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
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.
ML/NJ
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.
ML/NJ
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.
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.