7

What really was the problem with the late Gaddafi's Leadership as the president of Libya. What possibly would have led NATO signatories (UK,US and Britain) to be all over His rule and yet the citizens were happy (most of them) ; like everything was okay as far as the living standards of the people, the free education and the rich oil resource. Wasn't he a Benevolent Dictator if dictatorship was anything to go by?

  • 6
    No he was batshit crazy and vicious, even compared to other dictators. But of course, NATO and its member countries did not see fit to go after him during the many years of his rules including some periods during which he was more of a nuisance on the international stage so that doesn't fully explain the military intervention either. – Relaxed Oct 13 '15 at 15:48
  • I was wondering why Him and yet The Zimbabwean counterpart is a filthy dictator and the country is miserable what is the motivation behind NATO intervening Gadafis Rule and he is not the worst so to speak – mykey Oct 13 '15 at 15:57
  • 1
    Mugabe is just one step behind, he is certainly a pariah. Nobody is considering military action but there are countless dictators that have an easier relationship with the west than Mugabe. In that case, it's not the only reason but distance is certainly a factor. That said, as I have already noted, you are definitely right that there is a lot of arbitrariness in this and that there are many other very bad dictators out there. But that's a completely different thing than implying that there was nothing wrong with Gaddafi or that he was “benevolent”. – Relaxed Oct 13 '15 at 17:39
  • 1
    For once, neither the NATO nor the USA did not start the overthrow of Gadaffi. It started as an internal revolt by the citizens that "loved him so much" (IIRC because of the brutal repression of a mutiny in a prison). Some countries in the NATO had one or two "pending issues" with Gadafi and used the situation in their favour, but they did only help the people that already had rebelled against Gadaffi. Since it is a pretty recent event, probably you can check the newspapers of these days yourself over the net. – SJuan76 Oct 13 '15 at 17:40
  • 1
    Gaddafi was benevolent in the same way as God is supposed to be as long as you stick to his religion. If you don't, then all hell will break loose (take e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah). – Count Iblis Oct 13 '15 at 22:27
0

In a nutshell, Gaddafi was too damn good. He was not a U.S. puppet and in fact worked to counter U.S. imperialism. Gaddafi was the most prominent spokesman for African unity.

And it gets worse...

Under Gaddafi's "dictatorship," Libya boasted the highest or second highest standard of living in Africa. The U.S. has a long history of destroying countries that are too successful or too just.

There are still more possibilities. For example, people from various African countries migrated to Libya in search of work and a better life. From what I've read, Libya wasn't noticeably racist before the CIA-backed rebellion.

Some think the French wanted Gaddafi dead because of his satellite project, which would have diverted a lot of money from France (and made Africa more independent at the same time).

Another interesting thing to research is Gaddafi's Green Revolution, or whatever it's called. He wanted to turn Libya into Africa's breadbasket. Again, that would have made Africa more independent and therefore less dependent on phony welfare from capitalist crooks like Bill Gates. One might also ask if Monsanto felt threatened by Gaddafi's venture. (Monstanto, of course, is the power behind genetically modified food, and Bill Gates is GMO's most prominent spokesman.)

I'm sorry your question got so many downvotes; this forum is heavily infested with propagandists. I joined just a couple days ago, and I'm seriously wondering if it's worth sticking around. They either need to clean up their act or rename it propaganda.stackexchange.com.

Case in point: The comments about Gaddafi's "viciousness" are utterly absurd. I did a lot of research on Gaddafi's crimes and was amazed at how difficult it was to find credible evidence of any substantial misdeeds.

The anti-Gaddafi propaganda isn't hard to find, though. The claim that he gave his troops Viagra in the hope that they would rape innocent women is about as believable as the story about Iraqi troops yanking babies out of incubators in Kuwait. Another story claims Gaddafi had a crush on Condoleeza Rice. The source? Condoleeza Rice.

The stories got even more bizarre after Gaddafi was murdered. As a longtime political activist, I consider Gaddafi one of the greatest heroes of our generation. I'm very sad that I believed the propaganda myself until shortly before NATO destroyed Libya. My attitude quickly change when I easily verified the claim about Libya's amazingly high standard of living.

There are many more specific claims about pre-NATO Libya that I haven't yet verified. I believe college was free, and I've read many claims that newlyweds were given a monetary allowance. It's very sad that there's no website (that I know of) that accurately documents all of Gaddafi's accomplishments.

P.S. Take a screenshot of this page. I can practically guarantee your question will get more downvotes, and my answer will be deleted - with no explanation.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 1
    That satellite project is interesting to know and thanks for the link to the Dissident Voice blog. I personally felt pity for the late Gaddafi for his humiliation and assassination by the democratic world at the 21st Century . No trial no nothing. He was treated like an Alien. And No, Don't quit the 'minority' have their say.... Just saying – mykey Oct 20 '15 at 2:52
  • 3
    I don't make baseless assertions. I verified the claim about Libya's amazingly high standard of living via - drumroll - the CIA World Factbook itself. At the same time, I had an amazingly difficult time verifying his alleged evil deeds. ("What the H*ll did he do?" I kept asking myself.) The bizarre Condoleeza Rice story shouldn't be hard to verify via Google. Nor is it hard to verify claims about people from other countries moving to Libya in search of work. – David Blomstrom Oct 24 '15 at 23:21
  • 2
    One other note of interest: Thousands of Libyans didn't risk their lives at sea in a frantic bid for freedom when Gaddafi was alive. That fact by itself speaks volumes. – David Blomstrom Oct 24 '15 at 23:22
  • 2
    @ mykey - Thanks for hanging in there. But if you're new to this game, please be advised that the minority can't have their say on this website, which is a rigged game. In all honesty, I've never see a truly good online political forum. I've dreamed of creating one, but there are a few obstacles... – David Blomstrom Oct 24 '15 at 23:24
  • 3
    he's right, no explanations for the downvotes – WayneEra Nov 2 '15 at 10:39
1

The same question can be asked about what was wrong with Mubarak. Definitely Mubarak conducted pro-Western policy not only in the latest years.

Currently the West supports radical islamists in the Arab world, such as Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra front in Syria and Muslim Brotherhood. People like Gaddaffi, Mubarak, Assad are the obstacles for the islamists so the West wants them to be desposed.

With Gaddaffi additional issues were his image (the clothing, the gold-knitted uniform etc which supports the image of a "mad" dictator) and his (alleged) past deeds.

A Gaddaffi's mistake was that he thought that he could win Western favor by his loyal policy. Particularly, in the later years

  • His regime conducted torture and imprisonment on various terrorists handled to him by the West. The West used him to do things which were illegal in western countries.

  • He financially supported the pro-Western "orange revolution" in Ukraine (2004).

  • He financially supported some right-wing western politicians, like Sarkozy in France in hope they would become more friendly to him.

  • He tried to improve relations with Israel (with no success).

His son and likely successor Seif(executed recently by the new regime) had even more pro-Western attitude.

|improve this answer|||||
  • What do you mean when you say the west wants them desposed? @Anixx – mykey Oct 15 '15 at 22:08
  • 4
    This sounds more like an incoherent rant full of Russian propaganda than an actual explanation… – Relaxed Oct 15 '15 at 23:27
  • 1
    -1: this answer is full of unreferenced claims and bare-word accusations. All claims should be either backed with credible references and reworded, or completely removed. – bytebuster for Long Usernames Oct 19 '15 at 7:11
  • the US torcheres in Guantanamo Bay, today still...think about it – WayneEra Nov 2 '15 at 10:41
1

There were no real problems with Gaddafi. It was just a declared US policy change to stop supporting dictators like him.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice Cairo, Egypt June 20, 2005

For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.

http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/48328.htm

|improve this answer|||||
  • 2
    That's what she said, but is that the true motivation? – gerrit Nov 2 '15 at 15:17
  • @gerrit This is an anwer to the question. If you want to know about motivation please ask another question :-) – kaboom Nov 2 '15 at 17:41
  • So NATO spent approximately $1 billion to "support democracy"? Maybe...... they are lying... – Fermi paradox Mar 20 '19 at 19:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .