worse than no vote at all. Vote, yes, but make an informed vote . Know EVERY candidate on the ballot then let your friends know, and remember--there is essentially no difference between voting Republican or voting Democratic--hasn't been for years. Thankfully we still allow third parties in this country--but for how much longer?
WAKE UP AMERICA!! You are being used for profit by killing and destroying abroad. Do you really think this will not come back one day ? Is America that stupid that it doesn't understand "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" ?
WE ARE THE 99% and we are (or would be if we were paying attention) mad as hell!!!
Ignorance of Libyan politics, their complex social structure and unenlightened self interest have allowed the corporate press to Saadamize Gaddafi. I don't think Mr. Rothchild has any understanding of the region, it's people or complex relationship of Libya with western powers.
Obama, whom no one is calling barbaric, has been responsible for the wrongful dealths of many, many more innocent than Gaddafi or any other dictator has ever dreamed of.
The one thing I do agree with is the barbarism of the act and the unseemly celebrations around what is a shameful chapter of history.
Hey, I'll call him barbaric! :-)
Obedient Servant summed up beautifully the cowardice and hypocrisy of the liberal intelligentsia regarding the Libya adventure.
You can expect Rothschild's meme to become the dominant one in the coming days -- OF COURSE it was right to bomb Libya and OF COURSE it is a splendid thing that Qaddafi is dead, but we should have taken him to the Hague or executed him in less bloody fashion. All that gore makes me feel icky.
By framing the debate in this fashion, the important issues will be overlooked.
First of all, Qaddafi CHOSE to risk death. At any moment during the conflict he could have hopped on a plane to Cuba or Venezuela.
Secondly, when it comes to dictators, Qaddafi is a minnow compared to Obama himself.
During his short time in office Obama has already killed more people than Qaddafi during his entire reign. Domestically, America is one of the least democratic societies in the world. Political repression is rampant, though obviously more cunning in its framework and execution. America has the highest prison population in the world; Libya had a smaller prison population than Norway. A documentary by the BBC on American prisons was entitled "Torture Inc." Americans are in no position to be accusing anyone of authoritarian practices.
The main reason so many liberals supported the original intervention had to do with accounts that Qaddafi was "bombing his own people" and "planning a genocide". There is no evidence for either of these accusations. Just standard psyops.
Thirdly, the insurrection in Libya was not at all similar to the uprising in Egypt.
In Libya, large numbers of the poor fought AGAINST the rebels, whereas in Egypt, the military dictatorship was (and is) supported by the wealthy. While the uprising in Egypt was organic and encompassed most sectors of society, the insurgency in Libya was based on tribalism and funded by a foreign power -- namely the United States. It was it led by a CIA agent named Khalifa Hifter, who “had recently returned from exile in America to lend the rebel ground forces some tactical coherence.”
According to the WSWS --
"Hifter actually lived in Vienna, Virginia, about five miles from CIA headquarters in Langley, for two decades.
A Washington Post report of March 26, 1996 describes an armed rebellion against Gaddafi in Libya and uses a variant spelling of his name. The article cites witnesses to the rebellion who report that “its leader is Col. Khalifa Haftar, of a contra-style group based in the United States called the Libyan National Army.”
--
The reference to the Contras is interesting. Essentially what you had here was proxy army for the United States which engaged in a campaign of terrorism backed up by NATO military power. If you think this is an exaggeration, check out the trophy videos shot by the "freedom fighters".
They include beheadings, lynchings, forced cannibalism (you heard me right) and in one almost unbelievable case, the impaling of a small child through the anus. The most brutal atrocities have been meted out against blacks.
http://www.federaljack.com/?page_id=37933
Pass that link around to your war-loving friends, if they have the stomach to actually look at what they're cheering about.
The saddest thing about this whole affair, aside from the sad fate that will undoubtedly befall Libyans, is that so many Americans have learned nothing from the Bush years. I attribute this to the delusion that the Bush doctrine was a radical departure from American foreign policy, rather than a more extreme example of standard operating procedure.
"Progressives" should have long ago recognized that dropping bombs on people is not an acceptable or productive way of solving our problems. Even if you think Qaddafi was the worst thing since Saddam, you should have been opposed to this aggression from the beginning. "Humanitarian bombing" is an oxymoron.
I'll close with a before and after pic of Misrata. Looks a little like Dresden after WWII.
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/10/misrata-libya-befor-and-after.html
Durrutix notes:
"Secondly, when it comes to dictators, Qaddafi is a minnow compared to Obama himself.
During his short time in office Obama has already killed more people than Qaddafi during his entire reign. Domestically, America is one of the least democratic societies in the world. Political repression is rampant, though obviously more cunning in its framework and execution. America has the highest prison population in the world; Libya had a smaller prison population than Norway. A documentary by the BBC on American prisons was entitled "Torture Inc." Americans are in no position to be accusing anyone of authoritarian practices."
Powerful rejoinder! I might just add that in Amerika more blacks are executed than whites.
Additionally, I wonder if the progessive "yes' men and woman are listening... Thom Hartmann, Hayden, Nichols, Katrina, Flanders, Maddow, et al?
Durrutix,
Your writing sets an example: when someone who gives a damn speaks out, this is what it sounds like. You've done your homework, you've thought through the geopolitical implications through time, and you've fit this event into its historical context.
It makes me sad that writers of Matthew Rothchild's stature - so-called progressives - fall so short of the enlightened standards you exemplify. At least we get to hear sane voices like yours down here in the comments section. Thanks so much for your hard work.
I think we all need to start a really good comments thread about something or other.. anything will do. It hardly matters.
Once the comments are in full swing, some author - whoever- can write an article about our comments.
Then that article would be placed up at the top of the page, as usual.
If CD offered an Open Thread on either overpopulation or 911 truth, the comment traffic could blow up their titanium-alloy server.
Obedient Servant.........I believe you are calling the kettle black.
I am so glad I am not the only one on the planet that thinks even an unarmed bastard like bin Laden or Quaddafi should not be killed in a lynching, but brought before a court. I thought I was a real freak.
It is clear that BHO flunked criminal law in law school.
One has to wonder why Rothschild has not also railed against the way bin Laden was executed by U.S. Special Forces, assuming, of course, that bin Laden had not died as was reported in 2001. Unfortunately this should not come as that much of a surprise as Rothschild is on record as heaping scorn upon those who dare to question the official events that had transpired on Sept. 11, 2001.
Compelling question...
Thank you Mathew for a great article.
Yesterday, I could not figure out why my stomach turned as I heard the news of this man’s savage death. I said to myself, he is a killer, a terrorist to his own people and has planned and carried out the deaths of so many others innocents hundreds of miles away. I though why should I care?
I care that justice is done and that it is carried out so that others have their justice too. I am not a lawyer but I do believe that in the end , it is all about bringing, a person in to a court of law and having any charges against them being read aloud, facing ones accusers, weighing the evidence, a time for judgment by a unbiased jury if possible, and then the sentencing. What are we then if we cannot do this straightforward task? As a society, we then become as the perpetrator, and we limp on as another victim with wounds that do not heal.
Sometimes I really like Common Dreams. But when the only article they can muster about Libya on the day after Gaddafi's death is about how it was wrong to kill him without trial - nothing about how Libya will become a Western neocolony, nothing about the massacre of black African "mercenaries" which is sure to gain steam now that the rebels are in control, nothing about the new rise of naked Western imperialism in Africa, nothing about liberal Democratic hero Obama engaging in regime change in a Muslim country in a way that would have made Dick Cheney proud, nothing about the bigger picture whatsoever - then I wonder what this site is really worth.
A good question. Most of the articles are crap. I come here for posters like you. I'm not alone.
Ditto.
Agreed with all three of you.
Maybe sites like this brought about the needed momentum that propelled the OWS movement.
Once a people have freedoms they hold dear, it's difficult to just yank them all away in one fell swoop, at least in broad daylight. Plus, the pretense of 'free-speech' provides some cover to the actions/agents of empire. There is a calculated balance that I'm sure the one percent constantly weigh: Is the pretense helping to provide cover, or is it actually taking hold and becoming more than just a tolerable nuisance? There will be a time, soon I believe, where the calculus will change, and the pretense even of free-speech will be taken away.
And that's when we'll need to get worried... and all the more vigilant, loud and engaged.
Obliquely, I think, you have hit on the only two questions that matter in the future of this country.
1) How far along is the security state? In other words, at what point do they feel secure in taking the gloves off; and
2) What will our response be and how unified? Will the bloodshed that is inevitable serve to unify?
Nail head meet hammer!
Does no one bother to look at history any more. Qaddafi was a lot of things--crazy, ruthless, wiley--but he did not terrorize Libyans, he gave them the highest standard of living in Africa. He was not a dictator--he refused any title and retired to private life, if he had influence it was as a respected, former leader. He was ruthless with Moslem extremists--but that's a good thing, right? Ironic that the extremists Qaddafi drove out, NATO brought back as "rebels"--Iraq didn't have Al Qaeda under Sadam, now they do, Libya didn't have Al Qaeda under Mohamar, now they do. I do believe we are deliberately spreading Al Qaeda, not fighting it at all--they are CIA operatives, methinks. Wake up America. The 99% doesn't go around killing unarmed women and children. So who is NATO???? Who is Al Qaeda, for that matter, and how does it all tie in to 9/11. THINK!! TRUTH!!! JUSTICE!!!
They are also staging terrorist attacks against Iran at the behest of the US. Bin Laden was a brief blip (although we may eventually find out, a deep cover agent). Otherwise the US has been using Islamists for decades, overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953, all the way up to using them as proxies against the secular nationalist regimes in the Middle East, not to mention Afghanistan.
downtownwalker writes:
"He was ruthless with Moslem extremists--but that's a good thing, right?"
No, he/regime were ruthless with practice & preaching of Islam at most levels. Thus completely peaceful folks would also be targeted. To take an analogy in the US, Quakers or Amish would be considered fair game for repression/killing by a regime like his.
Not that I'm optimistic that overall things will improve after replacing this regime with another. As in Iraq or Afghanistan, after "regime change", civil war ensued between different groups, and things are much worse in terms of bloodshed.
Talk with some Libyans or North Africans in your area about conditions there in the time of Qaddafi, rather than branding practice of Islam as "Moslem extremism" (whatever that means) and justifying their repression/killing.
It seems to me that war crimes ARE barbarism by NATO, Obama and Le Clinton.
And by extension, all Americans are part of these war crimes until we stand united and say "enough." Enough barbarism. Enough killing innocent woment and children and men--just because a man is a man should not diminish the innocent loss of life. Until we charge with war crimes, the war criminals who lead us, we are all war criminals. Stop the insanity. Stop the killing. Stop the machine. WE ARE THE 99%
More interesting facts regarding Libya...
in 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world.
Before the NATO assault --
Public Health Care in Libya prior to NATO's "Humanitarian Intervention" was the best in Africa. "Health care is [was] available to all citizens free of charge by the public sector. The country boasts the highest literacy and educational enrolment rates in North Africa. The Government is [was] substantially increasing the development budget for health services.... (WHO Libya Country Brief )
Confirmed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), undernourishment was less than 5 %, with a daily per capita calorie intake of 3144 calories. (FAO caloric intake figures indicate availability rather than consumption).
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya provided to its citizens what is denied to many Americans: Free public health care, free education, as confirmed by WHO and UNESCO data.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO): Life expectancy at birth was 72.3 years (2009), among the highest in the developing World.
The [Libyan Arab Jamahiriya] has had a high standard of living and a robust per capita daily caloric intake of 3144. The country has made strides in public health and, since 1980, child mortality rates have dropped from 70 per thousand live births to 19 in 2009. Life expectancy has risen from 61 to 74 years of age during the same span of years. (FAO, Rome, Libya, Country Profile,)
The adult literacy rate was of the order of 89%, (2009), (94% for males and 83% for females). 99.9% of youth are literate (UNESCO 2009 figures, See UNESCO, Libya Country Report)
Gross primary school enrolment ratio was 97% for boys and 97% for girls (2009) .
(see UNESCO tables at http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=4340&BR_Region=40525
The pupil teacher ratio in Libya's primary schools was of the order of 17 (1983 UNESCO data), 74% of school children graduating from primary school were enrolled in secondary school (1983 UNESCO data).
With regard to Women's Rights, World Bank data point to significant achievements.
"In a relative short period of time, Libya achieved universal access for primary education, with 98% gross enrollment for secondary, and 46% for tertiary education. In the past decade, girls’ enrollment increased by 12% in all levels of education. In secondary and tertiary education, girls outnumbered boys by 10%." (World Bank Libya Country Brief, emphasis added)
Libya has the highest GDP in Africa, less than 5% of the population is classified as poor and it has fewer people living below the poverty datum line than for example in Holland.
"With the exception of the nomadic Bedouin and Tuareg tribes, most Libyan families possess a house and a car.
Riba (usury) is not permitted. The Central bank of Libya is a wholly-owned by the Libyan Government and is run as a state bank, issuing all government loans free of interest.
Libya has a tolerable human rights record and stands at 61 on the International Incarceration Index, comparable with countries in central Europe (the lower the rating, the lower the standing - the USA occupies the no.1 spot!)."
You are recounting the reasons our government had to kill him or take him out. Concern for his own people is NOT ALLOWED in a country that has natural or human or strategic resources our corporations want. It is an annoyance to our dear leaders.
"Good riddance to Muammar Qaddafi, who terrorized his people for 42 years."
A classic line from a classic pseudo-progressive. Rothschild's intent is to compare Qaddafi with western "leaders" who put on charades of "hope" and "decency", while massive, entrenched evil and oppression commences under them, like the emperor without cloths, pretending he's wearing a royal shroud. Rothschild - as loyal a servant of elites as any. If Rothschild seriously stood with the people he would not try to ping notes of their western imperial indoctrination. Notice how his article keeps the indoctrination alive while pretending to challenge it. Challenging it using this classic ploy is perhaps strengthening it. Instead of that, we on the far left use uncomplicated frames, denying the elites any shred of legitimacy. While Qaddafi was brutal, he did defend Lybians from western imperialism. Can Rothschild acknowledge this? No. Can Rothschild support the people's rights to self-rule? No.
good call on this article pretending to challenge the MSM. Don't anyone be fooled. You are being lied to. Qaddafi was not nearly the monster that say, Obama or Hillary are.
Qaddafi’s Death: A Clear Message From The One Percent To The Rest Of The World.
" A clear message from the 1% to the rest of us".
This is the message: Gaddafi's biggest crime was that although probably not aware of it, he was on the side of the 99%, but unlike the rest of us he was stepping on the toes of the International Banksters and Wall Street. When Gaddafi issued a government, value based currency, the GOLD DINAR, he signed his death warrant, because the GOLD DINAR was a major threat not only to the international oil bourse, but the power and the wealth of Wall Street and the private central bankers who love to loan out the public currency at interest.
I walked into the office, and was waiting for my number to be called, when I saw CNN talking about Qaddafi’s death. My body said “Maybe this trial for Libya will finally end” – it was kind of a good feeling. Then they talked about what happened, and I suddenly realized, he hadn’t been hit by a bomb or had an accident – that he had been captured, and was alive. My body said “Oh good, maybe he will be tried” – and that felt reassuring. And then they said that he was captured unarmed, and that one of his captors shot him with Qaddafi’s own pistol – and my body slumped and said “Why, why you didn’t have to kill him – it’s already over”!
I watched the people around me, talking as if nothing had happened or that this was good. And as I waited the hour for my number to be called and CNN replayed the telling, I kept asking myself how angry have we become, either there or here, that we rejoice in his murder, rather than try to understand what made him go down this path of his own choosing. Without that knowledge, how will we ever build a better world?
Qaddafi never invaded and occupied Iraq, murdering 1.5 million innocent people. Bush and Obama did.
Qaddafi never carried out airstrikes on Libya, killing 60,000 people. Obama did (while ObamaBot cheered on the slaughter).
Qaddafi never occupied Afghanistan or carried out drone strikes on Pakistan, Somalia, or Yemen killing unknown numbers of innocents. Obama did (while ObamaBot cheered on the slaughter).
Qaddafi never forced his people to buy overpriced, low-coverage "health" insurance from absolutely corrupt insurance monopolies (but Obama did). Qaddafi provided his people with universal health care.
Qaddafi did not enact "free trade" agreements to send his country's best-paying jobs overseas to further enrich millionaire/billionaire owners. Obama and Clinton did.
Qaddafi = a leader representing ordinary working peoples' interests.
Obama = a Neocon war criminal representing Wall Street.
The murders of both Osama bin Laden and Quaddafi make me sick. Apparently they were both murdered in cold blood. The hypocrisy of the US knows no limits. The fine "Christians" are celebrating. George Bernard Shaw once said that as far as he knew, Christianity was a fine religion, but it was too bad that it had never been practiced.
"Good riddance to Muammar Qaddafi, who terrorized his people for 42 years."
both Qaddafi and Hussein had enormous support from their people. they were also very progressive leaders, which was one of the reasons for that support. the new york times and the rest of the whores called the u.s. media, tell a different story because their master, the anglo-american alliance, wants to deal with its financial crisis with -- among other things -- vastly increased looting of the mideast, which forces the brits and their dupes to get rid of people like Qaddafi and Hussein, people who set limits to the looting and had enough support among their people to make the limits stick.
the libyan 'rebels' and their controllers will create a slave government like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You are joking... Or you do not give the citizens of Libya the courage, will, decency and intelligence to have a much better government and freedom from oppression... We'll see.
WayneWR:
The 'liberation" of Libya and its future have nothing to do with Libyan "courage, will, decency, and intelligence," nor Libyan desire to be free from "oppression." This "liberation" is about what Washington wants.
On what historical evidence do you base your expectation that Washington will allow Libyans the right of independent development? Such an expectation cannot be based on Washington's imperial history.
__________________________
[...] "From its outset, the war has been one for regime-change, prosecuted by the United States and the Western European powers in pursuit of definite geo-strategic and economic interests. Their war aims included inflicting a sharp reversal on China and Russia, which had both concluded significant oil, infrastructure and arms deals with the Gaddafi regime, challenging Western hegemony in a key energy-producing country on the Mediterranean.
The NATO powers saw in the overthrow of Gaddafi the prospect of establishing far tighter control over Libya’s oil and gas reserves by major Western energy conglomerates such as BP, ConocoPhillips, Total and ENI. They also saw the installation in Tripoli of a wholly subservient client regime as a means of asserting military power in a region that has been convulsed by popular upheavals, both in Tunisia to the west and Egypt to the east.
The regime taking shape in Tripoli and Benghazi will be one dominated by gangsters, Western intelligence “assets” and bribed former Libyan officials, all offering their services in the re-colonization of the country. Only the most morally and politically corrupt elements of the so-called “left” in Europe and America can equate this filthy enterprise with “liberation” and “democracy.”
The Liberation of Libya
http://wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/pers-o22.shtml
'I never mourn the death of a dictator. Good riddance to Muammar Qaddafi, who terrorized his people for 42 years.'
To quote Hillary Clinton ... Wow!
How awfully holier-than-thou of you! Isn't that fantastic rhetoric for a so-called progressive? Or is that just the masthead for the publication this guy edits?
Just think for a moment, oh, ye of righteous progressiveness ... Libyan crimes against humanity committed under Gaddafi's watch do not differ in any way from crimes against humanity committed under the watch of US presidents of the last few decades. Torture, rendition, prison massacres, sponsoring overseas terrorism, arming terrorist groups, inhibiting freedoms, interfering with the press and silencing dissent - to name a few.
So if Gaddafi's Libya 'deserves' to be relentlessly bombed for 8 months in order to get rid of its supposedly tyrannical leader, does the US deserve the same treatment? If Gaddafi's retribution is to be torn apart by a bloodthirsty mob by the side of the road, do the last four or five US presidents deserve that same retribution?
A few things I could say in Gaddafi's favour is that Libya never invaded another country, the gap between Libya's rich and poor was minimal, and Libyans enjoyed free health and education, subsidised housing and a totally debt-free economy.
Other than that, the only difference between Gaddafi's Libya and the US political system is that Libya kept the same 'tyrant' for forty years, while the US simply changed their tyrants every 4-8 years but kept its tyrannical system steadfastly in place.
"Other than that, the only difference between Gaddafi's Libya and the US political system is that Libya kept the same 'tyrant' for forty years, while the US simply changed their tyrants every 4-8 years but kept its tyrannical system steadfastly in place."
Sorry Buddy, but America isn't -- sorry, wasn't -- anywhere NEAR Libya in terms of literacy or health care or housing etc. Might want to clean up your own house before telling others how to clean theirs.
Durrutix
'Might want to clean up your own house before telling others how to clean theirs.'
I'm not sure how to take the ambiguity of that comment - whether by 'clean up your own house' you are criticising me personally, or speaking generically about the US. I've looked at your other comments and 100% agree with you, so I'll assume it's the latter. From what I've read, most Libyans enjoyed a standard of living that many Occupy Wall Streeters can only dream of. And many of the alleged 'tyrannical' actions of the Libyan government can be put down to the perils and justifiable paranoias of ruling an oil-rich, non-Western aligned nation surrounded by pro-Western dicators, while all the time being destabilised by monarchists, fundamentalists and other mostly foreign-backed troublemakers from within.
The United States fund dictators with our tax dollars until no longer needed or the dictators refuse to bow to the USA's commands, then they are murdered.
Wouldn't you love to give this clown a tranquilizer dart gun and say 'Here you go, you lead over the wall and into compound. We'll be listening to see if you get your guts shot to pieces.'
This is why elitists in their fantasy white tower world are too dangerous to be trusted with the protection of the United States and its valorous military.