Colonel Maummar Gaddafi is dead.

[ChrisGeorge]

Clearly Gaddafi died in a situation of mob rule, something that could happen in any country when there is no control of the situation.

Then woe be the country where that is true!


The Transitional government, against that background, will take along time to gain control - or never manage it.

Phil

In a number of these countries, we will possibly see an era of weak government and turmoil until a strong man takes over, which of course was the sort of situation in which Gaddafi rose to power in the first place. Likely such cycles will occur in the wake of the Arab Spring despite our hopes for a peaceful democratic outcome in the countries in question.

[Phil H]

Clearly Gaddafi died in a situation of mob rule, something that could happen in any country when there is no control of the situation.

Then woe be the country where that is true!


The Transitional government, against that background, will take along time to gain control - or never manage it.

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

The difficulty with the way a new (revolutionary) regime deals with its predecessors, says more about the new than the old.

I was convinced, many years ago, that the death penalty is wrong and one of the key arguments that changed my mind (the other was miscarriages of justice) was that killing people is barbaric and unworthy of a modern state - it simply makes the state more like one that kills and tortures than a modern nation state with civilised standards.

In the case of Gaddafi (for whom I have nio sympathy - but that is irrelevant to my point), I do not understand how he could be taken alive, kept alive for a period (I remain uncertain of how long) and then be casually shot. If he could be captured and detained he could have been kept alive.

It says little for new authorities control over the country or for its power to protect anyone the mob deems deserving of death.

Hi Phil

Clearly Gaddafi died in a situation of mob rule, something that could happen in any country when there is no control of the situation.

Chris

[Robert]

I think this Gaddafi thing is partly cultural. I was watching Ice Road Truckers yesterday. Three of the (western) truckers had to drive through India and ultimately up into the Himalayas, on some extremely dangerous roads. The apparent nonchalance of the Indian drivers as they took hair-raising risks was astonishing. But that is cultural too, I suppose.

[Phil H]

The difficulty with the way a new (revolutionary) regime deals with its predecessors, says more about the new than the old.

I was convinced, many years ago, that the death penalty is wrong and one of the key arguments that changed my mind (the other was miscarriages of justice) was that killing people is barbaric and unworthy of a modern state - it simply makes the state more like one that kills and tortures than a modern nation state with civilised standards.

In the case of Gaddafi (for whom I have nio sympathy - but that is irrelevant to my point), I do not understand how he could be taken alive, kept alive for a period (I remain uncertain of how long) and then be casually shot. If he could be captured and detained he could have been kept alive.

It says little for new authorities control over the country or for its power to protect anyone the mob deems deserving of death.

History shows that revolutions invariably lead to indiscriminate bloodshed and eventually to rule by military strongmen (or in some cases by religious fanatics and bigots - which is probably worse). I fear that that is what is in store for both Egypt and Libya.

If Turkey goes extremist (it already has a quasi-religious fundamentalist party in government, I believe) it will stop its entry into the EU and that might have further consequences. With Syria in turmoil, and Egypt likely to move to a less friendly position viz a viz Israel, I think the situation in the Levant could become extremely tense in the future.

Phil

[Archaic]

"Autopsy"?

Hi everybody.

They say that Gaddafi's body was given an autopsy, but what kind of autopsy draws conclusions about bullet wounds and the cause of death without even opening the body up? Gadaffi's body is still lying in the cold locker, and there are no signs of any post-mortem incisions. His skull certainly wasn't opened to examine the brain and track any bullets. I'm a bit stumped.

Did they really just examine it externally and call that an "autopsy"?

Like many of you I'm bothered by the summary execution, but I think it's important to remember that the rebel fighters are not disciplined professional soldiers, but ordinary civilians who have been sacrificing their lives and those of their families to overthrow a cruel dictator.

After what their families, cities, and nation suffered at the hands of Gadaffi for 42 years - and in the past 9 months in particular - I feel the Libyans have exhibited great restraint by not stringing his body up in public like the Italians did with Mussolini.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Adam Went]

I hear that the leader of Yemen for the past 30 odd years is next on the list, they mentioned it on the news yesterday. Once one such dictator goes, it seems to be a bit of a domino effect....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The next few months will be key to Libya establishing a stable and democratic government.The 'rebels' have tended to be portrayed as a single force fighting Gaddafi and his supporters,whereas in fact they were an alliance of different factions united by their desire to oust a dictator.Now that he is no more and with a potentialy oil rich pie to be divided up how long the alliance will last before each presses its own claims remains to be seen.

In 1991, the Americans, aided by pro-Western Russians, tried 'schock therapy'- pretty much wipe out the country's political and economic institutions and start again. Problem being that when a country moves from excessive economic control to the free market in a crack, the sort of people you really don't want in positions of power come to prominence.

Same happened with Iraq.

Nationalists and gangsters fill the void.

Democracy is organic. You can't impose it and expect everyone to see it as a very good idea and abide by democratic institutions. You have to think in a certain way and arrive at a solution through the process of your own trial and error, and labour disputes and social conflict and the like.

[Mayerling]

First I can only say (whether insane or not) Col. Ghaddafi only had himself to blame for the way he died. In the last twenty years only two other dictators met really bad ends: Nicholas Ceuescu of Romania and Saddam Hussein of Iraq were both overthrown by their people, both eventually tried, and both convicted and executed. However these trials have been questioned by "civil libertarians" because the Romanian dictator and his wife seemed to face drumhead court, and Sadam faced a new, hostile government. There is a limit to this carping criticisim. Human beings who have suffered and are angry have the right to punish. Neither of these men were known for their humanitarianism. Why suddenly change for them. They got what they deserved. So did the Libyan Colonel. In the back of my mind all weekend is the thought "Lockerbie was finally paid for." That is not what was on the mind of his executioners, but it was the end result for the people who lost loved ones on that flight. Others may have qualms - I don't. The Romanian's trial may have been to fast by our standards, but Saddam had enough time to try to confront and defend his actions as patriotism. I am certain the "mad" or sane Ghaddafy would have done the same in his court trial. By the way, his end mirrors only one other I can think of - Mussolini hanging upside down with his mistress in Milan in April 1945.

I do think that Libya may have a civil war, and that Egypt may have problems with the fundamentalist. It is also a matter of time that the Camp David accords are thrown away. Turkey will follow sut with Egypt So Israel in that matter with Egypt and Turkey is the real loser. To me that is more upsetting than the death of the poor Colonel.

Jeff

[Phil H]

I admire your optimism, Adam. And I pray you are right and I am wrong.

Phil

[Adam Went]

Phil:

I'm not sure I agree with all of those sentiments - wars shift around, it's not always the same countries which are involved, though there are some serial offenders. I think there's no doubt that the 20th century is the most violent and war-filled in known history - you've had two World Wars and dozens of other major conflicts.

So, for the countries you mention who had peace a few decades ago but not have war, so it is that there are now countries who had war a few decades ago but peace now.

In the past 60 years you mention, aside from the Cold War, there's been Vietnam, a horrific war if there ever was one.

The point is that by comparison, the first decade of this new century have been an improvement. Gaddafi and others might have brought stability, having been in office for decades and the entire living memory of many citizens, but they brought it at a price, ruling with an iron fist and often bringing their own citizens into line by violent, barbaric and draconian measures.

Sometimes the old tower must crumble before the new fortress can be built upon it, and that's what I mean by hoping for, in the longer term, it will lead to a more widespread peace.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Natalie Severn]

Seems to me there are different ways to make war on your enemies. Hitler, Stalin, Gaddafi, Sadam, Bin Laden and many others will go down in history as wicked madmen - and quite rightly so.

Others will sleep soundly in their beds in the comfort that they indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the name of western liberal democracy. Still - I am in a funny mood tonight. Maybe I'll see things differently in the morning.

Quite a few more dictators to get rid of--'-how do we get rid of ours?'---- as someone said the other night on 'Have I got News for You?'---but seriously there are many and are we to just shout Nato! and we'll be rid? Absolutely not-it depends on the deals the various 'rulers' can pull off and what is at stake.

[Robert]

I think that, barring one or two scenarios akin to the Falklands campaign, this country would be wise to stay out of wars, and if it must get involved, to make sure that it has allies rather than acting alone. I also think a real "world" war would be the end of this planet. Let's hope it never happens.

I don't think there would be any problem with the BBC - they would do what they were told. There might be trouble with the commercial companies.

[Phil H]

Well, the Oxford Union voted in 1938 NOT to die for King and country, and then those same young men went out and died in a six year war.

I think it is those at home who might have a problem if casualty lists like those for the Somme or even D-Day were repeated. Modern media would make it all very real and close to home.

Also would the BBC insist on treating the modern equivalents of Hitler, Goebbels or Himmler with "balance" so we could hear their lies and treat them equally with the views of our Government - confusing and dividing the home front?

But above all, if an international war stopped or interfered significantly with international trade - what would become of the internet, where would the batteries come from for your overseas-made watches and other electronic gear; would we be in any way self-sufficient in food or manufacturing for a prolonged period of hostilities?

Phil

[Robert]

God help this country if it has to fight another war like WW2. The BBC keeps telling us that some may find the pictures disturbing - even though all we see is Gaddafi either being led off, or dead. I can foresee the conscripts for the next world war being issued with uniform, gun, and bottle of smelling salts.