Col. M. Khaddafi

This is ultimately a problem that needs to be solved within your communities.
Don't expect investments etc. Many countries that have high standards of living now managed to do so without much foreign investment. Basically, hold your leaders accountable because at the end of the day, it's your folks who are screwing over themselves.
 
A Can of Man, I would agree with you if we could say that you are rich because you worked for it and that they are poor because they didnt work for it...

Life is NOT fair. Some are lucky, they have resources, and others are just unlucky... They got a desert where nothing grows...

No problem with this part. But the problem lies somewhere else.

The economic world was written and established by the Western countries. They built in a way to give the advantage to the people having an industry, military forces and a strong financial force.

The system we built, the system we defend... Is described as fair. But actually it isnt.

And some people have NOTHING while others have EVERYTHING.

I just cant list you how unfair the system is, I'm not an economist or a banker... But the situation is that we can explain how some people are miserable and crushed under problems by the good situation of a few people...

The whole system is corrupt to the bone.

The system wasnt made by/for the hard working person. No, it was made by bankers/industrialists/rich parasites who dont create any value... and it was made for their own kind.

And the system isnt working... They are burning resources and destroying human lives to survive. Look at the economic crisis we are suffering from.

We didnt find the economic equilibrium yet. We are still learning. And honestly, we didnt care about the countries we were crushing... Because our lives were good. But now, we see that we might end like these people too. This is why we start to question the system...

But once again, A Can of Man, I'm NOT talking about welfare or investment in the traditional meaning of the term. I'm talking about compensations.

As an example, let the Africans adopt the US dollar as a currency... Just to not see the value of their work lost when swapping currency...
Just let them buy equipment and sell the natural resources they have in the same currency.

Just do that, dont give them anything... And it will bring your way of life a little and it will rise their way of life by 40% or something like that...

You are not lucky, you are privileged. They take something from the others to give it to you...

It was cheap oil (at the price of water) in the beginning of the century, so you can build factories and drive automobiles cheaply...
And as you are rich, you always get first when you buy resources. The best metal, the best this, the best that...
As you are rich, you get the best doctors. The best education, the best security, less corruption...
As you are rich, you are powerful, so you dont see slavers coming to make you work in a diamond mine... You dont walk on land mines while you are traveling... And if you find oil in your backyard, you dont see the neighbor invading to take it from you...

You get my point... not?

It's a winner takes all contest... And you have to race with the African who stepped on a mine when he was 12...
 
Appears he's doing the whole Bankers/Industrialist/Rich are parasites, power to the workers schitck.
 
Appears he's doing the whole Bankers/Industrialist/Rich are parasites, power to the workers schitck.

I don't know about "schitck", but LM sure has been blowing smoke out of one of his orifices ..... (just my opinion).

The ONLY sure way of dealing with terrorism ends up requiring force. A kind word or turning your cheek or even the ivory tower BS doesn't work.

HISTORICALLY, FORCE IS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN DEAL WITH TERRORISM. CUT THE HEAD FROM THE SNAKE AND THE SNAKE DIES.

P E R I O D !
 
Last edited:
A Can of Man, honestly, I'm trying to be as short as possible.

03USMC, I'm not yet there... But yes, I do believe that there is total parasites who suck the life-blood of hardworking people. And no, I'm not a commie yet... I'm just not a capitalist.

And Chief Bones, I'm not here to say "no violence it's ugly"... I'm here to say use violence with intelligence. Intelligence = rare. So I'm for a limited use of violence.
Dont send your whole military. Send special units that are prepared and equipped for anti-terrorism.

Israel is using military forces against terrorists for half a century... And they still have terrorist attacks.
And Israel have a reputation in blowing up terrorists and kicking ass in battle... And they are still not safe even after transforming the whole country into a fortress...

Limited use of violence in self defense and economic/political construction.

I'm questioning your wisdom, not your intelligence...
 
Locked for review


Edit: Opened again now. Cleaned out several off-topic posts and a few that was far over the line..

Stay on topic from now on!

Thanks
 
I wish I could remember why.

Judging by your profile pic/avatar, I'd say the toga :)

But, the guy is an evil being... He has done a lot of bad in the world, not limited to terrorism but the genocide in Sudan also finds it roots in him.

But I must say, assassinating a sovereign, regardless of how he got there, is an unacceptable notion and I for one can't understand how anyone can agree with it - it takes away from integrity of whoever is responsible and questions the legitimacy of whoever comes into power; it's the kind of thing that would make him a martyr for some and foster more terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Shah ...

IF G'daffy were to be assassinated - so what??? That's a good thing. And as far as the "martyr" thing ... I can't see it - at least not from his own people (he is hated by what has been reported as a majority of his own people).

Throughout history, leaders of countries and of armies, have ALWAYS been on the top of a long hitlist .. and .. to somehow say it is NOT politically correct to target him if we have good intel as to his whereabouts, is just plain stupid.

Without G'daffy, the violence towards Libyans would drop off to almost zero. D'daffy's son would NEVER be able to take over and maintain any cohesive pressure against his own people. If he tries, he stands a very good chance that his own people would take steps to remove him (either peaceably or violently).
 
I find it hard to believe that Qaddafi though as bad as he maybe is the worst of the worst. Their are far worse dictators in this world but yet we always managed to go after the easy target ones. If Qaddafi was referred to as the madman of the middle east by Reagan and yet be rehabilitated by Bush jr and his European puppets which made billions of dollars of oil, weapons and infrastructure deals with him which does all the sudden when the opportunity presents itself to replace him with a bigger western lackey do we attack him when this was entirely an internal Libyan matter with no threats to Western interests.

If we follow the logic used by Western politicians that we are in it to help the Libyan civilian population then lets look at the statistic: “Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties,” writes Kuperman, adding that the only thing to deepen the humanitarian suffering of innocents was the NATO-led attack, which will indefinitely prolong the civil war.-http://www.infowars.com/pretext-for-war-on-libya-proven-fraudulent-by-casualty-figures/

Based on the numbers, 2,226-2,523 opposition members/fighters (including some civilian supporters) and 1,332-1,567 Gaddafi loyalists have been killed by June 13, 2011.In addition, another 370 opposition fighters and activists have been confirmed as missing in the fighting in the east by the end of March,[53] 1,174-2,000 are reported to be missing in the Battle of Misrata and 74 were missing following the Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road, for a total of 1,618-2,444 rebels reported missing. However, this number could be higher since there was one report that 700 rebels were missing following-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war

There have been at least 3,275-3,280 reported civilians killed by June 12, 2011. However, it should be noted that a number of civilians were also killed during the Second Battle of Benghazi and during the campaign in the Nafusa mountains, so the number could be far higher.
In the end, according to the numbers presented, a total of 6,833-7,370 deaths have been reported, of which some have not been independently confirmed, and 1,618-3,144 people have been reported as missing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war

The Libyan official sources claimed that at least between 64 and 90 people were killed during the bombardments on the first two days of the U.N. intervention and another 150 had been wounded.[22] The Vatican news agency confirmed that in Tripoli alone, at least 40 civilians died as a result of the bombing campaign.[23] According to the Libyan Health office, the airstrikes killed 718 civilians and wounded 4,067, 433 seriously, by May 26.[24]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war

Now with these figures how can the Western politicians justify humanitarian mission so dire that it requires overt Western intervention? Granted the deaths of any innocent civilians is deplorable and should be prevented but in no way should this be used to justify the level of Western involvement we have witnessed. If the safeguarding if human life is so paramount and universal that why has the West refrained from action in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, and Iran? This types of actions and hypocracy is why many in the Muslim world and many of the public in the Western countries do not buy the Western political line of humanitarian intervention. Why not do the same with Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe? Why not Kim Jong Il of North Korea? Why not Bashir of Sudan who all have committed crimes that make what Qaddafi is being accused of look like a child's play.
 
Sorry, I haven't had the time to read all comments, but since Libya is again in the news...could I just give a bird's eye view of my own personal opinion on Ghaddafi ?

1. pathological: organic brain damage by earlier explosion (assasination attempt) superimposed on pre-existent likely bipolar disorder with psychotic episodes, superimposed on very likely inborn pathological narcissistic and socipathic personality traits; current general level of functioning likely around 38 (on the 0-100 scale);

2. contribution to & direct participation in illegal activities: international terrorism (that is for certain); I would also tend to agree at this point with the allegations about sexual abuse/assault on women (although I haven't looked personally myself in detail at those so far);

3. geopolitical: "easy" target or not, when one has to deal with a hornet's nest of a region, one has got to take problems one at a time, and prioritize according to both one's interest/policy and general beneficence issues (this is ethical IMHO, and I personally, as impartially as I can, consider US Foreign Policy regarding that region as consistently stable...way since Mr. Woodrow Wilson, and generally ethical in overall approach and nature);

4. why the original poster said he held some admiration for that man...maybe it's just the type of appreciation one has when one is watching from outside something bizarre, something incongruent with the culturally acceptable norm; some people prudently stay away, some cross themselves superstitiously and mutter under they breath something along the lines "go away, devil !", others will just laugh or gawk; others may develop a more pensive "philosophical" approach, trying to rationally understand the bizarre and the madness in visible action, and may actually misinterpret that as admiration, but it is not really admiration, it is a certain level of primitive superstitious respect that one may hold towards things which ARE truly scary to behold, yet unexplained enough, and even attribute some "special" "powers" to the unexplainable and to the bizarre...like for example in the way old times one would witness some people having seizures and think they must have been inhabited by some sort of spirit...stuff like that.

For any further questions...step into my office...only 600 GPB per hour ! LOL !
 
Last edited:
1. If only we could let nations/societies judge their leaders by themselves, the world would be a much better place. Supposing we used some of the foregoing yardsticks on recent US and UK leadership!

2. "Might is right" works only for the benefit of the mightiest in the mighty. To the common man is there a difference?
 
Back
Top