You seem motivated by a dislike of the West, and a belief that anyone who threatens the West has to be admirable. Do you have a high opinion of Kim Jong-il, the dictator of North Korea?
If Gadafi was everything you say he is, there would not be so much opposition to him. He is not confronted by the kind of CIA rent a mob that overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953, but by the overwhelming majority of the Libyan people.
I suspect the Commissar will now go silent for a period of, eh, call it a month or more, and then pop back in as if nothing had happened, ignoring Tom’s order.
Commissar, you need to update your schstick. You aren’t a Marxist. If you have no problem with the PRC and how they do business (repressing unions, crushing dissent and making sure that the capitalst “Fat Cat” is free to do business as he pleases, with no redress for the working class) than you are not a Marxist.
As near as I can tell, you are an authoritarian, and would have no problem with a Communist, Fascist, or Absolute Monarchy, as long as the ignorant peasants aren’t allowed a voice in what happens to them. Is that correct?
As long as the fine upstanding folks (who no doubt agree with you, being in power and all) can continue to make the rules that all others must live by (and seperate rules for themselves, as they are Ruling Class), then you have no issue.
Is that correct?
(As an aside, don’t refer to me as “friend”. I am not your friend. I do not like you. I find you personally distastateful, and your views abhorrent to the extreme.)
I generally respect any leader willing to stand up to the West, but that alone is generally not enough to make me a supporter of their government. With Gaddafi, for example, his anti-Western stance is admirable, but insufficient to make him a glorious rules. But add to that his socialism, pan-Arabism, and pan-Africanism, and you have a bona fide hero.
Actually, no. He’s anti-Western, to be sure, but I find that he is a pretty bad leader, all things considered. Not the worst we’ve seen, but his interpretation of Marxist-Leninist thought has proven to be less than ideal. Ideally, I would like to see North Korea remain a socialist state, albeit with a different form of government more along the lines of Vietnam or the PRC.
If the situation were as you claim, then Gaddafi would already be finished. And if he were overthrown by popular will, as a Communist I would be obliged to accept and respect that result… But that is not what we currently have here. At the moment, it seems that there is a pretty even divide between civilians that support Gaddafi, and civilians that would like to see him go. Here’s a recent article:
“The Associated Press (AP) news agency says it has been told Col Gaddafi’s government is arming civilian supporters to set up checkpoints in Tripoli and quash dissent. Residents who spoke to AP by phone on Saturday reported trucks of pro-Gaddafi civilians patrolling the streets.”
Hence, we do not yet know which way popular will will go on this issue. Stay tuned for the outcome, which will ultimately determine which side had greater popular support.
By “popular support” I assume you mean “more guns”.
Why is it that violent overthrow is a legitimate expression of popular will but elections aren’t? Only bullets, never ballots.
I am a socialist, but I am not a Marxist, precisely because of their willingness to use violence.
The alternative: I always admired this gentleman.
My Socialism
I have claimed that I was a socialist long before those I know in India had avowed their creed. But my socialism was natural to me and not adopted from any books. It came out of my unshakable belief in non-violence. No man could be actively non-violent and not rise against social injustice, no matter where it occurred.** Unfortunately, Western socialists have, so far as I know, believed in the necessity of violence for enforcing socialistic doctrines**.
I have always held that social justice, even unto the least and the lowliest, is impossible of attainment by force. I have further believed that it is possible by proper training of the lowliest by non-violent means to secure redress of the wrongs suffered by them. That means non-violent non-co-operation. *
Bolding mine
And it is mine as well.
Non-violence does not mean to never use force. Victims of violence such as the protesters in Libya have the right to seize weapons and to help liberate their fellow citizens. It only means that they should lay those weapons down once the liberation is complete, and not become instruments of further violence themselves.
Again, Gaddafi is a perversion of socialism. So was Marx in many ways - his economic analysis was okay for its time - not perfect, definitely not holy writ, but his political methods were what led to the rise of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.
The Khmer Rouge was so horrible, it required the Communist government of Viet Nam to step in and put an end to the atrocities.
That is the legacy of Marxism.
True socialism can only arise through democratic, non-violent means. Any other methods are just oppression by another name.
Far be it from me to suggest that a dictator* busing in and arming * thugs is not, in fact, solid proof that there is an “even divide” among a society’s views, but let’s see some actual facts.
[
](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2053575,00.html)
I was wrong. I neglected to add the possibility that someone would completely ignore a moderator’s words. Welp, there we go.
I notice that Commisar has completely disregarded Tom’s demand.
I’m utterly shocked.
Along the same lines as FinnAgain’s post, the Economist has an article that talks extensively about what now-liberated east Libya was like under Qaddafi.
Interesting stuff.
We really do not need any further comments by other posters regarding Commisar’s actions. Stick to the topic or take it to the already opened thread in the BBQ Pit.
[ /Modding ]
The very picture of the ‘good tyrant’ that Commissar is pointing to. Hrm, let me see, what’re those qualities they’re supposed to have?
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13510071&postcount=83)
What an odd set of contradictions.
I do wonder what reasons Commissar is using to support the tyrant’s regime.
Incidentally, my friends, I’m not sure how many of you noticed a parallel story in yesterday’s news:
Essentially, there were anti-government protests in Iraq, and at least 9 protesters ended up being killed.
What I find interesting is that no one seems to have picked up on this story. There is a very real lack of outrage in the media coverage, and zero interest among the general public. Compare this to the shrill hysteria surrounding the events unfolding in Libya…
What’s interesting is that the Iraqi leader used almost exactly the very same argument as Colonel Gaddafi in dismissing the protesters:
“On Thursday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki urged people not to join the protests for security reasons, and accused the protest organisers of being al-Qaeda insurgents and Saddam Hussein loyalists.”
However, whereas you mocked the Colonel for blaming al-Quada, you seem to swallow al-Maliki’s words without a second thought. This seems to be a wonderful example of Western double-standards. Sure, you claim to care about human lives and freedoms… Until it is your own “democratic” puppet regimes doing the massacring and blaming the victims for their own murders, which you all seem to be perfectly comfortable with. Fascinating double-standard, that.
We’re still waiting on that consistent political philosophy, Commissar.
Do I really need to say it?
A handfull dead in Iraq. Hundreds dead in Libya where the totalitarian regime is using machineguns, fighter jets and other heavy weapons against civilians, including mowing down mourners. I, too, have no idea why there is a difference in the coverage.
I am sure that Commissar has cites of actual Dopers doing exactly that. Positive, even. Yep. He’ll provide them soon.
Edit: or, for that matter, news organizations actually ‘swallowing’ rather than simply reporting Iraqi claims of AQ involvement.
Iraq- a country recently invaded, with an overthrown government, and a current government with questionable control of parts of the country, and a recent history of violence, insurrection, and proven foreign involvement. While what happened there is a tragedy, given the scope of recent violence there, it’s 1- not surprising, and 2- to be expected. I’ll repeat, it is a tragedy, and I also doubt Maliki’s statements as to the cause at this time.
Libya- a country with a long, fairly quiet history (outside of support of terrorist groups) that appears to be headed for civil war (is it a civil war if one side uses large numbes of foreign mercenaries?). What is happening there is a tragedy, but it is also very different from what happened in Iraq. As is usually the case with you, you are ignoring context.
Well, there’s also the fact that AQ has verifiably been active in Iraq. That doesn’t mean that Malaki’s accusations carry weight, of course. But an accusation of AQ involvement in a country in which they have been involved in many terror attacks and an accusation of AQ involvement in another country in which they have not…
Elements of Qaddafi’s security forces have gone over to the rebels.
Rebels took the next city over from the capitol.
The tyrants, the tyrants!
Won’t someone think of the tyrants?!?
(am I doing it right?)