Quote:(Have to install Silverlight or something to follow this news)Quote:
Libyan rebels have entered into Tripoli, it appears they haven't met any sort of resistance yet. A Libyan official has just got and asked for another ceasefire, but it seems like it's too late at this point. The rebels have progressed too far, I think the end is near.
Confirmed: Gaddafi son is captured
Unconfirmed: http://twitter.com/#!/MalikAlAbdeh/s...75443460423680 It is not known as of yet whether or not Gaddafi has actually been killed..
We are seeing history in the making.
It seems the news of Gaddafi being killed were false.
Anyways, justice is deserved either way with him, but to say what that will end up being, who knows.
Yeah, there was some fake pictures circulating of him dead, but they were just pictures of some dude from the Osama raid.
I think the worries lay more in what will happen with a post civil war Libya. I'm not making him out to see like a better guy than he really is, cause he was an oppressive asshole.. But Gaddafi actually did a lot for Libya in terms of infrastructure, education etc. Libya is one of the better off African countries with a high literacy rate (I believe 83 percent?) all thanks to Gaddafi's efforts over the years..
But of course this doesn't excuse his disgusting crimes he has committed. I just hope that the country can rally together properly and not fall apart, as is usually the worry after something like this.
In a way it sort of reminds me of when Saddam Hussein was removed from power. He was a brutal, cold-blooded killer but the country did have some benefit from him being in power.
Yeah I hope chaos doesn't erupt, but that's kind of a naive wish with things like these.
I love how hypocrite the Libyan people are... when Gaddafi still had the upper hand they were still loyal to him and didn't bother to show it, but now that the rebels seem to have achieved victory the people are with them now... they are with whichever side is winning...
And now Libya should say hi to permanent chaos, debt slavery, and destruction of whatever shows that it's an muslim country.
How can anyone think that in the near future every Libyan will be rich and living in dignity and zero problems ? I bet in the years to come nothing good will be achieved.
When the rebels started fighting they had littler resources, weapons and were being wiped out by gadaffi. it is kinda understandable they would not openly support them if their ruthless and not very forgiving dictator seemed to have every card in his favor. Now the tables are turned, Gadaffi is the one that is on the run meaning that people can openly support the rebels with significantly less fear from a massacre.
That said, no one thinks every libian will be living rich and with dignity. Such an scenario does not exist in a single nation in the world (a few do come reasonably close however their situation for a number of reasons is not applicable to countries that have a reasonably larger population) and it is not about to magically come by. Libya got rid of a ruthless dictator but it will still have to deal with the troubles every other nation in the world deals with in some form of another. I am no Muslim but I do hope what you said about Muslim culture is not accurate. Muslim culture needing a ruthless culture to survive does not speak very well of muslim culture at all to say the least.
And the reason for that is transition takes humongous periods of time...people cannot cope with sudden changes...and unfortunately I speak from a more or less personal point of view
In 1938 one could also say that European culture was incompatible with liberalism. Since the beginning of the 19th century only a handful of European states had experimented fitfully with liberal democracy. Democracy was in retreat across Europe after World War I. Post war democracies in Italy and Germany had collapsed, Russia was under Communist rule, and many of the new states created from the ashes of Austria-Hungary and Imperial Russia were being taken over by fascist inspired governments. Portugal was already a dictatorship under Salazar while Franco was in the process of defeating the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. An observer than could easily say that democracy in Europe was a failed experiment. History has proven that to be erroneous, democracy thrived in the west after World War II and has taken hold in much of the east after the fall of communism.
Bene is right: democracy takes work and simply installing a liberal constitution is not enough to guarantee success. Legitimacy needs to be built, tradition needs to develop, and the people need to see themselves as citizens of one country. This does not have anything to do with Muslim culture though but is universal to all new democracies. There is every reason to believe that democracy can take root in Libya, just as there are many reasons to worry that it will not. Libya has one advantage: few vested interest. Gaddafi was so ruthless and invested so much national power within his inner circle that there is no one left to exploit his removal. He was afraid of a coup so there army was deliberately weakened. His loyal forces were destroyed with them. The military was also kept out of business, so none of the officers have personal holdings to protect. Gaddafi feared the tribes as a potential alternative source of intelligence, so he spent the last forty years undermining there influence. Tribe seems to have some importance, but not enough to undermine loyalty to the new government.
---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 PM ----------
No one ever said democracy was a perfect system, no coherent person with a lone functional braincell really believes democracy is a magical solution to the worlds problems. If it was the world wouldn't have 3 billion people with no access to food, telephone and internet to say the least. It takes a look at countries with sad excuses of populist governments where people relentlessly vote for demagogues who do nothing but talk crap about developed countries to blame them for everything (every now and then they point out something which is true though) which is wrong with the world and make it appear as if it was their fault that their country is screwed (thus turning democracy into little more than a pageant with the bigger demagogue winning) to see democracy in itself is inherent flawed.
There are a number of things which I do think are good aspects of democracy. For one thing, people can be screwed with a ruthless dictator they didn't choose or they can be screwed with a demagogue they did choose. I would argue it is better to at least have the choice of who will systematically screw up everything. Who know, maybe hey might even get it right sometime and make a little better for themselves. Overall, democracy is the better option among an overwhelming number of bad options. It won't solve everything but assuming democratic principles are properly applied then the people at least have a better shot.
On another note, I do think nationalism is stupid and it should be separated from democracy. it served its purpose to end large monarchies back in the day and unite people as nations however nowadays I find that it does more damage than what it helps. It could still work in potential new nations though (Libya will definitely need a bit of that to get their democracy started).