posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Cassius666
Some of it might be true, but he must have done something wrong to turn so many Lybians against him.
I don't think that's a fair point, granted I am sure being a dictator and all he more than ruffled a few feathers (to put it lightly), but if we go on
belief that X number of citizens hating him equals he is evil/bad/incompetent/corrupt then that means practically all leaders fit that same mold.
If a leader is "for the people" which usually means for the majority which usually means for the poor and lower middle class, then he alienates anyone
above class and makes enemies. If he is for the upper middle and upper class than he still alienates but has monetary backing for advertisement and
strong arming. Bush and Obama both had ratings in the 30-40% favorability range so by that definition (for lack of a better word) they were
I read reports that the opposition consisted of not only pissed off natural born Libyans but a good chunk of foreign fighters backed with munitions,
some press reports stating they were members of Al Q.
Now don't get me wrong I am not saying he was a saint or even a good leader, but this talk about how bad he was is just a distraction to the real
purpose of his outster which had to do with other factors. Who benefited from it? It wasn't the Libyan people which reports state that they are in a
worse condition now than under Gaddafi...
This was Iraq 2.0 and Gaddafi was no Saddam that's for sure.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason
edit on 29-2-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-2-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms
because: (no reason given)