I know he's a bad, bad man...or so I've been told. But something about that look of fear in his eyes connects with me on a primal level and I feel bad for the guy in that one instant.

>> ^rottenseed:

I know he's a bad, bad man...or so I've been told. But something about that look of fear in his eyes connects with me on a primal level and I feel bad for the guy in that one instant.


That is called human-empathy, and we could all use more of it.

SHUT UP!!! WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU'RE TALKING TO?! >> ^artician:

>> ^rottenseed:
I know he's a bad, bad man...or so I've been told. But something about that look of fear in his eyes connects with me on a primal level and I feel bad for the guy in that one instant.

That is called human-empathy, and we could all use more of it.

I can't tell if they're excited about the capture or not.

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Sucks to be you, Gaddafi.

Now we will end up with a even more Anti American Government that OBAMA help create.

Seriously, really, I recognize the adhoc and chaotic nature of the filming but would it really have been that hard to take a step back and have a clear video? An epileptic kangaroo could've held the camera more steady.

There's almost nothing to see here unless you want to freeze frame at opportune moments.

My apologies to any epileptic kangaroo filmmakers out there I might have offended.

It's not the anti-american government that worries me, but a religious extremist one (although the two do go hand-in-hand). The rebels had a really big help from England and France, so that may help subdue some anti-west rethoric. Or... I'm just being positive and naive. We'll see.

Even though I know about all the horrible things that this man has done to his country, the tens of thousands of Libyans who have suffered directly because of this man, and the hundreds of people that were killed by terrorist actions he orchestrated, I still felt disturbed when I saw what he was going through. He only got a tiny taste of the terror he has inflicted upon the world, but at the same time he was still a 69 year old man begging for mercy.

Yes, he was a terrible person. But it is situations like this magnified thousands of times that made him a monster. I think they missed an opportunity to step above this man and to reject him that much more completely.

nothing promotes a religion as being peaceful more than dragging a bloodied, soon to be executed person around while the mob cheer happily

just ask the J-Man

Man, that Admiral Ackbar sure is a dick.

Congrats, Libyans. Fucking animals. This is what religious nuttery gets you. Justification to do anything, no matter how base, perverted, cruel, or inhumane. God's will. Fuck you, god.

>> ^mram:

Seriously, really, I recognize the adhoc and chaotic nature of the filming but would it really have been that hard to take a step back and have a clear video? An epileptic kangaroo could've held the camera more steady.
There's almost nothing to see here unless you want to freeze frame at opportune moments.
My apologies to any epileptic kangaroo filmmakers out there I might have offended.


You try pointing an AK, packing an RPG, while trying to figure out how your new Android phone works.

You have to remember that these are soulless savages. One group of savages oppresses another and periodically the tables turn. At least one of them is dead now. Maybe some day we can make real progress on eliminating the four or five billion more who are exactly as evil as Gaddafi.

Yes, it's ugly.

Watch the documentary Ghosts of Rwanda to see something much, much worse.

The ugliness in this video of Gaddafi's capture is the conclusion of many similar deaths along the way to stopping a genocide in Libya. If we insist that our forces stay out, uninvolved, then it falls to less trained and less disciplined forces to act. In Rwanda it was the rebel army that finally ended the genocide, using an army consisting of a great many child soldiers. Brutally ugly, but it none the less stopped something much worse.

Watch this if only to see how ugly our world can really be. Go look up the videos of Al Shabab's 'victory' in Somalia this morning as they drag the bodies of 70+ AU peace keepers around before cheering crowds for some perspective too.

The only people who have the right to shed a tear and forgive this poor excuse of a human being are those who suffered by him. Suffer being such a sterile word in this context. If they choose instead to put a bullet in his head - I am not going to judge them for it.

It certainly wasn't my child who's head got blown off by one of his snipers. It wasn't my father taken away in the middle of the night.

I didn't feel bad for him at all. The barbaric ugliness and violence of the situation, however, disturbed me greatly. It was terrible. Just a few min prior I was sitting on my comfy sofa enjoying a movie in my nice safe home.

After this post I am going to play a video game.

My wife is sleeping in the bedroom next to me.

The kids are fine too. Maybe I'll take them to the park tomorrow.

I came across this article from RT from 6 months ago. Thought it was worth adding to the discussion.

http://videosift.com/video/Putin-Who-gave-NATO-right-to-kill-Gaddafi

Ok,
time for some translation:
I'll spare you all the abnoxious "Allahu Akbar - God is great"

(0:15) Hateh - Bring!
(0:22) Sora Sora - Picture Picture!
(1:01) Shaddinah - We got him!
(1:05) Hay ya walad - Alive son!
(1:16) Sawwar - Film (this)!
(1:26) Bisawar bisawar ya rajil - I'm filming, I'm filimg man!
(1:29) Arjouk, bisawar! - Please, I'm filming! (as in, get out of the way)
(2:15) Misrata!
(2:17) Misrata ya kalb - Misrata you dog!
(2:34) Spit on you!
(2:45) Shaddoh hay - Got him alive
(2:51) Allahu Akbar hamdu lillah - God is great, thank god!
(2:59) Muammar sheddenah - We got muammar
(3:24) La La La - No no no! (as in don't do it)
(3:38) La ilaha illa lah - There is no god but one god!

>> ^gorillaman:

You have to remember that these are soulless savages. One group of savages oppresses another and periodically the tables turn. At least one of them is dead now. Maybe some day we can make real progress on eliminating the four or five billion more who are exactly as evil as Gaddafi.


The 9 month bloodshed in Libya is a pleasant afternoon in the park compared to what was done to Iraq over a decade for money by the richest and fattest men ever to live. I assume you're including the western ultra mass-murderers in this analysis?

Also, big difference, this is a WIN.

Fuck anyone who abuses power to hurt children. If I met him on the battlefield I'd have killed the secret police running, manipulative propagandist torturing murdering fuck myself.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^gorillaman:
You have to remember that these are soulless savages. One group of savages oppresses another and periodically the tables turn. At least one of them is dead now. Maybe some day we can make real progress on eliminating the four or five billion more who are exactly as evil as Gaddafi.

The 9 month bloodshed in Libya is a pleasant afternoon in the park compared to what was done to Iraq over a decade for money by the richest and fattest men ever to live. I assume you're including the western ultra mass-murderers in this analysis?
Also, big difference, this is a WIN.
Fuck anyone who abuses power to hurt children. If I met him on the battlefield I'd have killed the secret police running, manipulative propagandist torturing murdering fuck myself.


Life under Gaddafi in Libya was equally posh and cozy compared to life under Saddam. The right tyrant was put down first. You can't judge post-Saddam Iraq without understanding the horrific state it had been put into by Saddam's years of depravity, mass murder and absolute repression. Gaddafi was a very soft by comparison.

Wat?
>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^gorillaman:
You have to remember that these are soulless savages. One group of savages oppresses another and periodically the tables turn. At least one of them is dead now. Maybe some day we can make real progress on eliminating the four or five billion more who are exactly as evil as Gaddafi.

The 9 month bloodshed in Libya is a pleasant afternoon in the park compared to what was done to Iraq over a decade for money by the richest and fattest men ever to live. I assume you're including the western ultra mass-murderers in this analysis?
Also, big difference, this is a WIN.
Fuck anyone who abuses power to hurt children. If I met him on the battlefield I'd have killed the secret police running, manipulative propagandist torturing murdering fuck myself.

>> ^rottenseed:

I know he's a bad, bad man...or so I've been told. But something about that look of fear in his eyes connects with me on a primal level and I feel bad for the guy in that one instant.


Considering what he has caused to happen, a little mortal terror to finish off his crazed, exploitive life is not even close to kharmic balance.

Personally, I feel this end is far more fitting than the near-instant death of a sniper or laser guided bomb. He was made to understand how completely he lost.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

Thumbs up for the guy making the peace sign at the end, this video makes it very clear that the age of violence in Libya is truly at an end, god is great indeed.


Peace? or Victory?




Yes, I noticed your checking of "the Box". Just decided to make a point.

http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg

Yup. And vote. And criticize government.

Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:

http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg

Bisawar must mean filming...that's all I know now>> ^MonkeySpank:

Ok,
time for some translation:
I'll spare you all the abnoxious "Allahu Akbar - God is great"
(0:15) Hateh - Bring!
(0:22) Sora Sora - Picture Picture!
(1:01) Shaddinah - We got him!
(1:05) Hay ya walad - Alive son!
(1:16) Sawwar - Film (this)!
(1:26) Bisawar bisawar ya rajil - I'm filming, I'm filimg man!
(1:29) Arjouk, bisawar! - Please, I'm filming! (as in, get out of the way)
(2:15) Misrata!
(2:17) Misrata ya kalb - Misrata you dog!
(2:34) Spit on you!
(2:45) Shaddoh hay - Got him alive
(2:51) Allahu Akbar hamdu lillah - Got is great, thank god!
(2:59) Muammar sheddenah - We got muammar
(3:24) La La La - No no no! (as in don't do it)
(3:38) La ilaha illa lah - There is no god but one god!

>> ^messenger:

Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg



And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.

Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?

That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.

Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?

Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.

>> ^messenger:

Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.



I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.

He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.

>> ^messenger:

Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm saying a dictator who's a true socialist is way better than a fascist puppet government of Wall Street-London oligarchs.


They replaced the state-owned oil company and central bank back in March, 2 days after the UN security council resolution promised ONLY to provide a no-fly zone over Libya for “humanitarian purposes”.

The war in Libya was never about protecting civilians. It has always been about stealing control of their monetary system and their nationalized oil profits.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.


You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?

And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm saying a dictator who's a true socialist is way better than a fascist puppet government of Wall Street-London oligarchs.

They replaced the state-owned oil company and central bank back in March, 2 days after the UN security council resolution promised ONLY to provide a no-fly zone over Libya for “humanitarian purposes”.
The war in Libya was never about protecting civilians. It has always been about stealing control of their monetary system and their nationalized oil profits.


But we aren't talking about a dictator who was a true socialist, so your comment is about some other imaginary situation. The REAL situation was Gaddafi, a convicted war criminal who had publicly declared his plans and intent to commit a genocide against those protesters that dared to suggest they should get the right to vote on who should lead Libya.

You insist on refusing to talk about the actual situation in Libya because it seems to create some kind of trouble for your hatred of anything Western. Accept that sometimes even the brutally selfish and imperialistic motivated actions of the west CAN be a lesser evil. Is that really so devastatingly incompatible with your world view?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.

You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?
And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.


From you that's a compliment.

The evidence of Gaddafi's pending genocide is undeniable, from his own public declarations of it, to his deputy minister to the UN, do Gaddafi's forces deliberate actions to attempt and implement it. What evidence do you have of the rebels genocide? So far, the only source claiming that was Gaddafi's own media, which got really silent on the matter now...

Oh, and before you show any dead bodies remember there is a distinct difference between war crimes like massacres that likely did occur on both sides in the fighting in Libya, and a genocide. A genocide is a concerted effort to track down and exterminate a specific group of people. There is zero evidence the rebels have or ever did have any such plans, while Gaddafi announced his publicly from his own mouth. The fact you can't accept this says something very sinister about what ever glasses taint your vision.

Gaddafi not a socialist? Hmm, let's see. Libyans had free health care, free education, and heavily subsidized food readily available. Gaddafi even shared excess oil profits, depositing cash in every Libyan bank account. Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa and Gaddafi was set to get an award for achievements in Human Rights from the UN before NATO and the US started bombing Libya.

For anyone that wants to educate themselves on NATO's war crimes and the rebel terrorist groups we support, read this guy's blog:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/10/libya-confirmation-could-take-days.html
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/libya-v-day-3-weeks.html

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.

You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.

Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm saying a dictator who's a true socialist is way better than a fascist puppet government of Wall Street-London oligarchs.

They replaced the state-owned oil company and central bank back in March, 2 days after the UN security council resolution promised ONLY to provide a no-fly zone over Libya for “humanitarian purposes”.
The war in Libya was never about protecting civilians. It has always been about stealing control of their monetary system and their nationalized oil profits.

Gaddafi not a socialist? Hmm, let's see. Libyans had free health care, free education, and heavily subsidized food readily available. Gaddafi even shared excess oil profits, depositing cash in every Libyan bank account. Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa and Gaddafi was set to get an award for achievements in Human Rights from the UN before NATO and the US started bombing Libya.


So you ARE a supporter of Gaddafi then. Things were wonderful in Libya under the benevolent leadership of such a great socialist leader, and that is now all destroyed by capitalist haters.

If those are the facts you believe there is no persuading you. I hope some day something manages to lift the wool from your eyes.

>> ^messenger:

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.

It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.

Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.

Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.

If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.

I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.

Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?


You use words you don't understand the meaning of. You argue extensively for the benefits of socialism. You point repeatedly to Libya as a great example of it. You close by arguing for this as acceptable because the alternative is western based fascism.

Mussolini described fascism as something that "should more properly be called corporatism, for it is the merger of state and corporate power". In the west, the struggle continues between the power of the state and the power of corporations. The fight as separate entities each trying to influence one another. In Libya this was done away with, and corporations powers were nationalized into part of the state's power. You call that socialism, but Mussolini literally wrote the book on fascism and called it that instead.

I agree with or accept everything you say here except I'm not clear on your meaning re: socialism vs. fascism. I'm not sure where your reference to fascism comes from. Are you saying that the Western countries are fascist, or that Libya will become a fascist state now that Gaddafi's gone? Also, do you consider ruling as a dictator and militarily crushing dissent more like socialism or fascism? You can't have fascist democracy, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. And as I said before, the country is still oil-rich, and may choose to continue to distribute the wealth in the form of free health care and so on as before.

I have little respect for the UN myself, and don't support their intervention in this case, so no, I wouldn't be OK with getting the UN to militarily support reel groups in the US.>> ^marbles:
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?