C’mon bud. The hawks in the Obama administration, Clinton, Power, Rice, were on the warpath to oust Gaddafi. Clinton went so far as to cite “mass rape” claims of dubious origins as propoganda. Your subtle jab about foreign mercenaries on Gaddafi’s side is also consistent with state propoganda. There were militants flooding in from around the region to fight against Gaddafi so they could plunder his substantial armaments. NATO support for the rebels resulted in these arms being spread asunder. There is also the matter of the confiscation of Gaddafi’s massive fortune of $200 billion to be considered. I’ll wager few Libyans have seen that money.
I don’t know about you, but I find that the best thing about a Democracy is that you won’t be grabbed out of your home at 3am, tortured for months and then publicly hanged for criticising the government while your parents are forced to watch and publicly disown you as a traitor. So for my money, Democracy is better than tyrannical despotism, but I’m funny that way.
Of course, democracy and civil liberties are not the same thing; but democratic systems do have a better track record than other systems in that regard, for the most part, with some exceptions.
Democracy is not the opposite of tyrannical despotism.
Democracy is the opposite, (kinda) of electoral processes that do not allow the people to determine who is in charge, or leadership by Succession.
How they come to rule does not define tyranny or despotism.
Clinton had more than a few night raids, and Waco and Ruby Ridge were his babies.Even the worst tyrants come up with some tale of woe to justify their secret police’s brutalities, as did Janet Reno’s/Clintons tale of 12 year olds having sex with Koresh, some boogie man ‘militia’, etc…
I’m sure that many people have just as much bad to say about Bush (younger and elder) and Obama and Reagan, depending on their parties.
lol
Democracy is the worst form of government, except from others.
Winston Churchill
This must explain the concept of democracy from a realist view to all you idealist utopians.
Yes, of course. The problem is that democracy requires a lot more than the absence of tyranny, and the Libyans are having a lot of trouble trying to build one. They’re almost in failed-state territory now.
Compared with other dictators I was unaware that Gaddafi was unusually brutal or dangerous to American interests.
In that part of the world I prefer dictators who are unpopular, incompetent, and corrupt to leaders - even if democratically elected - who are Muslim fanatics.
I do not think that we should overthrow democratically elected governments, as we did in Iran in 1953, and install friendly dictators.
I do think we should not become involved in the internal affairs of other countries, especially when we have little understanding of local customs and values.
At least, President Obama had the sense to keep American ground troops out of Libya. President George W. Bush seems to have thought that Iraqis would greet American invaders as liberators.
Now I cannot find out what an “andiderates” might be either but otherwise I am surprised nobody else has questioned the first assertion here. If you think the Muslim Brotherhood are extremists then you just wait until the **real **extremists overthrow the military government of Egypt.
At least the Muslim Brotherhood were actually (reasonably) democratically elected to power, unlike the military government that overthrew them. I might agree with you that they need locking up, but only as a reversible alternative to the mass trials resulting in capital sentences being passed down to hundreds of members of the Brotherhood.
Without hijacking the thread, have any of the “Arab Spring” revolutions turned out to be worth it for the revolutionaries? I think at least Libya is still in play, for Egypt the answer would appear to be no.