Envision, Create, Share

Welcome to HBGames, a leading amateur game development forum and Discord server. All are welcome, and amongst our ranks you will find experts in their field from all aspects of video game design and development.

Muammar Gaddafi: Was he really a bad guy?

Muammar Gaddafi /ˈmoʊ.əmɑr ɡəˈdɑːfi/ or Colonel Gaddafi, was Libya's head of state from 1969, when he seized power in a bloodless military coup ( a sudden overthrowing and seizure of a government by the military ). , until 1977, when he stepped down from his official executive role as Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council of Libya and claimed subsequently to be merely a symbolic figurehead.

( The Libyan Revolutionary Command Council was the twelve-person body that governed Libya after the 1969 revolution. Col. Muammar Gaddafi was its chairman. )

Critics have often described him as Libya's de-facto ( meaning in practice but not necessarily ordained by law ) autocrat ( An autocracy is a form of government in which one person is the supreme power within the state) , a claim his Libyan regime officially denied. In 2011, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya regime he established was overthrown in a civil war which consisted of an uprising aided by a NATO intervention. His 42-year leadership prior to the uprising made him the fourth longest-serving non-royal leader since 1900, as well as the longest-serving Arab leader. He variously styled himself as "the Brother Leader" and "Guide of the Revolution"; in 2008 a meeting of traditional African rulers bestowed on him the title "King of Kings".

Source: Wikipedia

The History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi spanned a period of over four decades from 1969 to 2011. Gaddafi became the de facto leader of the country on 1 September 1969 after leading a group of young Libyan military officers against King Idris I in a coup d'état. After the king had fled the country, the Libyan Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) headed by Gaddafi abolished the monarchy and the old constitution and proclaimed the new Libyan Arab Republic, with the motto "freedom, socialism, and unity"

( In other-words he literally wiped out the Libyan monarchy and became the president of Libya )
Source: Wikipedia

The Economy:
Libya enjoys large natural resources, which Gaddafi utilized to help develop the country. Under Gaddafi's jamahiriya direct democracy system, the country's literacy rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years, equal rights were established for women and black people, employment opportunities were established for migrant workers, and welfare systems were introduced that allowed access to free education, free healthcare, and financial assistance for housing. The Great Manmade River was also built to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country. In addition, financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs.The country was developed without taking any foreign loans. As a result, Libya was debt-free under Gaddafi's regime.

( Libya's Economy under Gaddafi's regime flourished to the point that it was debt free for Libyans black and white alike )

Because of the supremacy powers, debt is their greatest form of control, these powers have exploited this to utilize Africa's natural resources to their own benefits, claiming that they are "helping" the situation with aid and promoting free market systems. The aid that is issued to these African countries are either stolen by politicians or even if a country is governed by a fair government the aid has limitations and conditions on to how and where it is to be used, e.g to build a road to resources like oil even if this road wont help the people who need roads at all and this oil or any other resource is to be manipulated by foreign investors and wont actually be used to develop or benefit the country and in addition the simple act of aid leaves the country in debt. Free markets also have their draw backs, simply the fact that mixed economies more like free markets inherently produce class division and hardly have interest in developing a country or helping those un-able to participate in the economy, they instead control the economy with debt, debt in the form of having to pay for electricity, education, healthcare all of which in a state-directed economy ( like in Gaddafi's Libya ) planning is more extensive towards a countrys development. Gaddafi's regime was against this ( he never took any aid from foreign countries, utilized Libya's own resources and gave his people the opportunities to earn scholarships and work in libya as engineers, doctors e.t.c and in result he was always a target for these supreme powers who had no control over Libya and where threatened by its growing Economy, it is also said France owed Gaddafi money and Gaddafi was wealthy enough to help other African countries in need of aid without supremacy-countries intervening ).

Gaddafi's plan was to unite Africa under his rule, yes he might have been a dictator but he had good intentions.

Gaddafi's Inevitable End:

The series of events that brought about Gaddafi's demise...

Gaddafi's violent response to the protesters prompted defections from his government.Gaddafi's "number two" man, Abdul Fatah Younis, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil and several key ambassadors and diplomats resigned from their posts in protest.Other government officials refused to follow orders from Gaddafi, and were jailed for insubordination.

In connection with the Libyan uprising, Gaddafi's attempts to influence public opinion in Europe and the United States came under increased scrutiny. Since the beginning of the 2011 conflict a number of countries pushed for the international isolation of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. On 15 July 2011, at a meeting in Istanbul, more than 30 governments recognised the Transitional National Council (TNC) as the legitimate government of Libya.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "The United States views the Gaddafi regime as no longer having any legitimate authority in Libya ... And so I am announcing today that, until an interim authority is in place, the United States will recognize the TNC as the legitimate governing authority for Libya, and we will deal with it on that basis." Gaddafi responded to the announcement with a speech on Libyan national television, in which he said "Trample on those recognitions, trample on them under your feet ... They are worthless".
On 25 August 2011, with most of Tripoli having fallen out of Gaddafi's control, the Arab League proclaimed the anti-Gaddafi National Transitional Council to be "the legitimate representative of the Libyan state", on which basis Libya would resume its membership of the League.

During the Battle of Tripoli, Gaddafi lost effective political and military control of Tripoli after his compound was captured by rebel forces. Rebel forces entered Green Square in the city center, tearing down posters of Gaddafi and flying flags of the rebellion. He continued to give addresses through radio, calling upon his supporters to crush the rebels.

On 20 September 2011, Gaddafi made a final speech, declaring that "Anyone who says Qaddafi's government has fallen is nothing but ridiculous and a joke. Qaddafi doesn't have a government, therefore that government can't fall. Qaddafi is out of power since 1977 when I have passed the power to the People's Committees of the Jamahiriya. When 2,000 tribes meet and declare that only the Libyan people represent Libya, doesn't that say enough? This is the answer to NATO which has said the National Transitional Council from Benghazi represents the Libyan people. The Libyan people are here and they are with me, nobody can represent us. So no legitimacy to anything else or anyone else, the power belongs to the people. All Libyans are members of the People's Committees. Anything else is false."[4][5]

On 20 October 2011, a National Transitional Council (NTC) official told Al Jazeera that Gaddafi had been captured that day by Libyan forces near his hometown of Sirte. He had been in a convoy of vehicles that was targeted by a French air strike on a road about 3 kilometres (2 mi) west of Sirte, killing dozens of loyalist fighters. Gaddafi survived but was wounded and took refuge with several of his bodyguards in a drain underneath the road west of the city. Around noon NTC fighters found the group and took Gaddafi prisoner. Shortly afterward, he was shot dead. At least four mobile phone videos showed rebels beating Gaddafi and manhandling him on the back of a utility vehicle before his death.

Gaddafi's body was subsequently flown to Misrata and was placed in the freezer of a local market alongside the bodies of Defense Minister Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr and his son and national security adviser Moatassem Gaddafi. The bodies were put on public display, with Libyans from all over the country coming to view them. Many took pictures on their cell phones.
Libya's Prime Minister and several NTC figures confirmed Gaddafi's death, claiming he died of wounds suffered during his capture. News channels aired a graphic video claiming to be of Gaddafi's bloodied body after capture.

But did he really deserve this? Was he really a bad person? What will happen to Libya now? Wont their resource be manipulated by foreigners like the rest of/most African countries? Was it really the rebels who killed Gaddafi or is this a cover-up to some kind of conspiracy. But the fact is Gaddafi should have stepped down instead of trying to control the situation with violence.
 
He was a dictator. If that makes him bad then yes. (And I would say, yes).

His government did some pretty terrible things and I think we can't just excuse leaders over that. (Yes, Hitler didn't do all the bad things the nazis did, but he still let it happen and in many cases ordered it to happen).

To take a partially democratic country and orcastrate a military coup, however non-voilent it may be, to create a totalitarian dictatorship, is a bad thing.
 

Injury

Awesome Bro

He is dead, and its for the better. One of the longest ruling dictators in the region being ousted does open up the country for resource manipulation, but its the country that governs itself that will ensure the security of their resources.

NATO is sticking around until things settle down and hopefully their new government can resolve their civil issues that always come with new leaders: addressing the issues that plagued them for so long. Issues that Clowndaffi failed too solve.
 
The people of Libya seemed to be really happy when he was killed, so if its the majority's will that libya takes on a new government maybe its for the better. A countries people often reflects how things are going for them more than external sources.

He probably did some really bad "stuff" to hide behind his good but like most politicians ( if your an onlooker ) you only see their "good side" like how he developed the Libyan economy so far that it was debt free unyet a lot of people hate him?... something might have happened that only Libyans really know or have an insight about.

To take a partially democratic country and orcastrate a military coup, however non-voilent it may be, to create a totalitarian dictatorship, is a bad thing.

Also most leaders who attain power through a military coup as opposed to a democratic vote ( or some kind of vote system ) always get bitter and violent ends.

I think dictators are being overthrown in a sort of chain, first Egypt through the Arab countries in north Africa to Libya, who knows how far this "revolution" might spread...

NATO is sticking around until things settle down and hopefully their new government can resolve their civil issues that always come with new leaders: addressing the issues that plagued them for so long. Issues that Clowndaffi failed too solve.
Not that I'm some kind of sadistic-conspiracy-theorist or something but I think NATO has other motives other than waiting till things settle down, maybe...
 
1. Being a debt free country doesn't mean shit. All it means is Ghaddafi's government didn't borrow money. So what. That is hardly something that effects anyone's living standards on a day to day basis. The spoilered analysis on debt and aid is standard marxist shit. When you are talking about aid and debt situation in most African nations, you are talking about countries who are not sitting on 3% of the world's oil reserves, who are riddled with medieval plagues, disgruntled warring factions, and have a total lack of infrastructure. Of course they are in debt. If they weren't they would be in an even worse crisis. How are their problems going to be solved? Magic? Ghaddafi had oil and he developed it. And he didn't have to fight a civil war, a plague of aids and malaria, and a constant stream of famine and natural disasters to do it. It's fallacious to compare Libya to the average African nation. It is a highly unique situation.

2. Ghaddafi lead a very feudal style system for upward mobility within his economy. State planning is notorious for political appointments for jobs, meaning the state controls your upward mobility. If you get labeled a malcontent you are cut off by the system. If you aren't well connected you will never move up no matter how smart you are or how hard you work. Ghaddafi maintained his power by doling off jobs and huge contracts to supporters, thus creating a situation where everyone had to go and kiss his ring for clemency and a future.

3. Ghaddafi sponsored terrorist attacks throughout the seventies and eighties in multiple western nations.

4. Ghadaffi was notorious for destroying all institutions that served as a means of political organization and possible forums of addressing concerns and criticisms to the regime.

5. On multiple occasions throughout his reign, military force was used to massacre anti regime protests. He kept a large cadre of political prisoners and employed torture.

6. He was figurehead in name only. If that were so the opposition (who a large amount were actually former members of his government) wouldn't have placed such a large importance on capturing and or killing him.

7. I like the quotation marks you put around revolution. If the west could've simply engineered all this you think they would've done it sooner. None of this would've been possible if there was some sort of real grassroot support for these uprisings. To be honest it's sort of a nice moral change for international politics. Twenty years ago there's a good chance we would've just watched Ghaddafi's men round up some ten thousand people, dig holes in the desert, and leave them in a ditch with a bullet in their head. The fact that the international community is beginning to show a willingness take action on the grounds of human rights is a welcome sea change. And one that will further encourage that such nations will become authentic democracies and serve as a deterrent when a nation considers genocide as a policy goal to defend its political stability.
 
7. I like the quotation marks you put around revolution. If the west could've simply engineered all this you think they would've done it sooner.

Actually the Brits were gonna assassinate him some years ago, but we didn't because he was anti-communist so we decided we wanted to keep him and supply him with guns.
 

moog

Sponsor

he was shit, so yeah. I mean the guy was responsible for an array of deaths, many innocent, etc

in my book, thats a bad guy. but he was worse, much MUCH worse
 
They are generally a lot of bad politicians and yes he killed innocent people which is always an evil thing to do, but some politicians in Africa do the same only they dont do shit about the economy and keep their scandals secret.
A debt free economy still means something whatever you might think, sure Libya has a lot of superior resources like oil but so do many countries in Africa e.g Congo ( which has/had a lot of minerals like gold ) but the president ( I think the former ) built himself a palace while the rest of country suffered in poverty due to lack of infrastructure/, employment/jobs e.t.c, he could have used this income to benefit the country instead.
Their is oil in Uganda but the government signed secret agreements opposing their policy " all resources in a country are for the people i.e public" instead they plan to sell this oil to foreign investors and make themselves richer while Gadaffi built a man made river
using money from oil...

sometimes democracy doesn't work especially when majority votes are rigged or the government has some form of control over who you vote for as well as different agendas ( mainly selfish ones ). although everyone eventually hates dictators they are not purely evil/bad.

Hitler did a lot for Germany but we only remember how he was an Anti-Semitic asshole, he also killed a lot of innocent people (and in a way sparked of world war 2) the Governemt that was established after the first world war in Germany was very indecisive and inefficient in solving inflation rates. if it wasn't for him Germany might have be far worse than it is today, .
 
I think the lesser-of-two-evils idea is a bad one for people to go down. It's how we end up with the Tories in government (well, we know they're heartless bastards, at least they don't hide it like those Labourites) and so on.

It is true that these people did some good. However they still did an incomprehensible amount of evil shit and the good they do can never excuse them of that.
 
1. Mineral market doesn't compare to oil. Not one bit. I know this shit sounds impressive to you when you read some marxist, authoritarian loving blogger's apologetic rants for deceased dictators, but it is silliness to compare an oil rich economy that has enjoyed forty years of relative stability to a much lower demand, lower yield mineral economy that has seen forty years of civil wars, famines, blood thirsty insurgencies, and genocide (e.g. Democratic Republic of Congo [formerly Zaire], Uganda and Rwanda).

2. Most of the mismanagement of the above economies was at the reins of Authoritarian dictators, (Mobutu and Idi Amin [Rwanda was a basket case of civil strife since 1959]). Idi Amin and Mobutu enjoyed extensive support both practical and moral from Ghaddafi despite their practices of using the little wealth their states had for vanity projects, palaces, and the police state apparatus. The only real difference between their expenditures and Ghaddafi's is Ghaddafi had a lot more left over to kick back for development through public spending. You take Ghaddafi and put him in Uganda and he would likely have seen the same public lifespan as Idi did.

3. The terrain in Rwanda, Congo, and Uganda and many other African nations consist of remote regions separated by dense jungle and mountains. Not only do the mobility issues make economic development tougher, but the dense terrain was handy for insurgents to find shelter from the state almost indefinitely meaning the region in it's constant state of instability was generally doomed to protracted civil bloodletting. This was exacerbated by groups of nutty obscuritists who were inspired by the violence to involve themselves in their own acts of looting and violence on the general countryside (See Lord's Resistance Army). In Libya you have wide open desert, easy to travel on and hard to fight a war with modern equipment if you are outgunned as insurgents usually are.

4. Uganda's discovery of crude is 21st century recent and pales in comparison to Libyas reserves even thirty years after being tapped.

sometimes democracy doesn't work especially when majority votes are rigged or the government has some form of control over who you vote for as well as different agendas ( mainly selfish ones ).

Those aren't democracies. Those are autocracies masquerading as such. Ask Idi and Saddam.

Hitler did a lot for Germany but we only remember how he was an Anti-Semitic asshole, he also killed a lot of innocent people (and in a way sparked of world war 2) the Governemt that was established after the first world war in Germany was very indecisive and inefficient in solving inflation rates. if it wasn't for him Germany might have be far worse than it is today, .

Dude you need to pop open a history book. There is so much fallacy here and ridiculous generalizations here I don't know where to begin. Yes Weimar Govt. was chaotic at times, but Hitler came into power at the end of it's last major recession (the country was already in the midst an economic upswing and as a result the NSDAP was actually waning in popularity and money). The conservatives were hoping that Hitler would be a disaster laying a final coup de grace on the NSDAP allowing them to have a monopoly on the conservative worker vote in Germany. Instead Hitler used his position to coup the government and never would an election take place again in his Reichstag. Second, Hitler built up a war economy with heavy public spending, without military expansion this is an unsustainable way to run an economy. His purpose was quite clearly laid out in Mein Kampf. Lebensraum. Hitler didn't want respect. He wanted empire carved out of other nations for his super race of Ubermenschen with laser eyes and super morals. Yes he caused world war II there really is no questionable dickering about that. If all he wanted to do was rid himself of the limitations of Versaille all he had to do was say to the allies if you want me to disarm come and get them, then watch them blink as they had done when he occupied Sudetanland. The fact was he wanted more. He invaded Poland forcing the allied power's hand.

Finally world war II ends with the UTTER destruction of Germany. The UTTER destruction of Germany. Weimar problems pale in comparison to the situation of Germany post world war II. Germany is partitioned into two states separated by the iron curtain for more than forty years , and wouldn't be where it is today if it wasn't for the United States' Marshall Plan which rebuilt Western Germany and the rest of war ravaged Western Europe. Germany's current state of economic strength is owed largely to that bit of charity (albeit done to counter communism's growing influence). When reunification happens after the fall of the Berlin wall the economically strong west led the way to rehabbing the formerly socialist eastern bloc. Nothing Hitler built in WWII survived him except his legacy of ashes and genocide and given what his stewardship lead to for Germany that isn't surprising.
 
Wtf, where went my post to?

Anyway, what I said was like this:

That Hitler may have done some good things is something dictators have in common. Gaddafi also made sure he had a relatively good educational and health care system, had cheap cars and fuel and things like that.
Thing is, though, that after 42 years of being the boss, the population gets tired of you, and that is exactly what happened in Libya. You can't say a dictator did good things for his country, as most of the things he did are outweighed by the fact that he still IS a dictator, and wants everything to go his way.
 
A lot of the time the good things are only done to improve their image regardless.

Thing is, Hitler was actually a shit economist. He screwed up Germany's economy, he didn't save it. If war hadn't broken out Germany would still have ended up the same way.

Besides, Hitler's economic strategy was basically:

1. Spend as much as possible.
2. Terminate all disabled people and other groups which require more support from the government.
3. Stick any undesirable, but good working, people in workhouses for free manual labour.
 

Thank you for viewing

HBGames is a leading amateur video game development forum and Discord server open to all ability levels. Feel free to have a nosey around!

Discord

Join our growing and active Discord server to discuss all aspects of game making in a relaxed environment. Join Us

Content

  • Our Games
  • Games in Development
  • Emoji by Twemoji.
    Top