The Madness of Gaddafi

[Debby]

I just finished reading an article by a Harvard fellow and it's all about Moammar Gaddafi and what Libya was like with him as its leader. Seriously folks, it was good to live in Libya apparently and in the same year I think, that NATO began bombing that country, the UN prepared a report that said the following: '.... The UN report commended Libya for bettering its "legal protections" for citizens, making human rights a "priority," improving women's rights, educational opportunities and access to housing....'

What I've read in this article is the opposite of what I've heard in the news media when the destruction was happening. After reading this, it seems that while Gaddafi was eccentric, he also had a fierce love and loyalty for the people of Libya and a real sense of 'rightness'. It was right for everyone to have a home, it was right for the people of the land to share in the wealth that came from that land, it was right that every woman should have the opportunity to go to university, it was right that those who were sick should get the treatment they need..... It is a terrible thing that has happened to that country is all I can say.

http://www.countercurrents.org/chengu120113.htm

 

[Vivjen]

Trouble is...he was reputed to commit acts of terrorism outside his country...like the siege of his embassy in London and the Lockerbie bombing.
US doesn't tend to forgive things like that...

 

[Debby]

Well it seems to me that some countries shouldn't be pointing fingers at his record because there are numerous pointing back at themselves. Like Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Cambodia.....India....even Haiti (and Canada was involved to a degree there).

I believe the justification for attacking Libya was that he was a monster who was bombing and killing his own people who only wanted him to be gone, yada, yada, yada. But when you read the article, this doesn't sound like a man who would do that to the people that he brought out of ignorance and poverty and supplied homes and health care to, as well as real democracy. And if those are lies, then maybe the stories of his 'atrocities' should be taken with a grain of salt. I have never given in depth attention to the two incidents that you mention so I can't venture an opinion. But remember, there are always two sides to every story and I know that we rarely hear the other side.

 

[Don M.]

I think History will show that the overthrow of Ghadaffi, and Sadaam Hussein were a couple of major political Blunders. True, these dictators were Not up to Western standards, but they kept the more radical elements in their societies under control...by force, if necessary. Getting rid of these two did nothing but throw the door wide open for the radicals we now must contend with. Sometimes, people should be careful about what they wish for....they may just get it.

 

[tnthomas]

I think History will show that the overthrow of Qaddafi, and Sadaam Hussein were a couple of major political Blunders. True, these dictators were Not up to Western standards, but they kept the more radical elements in their societies under control...by force, if necessary. Getting rid of these two did nothing but throw the door wide open for the radicals we now must contend with. Sometimes, people should be careful about what they wish for....they may just get it.

I basically agree, not knowledgeable enough on Qaddafi to give a response in that regard.

 

[Debby]

I basically agree, not knowledgeable enough on Qaddafi to give a response in that regard.

I'm curious, in spite of your excellent disclaimer, what you think of the social set up of Libya? It sounds like the country was the recipient of many 'blessings' economically. And I have read similar accounts previously so I would think the 'facts' aren't unfounded.

 

[IKE]

I worked there, closely with the military, for a little over two years in the late 70's and both the military and civilians SEEMED to like him.

But.

It may very well have been a FORCED like and a deep fear to say anything derogatory against him......he had his secret police absolutely everywhere.

 

[Debby]

At least when he was the leader, they had peace and food and homes and education and medical treatment and women had equal rights including to education......and now they have terrorists and bombings and destruction everywhere.......Thank you very much NATO. Considering that their democracy sounds like it was even more democratic than ours is.....what exactly was the excuse?

In reading thru the following, it would appear that besides wanting to sell his oil for gold instead of using the American petro-dollar, the big corporations very likely put pressure on the governments of NATO, to 'force' them to do something about their falling share in the oil wealth of Libya. Their share went from 50% down to 12%. Gaddafi figured that Libya's wealth belonged to Libyans. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33613.htm?hc_location=ufi He also required preferential hiring (to Libyans) when it came to those energy industries who were working in the country at the time. Clearly, Gaddafi had to go.


Another excellent article can be found here and it too speaks of the impressive record of Gaddafi in looking after the people of Libya, and makes reference to the need by the West to get rid of him because he wouldn't be a puppet and put his people first.

http://valleyinternational.net/thijsshi/v2-i2/6 theijsshi.pdf This article also refers to the period of the late 70's as one of great political upheaval and yes, the consolidation of Gaddafi's power, but what the heck, better a benign and generous 'dictator' than what the West left to them since 2011. I wonder how many enemies of the West were spawned by that act?