Are the anti Gadaffi rebels any better than he was?

[Cainkane1]

After reading about the atrocities committed against poor African workers and other Gadaffi supporters including Gadaffi himself I wonder if the free world should have helped them. What I hear and see about them is pretty barbaric. http://wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/rebe-m31.shtml

 

[C_Felix]

Hhhhmmm..

I'm not making excuses or trying to excuse what they did, but, perhaps they were venting at years of repression when they committed those atrocities.

Also, there's always the issue of Hezzbollah is behind it. If they are, well, that's a whole 'nother story.

 

[Tumblehome]

From the article you linked to, it seems that atrocities by the rebels could almost be expected: “It is standard knowledge in genocide research that minorities come under attack in civil wars because at least one party to the conflict accuses them of collaborating with the enemy…". It's an unfortunate fact that some people, when given the chance, vent their frustrations by taking it out on other innocent people. But it doesn't mean that, in Libya's case, the larger political goal of ousting a brutal dictator was wrong.

Having said that, the video of Gadhaffi's capture and killing turned my stomach. I don't like seeing any hopelessly defenseless human being (or animal, for that matter) treated like that by other human beings. His captors became what they were fighting against--brutal murderers. It was a sorry, shameful end to what was an otherwise worthy cause.

 

[bikerdruid]

libya was a moderate muslim country.
the new government is already calling for sharia law.
we will have to wait and see.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

libya was a moderate muslim country.
the new government is already calling for sharia law.
we will have to wait and see.

Forgotten than Libya was already under Sharia law?

 

[The Fool]

we shall see...but I would amagine that the hyped up front line irregulars that we see in the "gaddafi gets his payback" videos may not be indicative of the people that will be in power.

 

[Moon-Spinner]

This thread harks back to what I asked in another thread last week, and that's what will happen with Libya now?

I'll wait to see if the country will be any better than it was under Gadaffi.

 

[MG1962]

This thread harks back to what I asked in another thread last week, and that's what will happen with Libya now?

I'll wait to see if the country will be any better than it was under Gadaffi.

I have grave concerns about Libya's future. The tribal based power blocks seems counter productive to stable growth. Everyone wants to be top dog, and so far there seems to be little inkling to share

 

[theprestige]

I have grave concerns about Libya's future. The tribal based power blocks seems counter productive to stable growth. Everyone wants to be top dog, and so far there seems to be little inkling to share

Ironically, the US Federal government gets nothing but grief for doing away with the tribal-based power blocks it encountered in North America.

Sometimes I wonder if Stalin wasn't right after all: Shoot enough people in the head, and the problem goes away. The real problem nowadays is that while we're willing to shoot some people in the head, we're never willing to shoot enough people in the head to make the problem go away.

You know why Japan is such a democratic, liberal society today? Because the US occupied the bejezus out of that country. Iraq has nothing on the treatment Japan received after the war was over. We see how well Japan turned out, 50 years later. Anybody want to bet Iraq turns out anywhere near as good, 50 years down the road?

As for Libya? Please. All we did was drop a few bombs. The only boots on the ground, if any, were dudes with laser pointers for the bombs. That's not an occupation worth a damn. That's just killing a bunch of random asshats, all for the privilege of seeing Libya turn out to be the same trouble-making hotspot 50 years from now that it ever was, and saying "yeah, we blew up some people for no good reason and it didn't even make a difference".

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

So the standard is that overthrowing countries is "justified" if by some kind of measure it is "better off"? Like on what scale? Number alive? Number not dying of starvation, number obedient to US interests or good to its own citizens?

Golly, silly me with thinking nations are sovereign and not social destruction/rebuilding experiments for the first world countries.

Benghazi was the highest concentration of Al Qaeda in Iraq suicide bombers killing U.S. troops. Their field commander in Tripoli is named Belhaj, leading the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. He was a recruiter for both Iraq and Afghanistan anti-American fighters. The CIA captured him in Bangkok, tortured him, and renditioned him to Libya for more torture.

So now he's in charge and luvin' it - and its his kind of Shariah we're talkin' about.

The other rival general was assassinated not long ago. It's hard to say with the former regime loyalists being massacred and old tribal/royalist/racist factions along with the pack of carpet-baggers cashing in on NATO country money now what will happen in Libya.

But I am pretty weary of rushing into wars, and wow not one moment after we've finished destroying their country we find out what the name of the place is, what language they speak - some real in-depth thinking about the trillions of dollars and millions of dead, diseased, refugee, etc. We're the smartest people in the history of mankind.

 

[Tricky]

We pretty much know for sure that Gadaffi was sponsoring international terrorism. Whether or not this new bunch will (whoever they turn out to be) is unknown, but at least they know that NATO is not hesitant to step in to Libya if they form a repressive dictatorship or start sponsoring international terror.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, even if they start out as not much better, there is now room for improvement. There wasn't under Gadaffi.

It is sad but seemingly inevitable that nascent democracies start out with blood on their hands. Then, what can you expect when you have a country full of privateers, armed to the teeth, but with little organisation and little common goals, once the dictator has been felled?

An all important goal for for the new leadership is to get everyone disarmed as quickly as possible. However, that is not going to be easy, and the armed population is at least some insurance against excesses: Anybody wanting to enforce something extreme is going to think twice before pissing off any considerable part of the population.

But as is already said, we will have to wait and see.

Hans

 

[L.Y.S.]

Haven't read the article posted in this thread, but I've posted other articles that I have read in another similar thread about Gaddafi. And I have my suspicions about whether or not Libya will be better w/o Gaddafi. I just hope the new regime isn't worse.

 

[L.Y.S.]

We pretty much know for sure that Gadaffi was sponsoring international terrorism. Whether or not this new bunch will (whoever they turn out to be) is unknown, but at least they know that NATO is not hesitant to step in to Libya if they form a repressive dictatorship or start sponsoring international terror.

What makes you think toppling this new regime won't bring about yet another possibly tyrannical regime? I have doubts that taking out Gaddafi was a good decision, unless of course the goal was to destabilize the region. Then NATO is doing a bang up job.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well they have declared that they will have a new constitution and democratic elections within 9 months, so.....

If they do, then yes, if they don't, then possibly no.

 

[Darat]

Well, even if they start out as not much better, there is now room for improvement. There wasn't under Gadaffi.

It is sad but seemingly inevitable that nascent democracies start out with blood on their hands. Then, what can you expect when you have a country full of privateers, armed to the teeth, but with little organisation and little common goals, once the dictator has been felled?

...snip..

Sometimes I wonder if it's just not being aware of the actual history of how countries like the UK and the USA got to where we are today? History tells us that strong democracies usually take at least decades to establish, that there will be reversals and so on. There does seem to be a very strange idea floating around that you can give a country a "Democracy for Dummies" guide and hey presto 6 weeks later it will be just like "us" and if they aren't just like us it's a terrible failure.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Sometimes I wonder if it's just not being aware of the actual history of how countries like the UK and the USA got to where we are today? History tells us that strong democracies usually take at least decades to establish, that there will be reversals and so on. There does seem to be a very strange idea that you can give a country a "Democracy for Dummies" guide and hey presto 6 weeks later it will be just like "us".

Very true, and to my knowledge, there has only been one democracy on the planet that hasn't been formed from a previous system without sugnificant bloodshed and turmoil... Tawain.

 

[MG1962]

Very true, and to my knowledge, there has only been one democracy on the planet that hasn't been formed from a previous system without sugnificant bloodshed and turmoil... Tawain.

Australia and New Zealand stand out as democracies not born of unrest, and I would not be surprised to find at least a few other could make such a claim

 

[MG1962]

Sometimes I wonder if it's just not being aware of the actual history of how countries like the UK and the USA got to where we are today? History tells us that strong democracies usually take at least decades to establish, that there will be reversals and so on. There does seem to be a very strange idea floating around that you can give a country a "Democracy for Dummies" guide and hey presto 6 weeks later it will be just like "us" and if they aren't just like us it's a terrible failure.

We also have to consider accepting democracies that don't fit our world view. Try taking the Italian system and make it work anywhere else on the planet. The British and US system, although they arrive at the same result, the process each use is very alien to the other. Clearly however it works for both nations world view.

 

[Aepervius]

Sometimes I wonder if it's just not being aware of the actual history of how countries like the UK and the USA got to where we are today? History tells us that strong democracies usually take at least decades to establish, that there will be reversals and so on. There does seem to be a very strange idea floating around that you can give a country a "Democracy for Dummies" guide and hey presto 6 weeks later it will be just like "us" and if they aren't just like us it's a terrible failure.

I think France on that side is even a better example of such tide, reversal and forward. We have had 5 republics, and some intermission. I would say to come to where we are with the 5th republic it took some 150 years...

That said, i am really wary of seeing *external* liberation by a 3rd country like in irak or Afghanistan with the local collateral damage folk not really being asked their opinion. Where there any dictator deposited externally which led a country to democracy ? I can only think of japan on that, and i am not even sure the situation is even remotely comparable. IMNSHO dictator deposition must come from within, even with bloodbath, and not from OUTSIDE.