[Link]

According to this, Gaddafi told Blair what would happen if Libya was attacked.

Thoughts?

Problem of the times, it was fairly well argued in less listened to circles, that Libya, Iraq and Syria presented countries that were 'enemies of my enemies' as far as Islamic movements were concerned. Whilst not ever erstwhile allies, they were countries that were even less popular with al-Qaeda and their ilk, than the UK or US (because they were very secular Muslim nations).

However Syria, Libya, pakistan and Turkey all have experienced rising Islamist movements in the 21st century, and it isn't necessarily a case that western actions created a problem in Libya, the problem, like Iraq, in some ways, has been the assumption that intervention alone would create a 'better country' - When in fact the experience of history generally points that successful uprisings and civil wars tend to favour the best organised and resourced factions in the winning side - Traditionally this has tended to be Communist groups in the cold war, and its not a stretch to say in the modern age this tends to be Islamist groups.

The consequence of the end of the Gaddafi regime (much like the Saddam one) has been increased Islamist power in those countries - simply because in both countries those movements had been organised against the state, and the subject of state suppression, for a decade and more.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

These situations, if you're going to get involved in them, are usually a case of 'better the devil you know' rather than the unknown outcome. Countries like Libya, Iraq etc were really secured and stabilised by the oppression of a 'strong man' (the same would happen in Saudi if you removed the House of Saud).

Problem of course is that you can't necessarily justify supporting the strong man either, ethically.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

But Thatcher is a c*** for supporting Pinochet?

I actually agree with you & Nick in his subsequent post. The Arab spring was always going to be a bit of a disaster as they don't do politics as such. Tribal loyalties will always surpass any political (as in party) loyalty.

I remember posting about benevolent dictators often being preferable a few years ago and getting shot down in flames by most on here.