Don't like what I read and see of the man but he clearly has a huge following in Libya, is handling the situation brilliantly and is defying all the wankers (most of all the meejah wankers). Friends tell me Libya has a far higher standard of living for the poor than most of the rest of North Africa. He may well be bonkers but he's a far more charismatic leader than most. And I cannot see for the life of me why we should take sides against him when there's been no killing of Kurds or other reported violations.

Well said JK.

The idiots who want him out were the same idiots who championed the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascoes.

Gaddafi is no doubt unsavory,but his replacement could see the country turn into another Somalia.

Look at this from an Arab viewpoint,not the tinted spectacles of the western meejah and you'd realise he's very much in the tradition of Islamic rulers who got their via their skills,not their sloppy meejah personality.

Ignorance is bliss, eh JK?

In the case of your post at least.

Solihull Exile wrote:
Gaddafi is no doubt unsavory....in the tradition of Islamic rulers who got their via their skills

Well accepted to be a lunatic - with a buxom 'nurse' always by his side.

Skills? Ranting force?

Not long before he joins his mate in Zimbabwe

like many dictators he is apalling but perhaps has been cleverer-as Saddam Hussein was -in spreading some of the wealth around.

However the very fact that his vile sons have been jetting about spending,millions shows how corrupt he is. What is in the ground belongs to everyone in that nation not just a selected few and giving the peasants a few crumbs does not justify him remaining.

However we are seeing just how corrupt our leaders are..they su[pport the Gaddaffis of ther world until it's time to swith sides but they are in a pickle this time as it isn't owrking out how it should

All the others they propped up- the Shah of Iran , Murbarack, Saddam , Marcos- we aren't really much better. By supporting them when it suits us we also become responsible for their deeds.

Rick wrote:
Solihull Exile wrote:
Gaddafi is no doubt unsavory....in the tradition of Islamic rulers who got their via their skills

Well accepted to be a lunatic - with a buxom 'nurse' always by his side.

Skills? Ranting force?

Not long before he joins his mate in Zimbabwe

Unlike Zimbabwe his country enjoys one of the best standards of living in Africa.
I'm out there regularly,and was in the area last week,it's easy to form an opinion while listening to a biased meejah,and never having been to the place...ur not even a member here Rick,nuff said

is there much poverty there Solihull Exile ?

as far as I see it-the Ghaddafis of the world become completely corrupted by ultimate power and there lies the problem. Seeing Ghaddafi's son saying "we won;t be leaving -it's our country" makes me think they really do believe they own the country lock stock and barrel.

not that their replacement may be any better. But a change is always nice !

Solihull Exile wrote:
and never having been to the place...ur not even a member here Rick,nuff said

Wrong again Sol, I was last in Tripoli in early January - and BTW, a member of what?

veritas wrote:
[quote]like many dictators he is apalling but perhaps has been cleverer-as Saddam Hussein was -in spreading some of the wealth around.

However the very fact that his vile sons have been jetting about spending,millions shows how corrupt he is. What is in the ground belongs to everyone in that nation not just a selected few and giving the peasants a few crumbs does not justify him remaining.

However we are seeing just how corrupt our leaders are..they su[pport the Gaddaffis of ther world until it's time to swith sides but they are in a pickle this time as it isn't owrking out how it should

All the others they propped up- the Shah of Iran , Murbarack, Saddam , Marcos- we aren't really much better. By supporting them when it suits us we also become responsible for their deeds.[/quote]

Well said, veritas.

If we support despots "for our own interests" we are no better than they are.

We have dug ourselves into a hole in the past but the powers this time have been a little more clever.

By getting the Arab League to ask for assistance etc they are responding to a request (when we attack) and not colonialising as has happened so often in the past.

Anyone see the excellent cartoon in the Sunday papers?
Libyans seen pleading for help ... on opposite side our planes all armed and ready for action, but all wheel-clamped ! - with the message attached "grounded due to actions by B-Liar and MadBush in Iraq" Sums it up perfectly.

We are seeing world-changing events, and we may not always like the outcome, but that will be our fault for having caused the problem in the first place.

JK2006 wrote:
but he clearly has a huge following in Libya,

Where you get this whacky assertion from JK is beyond me.

He has paid mercenaries to repress his own people - where is this supposed "support"?

He pays a few to pose for the media waving his flags - while be uses an army, air force and mercenaries to bomb entire towns and villages - aginst largely defenceless (but very brave) people.

His secret police "kidnap" others in the middle of the night.

He's condemned by the world - has no support outside Libya, has had ALL his (overseas) assets frozen, and the one commodity he has - oil - he can't now sell anywhere.

No wonder he feels trapped into killing his own people - he has no future at all (either in or out of Libya).

OK I've never been there (I'd love to go) and I don't believe anything in the media but it seems to me there is a very large Gaddafi supporting side.

Just going along with the media line is ridiculous. I look at Bahrain where it's Shias vs Sunnis and I shudder. One thing is for certain. Both sides are as bad as each other and whichever wins will turn corrupt sooner rather than later.

it becomes clearer every day..there has been some sort of western backing behind these "popular" uprisings.

Sadly they could be let down as the Kurds were in the first Gulf War when the US urged them to rise up against saddam and then abandoned them.

He's handling the situation 'brilliantly'???

veritas wrote:
it becomes clearer every day..there has been some sort of western backing behind these "popular" uprisings.

Sadly they could be let down as the Kurds were in the first Gulf War when the US urged them to rise up against saddam and then abandoned them.

According to a report from Libyan state TV, an aircraft carrying people who it called "traitors" landed in an airport in Benghazi on Tuesday and stayed for about two hours.

"It is thought that it had carried a number of leading traitors and agents," the channel reported. from www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12742858

Could this be true?
Advance party of SAS? (and we all know how well the Libyans do against the SAS !)

Gadaffi will outlast all of 'em.May be a w@nker,but aren't most politicians?

Great generalisation, Billy, as bitingly relevant as your songs. Rock on, you dangerous Mockney!

I'm sorry but I reckon if you stopped the average Libyan in the street and asked them what they would like, they would say "we'd like it to go back as it was 3 months ago".
Ditto Egypt and Tunisia.
Iraq? That may be different - people adapt very quickly and most, by now, say "Hey, it's OK; just leave us alone".
None of which takes into account the thousands in each place who died.
For what?
For more of the same. A bit more freedom, a bit less food, slightly better for a couple of years - then the next leaders become corrupt and greedy.
I always remember friends in Denmark 30 years ago telling me they hated their crime free, open minded, relaxed society "because taxes are horrendous".

JK2006 wrote:
I'm sorry but I reckon if you stopped the average Libyan in the street and asked them what they would like, they would say "we'd like it to go back as it was 3 months ago".
Ditto Egypt and Tunisia.
Iraq? That may be different - people adapt very quickly and most, by now, say "Hey, it's OK; just leave us alone".
None of which takes into account the thousands in each place who died.
For what?
For more of the same. A bit more freedom, a bit less food, slightly better for a couple of years - then the next leaders become corrupt and greedy.
I always remember friends in Denmark 30 years ago telling me they hated their crime free, open minded, relaxed society "because taxes are horrendous".

True JK- 30 years ago but I think you will that most Scandanvian countries now realise they had the right system all along and are quite pleased that are not like the USA or Uk where the so-called middle class is going out of existence.

Who cares if you have money in your pocket if it is worthless ?..In Sweden and Denmark there is virtually no poverty and everyone has housing and all the luxuries we have. I reckon 30 years ago they confused their political system with lifestyle...the 60's , 70's 80's early 90's are when the UK was heaps of fun and not too expensive..

as to Lybia- Ghaddafi will go but not because of the people..because the West wants him gone and what the US/UK want -they get. He must have been plotting to do something about the oil-cut off the USA..that's all they are interested in

JK2006 wrote:
I'm sorry but I reckon if you stopped the average Libyan in the street and asked them what they would like, they would say "we'd like it to go back as it was 3 months ago".
.

It's probably prudent to wait until you know the 'average' Libyan before making those assumptions. Otherwise it's about as perceptive and empirically powerful as those NOTW/Daily Mail readers assuming what you're like.

You may be right Pru, and I'm always telling people not to believe the simple assumptions, but I often think the two extreme views tend not to be those of the majority, which settles somewhere in the middle. Apart from the few protesting on either side I think the majority would say "why are we fighting like this? Life was fine as it was". But I could be wrong.