Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What is the Difference Between Muamar Qaddafi and Abraham Lincoln?

Posted on 03/20/2011 6:47:46 AM PDT by ml/nj

Just wondering what people might have to say about this.

Both would say they tried to preserve their union. Both employed military might to do so and killed lots of their own citizens.

ML/NJ


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: libya; lincoln; qadd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-248 next last

1 posted on 03/20/2011 6:47:51 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

and both took a bullet to the back of the head


2 posted on 03/20/2011 6:51:52 AM PDT by bigheadfred (THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE HAS BEGUN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

That’s about as visceral a question as one could think of. Spend a little time at it, and I’m sure you’ll discover your answer.


3 posted on 03/20/2011 6:53:19 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

You apparently have too time on your hands as well as some pretty weird obsessions.


4 posted on 03/20/2011 6:55:52 AM PDT by Artemis Webb (What, if not a bagel and coffee, confirms the existence of a just and loving God?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." -- Lincoln

Both wanted power over a unified national body. Moral concerns about humans did not register as deep concerns.

5 posted on 03/20/2011 6:56:03 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

The word specious comes to mind.


6 posted on 03/20/2011 6:56:27 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
It's kinda germane.. definitely interesting I think.

Former ABC correspondent John Miller (May 28, 1998, interview) said to Osama bin Laden “You are like the Middle East version of Teddy Roosevelt.”

I do not know if that part of the interview made it on the air.

7 posted on 03/20/2011 6:56:45 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
A counter-question: Is it more despicable to ask or answer a fatuous question?
8 posted on 03/20/2011 6:57:51 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Sulzberger Family Motto: Trois generations d'imbeciles, assez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Nicely done.


9 posted on 03/20/2011 7:03:06 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Lincoln didn't have a Squirly Muslim lob cruise missiles at him to start his “Wag the dog” Presidential campaign.
10 posted on 03/20/2011 7:03:26 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

I just consider it more of an idiotic or pathetic question.


11 posted on 03/20/2011 7:04:13 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
You see, some of us who have studied US History believe that Honest Abe acted as a dictator here. The fact that some see this as a "fatuous question" and decline to give an answer most likely reflects that fact that they revere Abraham Lincoln but cannot quickly formulate distinctions between him and Qaddafi whom they have been taught to hate.

ML/NJ

12 posted on 03/20/2011 7:04:30 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

It is not a fair comparison since your argument really depends on a straw man fallacy. YOu have, in essence, misrepresented Abraham Lincoln by making him akin to an Arab tyrant, which he of course was not. You then make your statement that the two were so much alike in their defense of the country, that you rest your case on it. Bad logical reasoning and silly allusion. I thought the Civil War was over.


13 posted on 03/20/2011 7:05:58 AM PDT by sueuprising (The best of it is, God is with us-John Wesley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Abe is dead. Daffy is not.....yet...


14 posted on 03/20/2011 7:06:47 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Another question is how would the USA have reacted if the Muslim nations attacked Abe Lincoln because he was killing other Americans?

I think it would have brought us together as a country and we and our militias would have counter attacked our invaders using any means possible.

When other countries and other cultures invade, the residents will usually repel it. That’s human nature. The Christians are outsiders in Libya and it will probably unite their country against us, just the same as would an invasion of the USA in 1861.


15 posted on 03/20/2011 7:07:21 AM PDT by apoliticalone (Conservatism is about putting the USA first, not international bankers and corporations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

“The fact that some see this as a “fatuous question” and decline to give an answer most likely reflects that fact that they revere Abraham Lincoln but cannot quickly formulate distinctions between him and Qaddafi whom they have been taught to hate.”

“Never Argue With A Fool – They Will Drag You Down To Their Level, Then Beat You With Experience.” also comes to mind.


16 posted on 03/20/2011 7:09:59 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Photobucket
17 posted on 03/20/2011 7:10:40 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
The fact that some see this as a "fatuous question" and decline to give an answer most likely reflects that fact that they revere Abraham Lincoln

It's the politically correct thing to do, doncha know.....

18 posted on 03/20/2011 7:12:39 AM PDT by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

I think a more salient question would be: Why will France fight with us against Libya and didn’t with us against Iraq.


19 posted on 03/20/2011 7:14:07 AM PDT by ReverendJames (Only A Painter Or A Liberal Can Change Black To White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sueuprising
I thought the Civil War was over.

Oh, no. It's alive and ongoing here on FR. Make no mistake about that.

20 posted on 03/20/2011 7:15:34 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek; Lonesome in Massachussets; traderrob6; Artemis Webb; bcsco; ml/nj

One led a monarchy and exercised absolute rule to stop rebellion through deadly force.

The other was elected president of a republic, and although did not have the authority, exercised absolute rule to stop secession through deadly force.

Both killed their own people to retain power...one has in the tens of hundreds, and the other in the hundreds of thousands.

One will be either killed or exiled.

The other had a massive building built in his honor.


21 posted on 03/20/2011 7:17:51 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
Humor the fool then. I won't argue with you or even respond to your answer unless you specifically ask me to do so. Just cite a few of the significant differences that you see.

ML/NJ

22 posted on 03/20/2011 7:17:56 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Lincoln wore a stove pipe hat and Qaddafi wears a rag.

Clearly, Lincoln was a better dresser.

23 posted on 03/20/2011 7:18:43 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Abraham Lincoln but cannot quickly formulate distinctions between him and Qaddafi whom they have been taught to hate.

....sounds more like libtard babble...something a muslim professor at a lib college would exploit

24 posted on 03/20/2011 7:19:34 AM PDT by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
They both had two legs, two eyes, two ears, and one nose. They both ate food.

But seriously, do you really think there was no other differences than the ones you cited? How long was Lincoln in power? How long has Gaddafi been in power? How did he get in power? And that's just a start.

25 posted on 03/20/2011 7:25:30 AM PDT by elhombrelibre ("I'd rather be ruled by the Tea Party than the Democratic Party." Norman Podhoretz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
"You see, some of us who have studied US History believe that Honest Abe acted as a dictator here. The fact that some see this as a "fatuous question" and decline to give an answer most likely reflects that fact that they revere Abraham Lincoln but cannot quickly formulate distinctions between him and Qaddafi whom they have been taught to hate."

Overreaching extrapolations are funny in a pathetic kind of way.

26 posted on 03/20/2011 7:25:34 AM PDT by Artemis Webb (What, if not a bagel and coffee, confirms the existence of a just and loving God?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

What a dumbass question. That’s like saying Ronald Reagan and Adolf Hitler are alike because they both armed Germany. Different circumstances, different causes, obviously.


27 posted on 03/20/2011 7:27:52 AM PDT by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

Clearly, you answer my question. Thanks.


28 posted on 03/20/2011 7:28:53 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Sulzberger Family Motto: Trois generations d'imbeciles, assez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: apoliticalone
Yeah, except reality isn't panning out that way. The majority of the Libyans want the interference as long as it's to get rid of Gaddafi.
29 posted on 03/20/2011 7:29:28 AM PDT by elhombrelibre ("I'd rather be ruled by the Tea Party than the Democratic Party." Norman Podhoretz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
I'll ignore the first part of your answer and thank you for being the first one here to cite a couple of real differences.

ML/NJ

30 posted on 03/20/2011 7:30:42 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Dumpy psycho wife versus hot Ukrainian nurse?


31 posted on 03/20/2011 7:34:31 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Okay, but even conceding that they were both leaders of their country during a civil war, the comparison doesn’t hold up much beyond that. Lincoln’s violations of the US Constitution were no where near the 40-year violation of the Libyan people’s basic human rights. Lincoln did not amaze a fortune for himself. He didn’t pass on the people’s money to his son. He didn’t try to establish a hereditary dictatorship. I mean the list goes on and on.


32 posted on 03/20/2011 7:35:21 AM PDT by elhombrelibre ("I'd rather be ruled by the Tea Party than the Democratic Party." Norman Podhoretz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

http://www.daily-news-trends.com/news-2/what-is-the-difference-between-muamar-qaddafi-and-abraham-lincoln/


33 posted on 03/20/2011 7:35:54 AM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Visualize)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Lincoln went to war on BEHALF OF THE UNION, for the good of the law abiding people. Lincoln went to war against immoral people who were out to protect their own interests in sacrifice of the good of others.

Khaddafi kills to protect his domination of the people. The “union” in Libya is artificial, cobbled together to make the people easier to exploit, not for the benefit of the people (as is the case in the US).

Actually the better analogy is a comparison of Khaddafi to the goals of the “confederacy”. Both went to war to maintain their domination of an enslaved people.


34 posted on 03/20/2011 7:36:47 AM PDT by Little Pharma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

The pictures of the Ukranian nurse didn’t really look that great. You’d think with all of his wealth he could have done better.


35 posted on 03/20/2011 7:36:47 AM PDT by elhombrelibre ("I'd rather be ruled by the Tea Party than the Democratic Party." Norman Podhoretz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
For what it's worth, I don't believe that I revere Lincoln. I do respect his intellect, his principles and his moral courage. At the risk of answering a fatuous question, I cannot say the same of Qaddafi. But that's just me.

I have long felt that the Civil War was an enormous and unnecessary tragedy, but one whose blame lies more proximately at the feet of feckless Southern politicians and James Buchanan. I am not sure that Lincoln could have averted it and remained true to his principles. I firmly believe that slavery as institution was a moribund in the U.S. by 1860. While the Civil War accelerated its end, it may have made the transition more painful for everyone, including the former slaves and at an enormous price in blood and treasure.

36 posted on 03/20/2011 7:42:10 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Sulzberger Family Motto: Trois generations d'imbeciles, assez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Not a dumb question, in spite of the snarky responses. The surface response is that Quadaffi is a two bit tyrant who has richly earned whatever happens to him. However, the same could be said for almost every Arab ruler who has existed.

What most here don’t want to dig into is the fact that Lincoln’s motives were not as pure as the driven snow. He cared nothing for freeing slaves. I suspect that northern interests were interested in holding the south as a sort of colony which could provide cheap labor and resources for their industrial system as well as a market for its products. The government likely saw secession as a loss of an enormous tax base.

I don’t know that the civil war accomplished anything that wasn’t going to happen soon enough. Slavery would have ended due to a combination of humanitarian and economic factors. Costs to the southern aristocracy would have been lower if they had freed the slaves and then used them as temporary workers who could be fired when the job was done rather than keeping them year round. That’s what happened after the war anyway, but the northerners got the advantages of cheap labor. As always with war, a bunch of northern businessmen made a bunch of money while a bunch of people died.

I’n not anti-war, sometimes it beats the alternative. Often there are better ways. I like assasination of opposing leaders as an alternative. If they get a few of ours in return, we have plenty where those came from.


37 posted on 03/20/2011 7:46:34 AM PDT by tickmeister (tickmeister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
How do you compare an insane radical dictator to the God fearing leader of the free world?
38 posted on 03/20/2011 7:48:34 AM PDT by mountainlion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pharma

“Lincoln went to war against immoral people...”

Care to expand on this?


39 posted on 03/20/2011 7:49:10 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Do NOT remain seated until this ride comes to a full and complete stop! We're going the wrong way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Both killed their own people to retain power

Qaddify is dong this to keep power. Lincoln did it to keep the Union together.

That is the difference.

40 posted on 03/20/2011 7:55:47 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Well stated. Add to that, that when the south began its move toward secession, they were still as free as anyone else in the nation (excepting those, of course, whom they subjugated through slavery). Nothing had changed except a presidential election. They were just as free the day after the election as they were the day before.

It was they who initiated the downward spiral to hell, they who struck the first blow, they who brought the nation to war. What Lincoln did was react to their terms with the intent of keeping the nation intact.

Oh, yes. I forgot. All Lincoln had to do was let the South go and all this could have been avoided. So that absolves them of the blame and places it squarely on his shoulders.

Do I really need the sarc tag for that last statement?


41 posted on 03/20/2011 7:55:58 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Little Pharma

Lincoln was no different to Napoleon, the Soviets or any other Imperialist, who only goal is to create a great union. You can’t leave the union or else we will go to war.


42 posted on 03/20/2011 7:56:32 AM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Frankly the Lincoln haters sound exactly like the Palin haters on the left.


43 posted on 03/20/2011 7:56:54 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

There was no “free world” 150 years ago.


44 posted on 03/20/2011 7:59:31 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
I've got a better question:

What is the Difference Between Muamar Qaddafi and Josef Stalin?

Both had people summarily deported and executed.

45 posted on 03/20/2011 8:00:38 AM PDT by Post Toasties (Leftists give insanity a bad name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties

And both supported international terrorism.


46 posted on 03/20/2011 8:02:00 AM PDT by Post Toasties (Leftists give insanity a bad name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

There was no “free world” 150 years ago.

Tell that to the millions of people that came to the US and settled the west. My Irish ancestors would not agree with you.


47 posted on 03/20/2011 8:06:36 AM PDT by mountainlion (America land of the free because of the Brave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

one of them ordered the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.


48 posted on 03/20/2011 8:07:37 AM PDT by jz638
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion; buccaneer81
My Irish ancestors would not agree with you.

As would my German ancestors.

49 posted on 03/20/2011 8:15:38 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Qua-daffy has no visible signs of Marfan’s Syndrome?


50 posted on 03/20/2011 8:20:16 AM PDT by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-248 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson