Gaddafi Killed As Libya's Revolt Claims Hometown |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaddafi killed as Libya's revolt claims hometown
Honestly I rather the thread to get a thorough cleaning on the bickering than lock, since this topic will be about for a while.
Am I the only one that sees a slight resemblance to the King of the Cosmos and Gaddafi? That's enough of that... Topicbans issued.
Quote: I seem to remember the US being involved in bringing Saddam Hussein into power with weaponry. Osama also with ties to the CIA. He'd be considered blowback. It seems to me that the US has had a hand in creating these "creatures we're better off without". This assumes that if we stayed out of foreign affairs that dictators wouldn't rise and islamic fundamentalism wouldn't be the flavor of the month. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Quote: I seem to remember the US being involved in bringing Saddam Hussein into power with weaponry. Osama also with ties to the CIA. He'd be considered blowback. It seems to me that the US has had a hand in creating these "creatures we're better off without". This assumes that if we stayed out of foreign affairs that dictators wouldn't rise and islamic fundamentalism wouldn't be the flavor of the month. Honestly I think we'd be screwed either way. Okay lets get some views and opinions in here.
Libyans will determine whether Moammar Gadhafi’s reported death today ultimately marks a new, more hopeful beginning for their nation, or simply another milepost on the brutal road they’ve been traveling for four decades. Gadhafi’s demise is undoubtedly a gain for them and for the world. But will it be augmented by strides toward democracy and peace, or negated by the rise of a new strong man in his place? After NATO’s most successful, European-led military mission, where does the alliance go from here? Libya's civil war lasted 247 days, feb 15 - oct 20, and during this time america undoubtedly got involved.
You do the math, US spent more than the other 3 countries combined as of may-july. Do you think that the United States gets too involved with wars? Also:
The Casualties and Losses sickens me :( 30,000 isnt that bad, especially for an African conflict, sadly.
I was extremely displeased when Obama ordered airstrikes in Libya, I don't want to see any US military involvement anywhere in Africa. The US definitely spent too much money on Libya, I would have liked to have seen France and England spend more, and I'm sure that by October 2011 they had pulled ahead of the US. Now that NATO is pulling out, I hope that Libya can get some elections goin, otherwise, this was just a huge waste of money. Curious as to why you used those numbers. It's obvious that you got your information from the Wiki and decided to use the early numbers so you could make a statement about how much more we spent. Estimates I have read put us at spending $2 billion but that's not even close to other nations' spending combined when if you look at the numbers right below the ones you used on the Wiki page it says the UK alone spent $1.5 billion alone by Sept.
Shiva.Viciousss said: » 30,000 isnt that bad, especially for an African conflict, sadly. I was extremely displeased when Obama ordered airstrikes in Libya, I don't want to see any US military involvement anywhere in Africa. The US definitely spent too much money on Libya, I would have liked to have seen France and England spend more, and I'm sure that by October 2011 they had pulled ahead of the US. Now that NATO is pulling out, I hope that Libya can get some elections goin, otherwise, this was just a huge waste of money. Look at a map. Look at the US. Now look at the size of the UK and France. Now look up the GDP. Now look at the money spent. You really want smaller countries spending just as much as yours? lol. Shiva.Xellith said: » Look at a map. Look at the US. Now look at the size of the UK and France. Now look up the GDP. Now look at the money spent. You really want smaller countries spending just as much as yours? lol. Actually I want them spending more. Most of Africa's problems can be traced back to France/England, so let them foot the bill for cleaning it up. trucido said: » Curious as to why you used those numbers. It's obvious that you got your information from the Wiki and decided to use the early numbers so you could make a statement about how much more we spent. Estimates I have read put us at spending $2 billion but that's not even close to other nations' spending combined when if you look at the numbers right below the ones you used on the Wiki page it says the UK alone spent $1.5 billion alone by Sept. Honestly just wanted to provide some points for people to talk about to recover from the derailment last night. That table was the quickest thing to use instead of reading everything and researching, so my mistake on using it. Quetzalcoatl.Pyroelf said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Quote: I seem to remember the US being involved in bringing Saddam Hussein into power with weaponry. Osama also with ties to the CIA. He'd be considered blowback. It seems to me that the US has had a hand in creating these "creatures we're better off without". This assumes that if we stayed out of foreign affairs that dictators wouldn't rise and islamic fundamentalism wouldn't be the flavor of the month. Honestly I think we'd be screwed either way. We very well would be. About the cost of the Libya conflict: It's very likely that the Libyans will pay the countries that participated back the money spent given they have billions in frozen assets. Shiva.Viciousss said: » Shiva.Xellith said: » Look at a map. Look at the US. Now look at the size of the UK and France. Now look up the GDP. Now look at the money spent. You really want smaller countries spending just as much as yours? lol. Actually I want them spending more. Most of Africa's problems can be traced back to France/England, so let them foot the bill for cleaning it up. Yet, when those colonies were left to their own devices, most of them went to hell in a hand basket. :/ Just saying... This is just kinda weird..
His body is on display in a freezer. Quote: MISRATA, Libya (AP) — Moammar Gadhafi's blood-streaked body was on display in a commercial freezer at a shopping center Friday as Libyan authorities argued about what to do with his remains and questions deepened over official accounts of the longtime dictator's death. New video emerged of his violent, chaotic last moments, showing fighters beating him as they drag him away. Nearly every aspect of Thursday's killing of Gadhafi was mired in confusion, a sign of the difficulties ahead for Libya. Its new rulers are disorganized, its people embittered and divided. But the ruling National Transitional Council said it would declare the country's liberation on Saturday, the starting point for a timetable that calls for a new interim government within a month and elections within eight months. The top U.N. rights chief raised concerns that Gadhafi may have been shot to death after being captured alive. The fate of his body seemed tied up in squabbles among Libya's factions, as fighters from Misrata — a city brutally besieged by Gadhafi's forces during the civil war — seemed to claim ownership of it, forcing the delay of a planned burial Friday. I understand preserving the body until they can figure out what to do with it, it's the on display and in a shopping center that seem weird to me. The guy was a tyrant in your country for decades, is responsible for the deaths of countless innocent people and seemed invincible to the common uneducated folk.
What better way to show everyone the evil is dead than to display him for all to see? Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » The guy was a tyrant in your country for decades, is responsible for the deaths of countless innocent people and seemed invincible to the common uneducated folk. What better way to show everyone the evil is dead than to display him for all to see? Maybe it's just me though but generally after someone is already dead I see it as pretty disgusting to parade their body around or mutilate it or anything of that sort. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » The guy was a tyrant in your country for decades, is responsible for the deaths of countless innocent people and seemed invincible to the common uneducated folk. What better way to show everyone the evil is dead than to display him for all to see? Psycho Slip said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » The guy was a tyrant in your country for decades, is responsible for the deaths of countless innocent people and seemed invincible to the common uneducated folk. What better way to show everyone the evil is dead than to display him for all to see? So if you were terrorized by a brutal dictator, had limited education and lived under a cloak of fear you wouldn't want to make sure said brutal dictator is dead? Somehow I find that difficult to believe. Trucido said: What better way to show that they've moved on than give him a burial. I understand if they want to celebrate their new country but parading a body around isn't going to be smiled upon by any government or international organization because all it does is show the content of their character. You don't see America putting Osama on display or Iraq putting Saddam on display. You're speaking from the western mindset. This guy has terrorized his country for years, killed people in droves and has been directly responsible for the destruction of many people's families you see parading in the streets. Are we really going to fault these people for relishing revenge that has lay dormant for nearly half a century? Sure, it may be in poor taste for us westerners to see a mans body paraded around but for many citizens this was justice. The invincible Gaddafi has been reduced to a tattered, bloody lump of his old tyrranical self and now the thirst for revenge has been sated, I hope for the country to move on to more productive goals - like rebuilding. nothing like getting a guy 45 years late.
few more years and time would've taken him out. Ragnarok.Beef said: » nothing like getting a guy 45 years late. few more years and time would've taken him out. He was setting up one of his sons as his successor, though. The reference isn't perfectly synonymous, but how is it any different than viewing the execution of someone who raped and murdered your family?
Fenrir.Schutz said: » Ragnarok.Beef said: » nothing like getting a guy 45 years late. few more years and time would've taken him out. He was setting up one of his sons as his successor, though. he was, but there was also internal conflict between some of his sons about who would be next. i heard even one of his sons were somewhat favorable and even spoke out against his father's governing. Who's to say I'd want to view the execution?
In answer to the first question, believe it or not, I don't really care if you do.. Pictures and news would suffice, I wouldn't need to see the body up close. What good would seeing the body in person do? It's not like it proves it's not just a hoax, or that it really is him. I have to take their word for the fact that person in the pictures really is him and he is really dead, just as much as I have to take their word for the same when I look at the body personally.. Gaddafi was known to have doubles, even if the dead person right in front of me looks like him, it doesn't mean it is. Seeing the body proves nothing, it proves no more than pictures circulating or the reports of his death. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Psycho Slip said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » The guy was a tyrant in your country for decades, is responsible for the deaths of countless innocent people and seemed invincible to the common uneducated folk. What better way to show everyone the evil is dead than to display him for all to see? So if you were terrorized by a brutal dictator, had limited education and lived under a cloak of fear you wouldn't want to make sure said brutal dictator is dead? Somehow I find that difficult to believe. Trucido said: What better way to show that they've moved on than give him a burial. I understand if they want to celebrate their new country but parading a body around isn't going to be smiled upon by any government or international organization because all it does is show the content of their character. You don't see America putting Osama on display or Iraq putting Saddam on display. You're speaking from the western mindset. This guy has terrorized his country for years, killed people in droves and has been directly responsible for the destruction of many people's families you see parading in the streets. Are we really going to fault these people for relishing revenge that has lay dormant for nearly half a century? Sure, it may be in poor taste for us westerners to see a mans body paraded around but for many citizens this was justice. The invincible Gaddafi has been reduced to a tattered, bloody lump of his old tyrranical self and now the thirst for revenge has been sated, I hope for the country to move on to more productive goals - like rebuilding. Also I wouldn't characterize this as a "western mindset" as much as a mindset of someone who wasn't a victim of what they suffered through. It's strange that after something like the Haiti earthquake people would remark on how people in America could get just as ugly as some Haitians did towards themselves but when I draw a parallel between how Iraqis treated Saddam and how Libyans treated Qaddafi it's summed up as "You're a Westerner you don't understand". It's not a Western thing, it's a "people reacting to the end of suffering in a different way" thing. Psycho Slip said: » Who's to say I'd want to view the execution? In answer to the first question, believe it or not, I don't really care if you do.. Pictures and news would suffice, I wouldn't need to see the body up close. What good would seeing the body in person do? It's not like it proves it's not just a hoax, or that it really is him. I have to take their word for the fact that person in the pictures really is him and he is really dead, just as much as I have to take their word for the same when I look at the body personally.. Gaddafi was known to have doubles, even if the dead person right in front of me looks like him, it doesn't mean it is. Seeing the body proves nothing, it proves no more than pictures circulating or the reports of his death. You aren't living in a society where for many uneducated folk seeing is believing. Education is king and when you're denied it, spectacles like Gaddafi's body being dragged through the streets are what you'll get out of people. Couple that with distrust of the rebel news wires and there is no surprise here. How many times did the rebels claim to have Saif or the other brothers? How many times did the rebels claim to control cities that were actually still contested? I can sympathize with the people who wanted to make sure this scumbag was dead as much as I can sympathize with your situation yet in the context of angry Libyans the conclusion is that many of these people are likely still in shock that Gaddafi is dead and through confusion, disbelief or emotional closure want to see the tyrant. Closure will come to some and still others will feel he got off too easy yet in time what really matters is the future of the country which has yet to be seen. trucido said: But the very post you quoted had an example of a country handling it in a different manner. Saddam terrorized his people for decades all the same and the Iraqis executed him and that was it. There was no parading of his corpse. Getting caught up in your emotions isn't an excuse for your actions to a corpse. It just makes them look like savages. The only reason Saddam had a trial was because we (the USA) wanted to show him Western style justice where he gets a fair trial, presents his evidence and is "innocent until proven guilty". In actuality we all know the whole thing was a kangaroo court. Had the Iraqis got a hold of him, the outcome would have likely been similar to old Gaddafi. A thrashing by the public followed by a brutal end via the angry mob. Quote: Also I wouldn't characterize this as a "western mindset" as much as a mindset of someone who wasn't a victim of what they suffered through. It's strange that after something like the Haiti earthquake people would remark on how people in America could get just as ugly as some Haitians did towards themselves but when I draw a parallel between how Iraqis treated Saddam and how Libyans treated Qaddafi it's summed up as "You're a Westerner you don't understand". It's not a Western thing, it's a "people reacting to the end of suffering in a different way" thing. I characterize it as a western mindset because we assume that individuals have access to the education of our legal proceedings regarding people who commit crimes. This is Libya, not the US. When the madman who ruled your country with an iron fist is essentially mocking you (and your dead) by begging for his life after everything he's done over the years is it any surprise in the confusion someone decided to end his life? Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Couple that with distrust of the rebel news wires and there is no surprise here. How many times did the rebels claim to have Saif or the other brothers? How many times did the rebels claim to control cities that were actually still contested? i think that's what you call propaganda to boost morale. Shiva.Viciousss said: » Shiva.Xellith said: » Look at a map. Look at the US. Now look at the size of the UK and France. Now look up the GDP. Now look at the money spent. You really want smaller countries spending just as much as yours? lol. Actually I want them spending more. Most of Africa's problems can be traced back to France/England, so let them foot the bill for cleaning it up. So a country goes bad = the former occupier should foot the bill? So a country goes well = the former occupier should get a slice of the profits? Is that how it works? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|