Muammer Gaddafi dies of Injuries: NTC official

Was the NATO attack on Libya to acquire natural resources or to push democracy?


  • Total voters
    28

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
What's the problem with Dictators like Saddam and Gaddhafi? They could've just committed suicide instead of being caught and humiliated.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Three contenders in the list:

1- Assad
2- Khamenei
3- Kayani
4- Kim Jong Il (not from the region)


I honestly wish they take Khamenei out. The mulla brigade has oppressed Iran way too much. Same goes for the Fat Kims.
  1. Assad - Will not happen. Russia will not allow.
  2. Khamenei - Is not likely to happen. Russia does not want NATO intervention so close to itself.
  3. Kayani - Not happening anytime soon. ISI and PA are the only ones who can do it, not some external force, at least in the foreseeable future.
  4. Kim Jong Il (not from the region) - Not happening. They have nukes and long range missiles. US will stay away form needling them.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
What's the problem with Dictators like Saddam and Gaddhafi? They could've just committed suicide instead of being caught and humiliated.
They were dictators, but still lacked the self pride that Hitler had. At least, Hitler had the courage to commit suicide and made sure his corpse was burnt beyond recognition so that no one could even touch, leave alone humiliate, his dead body. I have to admire that.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
They were dictators, but still lacked the self pride that Hitler had. At least, Hitler had the courage to commit suicide and made sure his corpse was burnt beyond recognition so that no one could even touch, leave alone humiliate, his dead body. I have to admire that.
I have to disagree.

Only cowards commit suicide. When nato interviewed gaddafi said he would rather die fighting in libya rather than escape to another country and enjoy life like a certain tunisian dictator did. Saddam didn't have any place to get asylum in. The favorite destination of ME dictators saudi arabia was off the list.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Article from 2006. Remember it was all for freedom and democracy :pound:

Why Gaddafi's Now a Good Guy

When I called on Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi in his Bedouin tent last year, he was at pains to explain how he and President Bush were on the same wavelength. In all his years as a bad boy in the eyes of the West, he said, Libya was simply doing what Bush did when he invaded Iraq. "Bush is saying that America is fighting for the triumph of freedom," Gaddafi said between sips of tea. "When we were supporting liberation movements in the world, we were arguing that it was for the victory of freedom. We both agree. We were fighting for the cause of freedom."

At the time, it may have sounded like the typical ramblings of the Libyan leader. But now, a year later, Gaddafi and Bush do apparently see eye to eye. On Monday, Gaddafi accomplished one of history's great diplomatic turnarounds when Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as "a model" for others to follow. Rice attributed the ending of the U.S.'s long break in diplomatic relations to Gaddafi's historic decision in 2003 to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism as well as Libya's "excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001."

But as much as the Bush Administration would like to believe it, Gaddafi's decision to come in from the cold was not simply a response to the war on terror and the U.S.'s toppling of Saddam and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan before that. In TIME interviews with key Libyan players, including three with Gaddafi going back before 9/11, it was clear that other important factors were also at work. Foremost among them was the collapse of the Soviet empire, which brought down Gaddafi's once-powerful friends in capitals like Moscow, Prague and Bucharest. Another important factor was the rise of Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East, which resulted in extremist attacks in Libya and against Gaddafi personally.

Slowly but surely, Gaddafi became appalled by the impotence of his brother Arabs, who failed to come to his aid when the West imposed sanctions and who invited the U.S. into the region to settle the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in 1990. Once Gaddafi's Palestinian friends began negotiating with Israel, he began focusing on Libya's African rather than Arab alliances. In 2001, he hosted the inaugural meeting of the new African Union.

By then, Gaddafi was looking hard for a way out of Libya's isolation, which was hurting its vital petroleum industry; in fact, U.S. oil companies were lobbying hard from the mid 1990s for a rehabilitation of Libya, in order to be there first in the upgrading of its aging oil infrastructure. As American and international sanctions were taking their toll and the stagnation was slowly killing Gadfhafi's regime, he offered a major gesture, turning Libyan intelligence agents over for trial in the downing of of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

It wasn't too long ago when Gaddafi, not Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, was the enemy Washington loved to hate. The U.S. bombed Tripoli 20 years ago last month, in what amounted to an aerial assassination attempt on Gaddafi himself after President Reagan dubbed Gaddafi the "mad dog" of the Middle East. The Tripoli blitz came amid suspected Libyan involvement in a Berlin terrorist attack that killed two American servicemen. Gaddafi's international isolation only grew two years later, after Libya was accused in the Lockerbie disaster. Two decades later, Saddam is gone from power, facing trial and possible execution for oppressing his own people, while Gaddafi is back in the good graces of the White House.

The Bush Administration has been quick to stress Libya's comeback as a model that Iran and North Korea should now follow. But it may have been Gaddafi's rogue pursuit of nuclear weapons, more than anything else, that made Rice's announcement Monday possible. As Gaddafi sees it, Libya's nuke program gave him some much-needed leverage in his dealings with Washington. The bargain gave each what they needed: Gaddafi is a pariah no more, and the Bush administration has a success story in the Middle East.

It's not necessarily the complete success Bush may have had in mind. In citing Gaddafi as a model, Rice has signaled the Administration's priority for security over the cause of freedom that both Gaddafi and Bush love to talk about. Even though Gaddafi has done little to loosen his dictatorship, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac, among other statesmen, have already visited Libya to signal the West's pleasure. President Bush, or his successor, could be next to visit the leader in his tent.

Gaddafi was right, it turns out, when he concluded our last interview in wonderment. "The world," he said, "is changing so dramatically."

Why Gaddafi's Now a Good Guy - TIME
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
I have to disagree.

Only cowards commit suicide. When nato interviewed gaddafi said he would rather die fighting in libya rather than escape to another country and enjoy life like a certain tunisian dictator did. Saddam didn't have any place to get asylum in. The favorite destination of ME dictators saudi arabia was off the list.
Cowardice? I beg to differ. It takes a lot of courage to commit suicide. When it was clear to Hitler that the Soviets were going to come and get him, he knew his death was inevitable. He decided to do what he did. Yes, perhaps he could have held onto his gun and fought the approaching Soviet soldiers till he was dead. That would have made a mockery of him and his fallen corpse. He did not want that to happen. Nothing cowardly in that.

In contrast, Saddam Hussain and Gaddafi were both found in an underground hole or sewer, albeit injured. Hitler's death was far more glorious.
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
It seems the Republican presidential candidates are now babbling about invading Iran.

If the U.S. invades Iran it will be another Vietnam, that is guaranteed.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Cowardice? I beg to differ. It takes a lot of courage to commit suicide. When it was clear to Hitler that the Soviets were going to come and get him, he knew his death was inevitable. He decided to do what he did. Yes, perhaps he could have held onto his gun and fought the approaching Soviet soldiers till he was dead. That would have made a mockery of him and his fallen corpse. He did not want that to happen. Nothing cowardly in that.

In contrast, Saddam Hussain and Gaddafi were both found in an underground hole or sewer, albeit injured. Hitler's death was far more glorious.
Gaddafi could have flown out of libya months ago with his gold bricks if he wanted to, his family did so he could have also. The rebels will say all they can to discredit him, they said he was killed in cross fire initially then back tracked. Who knows what is truth ?

Hitler was cornered like a dog and took the easy way out. From his point of view he didn't give the soviets the pleasure of capturing him and humiliating him but that is a different matter. I wouldn't term his death glorious.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
It seems the Republican presidential candidates are now babbling about invading Iran.

If the U.S. invades Iran it will be another Vietnam, that is guaranteed.
I look at the middle east and the only country with a semblance of stability is iran.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Gaddafi could have flown out of libya months ago with his gold bricks if he wanted to, his family did so he could have also. The rebels will say all they can to discredit him, they said he was killed in cross fire initially then back tracked. Who knows what is truth ?
He could have, but he did not. Even Najibullah had the option of flying out, but he did not. If I were either of them, I'd fly out. In any event, at least he died in his hometown, Sirte, amongst his own people who remained loyal to him till the last moment. There are always two sides to the coin.

Hitler was cornered like a dog and took the easy way out. From his point of view he didn't give the soviets the pleasure of capturing him and humiliating him but that is a different matter. I wouldn't term his death glorious.
Never said Hitler's death was glorious. I said Hitlers death was far more glorious than that of Saddam or Gaddafi. I said in the relative sense, not in the absolute sense.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
I have to disagree.

Only cowards commit suicide. When nato interviewed gaddafi said he would rather die fighting in libya rather than escape to another country and enjoy life like a certain tunisian dictator did. Saddam didn't have any place to get asylum in. The favorite destination of ME dictators saudi arabia was off the list.
There were quite a few countries offering him asylum so it isn't like he didn't have a way out. He could have left with the rest of his family. I do admire to a degree him staying true to his word he would never leave and he didn't. It is just funny how Saddam was found hiding in a hole and Gaddafi followed by hiding in a sewer pipe. :lol:
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
It seems the Republican presidential candidates are now babbling about invading Iran.

If the U.S. invades Iran it will be another Vietnam, that is guaranteed.
France has set the bar for future nation building, keep your troops out of occupation. Not even the US can quell a people with their vast Army, but a moderate European air force effort can overthrow a dictator and establish a new government. If the US had just stuck with the N. Alliance running Afghanistan they would be much better off today IMO. The country has to be run by the locals, you can't do it with the limited number of troops that are deployed these days.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
France has set the bar for future nation building, keep your troops out of occupation. Not even the US can quell a people with their vast Army, but a moderate European air force effort can overthrow a dictator and establish a new government. If the US had just stuck with the N. Alliance running Afghanistan they would be much better off today IMO. The country has to be run by the locals, you can't do it with the limited number of troops that are deployed these days.
I totally second that. It is meaningless to try to occupy a country. Not many people have succeeded with that, be it any country.

It is far easier to defeat a strong enemy than to keep that country under tabs. It's like slow bleeding. The US should have left Afghanistan to Northern Alliance, but then, they probably could not have got hold of OBL. There is definitely a rationale why the US actually occupied Afghanistan. So, when we bring the OBL factor into the picture, the US occupation of Afghanistan is not totally meaningless. Well, now that OBL is gone, it is indeed meaningless, although India would probably like the US to continue to stay there.
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
France has set the bar for future nation building, keep your troops out of occupation. Not even the US can quell a people with their vast Army, but a moderate European air force effort can overthrow a dictator and establish a new government. If the US had just stuck with the N. Alliance running Afghanistan they would be much better off today IMO. The country has to be run by the locals, you can't do it with the limited number of troops that are deployed these days.
I disagree. What France did in Libya is help overthrow a dictator. That's not the same thing as nation-building. Now that Gaddafi is dead, France has no rationale to use force in Libya and cannot impose its will on what happens in Libyan politics.

The new Libyan government may decide to make Libya an Islamist state or a socialist one, it's entirely up to them and the Libyan people.

What the US tried to do in Iraq on the other hand is not just to oust a dictator, but to establish a puppet state, control the world's 4th largest oil reserves, and obtain long-term bases in the ME through a pliant ally not capable of offering any resistance. Not only that, but the US charged the entire expense of the invasion and occupation to the Iraqi people.

Afghanistan is another matter, US was forced to invade it to topple the Taliban and thereafter stay to get Bin Laden.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
I disagree. What France did in Libya is help overthrow a dictator. That's not the same thing as nation-building. Now that Gaddafi is dead, France has no rationale to use force in Libya and cannot impose its will on what happens in Libyan politics.

The new Libyan government may decide to make Libya an Islamist state or a socialist one, it's entirely up to them and the Libyan people.

What the US tried to do in Iraq on the other hand is not just to oust a dictator, but to establish a puppet state, control the world's 4th largest oil reserves, and obtain long-term bases in the ME through a pliant ally not capable of offering any resistance. Not only that, but the US charged the entire expense of the invasion and occupation to the Iraqi people.

Afghanistan is another matter, US was forced to invade it to topple the Taliban and thereafter stay to get Bin Laden.
I agree with most of what you said, except that I am not sure if you were implying that the US is doing nation building in Afghanistan specifically. The USSR did a far better job in Afghanistan than entire NATO could ever hope to achieve there. Other than that, getting OBL would have been impossible if the US did not occupy Afghanistan. I agree with the case of Iraq and securing their oil wealth.
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
I agree with most of what you said, except that I am not sure if you were implying that the US is doing nation building in Afghanistan specifically. The USSR did a far better job in Afghanistan than entire NATO could ever hope to achieve there. Other than that, getting OBL would have been impossible if the US did not occupy Afghanistan. I agree with the case of Iraq and securing their oil wealth.
I don't think the purpose of the US forces in Afghanistan is or ever was nation-building. They were solely to get OBL and destroy Al-Qaeda. The Taliban were only incidental enemies because they refused to hand over OBL. Now that OBL is dead, they are only focussed on making sure another 9/11 does not happen. For that, they need a long term presence in the region, if even one with just a small military footprint in the shape of a few bases in Afghanistan. Also, they need to make sure that the Afghan state in the meanwhile does not entirely collapse, and lead to another headache for them, hence they're pressurising Pak to negotiate with all the Taliban factions including the Haqqanis to cease fighting.

Of course, being in Afghanistan for the long-term will have other benefits including squeezing Iran from both sides and keeping an eye on China's forays for oil into Central Asia.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
France has set the bar for future nation building, keep your troops out of occupation. Not even the US can quell a people with their vast Army, but a moderate European air force effort can overthrow a dictator and establish a new government. If the US had just stuck with the N. Alliance running Afghanistan they would be much better off today IMO. The country has to be run by the locals, you can't do it with the limited number of troops that are deployed these days.
Good. Now let France display the same "conviction" in Syria. When I'd the Rafale heading there?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Good. Now let France display the same "conviction" in Syria. When I'd the Rafale heading there?
Nah, they won't needle Russia by going after Syria.

Moreover, France has invested in the LADA factory in Togliatti and those Mistral ships could really help the French economy and over all, Russia holds the tap to much of the energy supplies to Western Europe.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Nah, they won't needle Russia by going after Syria.

Moreover, France has invested in the LADA factory in Togliatti and those Mistral ships could really help the French economy and over all, Russia holds the tap to much of the energy supplies to Western Europe.
Nope my post was just to show Armand that the "good" intentions are backed by lust nothing else. It's all right to be hypocrite. Accept and move on. Nations have to be hypocritical when it comes to securing their national interests.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top