Was the Libyan revolution necessary? - General

snip

people where being murdered under rule of a tyrant leader that funding terrorist organisations like the IRA, taliban, al queda, etc he was in power for 40 odd years and did terrible things to his people it was pretty necessary

A revolution in a totalitarian state ran by a lunatic despot is always necessary.

Rights usually trump economics. That can be seen throughout history

I highly doubt if they're were so happy that the majority of them would have fought against him. People don't start civil wars for shits and giggles you know.

gee what're these people rebelling about???? THERE'S NO ALCOHOL HOW MUCH BETTER COULD THEY HAVE IT??? yeah no it was like mad necessary.

The last thing the world needs is another theocracy.

Indeed it was, we had to secure the oil somehow. Anyway, sure it was needed, Gadaffi killed his own people for fuck's sake. But I can't really say their new government is any better since it's under sharia law and they already executed Gadaffi's supporters. I'm not sure if it will become any better, but time will tell.

snip

[QUOTE=XanaToast.;33027880]people where being murdered under rule of a tyrant leader that funding terrorist organisations like the IRA, taliban, al queda, etc he was in power for 40 odd years and did terrible things to his people it was pretty necessary[/QUOTE] But he hated Al Qaeda

[QUOTE=Milkie;33028239]I agree that he was out of his mind executing his own people. But at the same time he offered luxury to any Libyan. Couldn't the folks just accept his rule? I mean the government instantly found a job for anyone who graduated high school/university. Were the people socially weak or they were forced to do work? As forced, I mean work or get shot. Was Gadaffi batshit insane, just killing civilians for the kicks? There must be another reason why people started mass protests after one man set himself on fire.[/QUOTE] "Luxury" ? Are you shitting me ? Dubai is Luxury, and even there most of the actual local population has the shitty underpaid jobs while foreigners have all the money and the nice apartments paid by a nice job. Libya might be rich thanks to all the oil, but the people wasn't touching a single penny out of it. [editline]29th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Milkie;33028239]There must be another reason why people started mass protests after one man set himself on fire.[/QUOTE] The guy originally set himself on fire because he didn't have any job and couldn't find any. To the economical reason was added ideological ones and maybe some religion. There is a reason why a revolution in Tunisia spread so fast in Egypt and then Libya (plus a lot of other various countries including Syria) - they were concerned as well.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33028604] The guy originally set himself on fire because he didn't have any job and couldn't find any. To the economical reason was added ideological ones and maybe some religion. [/QUOTE] Actually he set himself on fire because a female police officer arrested him, and he was unable to tolerate equality of the sexes.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33028771]Actually he set himself on fire because a female police officer arrested him, and he was unable to tolerate equality of the sexes.[/QUOTE] She was so hot he ignited.

Libyans might have received money at different times in their lives, but Libya is an extremely rich country. There is quite a bit of oil there, and Gaddafi took most of the money for himself. Imagine if all that money was spend on bettering the lives of the Libyans. Also, he was a genocidal dictator.

This brings back to the question: [url]http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/19813/[/url]

Those are some interesting figures. I will admit wholly that I know nothing about Gadaffi's regime, but I can say from what I saw during the uprising that the rebels seemed to pretty fucking bad in the way of progressiveness. It's hard to imagine anything worse than a government set up by people who gleefully tote weapons and kill others, who drag their ex-leader around by a rope in some sort of disturbing parade, who's rebellion seems to have been made popular via facebook (always a great place to have discourse on important topics) and other social media. All in all, it seems like this whole thing is disturbingly tied to infotainment and mass-social media. I think it may have happened differently, or at least be perceived a lot differently if everyone involved didn't have some sort of camera or other recording device (ie blogs, facebook, youtube) pointing at them the whole time, in addition to these cameras coming with directors in the form of "reporters" framing the story in a way that increases ratings. I'm looking at you, HLN.

Necessary? No. But you could argue that many things aren't necessary, but in the end the rebels lost what chance they had to hold him accountable for his crimes. In many ways he was let off easy.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;33027911]Rights usually trump economics. That can be seen throughout history[/QUOTE] The screaming for rights is also conversely caused by economics.

Regardless of the good he did for the country, oppression should never be stood for. Hitler turned Germany from a shithole with no economy to speak of to one of the strongest military, economic, and scientific powers of the time in like 20 years, does that mean he never should have been ousted?

It would be a paradise to live in, if it wasn't for you know the murdering of its own citizens.

[QUOTE=Fables;33031381]The screaming for rights is also conversely caused by economics.[/QUOTE] Silly Marxist. What I meant to say is that people would rather have rights and than the economic advantages.

I think it was very much necessary, Gaddafi was not only evil, he was insane as well. You can't let a megalomaniac stay in power like that, it's not going to benefit anyone

[QUOTE=sp00ks;33028968]Libyans might have received money at different times in their lives, but Libya is an extremely rich country. There is quite a bit of oil there, and Gaddafi took most of the money for himself. Imagine if all that money was spend on bettering the lives of the Libyans. Also, he was a genocidal dictator.[/QUOTE] A lot of the money was actually spend on improving the life of the Libyans. Free healthcare, education etc. Libya was very socialistic. Ghadaffi used the oil revenues to keep Libya by far the most developed country in Africa. Make no mistake, on terms of human developement Libya was doing very well. It was far from a third world chesspool, far more developed than many Eastern countries like Russia or Bulgaria for example. I remember reading that France and England were already signing oil contracts with the NTC, the kind of worries me. Money that directly went to the Libyan poeple could disappear in the accounts of Western fat cats.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;33035254]Silly Marxist. What I meant to say is that people would rather have rights and than the economic advantages.[/QUOTE] Generally revolutions begin not because the people can't vote or hold public meetings, but because they have no bread in their bellies. This was especially true for 1789, 1848 and 1917. In these times there were famines/food shortages, the latter being artificially caused as the railways bringing in food to the cities of Russia broke down under the strain of war and were unable to transport the food.

Another question is whether the new government will be better than the old. It's not unusual for revolutionaries to become the new tyrants. What measures are going to be put in place to prevent this?

So much bias in this thread. I understand Gadaffi wasn't the best leader, but the question you should be really asking is "Should we have intervened and allowed the revolution to succeed."

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;33037628]So much bias in this thread. I understand Gadaffi wasn't the best leader, but the question you should be really asking is "Should we have intervened and allowed the revolution to succeed."[/QUOTE] Not at all, the only reason for intervention is so the capitalists can get their hands on the Libyan oil. Whenever politicians say its to protect human rights or that, generally they are telling lies.

Lets see, if you're group of people is being murdered in mass numbers by a tyrant corrupt whom is also hording all the money in the country and you're starving to death as well ,do you think it's time things change?

FP needs to stop being so biased thinking Gaddafi ate small children in his basement. Just letting you know that Rebels were bunch of unorganized monkeys who often killed each other with friendly fire, especially with mortars.

there was footage of children who were bombed by NATO rushed to the hospital but the clip got banned