Why do you hate Gaddafi?

[New Werpland]

In tradition of my earlier "why do you hate Obama" thread (https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=329059), I present Why do you hate Gaddafi? I know Muammar Gaddafi was the mad dog of Africa, who tortured thousands of political activists and watched his citizens closely. But he also did some relatively good things, under Gaddafi Libya did become relatively modern. Infrastructure was built, people went to college, stuff like that. And from what I hear on Wikipedia one of his brothers did openly criticize him for his human rights abuse history. What I really want to say is that the Middle East and Africa is in some cases better of under dictatorship than under democracy (especially the dictator is more on the benevolent side like Gaddafi in opposition to Idi Amin). In Africa democracies tend to undergo civil war and tension, while in the Muslim world democracies almost inevitably lead to a Islamist administration coming to power. For a country in these places to be western and stable, it needs to have a strong central government. I certainly don't commend Gaddafi, he was obviously a flawed leader, but some places need a dictator. Now let the hate and spam begin

[Alcase]

At this point I'd say Libya was better off with him than without him.

[New Werpland]

At this point I'd say Libya was better off with him than without him.

I forgot to include mention of Libya's current situation in the op.

[Al Nahar]

He was crazy and an idiot but never the less better than this shithole that is taking over Libya. As for clothes go he had more style than any current leaders.

[Benuty]

Bit of an eccentric...then again don't all dictators have some form of it?

[Saiwania]

He was too lenient, he should've been more harsh like Stalin. This weakness in leadership allowed him to be overthrown.

[Benuty]

He was too lenient, he should've been more harsh like Stalin. This weakness in leadership allowed him to be overthrown.

There wouldn't be a Libya if they tried to be just like them.

[Angleter]

The man was basically a real-life Bond villain in charge of an entire country. Do I like the way Libya's gone since his downfall? No. But that doesn't automatically make him a good leader who deserved to continue in office for the rest of his life before handing power on to his spiv son.

[Greater Nevadian Empire]

At this point I'd say Libya was better off with him than without him.

If Libya still had a King, there would not be as much violence going on in the country. Arab countries with kings, for example Morocco, Qatar, Oman, and Jordan, stay out of the violence of many nearby countries without monarchs or if the monarchy was overthrown (take Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Syria, Yemen).

[Stormwrath]

I'd say that Gadaffi did some good things for his country, however his biggest flaw so far is that he has a delusion that his people love him, which became apparent when the Libyan Civil War broke out.

[United Provinces of Swaziland]

Muammar Gaddafi was certainly insane and his sense of fashion wasn't the best but his country was in a better position under his rule than today when it has been overrun by sectarianism and religious extremism. The victors in the Libyan Civil War were unreasonably optimistic to say the least.

[The Black Forrest]

Why would I hate a dead man?

[Benuty]

Why would I hate a dead man?

If Jerry Falwell could speak ill of the dead why can't you?

[The Black Forrest]

Why would I hate a dead man?

If Jerry Falwell could speak ill of the dead why can't you?

Who?

[Benuty]

If Jerry Falwell could speak ill of the dead why can't you?

Who?

Oh you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I

[Uawc]

At this point I'd say Libya was better off with him than without him.

Not just Libya, but Africa. He had plans for uniting the continent and seriously improving its economic development.

[Benuty]

At this point I'd say Libya was better off with him than without him.

Not just Libya, but Africa. He had plans for uniting the continent and seriously improving its economic development.

Given the man ruled Libya for 40 some years...what was taking so long?

[The Black Forrest]

Who?

Oh you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I

Who?

[United Provinces of Swaziland]

At this point I'd say Libya was better off with him than without him.

Not just Libya, but Africa. He had plans for uniting the continent and seriously improving its economic development.

It doesn't matter whether he ''had plans'' to unify the African continent; as Benuty said he ruled for over forty years and did not achieve it showing it's downright impossible to unify this continent.

[Surah-Ana]

A state of relative stability is always better than a state of relative chaos.

[NeoManila]

Clothes are so tacky.
And his beard sucks.








Screw his hobbit army too.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I don't hate him. It is a sin to hate anyone. I dislike him because he was a socialist. He was somewhat like Stalin.

[The United Territories of Providence]

You know who wears sunglasses indoors? Dicks.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Why do you hate Gaddafi?

Muammar Gaddafi was the mad dog of Africa, who tortured thousands of political activists and watched his citizens closely.

You're off to a pretty good start there.

[Madiganistan]

At this point I'd say Libya was better off with him than without him.

A state of relative stability is always better than a state of relative chaos.

Civil liberty and representative democracy are byproducts of an (comparatively speaking) authoritarian period of development-- there's no community today that champions the aforesaid values that didn't first evolve out of a centrally organized system (Anyone whom wants to try and offer 'Murica as a counterpoint should explore East Coast history prior to 1776 and the way early pioneer expeditions were sanctioned and organized thereafter).

That's why I grieve over the postwar global community's hasty rush for decolonization-- colonial economic and infrastructural designs were certainly suited to serve the interests of the host nation, but the host country is also the one best-equipped to transition those broken, manipulated economies into functionally self-sufficient ones (the American plan for the Filipino transition to independence vis-a-vis the Commonwealth Era is a one of the better examples of this working out).

Hurried de facto independence allowed several underdeveloped societies to continue struggling, and "global" efforts to try and mitigate that damage (HIPC relief, etc.) are muddied by the self-interested concerns of both the overlybureaucratized developed creditors and the powers-that-be in ever-shifting debtor nations-- a direct bilateral relationship between colonizer and colony focuses on a long-term plan for self-reliant independence can set realistic, circumstantially-specific goals that can be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Globally designated criteria attempts to bureaucratize individual cultural circumstance. It can't be done.

Of course, this creates a moral dilemma in the case of asking individuals to postpone their national autonomy. Then again, in the case of Gaddafi and so many others, when independence is rushed a more culturally compatible authoritarian power-broker is happy to fill the newfound power vacuum.