And now, Libya...

[Scarlet]

Okay, here, I found something interesting

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column ... a_media-0/

The dude increased literacy rates from 10% to 85%. So, it's not all bad. He's no worse than many Western leaders. ^^

And Saddam Hussein had very agreeable views on women's rights and secular government. Mustard gas attacks against the Kurds canceled all the good out - as do most of Q/K/Gadhafi's actions.

Saddam was very good for Iraq. You gotta ask yourself what was saddam up against. He was in charge of a joke of a country that should never have been built. An authoritarian government is the only sort of government that can hold that thing in place - it barely functions today, and that's thanks to a foreign presence. Would any other government have done something different? The Kurds have always wanted to break off. I think they should, but as a president one has the responsibility to keep the country intact. At any rate, Turkey has done far worse things to the Kurds, displacing millions and killing several times as many as Saddam - yet the US praises and aids those efforts.



One can say that this regime is bad, that regime is bad, or whatever you want. One thing however is certain, and that is that stability is better than chaos.

edit: and yo btw, your avatar's too wide.

[Djaser]

Okay, here, I found something interesting

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column ... a_media-0/

The dude increased literacy rates from 10% to 85%. So, it's not all bad. He's no worse than many Western leaders. ^^

And Saddam Hussein had very agreeable views on women's rights and secular government. Mustard gas attacks against the Kurds canceled all the good out - as do most of Q/K/Gadhafi's actions.

Not everything in this world revolves around the Kurdes....

[Levellass]

Saddam was very good for Iraq. You gotta ask yourself what was saddam up against. He was in charge of a joke of a country that should never have been built. An authoritarian government is the only sort of government that can hold that thing in place - it barely functions today, and that's thanks to a foreign presence. Would any other government have done something different? The Kurds have always wanted to break off. I think they should, but as a president one has the responsibility to keep the country intact. At any rate, Turkey has done far worse things to the Kurds, displacing millions and killing several times as many as Saddam - yet the US praises and aids those efforts.

There are two points here, first as possibly noted above, nobody is all bad, Hitler was great for Germany reviving the economy, expanding its territories, getting it out of what was quite frankly a terribly unfair treaty and making it a great military power. He was hailed across the world, even as he moved into Poland. had he not kept on invading I am sure he could have died (Of syphilis no doubt.) a respected statesman.

Nobody is all good or all bad, often colonial governments held countries together that fell apart after they left, brutal conquerors have revitalized countries and raised huge empires while good people have governed a country into the ground.

The question also arises how much he is to blame for the good and the bad, did he intend to raise literacy rates or was that something that just happened as an added bonus.


The second point is that good for a country is not the same as morally good. Saddam did things that had positive outcomes, but was he himself a good person> Could he have governed better? (We don't know, maybe the country would have fallen apart, maybe he would have lead a revolution, sweeping the arab world and leading to a new period of freedom and prosperity.)

In the end, I personally believe certain actions are worth condemnation. If you have raped or murdered no amount of giving to charity and going to church is going to make up for it. (Aah yes but those pedophile priests did so much *good* in the community!) In the end they may have done some good, but everyone does and I still condemn them.

One can say that this regime is bad, that regime is bad, or whatever you want. One thing however is certain, and that is that stability is better than chaos.

Not really, ordered death camps for example are not better than a chaotic arrangement of small villages with no central planned economy. It all depends on what's going on. Possibly you mean 'one guy kill whoever he wants is better than everyone killing all over the place.'

[Snortimer]

My predictions:

This will cause the dismantling of the African Union. Gaddafi was its main financial supporter, and as a result, it was one of the only international organizations that came out backing him in this civil war. The embattled African Union troops in Somalia will leave, and the Islamic Courts will gain power again there.

The Saudi royal family hates Gaddafi, and it was because of them that the Arab League supported Western military intervention (certainly not because they care about democracy - at the same time, they sent their army to suppress similar protests in Bahrain). However, they know that their population is anti-Western (a trend they helped along by funding Wahabbism teachings in the Arab world), so they're playing both sides by now pretending that they were misunderstood.

The end result will be governments in Libya and Somalia that are allies of the Saudi royal family, as well as probably some nice oil contracts for France, the US and Britain.

[MOM4Evr]

In the end, I personally believe certain actions are worth condemnation. If you have raped or murdered no amount of giving to charity and going to church is going to make up for it.

Bingo. Which is why it's so great that Christianity isn't a works-based religion.

[Deltamatic]

Hopefully this topic will not suddenly become a theological flamewar.

[thehackercat]

Hopefully this topic will not suddenly become a theological flamewar.

Oh boy. Especially since discussing "good" and "bad" really stirs up theological discussion. I vote to keep theology out of it.

[BlueGasMask]

Hopefully this topic will not suddenly become a theological flamewar.

Oh boy. Especially since discussing "good" and "bad" really stirs up theological discussion. I vote to keep theology out of it.

here, here. and i'm not even here.

[DHeadshot]

On a lighter note, Gaddafi compared those that oppose him to Hitler. I call Godwin's Law!

[Scarlet]

hackercat - your avatar is too wide.

The end result will be governments in Libya and Somalia that are allies of the Saudi royal family, as well as probably some nice oil contracts for France, the US and Britain.

In all honesty I think that they're gonna do what they did to Serbia. Just bomb the place to smithereens, hitting primarily civilian targets. Then when Gadafi is still around, they'll pump in millions of dollars to the opposition and call that a democratic movement.
But, suppose they don't bomb Gadafi out of power. What then?

He is popular in some parts of the country - so even if there was democracy and if he had his own political party, then that party would be winning in certain places. Which is not unusual, considering some of his social policies - giving students huge scholarships if they bother to go to university for example.

The second point is that good for a country is not the same as morally good. Saddam did things that had positive outcomes, but was he himself a good person> Could he have governed better? (We don't know, maybe the country would have fallen apart, maybe he would have lead a revolution, sweeping the arab world and leading to a new period of freedom and prosperity.)

Well, when a country is built to fail (the british divided Iraq up that way), then there are naturally gonna be problems.

Be it Iraq or Libya or any place... if a part of the country has an armed uprising what are you gonna do?

In the end, I personally believe certain actions are worth condemnation. If you have raped or murdered no amount of giving to charity and going to church is going to make up for it.

Hm, I think Soviet troops did that when they came into Germany. And they're the good guys in that episode.
I mean yeah, it's bad, but if you win that's what matters. The commoner is just expendable. It's amazing... here in the city in some parts police go because of reports of cats being run over. Yet at the same time people are being killed in the ghettos. Even here in the West animals have more importance than people, depending on weather or not they're from a part that's a winner or from a part that's a loser. :/ Sucks. But that's how things work I think.









The US has wasted over 100 million dollars in rockets in the first hour or two of their attack. I think it's a waste of money?
They're bombing their air defense system (and who knows what else? time will tell) - but how is the air defense system related to this conflict? It's not far fetched to call this a crusade, I think.

[Snortimer]

The end result will be governments in Libya and Somalia that are allies of the Saudi royal family, as well as probably some nice oil contracts for France, the US and Britain.

In all honesty I think that they're gonna do what they did to Serbia. Just bomb the place to smithereens, hitting primarily civilian targets. Then when Gadafi is still around, they'll pump in millions of dollars to the opposition and call that a democratic movement.

Hm. I dunno, what do they get out of it? They're broke as it is, not like the 1990s when they had money to throw at things like this.

What did they get from bombing Serbia, for that matter? The West generally still supports Kosovo over Serbia, but it looks like even the Council of Europe has gotten tired of that mafia state's shenanigans lately, as they accused Kosovo's Prime Minister of leading an organ trafficking ring.

I guess the one positive for them may've been making Serbia afraid to be seen as being too close to Russia.

In this case, Saudi Arabia seems to have more to gain than anyone else. Heck, all this instability is great for them; they've filled the oil gap that Libya has left behind.

For that matter, what's with America having all of these "allies" that are at the same time working to stab them in the back? There's Saudi Arabia, which stands against everything that the US was founded on and has been funding radical ideology (Wahabbism) for decades, and there's Pakistan, whose murky secret services are funding terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and India.

Is it the principle of "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"?

[DHeadshot]

Well, when a country is built to fail (the british divided Iraq up that way), then there are naturally gonna be problems.

Hey! Is it so wrong to divide up a landmass with a ruler!

[Levellass]

Bingo. Which is why it's so great that Christianity isn't a works-based religion.

I don't see why. [my religion] is clearly the only true faith, and the only one that promotes true peace and understanding. (Granted, some [my religion]ists advocate wars and prejudice and suchlike, but they're not *real* [my religion]ists.) I especially hate [Other religion]ists, they're so violent and vile, in their big, expensive [religious buildings] while ordinary people are starving. And they're totally out of touch and hypocritical.

[Snortimer]

By the way, by the standards of the UN Human Development Index, Gaddafi is actually the best leader in Africa. Notice that Libya is the only "green" country on the continent.

Sure, he has oil. But Nigeria and Sudan have oil too, and look where they are.

[kuliwil]

Bingo. Which is why it's so great that Christianity isn't a works-based religion.

I don't see why. [my religion] is clearly the only true faith, and the only one that promotes true peace and understanding. (Granted, some [my religion]ists advocate wars and prejudice and suchlike, but they're not *real* [my religion]ists.) I especially hate [Other religion]ists, they're so violent and vile, in their big, expensive [religious buildings] while ordinary people are starving. And they're totally out of touch and hypocritical.

, LL, you rock.