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.
and both took a bullet to the back of the head
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.
You apparently have too time on your hands as well as some pretty weird obsessions.
Both wanted power over a unified national body. Moral concerns about humans did not register as deep concerns.
The word specious comes to mind.
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.
I just consider it more of an idiotic or pathetic question.
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.
Abe is dead. Daffy is not.....yet...
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.
“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.
It's the politically correct thing to do, doncha know.....
I think a more salient question would be: Why will France fight with us against Libya and didn’t with us against Iraq.
Oh, no. It's alive and ongoing here on FR. Make no mistake about that.
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.
Clearly, Lincoln was a better dresser.
....sounds more like libtard babble...something a muslim professor at a lib college would exploit
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.
Overreaching extrapolations are funny in a pathetic kind of way.
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.
Clearly, you answer my question. Thanks.
Dumpy psycho wife versus hot Ukrainian nurse?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Lincoln went to war against immoral people...”
Care to expand on this?
Qaddify is dong this to keep power. Lincoln did it to keep the Union together.
That is the difference.
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?
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.
Frankly the Lincoln haters sound exactly like the Palin haters on the left.
There was no “free world” 150 years ago.
What is the Difference Between Muamar Qaddafi and Josef Stalin?
Both had people summarily deported and executed.
And both supported international terrorism.
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.
one of them ordered the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.
As would my German ancestors.
Qua-daffy has no visible signs of Marfan’s Syndrome?
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.