Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Muammar al-Gaddafi

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Sep 2011, 11:23
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 17 May 2012, 09:49
RATM8 wrote:
Do you have any factual source to back up the last info pic?
Find that information very interesting...

The last pic? Actually this was the very basic, most of them it's in the constitution, and I think you can find a lot of sources searching around internet.
The real stuff that actually need more sourcing is what is in the vids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 221
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Feb 2013, 06:55
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Pioneer
Post 05 Feb 2013, 02:43
I have read Gaddafi's Green Book and I have researched Gaddafi's policies in Libya and I must say, he was a fantastic leader with great ideals, though not Marxist but heavily socialist oriented. It is a shame what those NATO pigs did to a great leader and a great nation.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Feb 2013, 14:59
Yes, so great that he killed all the Communists in his country. Great leader!
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 221
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Feb 2013, 06:55
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Pioneer
Post 14 Feb 2013, 19:41
OP-Bagration wrote:
Yes, so great that he killed all the Communists in his country. Great leader!



And yet you support Stalin who killed many great communist leaders in the Soviet Union! Man I love Stalinist!
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 23
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2013, 19:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 16 Feb 2013, 05:11
OP-Bagration wrote:
Yes, so great that he killed all the Communists in his country. Great leader!


Care to back that up?
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2013, 07:11
Pioneer
Post 12 Mar 2013, 16:12
Qadaffi's mistake was in not pursuing his nuke program through. He trusted that the western powers would leave him alone once he jumped through all their hoops. The minute a pretext became available they attacked him, or turned on him. China and Russia dropped the ball too by not vetoing the UNSCR 1973, which allowed the legal cover for regime change by NATO. Libya is now a hellhole and a source of islamic jihadism. In fact the "freedom fighters" the US supported burned down the US embassy there in Benghazi. The new flag is that of a monarchist from the before the Qadaffi revolution.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 12 Mar 2013, 18:34
qeddeq, you're absolutely right, and Western leaders even brag openly about this. I watched an interview with Condalisa Rice where she basically openly said how much of a fool Gaddafi was for abandoning his WMD programs, all while wearing a wry smile on her face. Russia acted as it did in large part because at that moment liberal Westernizers reigned dominant in Russia's geopolitical stance. By the time the next intervention came around the statists had gained enough ground to veto the decision, but it was too late for Gaddafi I'm afraid.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Mar 2013, 21:35
I think I've spent too much time around US libertarians, but this is the first time I've heard statist used in a non-derogatory sense.

I think I'll borrow that
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 2407
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Mar 2013, 21:47
soviet78 wrote:
qeddeq, you're absolutely right, and Western leaders even brag openly about this. I watched an interview with Condalisa Rice where she basically openly said how much of a fool Gaddafi was for abandoning his WMD programs, all while wearing a wry smile on her face. Russia acted as it did in large part because at that moment liberal Westernizers reigned dominant in Russia's geopolitical stance. By the time the next intervention came around the statists had gained enough ground to veto the decision, but it was too late for Gaddafi I'm afraid.


It is disgusting. They tricked Gaddafi into opening to them and then destroyed him when he was vulnerable and when he trusted them. A few months earlier he was in Europe enjoying with those he thought were his new friends and then they destroyed him.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 12 Mar 2013, 21:55
In "this" day and age, is Ok to have a president-for-life?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 13 Mar 2013, 02:05
The length of time a president serves is immaterial as long as he pursues the people's interests. Though, whether or not Gaddafi did so is slightly more controversial.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 13 Mar 2013, 09:25
Indigo wrote:
The length of time a president serves is immaterial as long as he pursues the people's interests. Though, whether or not Gaddafi did so is slightly more controversial.

Aha. And how may the people change the president if he is for life and they no longer believe he serves their interest? Is "people" always equal to "one opinion"? Or is the president himself deciding whether he pursues people's interests?
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Mar 2013, 02:30
EdvardK wrote:
Aha. And how may the people change the president if he is for life and they no longer believe he serves their interest? Is "people" always equal to "one opinion"? Or is the president himself deciding whether he pursues people's interests?


Well, traditionally enough angry people get together and depose or murder the guy.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 14 Mar 2013, 19:05
runequester wrote:
Well, traditionally enough angry people get together and depose or murder the guy.

I see. So you prefer the power transition to be bloody than something completely "natural"? Also, your view implies that a leader can be bad and still rule, as long as he/she's not too bad.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 14 Mar 2013, 20:36
EdvardK wrote:
I see. So you prefer the power transition to be bloody than something completely "natural"? Also, your view implies that a leader can be bad and still rule, as long as he/she's not too bad.


You seem to be under the impression that a president that serves longer than an arbitrarily determined period of time must be holding the position by force. It's perfectly possible for him to merely be in power due to continued popularity, which he is subject to lose if he makes the wrong move. Hell, the US had a president that served for a good 12 years, and would most likely have lost his next election had he not died. And that's just the aristocratic posturing that passes for democracy in the states.

EdvardK wrote:
Is "people" always equal to "one opinion"? Or is the president himself deciding whether he pursues people's interests?


You can't seriously be reading that in what I just said. How exactly do you think a democracy works?
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 14 Mar 2013, 21:08
Indigo wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that a president that serves longer than an arbitrarily determined period of time must be holding the position by force.

Isn't the easiest and most honest/transparent/leastcontroversial way of proving that wrong (position of force) to hold frequent checks of public opinion, ie elections?

Indigo wrote:
It's perfectly possible for him to merely be in power due to continued popularity, which he is subject to lose if he makes the wrong move.

And how would that be determined, please? What is "the wrong move"? How wrong must that wrong move be to be removed? According to your reasoning, a president can be a mass murderer and still hold power, as long he's having some minority murdered, and not people from the majority.

Indigo wrote:
And that's just the aristocratic posturing that passes for democracy in the states.

As much as I personally dislike aristocrats, I prefer being labelled pro-aristocratic than pro-dictatorial. In a dictatorship, the entire travesty of the system is the very dictatorial attitude itself.

Indigo wrote:
You can't seriously be reading that in what I just said. How exactly do you think a democracy works?

I don't think you're a grown up. I can't compete in reasoning with your delusions. Ergo, I surrender.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 14 Mar 2013, 22:31
I swear, you act like a willful child sometimes. There's enough special pleading in that post to make a Johnnie Cochraine legal brief. And it just brings me back to my original point: what you consider a dictatorship is pretty arbitrary.

EdvardK wrote:
Isn't the easiest and most honest/transparent/leastcontroversial way of proving that wrong (position of force) to hold frequent checks of public opinion, ie elections?


Which was precisely my point. If a guy keeps winning fair elections, who cares how long he serves?

EdvardK wrote:
And how would that be determined, please? What is "the wrong move"


The wrong move is the one that makes him lose popularity. You're allowed to use context clues.

EdvardK wrote:
How wrong must that wrong move be to be removed?


That's to be determined by the people. You are aware of how a democracy works, aren't you?

EdvardK wrote:
According to your reasoning, a president can be a mass murderer and still hold power, as long he's having some minority murdered, and not people from the majority.


Where did you derive that from anything I said?

EdvardK wrote:
As much as I personally dislike aristocrats, I prefer being labelled pro-aristocratic than pro-dictatorial. In a dictatorship, the entire travesty of the system is the very dictatorial attitude itself.


Yeah, that's a non sequitur. Your attitude towards aristocrats and dictators has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2013, 07:11
Pioneer
Post 15 Mar 2013, 04:14
EdvardK I disagree with the premise that "the Libyan people" overthrew Qadaffi. We don't know what the libyan people wanted, if by that we mean the people in Tripoli and the cities east of that, Benghazi excepted of course. We know that a certain group of rebels in Benghazi wanted Qadaffi out, but we don't know how widespread that sentiment was. The western media never explored the issue. Interesting that it never seemed to be about what the libyans wanted! Basically NATO, acting as the de facto air force of the Benghazi sect of militants, destroyed the regime. Qadaffi's army was sweeping westward taking city after city until he was at the gates of Benghazi. He would've taken that back too, but it was then that NATO intervened to prevent an outcome they didn't want, ie. Qadaffi remaining in power. How was this intervention in any way a revolution by the people of Libya?I see this as a NATO backed coup.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 16 Mar 2013, 00:24
qeddeq wrote:
EdvardK I disagree with the premise that "the Libyan people" overthrew Qadaffi. We don't know what the libyan people wanted, if by that we mean the people in Tripoli and the cities east of that, Benghazi excepted of course.

qeedek, i never said anything about Libya in my posts. It was the other guy who said that presidents-for-life have to be overthrown because elections are aristocratic habit.
he claimed that people rebel once they get tired of their president. I merely questioned this assertion on logical grounds.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 16 Mar 2013, 06:07
EdvardK wrote:
I see. So you prefer the power transition to be bloody than something completely "natural"? Also, your view implies that a leader can be bad and still rule, as long as he/she's not too bad.


Nope. I answered your question about how people replace a leader for life that no longer represents them. History has plenty of evidence of this process.

My own preferences are irrelevant to the discussion
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.