Is there a generally accepted consensus regarding the reason behind Gaddafi's death?

[Lynarii]

It's always a very difficult debate about whether or not a stable monster in power is better than the destabilization and power vacuums caused by removing him. This is a debate that rages on about most of the big names of people we really really really don't like. Look at the leader for any country in the world that the West doesn't like and the question is not "could we kill them", but "what would happen if we did".

Gaddafi had been on the international shit list for a very long time. He was a very bad person who did some very bad things. He was left alone because, as bad as he was, Libya was a stable country and a generally stabilizing force in an otherwise highly unstable region. A shattered Libya was always seen as being a worse thing than dealing with Gaddafi in power, even as much as we hated him.

The Arab Spring changed the equation though. Dictators were falling, unrest was happening. There was a VERY real possibility that Libya was going to shatter and descend into civil war no matter what anyone did. The reason to leave him alone was gone, but all the reasons we wanted him removed were all still very much there. And the best part is that it wasn't even our fault. He could be removed and we didn't have to be on the hook for killing him (generally considered to be a serious international faux pas, kinda like bombing hospitals or being photographed with a visible boner when meeting the wife of another leader), all we had to do was keep him from bombing his civilians to shit and let everything else play out. And when have we ever passed up a chance to get something we always wanted while looking good in the process?

[Skroe]

It's always a very difficult debate about whether or not a stable monster in power is better than the destabilization and power vacuums caused by removing him. This is a debate that rages on about most of the big names of people we really really really don't like. Look at the leader for any country in the world that the West doesn't like and the question is not "could we kill them", but "what would happen if we did".

Gaddafi had been on the international shit list for a very long time. He was a very bad person who did some very bad things. He was left alone because, as bad as he was, Libya was a stable country and a generally stabilizing force in an otherwise highly unstable region. A shattered Libya was always seen as being a worse thing than dealing with Gaddafi in power, even as much as we hated him.

The Arab Spring changed the equation though. Dictators were falling, unrest was happening. There was a VERY real possibility that Libya was going to shatter and descend into civil war no matter what anyone did. The reason to leave him alone was gone, but all the reasons we wanted him removed were all still very much there. And the best part is that it wasn't even our fault. He could be removed and we didn't have to be on the hook for killing him (generally considered to be a serious international faux pas, kinda like bombing hospitals or being photographed with a visible boner when meeting the wife of another leader), all we had to do was keep him from bombing his civilians to shit and let everything else play out. And when have we ever passed up a chance to get something we always wanted while looking good in the process?

Which is why I think my original answer is the right one: "it's all in the follow through".

Is the country going to follow the Powell doctrine? Is it going to invest all the resources required to execute the strategy? Is it going to, in other words, "take ownership" of what it does? Then do it.

Is the country going to try and take a short cut? Is there not a political consensus at home? Is intervention not being done as a result of a change in status in a country that has significant impact on human right sor regional stability? Then don't do it.

I would not have had the US intervene in Libya, though France and the UK made that decision and we were being good allies, so we had to. But on our own, I doubt the US would have. I would not have intervened in Iraq. I would have intervened in Kosovo and Bosnia.

[Berengil]

I know you're not meaning to be racist (and please don't misconstrue that) but the argument you're making here is essentially a racist one. It's somewhat innoocently denying the universality of human rights and saying, in other words, that maybe people in certain regions are better off under systems that do deny them because it respects their local politicial, ethnic, religious or cultural traditions.

It sounds like something that is sensible, but it is actually extremely racist (again, not saying you intend to be), because it basically condemns non-Westerners to less-than-Western standards of human rights by virtue of their current status of development and specific actions by their governments to prevent democratic norms from taking root, and conflates that with cultural and regional reasons.

Development and Democracy go hand in hand, and the diversity of cultures, regions and traditions that have successfully implemented Democracy as they developed, is a monument to that. To put it another way "Maybe the local dictator knows better" is a cop-out. Anyone in the world, given economic opportunity and political opportunity will capitalize on that in a positive feedback loop. Democracy emerges naturally from that. In fact that Democracy has not blossomed in Russia, Iran and China is a result of concerted efforts on the part of the regimes to retard the relationship between development and democracy.

I don't think it's racist at all. What color the people's skin might be is irrelevant. It's a historical fact that the culture (not the race) of the peoples of North Africa and the Middle East has for centuries called authoritarians to power. There seems to me to be a distinct cultural bias against rule by the people.

They have to want it for themselves, Skroe. We can't just shoot the local dictator, yell "DEMOCRACY", and skip out, and then expect things to work out.

" Know ye not, who would be free themselves must strike the blow?" --- Lord Byron

[Skroe]

I don't think it's racist at all. What color the people's skin might be is irrelevant. It's a historical fact that the culture (not the race) of the peoples of North Africa and the Middle East has for centuries called authoritarians to power. There seems to me to be a distinct cultural bias against rule by the people.

They have to want it for themselves, Skroe. We can't just shoot the local dictator, yell "DEMOCRACY", and skip out, and then expect things to work out.

" Know ye not, who would be free themselves must strike the blow?" --- Lord Byron

And the trend, world wide is, given a certain level of economic development, people do want it. Democracy is an emergent property from development in other words. People want a direct say in how government spends their money and how government influences their lives. They want control.

[caervek]

I'm trying to figure out what were the real motives behind Gaddafi's death but there's just too much controversy regarding the issue on the internet. Some say the main reason was his idea of a new African gold-backed currency and the US was highly insecure about the effects of this new currency to its economy. Is there a generally accepted consensus regarding the issue?

Short version:

• Some civilians rebelled against him.
• Seeing this opportunity the west demanded the UN order a no fly zone to stop the Libyan military killing civilians (which is a bit lol as thats what you have to do when rebelling civilians rise up and attack you).
• Russia, China, Germany and a few others abstained from voting and the UN passed the no fly zone.
• Instead of implementing a no fly zone the west then instead began a full scale bombing campaign in support of the rebels, much to the annoyance/condemnation of Russia, China, Germany and the others.
• With the air forces of America, Canada and half the EU flying ahead of them decimating all resistance the rebels had no problem cleaning up the mess on the ground and so managed to quickly take land and bolster their forces (because what retard is going to side against that).
• French fighter bombers disabled Gaddafi's motorcade.
• Rebel fighters captured then tortured/executed him along with his bodyguards.

- - - Updated - - -

They have to want it for themselves, Skroe. We can't just shoot the local dictator, yell "DEMOCRACY", and skip out, and then expect things to work out.

The funny thing is that the most successful western puppet government installed in the middle east in the last 100 years was actually a dictator put in place after the US overthrew the elected government lol (Iran).

[Kuntantee]

It is speculated to be his determination to shift from petrodollar to diamonds (or gold can't remember) for petrol's currency. I am not sure how correct this is, it looks like a conspiracy theory but one thing for sure, he was killed because he didn't act in the interests of West.

It's a shame Turkey helped in his defeat. Not that he was a good guy or something, it wasn't our business.

[Deleted]

Libyan Oil, Gold, and Qaddafi: The Strange Email Sidney Blumenthal Sent Hillary Clinton In 2011

https://news.vice.com/article/libyan...linton-in-2011

This all that needs to be said. It's amazing how people choose to be willfuly ignorant when the proof is so obvious.

[Skroe]

Short version:

• Some civilians rebelled against him.
• Seeing this opportunity the west demanded the UN order a no fly zone to stop the Libyan military killing civilians (which is a bit lol as thats what you have to do when rebelling civilians rise up and attack you).
• Russia, China, Germany and a few others abstained from voting and the UN passed the no fly zone.
• Instead of implementing a no fly zone the west then instead began a full scale bombing campaign in support of the rebels, much to the annoyance/condemnation of Russia, China, Germany and the others.
• With the air forces of America, Canada and half the EU flying ahead of them decimating all resistance the rebels had no problem cleaning up the mess on the ground and so managed to quickly take land and bolster their forces (because what retard is going to side against that).
• French fighter bombers disabled Gaddafi's motorcade.
• Rebel fighters captured then tortured/executed him along with his bodyguards.

- - - Updated - - -



The funny thing is that the most successful western puppet government installed in the middle east in the last 100 years was actually a dictator put in place after the US overthrew the elected government lol (Iran).

Hey, don't forget the US Predator drone that blew up his convoy. Wasn't just French aircraft.

After 20 years it's due to be retired in the summer. It earned its "I came, I saw, He died" merit badge!

- - - Updated - - -

It is speculated to be his determination to shift from petrodollar to diamonds (or gold can't remember) for petrol's currency. I am not sure how correct this is, it looks like a conspiracy theory but one thing for sure, he was killed because he didn't act in the interests of West.

It's a shame Turkey helped in his defeat. Not that he was a good guy or something, it wasn't our business.

Rule of thumb: anything involving a "petrodollar" is usually bullshit.

Any "petrodollar" explanation to anything - and I've heard them all over the years, on every topic from Iraq to Poland - is usually some jackass trying to come up with a tidy, bite-sized explanation for complex international relations.

The Petrodollar is just a rhetorical and conceptual standin for a "gold standard" argument. That's another classic bad-internet argument. Something-something-Bretton-Woods.

The US (and the West) has a very valid and perfectly legitimate interest to stable and predictable energy supplies (greatly informed by the World War II experience and how Nazi Germany and Japanese Empire industry were basically starved to death by oil shortages), but that's pretty much the extent of it. The US and Europe's enormous wealth comes from a highly diversified number of sources, and oil is not a core part of it.

[caervek]

Hey, don't forget the US Predator drone that blew up his convoy. Wasn't just French aircraft.

Oh I didn't know a drone had scouted it, new reports just mentioned the Rafales disabling it.

[Revi]

I know you're not meaning to be racist (and please don't misconstrue that) but the argument you're making here is essentially a racist one.

It would be racist if I believed the situation there was a result of their ethicity or skin color. I don't, and I haven't insinuated anything resembling that belief.

It's somewhat innoocently denying the universality of human rights and saying, in other words, that maybe people in certain regions are better off under systems that do deny them because it respects their local politicial, ethnic, religious or cultural traditions.

It sounds like something that is sensible, but it is actually extremely racist (again, not saying you intend to be), because it basically condemns non-Westerners to less-than-Western standards of human rights by virtue of their current status of development and specific actions by their governments to prevent democratic norms from taking root, and conflates that with cultural and regional reasons.

It's not denying anything. I'm just interested in what the reality of the situation seems to be. Stating we all want them to enjoy protected human rights is grand, but it's useless if in trying to make that a reality we instead end up killing thousands, displacing hundreds of thousands and making life more miserable for everyone else.

Whatever you think of the ME dictators, I think we should try to understand what it is they're oppressing and how those kinds of people seem to be beating out democracy over and over. If the population itself has anything to do with the state of the country, simply creating a huge power vacuum and clapping yourself on the back for giving them democracy isn't helpful. Neither is "giving" them democracy and human rights if the majority promptly votes in Sharia Law, thus negating human rights. Getting your desired result isn't as easy as killing off 1 guy. Until we can figure out a way to help the population change or implement slow change, I think maybe a stable dictatorship is better than the full-on civil wars and genocide we've created.

This "that dictator is evil, he needs to go" approach does demonstrably not work well. What's going to fill the power vacuum? What if a new dictator is elected by a majority because they want to exterminate one of the minorities?

Development and Democracy go hand in hand, and the diversity of cultures, regions and traditions that have successfully implemented Democracy as they developed, is a monument to that. To put it another way "Maybe the local dictator knows better" is a cop-out. Anyone in the world, given economic opportunity and political opportunity will capitalize on that in a positive feedback loop. Democracy emerges naturally from that. In fact that Democracy has not blossomed in Russia, Iran and China is a result of concerted efforts on the part of the regimes to retard the relationship between development and democracy.

I don't disagree with any of that, I just don't think you necessarily know best how to get these countries to a place where stable development and democracy can happen.
I think it's worth considering that maybe this dictator that's implementing some social securities and protections, and trying to help the economy but is also shooting at protesters and disappearing terrorists, is near to the best version of a leader that the population will 'allow'. Maybe removing this dictator before you've removed the violent extremist factions he's keeping down, is not a good thing for the country.

[Nevianx]

I just don't think you necessarily know best how to get these countries to a place where stable development and democracy can happen.

This is exactly the reason why I asked my initial question. I'm certain we can rest assured that the Governments of US/EU don't have any illusions regarding their relatively dim perception of the deep, complicated and fragile processes going on in the Arab World and in Libya in particular. I'm not saying Gaddafi was a nice guy, but we didn't know his exact thought process either. Despite those two facts, we intervened as if we knew exactly what's best for the people of Libya. We obviously did not and could not know. That's evident by the current situation in the country.

In my opinion, these circumstances clearly suggest that there's something else going on and not just "he was a bad guy and had to be removed for the sake of human rights" or whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

Rule of thumb: anything involving a "petrodollar" is usually bullshit.

How is that a "rule of thumb"? What exactly makes it a rule? I'm certain that one of USA's highest priorities is to have their currency used as the standard for oil purchases.

[Heladys]

Bullets. We're pretty sure it was bullets.

[Independent voter]

I'm trying to figure out what were the real motives behind Gaddafi's death but there's just too much controversy regarding the issue on the internet. Some say the main reason was his idea of a new African gold-backed currency and the US was highly insecure about the effects of this new currency to its economy. Is there a generally accepted consensus regarding the issue?

You clutching for a conspiracy theory. The thing about conspiracy theories is sometimes there's no conspiracy, things are just as they seem.

[Phlegethon]

Apologies.

Go USA! Well done helping to completely fuck over a country and sending it back 100 years for... reasons nobody can quite discern or distinguish.

They better not live in a country that is that evil...
Dem murricans.

[Nevianx]

You clutching for a conspiracy theory. The thing about conspiracy theories is sometimes there's no conspiracy, things are just as they seem.

I'm not interrested in conspiracy. I am, however, interested in theories. But judging from your post you seem to know the ultimate truth, which is even better. So, please, could you share it with us?

[Logwyn]

This is Africa. You can't have some happy-clappy democracy overnight. It is culturally, politically and economically impossible. How is that democracy working out in Iraq?

I guess we should blame European Imperialism for messing up Africa. As for Iraq... another mess started by Europe again. Current Iraq is just the result.

[Stormspark]

Some terrorist group stole a bunch of Libyan plutonium, and the team Gaddafi sent to recover the materials, backed by Russian weapons, was a huge failure.

Edit:

Not to mention the whole debacle with the German armored vehicles.

Since when is Doc Brown a terrorist?

[Z-Man]

Since when is Doc Brown a terrorist?

With that hair? No one taunts The Donald like that and just walks away.

[Deleted]

After 40 years of raping and pilaging Libya and launching terrorist attacks against the West, he got off easy.

So I get it that Libya must now be prospering now that the "conveniently evil Dictator" is dead? No, its a humanitarian catastrophe !
But surely Libya was super before him? Nah, it was an empty place middle of nowhere with riavaling tribes.

You are again trying to justify turning a former prospering place into a hellhole with fake morals and intellectual dishonesty. Instead of bluntly saying that he went against western interest, you try to coat it into some form of humanitarian act, knowing fully well that you dont give a rats ass about how the people in libya live or if people anywhere in the world are oppressed as long as their leaders act pro US, you just need an excuse to shield yourself from cognitive dissonance by becoming willfully ignorant in your black and white think.

Sad story.

[Auxora]

It's easy to make conspiracy theories now for views/clicks, but his end was very public and he wasn't killed by the West. His country revolted in the same Arab Spring that lead to the ouster of Mubarak in Egypt and the next year kicked off the rebellion in Syria that we're still dealing with today. Mubarak was smart when it happened and went to the Sinai peninsula where he had strong support and took plenty of bodyguards. So he managed to survive and get out. Unfortunately for Gaddafi, he tried getting away but wasn't successful and Libyan rebels found him and violently killed him.

Actually if you recall at the time we had just finished defeating Iraq and Gaddafi saw what happened to Saddam. So, probably out of fear for himself after seeing that, was actually being quite friendly to the West and opposing the radical Islamic groups popping up in Libya when the Arab Spring broke out. From a Western standpoint for that reason it wasn't great to see him go. Gaddafi had done plenty to deserve his fate, but there was far less incentive for the West to be involved in his death than in any point in the past. On top of that, the US was already seeing the mess that the vacuum of post-Saddam Iraq created and wouldn't want that in Libya. From a US standpoint at the time it happened, the rebellion and killing of Gaddafi was actually a negative and not something the US would have initiated. In the 80's after Lockerbie, sure...but it was a much different situation in 2011 when all of that happened.

As for whether the Libyan (or Egyptian ftm, and definitely Syrian) rebellions and then killing of Gaddafi helped the people of Libya compared to living under Gaddafi, good question. Both Mubarak and Gaddafi were living well off of the country's wealth, and Egypt adapted to post-Mubarak life much better and more rapidly. In the short-term it appears no. But I work with a guy who's family fled Libya and came to the US because of Gaddafi. They had a successful business and nice home there, and Gaddafi took it in the name of the government and left them penniless. I'm sure many others had it worse. So even if the country was more stable under Gaddafi, people were not being treated well and not many of those stories have been well-covered.