International Criminal Court

[Range_This11]

They are not nearly the same. Good is subjective. Effective means the leader does what he wants and accomplishes his or her goals despite what means are taken to achieve them.

[tml]

They are not nearly the same. Good is subjective. Effective means the leader does what he wants and accomplishes his or her goals despite what means are taken to achieve them.

 

But if the goals only benefit himself then he wouldn't be an effective "leader", merely an effective person.

[Range_This11]

You are projecting the democratic definition of a leader onto all leaders. I do not think what he is doing is right, but he is effective in the same sense that many eclectic dictators are.

[Omar]

tml, while I haven't read enough to even say what the debate is now about, and I can already tell you're being impolite as can be. Stop being so aggressive, no one is convinced by people who yell.

 

Sorry but reading this

 

... and so in my books he was a good national leader. Alas, his leadership has since stagnated....

 

said about the creature who considered this

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjjW3i-i76g

 

to be a slow day, really pisses me off.

 

The creature who ordered the massacre of 1200 youths in Bu Sleem prison over the course of a couple of hours and has now seen to the complete destruction of various cities and towns throughout Libya as well as to the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

 

I don't care for being polite with people who would care to name him a "good leader".

Apology accepted.

[tml]

You are projecting the democratic definition of a leader onto all leaders. I do not think what he is doing is right, but he is effective in the same sense that many eclectic dictators are.

 

Then the definition of a leader is subjective, implying that an effective leader is subjective too, no?

[Crocefisso]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13997322

 

 

Read it and weep, tml.

[tml]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13997322

 

 

Read it and weep, tml.

 

Thats right, ignore my points. Ignore the video I posted of Bo Shafshoufa's executions during a period you consider to be Libya's heyday.

 

You obviously can't argue against them so why try, right?

 

 

What about the article am I supposed to weep? "Friday's rally was one of the largest in recent times" ?

 

Thats an entirely subjective and irrelevant statement.

 

Is this the "fact" you were taking about?

 

I have a question for you. How does it feel to support this

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG76lomzPxA

 

kind of person? Having families believe their loved ones are still alive and bring food and clothes for years afterwards.

 

Why do you hate the Libyan people so?

[Crocefisso]

You are projecting the democratic definition of a leader onto all leaders. I do not think what he is doing is right, but he is effective in the same sense that many eclectic dictators are.

 

Then the definition of a leader is subjective, implying that an effective leader is subjective too, no?

 

The objective fact is that Qaddafi was, up until the 1980s, an economically good leader.

-104% of the USA's GDP per capita

-still has Africa's highest human development index

-all fuelled by a renegotiation of oil contracts

 

It's very easy to just say 'oil', but the Saudis do not benefit from their far larger oil resources in the same way, and neither did the Libyans under King Idris.

 

Again, Qaddafi has committed atrocities, but it's very easy to look at this in isolation. But let us not forget that our own governments have supported far, far worse autocrats in the past. Idi Amin had to kill 300,000 people before we stopped supporting him. In the Cold war era, the number of tyrants we supported across the world because they were anti-Communist is vast, and persecuting only Qaddafi goes to show just how twisted the entire concept, in theory and in practice, of international law is.

[tml]

You are projecting the democratic definition of a leader onto all leaders. I do not think what he is doing is right, but he is effective in the same sense that many eclectic dictators are.

 

Then the definition of a leader is subjective, implying that an effective leader is subjective too, no?

 

The objective fact is that Qaddafi was, up until the 1980s, an economically good leader.

-104% of the USA's GDP per capita

-still has Africa's highest human development index

-all fuelled by a renegotiation of oil contracts

 

You never said economically good.

 

Also, being economically good to ones self does not classify one as an economically good leader.

 

For example, Greece's leaders may be considered economically good leaders by German bankers but not by the by the Greek people. And they cant be leaders if they're opposed by those they lead.

 

But opinion polls suggest that 80 percent of Greeks oppose the tax rises and spending cuts which now threaten their livelihoods.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/othernews_06-29.html

 

Likewise, Bo Shafshoufa may have been an economically good person to Western oil companies and African dictators but not to the Libyan people.

 

Again, Qaddafi has committed atrocities, but it's very easy to look at this in isolation. But let us not forget that our own governments have supported far, far worse autocrats in the past. Idi Amin had to kill 300,000 people before we stopped supporting him. In the Cold war era, the number of tyrants we supported across the world because they were anti-Communist is vast, and persecuting only Qaddafi goes to show just how twisted the entire concept, in theory and in practice, of international law is.

 

So because the West has supported, and continues to support, tyrants, amongst them Bo Shafshoufa, stopping this one now shouldn't be done? I agree that the ICC is an irrelevant and hypocritical institution; that doesn't mean you can go off spouting lies that Libyans support our tyrant.

 

It's very easy to just say 'oil', but the Saudis do not benefit from their far larger oil resources in the same way, and neither did the Libyans under King Idris.

 

Saudi Arabia might blow money left and right, but its citizens benefit greatly from its oil wealth.

[Range_This11]

You are projecting the democratic definition of a leader onto all leaders. I do not think what he is doing is right, but he is effective in the same sense that many eclectic dictators are.

 

Then the definition of a leader is subjective, implying that an effective leader is subjective too, no?

No, the definition of leader is someone who leads a country, movement, coup, or whatever you want to call it. The person at the top of it all. Whether or not that person is in control or is simply a figurehead is irrelevant. In Libya, Gadhafi has been an effective leader for the people that support him.

 

You are trying to split hairs that have already been split. Arguing for arguing's sake is pointless.

[Crocefisso]

You are projecting the democratic definition of a leader onto all leaders. I do not think what he is doing is right, but he is effective in the same sense that many eclectic dictators are.

 

Then the definition of a leader is subjective, implying that an effective leader is subjective too, no?

 

The objective fact is that Qaddafi was, up until the 1980s, an economically good leader.

-104% of the USA's GDP per capita

-still has Africa's highest human development index

-all fuelled by a renegotiation of oil contracts

 

You never said economically good.

 

Also, being economically good to ones self does not classify one as an economically good leader.

 

For example, Greece's leaders may be considered economically good leaders by German bankers but not by the by the Greek people. And they cant be leaders if they're opposed by those they lead.

 

But opinion polls suggest that 80 percent of Greeks oppose the tax rises and spending cuts which now threaten their livelihoods.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/othernews_06-29.html

 

Likewise, Bo Shafshoufa may have been an economically good person to Western oil companies and African dictators but not to the Libyan people.

 

Again, Qaddafi has committed atrocities, but it's very easy to look at this in isolation. But let us not forget that our own governments have supported far, far worse autocrats in the past. Idi Amin had to kill 300,000 people before we stopped supporting him. In the Cold war era, the number of tyrants we supported across the world because they were anti-Communist is vast, and persecuting only Qaddafi goes to show just how twisted the entire concept, in theory and in practice, of international law is.

 

So because the West has supported, and continues to support, tyrants, amongst them Bo Shafshoufa, stopping this one now shouldn't be done? I agree that the ICC is an irrelevant and hypocritical institution; that doesn't mean you can go off spouting lies that Libyans support our tyrant.

 

It's very easy to just say 'oil', but the Saudis do not benefit from their far larger oil resources in the same way, and neither did the Libyans under King Idris.

 

Saudi Arabia might blow money left and right, but its citizens benefit greatly from its oil wealth.

 

I never said all Libyans support Qaddafi. But there are still people who do, and the rebels by no means have the vocal popular support of the people in the same way as the Egyptians had. These are just facts.

 

As for the fact I never explicitly stated he was an "economically good" leader. True, I was lazy and should have been more detailed. But considering that I called him good on the back of a set of economic facts, the fact that he was good in this sense should be pretty self-explanatory; I didn't appraise his other acts and I assumed other people would have the common sense to realise that I don't condone genocide. Then again, this is the internet, and I suppose I should've realised that people need to be spoon-fed to stop them making outlandish, presumptuous diatribes.

 

 

You are trying to split hairs that have already been split. Arguing for arguing's sake is pointless.

 

That's pretty common on this thread, Range. ;)

[jasignhagj]

Palestine is a victim?

 

Trololololo

[Furah]

Can I just say, this thread has pretty much deteriorated into a shouting match between Crocefisso and tml.

[Furah]

Thankfully Today... and the relationships threads haven't else I'd severly consider whether or not I want to continue using these forums.

[Ginger_Warrior]

* Severely. Hurr durr.

 

Now I've called you out on that, it makes me an e-winnar right?