Why was Gaddafi "evil"?

[mammador]

Why was intervening in Libya even any of the US' business? Arabs are used to "oppression", the Quran says that life is meant to be a struggle.

 

[palehorse]

Africa is WAY more 'evil' yet we aren't over there trying to kill anyone or change anyone.

pssst... check it out: Libya, Sudan, and Somalia are IN Africa, and we've been over there killing their "evil" elements for years... pass it on to your other friends who may have also failed Geography 101...

 

[Craig234]

No, it is something that has been nagging at me for a while. I do have my partisan suspicions, I'll admit that, but I do want to know if there was any other, better reason than just the dumb "party lines" and who was in office while going after Saddam vs Gaddafi (or however you spell his name, I've seen it a billion different ways).

It bugs me, so I want to know more

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and give you some information.

Yes, there were other reasons than 'who was in office partisan'.

You're right about this: they were both dictators who did a lot of harm.

The first note is that our policy was more driven by our so-called 'interests' than the harm they did. But this is about liberals' opinions.

If you had asked a liberal, should the US support a popular uprising against Saddam with air power to prevent the slaughter of many people, you'd get a lot of 'yes'.

Liberals weren't so crazy about the Clinton sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands of people apparently trying to get them to revolt. That was basically evil IMO.

And on the other hand liberals were wary of war in Libya.

There is a difference between 'intervention' and 'starting a war'. I think the Obama administration was wrong when it tried to claim what it did was not 'hostilities'. But there is a difference - the UN charter has provisions we violated for the Iraq war against starting an aggressive war. If I remember, the UN approved of the mission in Libya.

When Saddam was actually doing the things 'against his own people', the US turned a blind eye, under Republicans, then pulled the killings up a decade later to excuse war.

The action against Qadafi wasn't for what he had done a decade earlier but to save lives.

It's a judgement call that includes a lot of factors, from the justification to the cost.

Iraq was a war IMO that was to give Bush more political power to help him better implements an unpopular economic agenda to redistribute wealth to the top.

It violated the UN charter, killed hundreds of thousands, harmed millions, cost the US over a trillion dollars, and so on, all to 'remove Saddam'.

The calculation was pretty different for Qadafi. For liberals it was more about saving the lives of the people from massacre; the administration likely had its eye on the oil.

But the option there was to save lives with only air power and not ground troops. It made a pretty compelling case not to allow the slaughter to happen.

Things aren't always consistent. A bad or good experience might influence the policy after that, for example.

But I think the Iraq war was perceived as 'starting a war' for corrupt agendas based on lies at huge cost to both sides, while Libya was saving lives for far less involvement.

The people in office may have played a role, but that can be legitimate, whether you trust the person more or less and what you think their motives are.

If liberals thought Saddam was really building nukes to use against us, I think you would see a high level of approval to protect the US from that. He wasn't.

I've long said, liberals didn't really have a good answer about Saddam. Opposing starting a war had its merits - but it would leave a bad dictator in place.

I think there are two sides to the issue. Liberals generally come down against the Iraq war. Most Democrats voted against it if I recall correctly, others very conditionally for it.

 

[SparkyJJO]

If evil is subjective, then it's basic deductive logic.

But evil is not subjective. If it was, we couldn't have any real society as it would implode (which, by the way, ours is slowly doing that because of such relativistic nonsense).

One big difference is that Libya state out as a revolt where as Iraq was an invasion. We did not have boot on the ground in Libya, just air support. All the ground fighting was done by the rebels. I think that is easier to stomach for the average person.

Hm, I suppose so. That's true.

Personally, I think we shouldn't have been involved with Libya, and I wasn't a fan of Iraq either. With Iraq, I can see where they were coming from and why we went in, but I don't really like it.

I guess you could say I'm a bit more of an isolationist. We need to stop being the "world police" IMO. We just don't have the money to keep blowing on stuff like this. Make a stern warning that if anyone thinks they can attack us that will hit them back, and hard, and we'd come to the aid of an ally, but other than that I think meddling in the affairs of other countries is just a bad idea.

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and give you some information.

<snipped to reduce quote length>

Thanks. More stuff to chew on.

 

[mammador]

He is only 'Evil' when he is told to do something and he doesn't do it.

A country is only 'evil' if we ask it to do something and it's leaders say 'NO'. It has nothing to do with killing anyone or really how the country is run. If the country produces X number of barrels of oil or produces a lot of $$$ for wall street then they are not labeled as 'evil' ... but once they start to go against the grain of our wishes we will bring 'democracy' to your country... Oh and our religion too.

The only reason anyone is there is because of it's resources. Africa is WAY more 'evil' yet we aren't over there trying to kill anyone or change anyone. A poor country will never be 'evil' in America's eye unless there is something for us to gain or to prove other wise.

here's thinking we should take their people as resources, just as we did centuries ago. they'll never amount to much, so it's deserved. I'd bet in the year 2500, the Chinese and Indians will colonise Mars, and the Africans will be as they are today. lol..

 

[mammador]

But evil is not subjective. If it was, we couldn't have any real society as it would implode (which, by the way, ours is slowly doing that because of such relativistic nonsense).



Hm, I suppose so. That's true.

Personally, I think we shouldn't have been involved with Libya, and I wasn't a fan of Iraq either. With Iraq, I can see where they were coming from and why we went in, but I don't really like it.

I guess you could say I'm a bit more of an isolationist. We need to stop being the "world police" IMO. We just don't have the money to keep blowing on stuff like this. Make a stern warning that if anyone thinks they can attack us that will hit them back, and hard, and we'd come to the aid of an ally, but other than that I think meddling in the affairs of other countries is just a bad idea.



Thanks. More stuff to chew on.

Well, what or who defines evil? Morality is completely subjective, since everybody values differently in life. No absolutes exist in life, period.

 

[M0RPH]

He was evil because our western media told us so. And we always gobble up what our media machine feeds us.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A question.

You have a young daughter. One day she doesn't see a bus and steps off the curb in front of it. Someone risks their life and snatches her. Hes glad he did. Later a man grabs and rapes her then tortures her to death. He is also glad he did it.

Which did good and which did evil?

 

[mammador]

It's all subjective. Everything is in life.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Well, what or who defines evil? Morality is completely subjective, since everybody values differently in life. No absolutes exist in life, period.

Therein lies the problem with a purely humanist perspective, and why it is so destructive. "Everyone does what is right in his own eyes."

If you really, truly believe there are no absolutes, then you cannot ever find fault with anyone. If someone steals your car or kills your wife, just accept that everything is relative and you cannot judge him.

See the problem yet?

There ARE absolutes in this world, put in place for a reason. Every time people divert from them, things get worse and worse and society gradually breaks down.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm just curious why certain people were for going after him, when the same people were against going after Saddam. There were a lot of similarities between the two, after all (killing and oppressing his own people).

By the way, good and evil are not truly relative. You're only fooling yourself if you believe such.

If we could have eliminated Saddam at a cost of $1 billion and no American lives instead of $1 trillion and thousands, I might have had a different opinion. Or perhaps not. I remain uncertain as to whether I support our involvement in Libya. In any event, the two were vastly different on cost-benefit. Even if the "benefit" is the same, the cost isn't.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's all subjective. Everything is in life.

Then not only does any possible answer have no meaning, but neither does the ques tion at least to you. You might as well be blind and asking the difference between purple and yellow. Left and right are arbitrary as are up and down. Indeed reality as most understand it is not demonstrable since we do not interact with it but with senses which are merely interpreted electrochemical signals.

I suggest "The problems of philosophy" by Bertrand Russel.

 

[irishScott]

Tell me OP, is war bad? Should it happen? I look forward to your profound adolescent insights on the matter.

 

[KK]

He was no more evil than Obama is.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's all good, the Al Qaeda flag is flying in several major cities in Libya.

 

[mammador]

Tell me OP, is war bad? Should it happen? I look forward to your profound adolescent insights on the matter.

I think war is part of the human condition. People and groups will be aggressive.

 

[irishScott]

I think war is part of the human condition. People and groups will be aggressive.

Ah, too young to recognize blatant sarcasm. I remember those days.

 

[Broheim]

In general, the international community does not care if you "just" slaughter your own people.

The international community typically starts caring if you start slaughtering the innocents of another country. Gaddafi would likely still be in power today (no NATO air support to the Rebel Alliance) if he had not pulled this stunt years ago:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...-libyan-minister/story-e6frfku0-1226011070628

came in to post this.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Despite what the idiot journalists in the press say, why was Gaddafi "evil"? Who or what defines it? Isn't it an undefinable term?

So he "oppressed" his people, big deal. Since when are Arab values liberal values?

Wasn`t Gaddafi Muslim.............

 

[fskimospy]

I'm just curious why certain people were for going after him, when the same people were against going after Saddam. There were a lot of similarities between the two, after all (killing and oppressing his own people).

By the way, good and evil are not truly relative. You're only fooling yourself if you believe such.

I don't really remember that many people being all gung-ho on Libya, the general reaction was pretty ambivalent. I for one supported the air strike option not because I liked it, but because I thought it was the least bad choice that Obama had available.

Sitting back and watching the Lockerbie bomber slaughter thousands of 'freedom fighters' or whatever wasn't really an option for US domestic reasons. (Obama would have been crucified by the right for doing that). A full out invasion wasn't going to happen, and so he ended up with a moderate bombing campaign. It turned out much better than I had hoped, but I never would have supported action against Qaddafi just for its own sake.

 

[Moonbeam]

Qaddafi was evil because he hated himself and that caused him to hate others. When you have a person in power who hates others you get evil.

 

[Doppel]

The concept of "atrocity" doesn't exist.

When you become an adult you'll probably realize that chapter you just read in your philosophy book is not the lens through which to see the rest of the world.

 

[mammador]

Then not only does any possible answer have no meaning, but neither does the ques tion at least to you. You might as well be blind and asking the difference between purple and yellow. Left and right are arbitrary as are up and down. Indeed reality as most understand it is not demonstrable since we do not interact with it but with senses which are merely interpreted electrochemical signals.

I suggest "The problems of philosophy" by Bertrand Russel.

The question doesn't me, as all moral opinions hold equal weight.

 

[Moonbeam]

The question doesn't me, as all moral opinions hold equal weight.

The question doesn't me? What the fuck does that mean?

 

[spittledip]

OP, if you don't believe in good and evil, what is the point in asking why people view Gadaffi as evil?