I'm pro Gadhafi. We have a friend who's spent almost 3/4 of his life in Libya and he tells us that Gadhafi has a lot of supporters because he isn't bad as what the media is making him look. It's just normal to have oppositions.. I mean, who doesn't? ALL PRESIDENTS HAVE. I strongly believe that the US and its allies should stay away from Libya, they're not in the right position to interfere. But they can't can they? God, the oil in Libya, that's all they're after all. Why the hell is the States backing up the opposition? Isn't that rather stupid? It's just like backing up criminals and what not. But anyway, I really think they're sycophants to the opposition, the US and it's allies. They want to do to Libya what they did to Iraq. Look at Iraq now? It's sabotaged, used by the Americans. The UN is useless, it's controlled by the first world countries and they're using the power of UN for their personal gains. FIGHT LIBYA, FIGHT.
Most people have been reading the New York Times too much... There is no way they can agree with you if the New York Times says something different. And they would never lie. Neeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeerrrrrr
well, a absolute power is ALWAYS bad, and as long as the revolt is really made by the people, I don't think it can be bad. though, I agree that USA and Europe attack are kinda shady, we all know that it's mainly for the oil. an UN peace mission would be ok, but all these bombings, meh
please dont catagorize american leaders into the same group as american citizans. honestly i dont really care what the hell goes down in lybia. you guys want to do civil war? your loss. you want to kill your own citizans? your loss. but i guess since america is getting involved i might as well try and state a case.
america wants oil yes, but i guess you guys dont know that lybia is only resposible for 3% of our oil. so you guys arent really a big deal to us. i guess because we try and save citizans from being bombed by there own leader we are the bad guy? hmmmm... i dont think so.
My friend told me his theory earlier today, it went something like this:
Gaddafi is currently selling oil to USA. Possibly a reason for why they haven't interfered before. Now USA supports the rebels because they believe that if they support them, the rebels will be grateful and thus be willing to keep selling oil to the US.
It was not those exact words, but that pretty much sums up his theory.
Personally, I don't have enough knowledge about the situation to make up my mind. All I know is if even half of the things the newspaper report are true, he's a very cruel man. I don't know if that means Libya's better off without him though, because I don't know much about Libya. There are situations where a cruel man can succeed with what a democracy can't.
So to summarize my post: I don't know if Gaddafi is good or bad for Libya, I just wanted to say that things aren't always as simple as you might think. Things aren't always completely right or completely wrong. Constantino might have a point, but he could also be completely wrong, and the same could be said about you, me or the media.
Also, I'm going to go slightly off-topic, I suppose.
well, a absolute power is ALWAYS bad, and as long as the revolt is really made by the people, I don't think it can be bad.
Did you know that back in ancient Rome, the Senate could, when there was trouble, appoint a dictator to rule Rome. In most cases, these dictators ruled until they felt the problem had been resolved. My point with this is that, though democracy is more fair, a dictatorship might be required in extreme cases. Back in high school, I studied and compared democracy and dictatorship for Ethics class, and as weird as it sounds, dictatorship isn't 100% bad. I'm not saying democracy is worse for Libya, I'm just saying you shouldn't just oppose him because he is a dictator. If you oppose him for his actions, however, that's just fine.
Stay away from libya? Sure, I wouldn't even dream of taking a flight to libya or anywhere near it; and I would advise everybody else to do so, because there will soon be a plane crash. Or did you think that Ghaddafi will let his son's death go unpunished?
The People of Libya want a democracy. That's why there is a military action being taken, and this wasn't the US's decision alone. The united nations made the decision. I believe there are 21 countries in total that are participating in the no fly zone, maybe more, and that's all we're doing is taking out Libya's military defenses and planes so that the citizens don't get massacred.
Did you know that back in ancient Rome, the Senate could, when there was trouble, appoint a dictator to rule Rome. In most cases, these dictators ruled until they felt the problem had been resolved. My point with this is that, though democracy is more fair, a dictatorship might be required in extreme cases. Back in high school, I studied and compared democracy and dictatorship for Ethics class, and as weird as it sounds, dictatorship isn't 100% bad. I'm not saying democracy is worse for Libya, I'm just saying you shouldn't just oppose him because he is a dictator. If you oppose him for his actions, however, that's just fine.
Dictatorships are OK if you have good leaders, but pretty much all dictatorships, at one time or another, have had some crazy dude in power that decided to kill thousands, if not millions of people. In a true democracy, (not like the US's), people hold the real power, and if a leader is not working to the people's liking, they can kick him out. The US's democracy is a representative democracy. We elect people to represent us in the lawmaking and political decisions, and it all goes to **** when the parties are involved.
Did you know that back in ancient Rome, the Senate could, when there was trouble, appoint a dictator to rule Rome.
eeeh you're right. (btw i knew ;D) I know that democracy can be extremely slow in some cases - reminds me of star wars lol. well let's say LIFETIME absoulute power is always bad. but even if it's a temporary thing it's a risky solution anyway.just think of what Caesar did. or Palpatine lololol
Did you know that back in ancient Rome, the Senate could, when there was trouble, appoint a dictator to rule Rome. In most cases, these dictators ruled until they felt the problem had been resolved. My point with this is that, though democracy is more fair, a dictatorship might be required in extreme cases. Back in high school, I studied and compared democracy and dictatorship for Ethics class, and as weird as it sounds, dictatorship isn't 100% bad. I'm not saying democracy is worse for Libya, I'm just saying you shouldn't just oppose him because he is a dictator. If you oppose him for his actions, however, that's just fine.
But in Rome, most appointed dictators became ultimate dictators and refused to step down from power...
