In Memory of late Col. Muammar Gaddafi

Margot , considering Western leaders inconsistant , treatment / attitude towards Gaddafi , over the years , can you understand why he , at times , thought he was one of the good guys ?

I'm sure you've seen the numerous photos of Gaddafi meeting - shaking hands numerous prominent Western Leaders .


cheers.

btw -
According to Robert Fisk - Gaddafi was once beloved of the (British) Foreign Office (after the coup against King Idris), and regarded as a "safe pair of hands".


...

 

Yes.. typically everyone was courteous towards Khadafi.. but too often he just flipped out.. Like in 2009 at an Arab summit when he launched on King Abdullah saying something like: The British forged you and the Americans protect you.

Fisk is wrong.. correspondence from that period report that Khadafi was mad.

 

We know right, you were EVERYWHERE in the Arab world...

 

Have you ever heard of Esso Libya?

That's who my father worked for in Libya.

 

Seriously? I would kick Saudi royalty in the nuts if given the chance. Generally, you pick a good guy that the subject matter flipped out on to justify a claim of "mad". You're making Gaddafi look better.

 

The meeting was about how to distance Syria from Iran and reduce support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

You would "kick" the Sag? LOLOL

Even a moron can look at the SAG track record... and come to a completely different conclusion.

 

What years did you lie there and around what is your age?

Just wondering

 

My family was there three years.. I was there part of 1967 and about ten months in 1969.

They had leased a house between the US Embassy and the Russian embassy waiting the completion of a villa on the beach.. .Part of what I was doing was ordering new furniture to be shipped to Libya for may parents.

Part of my father's job was to minotor Khadafi and advise the oil company... and secondarily the US Ambassador.

 

Could that be the reason why - Gaddafi - enjoyed such an enormous amount of popular support from the overwhelming majority Libyans + other Arabs , during the early years ?

----
Is Fisk wrong , coz his experience , bearing in mind the level of his contacts, is opposite to yours. ?

 

Where on earth are you getting your information from.. He was dispised by the Arab leaders as a mental case and a buffoon.. He didn't have a single frend.. He had a chip on his shoulder and an explosive temper.. In short he was paranoid because he felt very inferior.

That what that King of Kings and King of All Africa was about.. He NEVER got the repect he craved.

Where was this popular support? It wasn't there in 1969.. it wasn't there in the late 1970s or when they tried to oust him in 1984 .. which was followed by a bloody ren of terror.

Fisk has often been wrong over the years.

 

Margot , pls get real - He was NOT despised from day one - most Arab leaders supported him in the early yrs , same as the vast majority of Libyan , How the hell else could he have remained for more than 4 decades ?

Btw - did you watch the reception he got from Mandela ?

Must I again post the photos of
" the buffoon's " meetings with Blair-Sarkozy -Clinton etc,etc.etc + etc. ?????

But if you insist on denying well documented records, that your choice >

here's another :

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvH22_bTa0w"]Gaddafi meets Barack Obama and Gordon Brown At G8 One Month Before Lockerbie Release - YouTube[/ame]

 

In 1997 and 1998 Cheney was hired by Haliburton to lobby his government contacts to lift sanctions on Libya, Iraq and the Stans.. US business wanted back in very badly.

In 2004 Bush welcomed Libya back from perdition believing that Khadafi had changed his spots... and US companies poured into Libya.

I think everyone actually wanted Khadafi to do well and be a good international citizen.

No the Arabs didn't like Khadafi in the early years.. They liked King Idris ... Khadafi preseented himself as the new Nasser and hired Tariki who had been fired as oil minister in Saudi Arabia for being anti-American.

"I am an international leader, doyen of Arab leaders, the king of kings of Africa and the Imam of all Muslims," Mimmar Khadafi, Arab Summit 2003

 

What's funny about that video, Gordon Brown trying to use Libya as proof that they will let rogue nations into the "international community" if they give up their nuclear aims, and then they go and hit Libya. LMAO. Which do you think sends a bigger message to Iran? Anyone in power of a rogue nation would be a fool not to try and get nukes. If Libya had them Gaddafi would still be in power right now. Also proof that any nation of the west with nukes could pull out of the "international community" if they just had genuine representation.

 

Margot here's another snippet re your earlier doubts abt some points in the lead post.

"After coming to power, the RCC government initiated a process of directing funds toward providing education, healthcare and housing for all. The reforms, though not entirely effective, had had their effect.

Public education in the country is free and primary education is compulsory for both boys and girls. Medical care is also available to the public at no cost but providing housing for all is a task the RCC government has not been able to complete yet.[4] In 1977, Gaddafi renamed the Libyan state to Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, where Jamahiriya is a term coined by Gaddafi,[5] usually translated as "state of the masses".

Under Gaddafi, per capita income in the country rose to more than US $11,000, the fifth highest in Africa.] The increase in prosperity was accompanied by a controversial foreign policy, with increased political repression at home.[


from wiki.


....

 

Medical care and education, housing grants ect are also free in Saudi Arabia.. and the per capita income is 24K.. not 12K per year.

Dubai pumps less oil yet they are rich while Libyans are poor.

 

Gadhafi was a typical Arab.

 

Yes - margot - I'm well aware of the Saudi social security welfare system also that KSA i is a much larger oil producer , hence higher per capita - GNP than Libya. So its comparing apples with oranges.
Again same with Dubai which have a much smaller population than Libya,

 

I have no argument with that. My concern is the real US motives that don't get into the public domain.

 

Like all Presidents are typical Presidents, I suppose.

 

Mebbe he in the Great Beyond now...

... havin' a beer with Billy Carter.

 

It's not just the media, it's every reputable source on the planet that testifies to the fact that Qaddafi was a brutal tyrant with an atrocious human rights record.

Qaddafi had absolutely (*)(*)(*)(*) all to do with the end of Apartheid it was the economic pressure of the West along with the global community (of which Qaddafi's Libya was not a member) which finally brought an end to Apartheid.

 

The truth about Khadaffi lies somewhere between the two extremes. He was neither a total saint nor a total sinner.

At one time Khadaffi supported international terrorism but he had not done so for years and, in fact, was an enemy of Al Qaida.

NATO put itself into a purely internal, Libyan affair, insuring that Khadaffi would be defeated. This was pure and simple nation building and should not have been a concern of NATO.

Rather than being a cry for democracy, what has happened in Libya was tribal warfare. While Khadaffy was in power, he kept tribalism to a minimum. He also kept the country basically secular.

The NATO nations had better be prepared for the law of unexpected consequences. We can already see what is happening in Tunisia. That country will now be ruled by Sharia law and take a definite turn toward being a theocratic nation.

 

According to who exactly? He took power in a coup de'ta and never allowed for elections.

 

Gadaffi would still be in power if he hadnt of used grossly disproportionate force against the rebellious Libyans in Benghazi and elsewhere. That's the ONLY reason NATO felt it had to intervene. Its why the slaughter in Syria continues, because they learnt not to send in aircraft, tanks and mercenaries to attack your own people like Gaddafi did for many weeks before NATO got involved.

 

No. NATO interfered because Libya was the main supplier of petroleum to the European nations. They wanted to drive Khadaffy out of power and place themselves in the good graces of the rebels.