Mummar Gaddafhi's Leadership Was A Net Gain For Libya And The World.

Alright final round, I shall give a short rebuttal and my closing statement.Now Libya's African neihbors being Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Chad.But as my opponent does point out with the exception of Seychelles, being a handful of islands in the Indian Oceanwith a population of a mere 84,000 Libya under Gaddafhi indeed had the highest HDI in ALL African nations.I am not saying the Rebels actions being worse then Gaddafhi's make his leadership anybetter or worse, howeverit absolutley justifies millitary action.Civil WarUN and NATO are you claiming that the are forces that collaborate? NATO is a millitary alliance just like CIS and is not a UN security force by nature but a millitary alliance that was established between nations which have signed the North Antlantic Treaty.Look at the Treaty yourself:The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.http://www.nato.int...Why does NATO have the rigth to attack Libyans in a purely Libyan conflict? How does this even remotley involve NATO? NATO believes in the UN but they have no right to attack Gaddafhi and his supporters simply becuase they want the otherside to win.Furthermore Gaddafhi when addressing the United Nations called for mass reform.Furthermore do not even try to claim that this is what the people of the world agreed apon and that makes Gaddafhi a bad leader. UN security resolution 1973 the one which was the justification for NATO attacks was passed by the Security Council which as you know is dominated by 5 permenant members whom have the right to Veto any security mesuare they do not like. Do not claim that this is democracy in any form. China and Russia did not even vote in favour of it but simply abstained. This was not the 7 billion people of the world deciding democraticly to remove a leader of a foriegn country but a handful of powerful governments voting to put a no-fly zone in affect in Libya.http://www.un.org...Ah yes the rebels. When two political or religion factions are armed wars break out. However you must recognize that their were many loyalists who simply lost. I assume since you did not adress it that might makes right.To finish off this debate on the civil war, "the whole world" comment shall now be adressed."We must be prudent. We know what our political line is: We don't support invasions, or massacres, or anything like that no matter who does it. A campaign of lies is being spun together regarding Libya [...] I'm not going to condemn him. I'd be a coward to condemn someone who has been my friend."-Hugo Chavez"Syria affirms its rejection of all forms of foreign interference in Libyan affairs, since that would be a violation of Libya's sovereignty, its independence and the unity of its land,"-Syrian Foriegn ministrySyria and Venesuala are part of the world. Syria and Venesuala were agianst millitary action agianst Gaddafhi and any intervention on a soley Libyan matter. Thus this claim about the whole world wanting Gaddafhi taken out by millitary intervention is not true.Health And LiteracyFirstly I am thrilled you affirm Gaddafi did infact benifiet Libya. Remeber even if you say slightly you admit that he has helped more then hurt on this subject.http://www.who.int... is the full report.Since you did not respond to my defense of Gaddafhi's traffic handlings then I must assume that you accept them.Agian you bring up the civil war.Agian I will counter by saying that all of these casualties cannot be blamed on Gaddafhi. People die in wars and civillians are negativley affected always. However you claim that Gaddafhi did not even try a diplomatic solution. Well then I suppose I can dismantle you entire argument on the matter in one point. http://news.xinhuanet.com... called for internationally supervised elections to end the dispute that would ensure peace and transperancy. The rebels refused Gaddafhi and would rather inflict more deaths while Gaddafhi seeked a peaceful solution. Gaddafhi could not have a peaceful solution becuase these armed rebels would not allow it.You did not even refute the high literacy rates you just critizied Gaddafhi being agianst teaching English in Libyan schools. I gave a rebuttal but you simply repeated the exact same point as before. Gaddafhi not teaching a certian language is perhapsdetremential however you cannot possibley claim it refute Gaddafhi's education system as a whole now can you? Thus Gaddafhi still benifieted the health and literacy of the Libyan People.III. TerrorismIt is totally true that Gaddafhi supported Amin and IRA and I will not defend terrorism.However it was Mummar Al-Gaddafi who had paid compensation for one his own citizens commiting a grave crime agaisnt humanity as I have already said and you have not refuted.Furthermore you should read the following:"Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as "a model" for others to follow. Rice attributed the ending of the U.S.'s long break in diplomatic relations to Gaddafi's historic decision in 2003 to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism as well as Libya's "excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001." http://www.time.com...;Gaddafhi dismantled Libyan WMDs and dennounced the Semptember 11th attacks cooperating with the nations of the world fighting terrorism. Gaddafhi supported anti-Imperialist movements across the world, a few of which ended up being terrorist.However in the end Gaddafhi stood agianst terrorism.Closing Statement:I will end this debate by saying that since my opponent has failed to prove Gaddafhi as a true net loss to mankind that you will vote PRO. However I ask each and everyone of you to look over these arguments carefully, if all of Gaddafhi's accomplishments are outwieghed by Con's claims, vote CON. If they are not outwieghed by Con's claims vote pro. Despite Con's misplaced statements about how to spell Gaddafhi I would like to say that my opponent's spelling and grammar was excellent. Furthermore I would like to thank him for staying through until the very end and not Forfieting. May Gaddafhi smile apon this clash in heaven. Thank you all for reading and voting!~Alex