factbat.com

In an article on msnbc.com, reports claim that Mohamar Gadhafi say's he will "fight to the last man, the last woman, the last bullet." (Gadhafi to fight to the 'last bullet'; msnbc.com)

However, this statement itself is a veritable expletive of what is certainly an extremely compromising position to begin with. To make such a claim is clear evidence that his back is against the wall, and he lacks any form of intelligence that would enable him to truly gain an advantage. He is fighting a losing battle and he realizes this, or he would not attempt to bully this type of civil opponent.

Gadhafi's son, Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, also threatened the people with nihilistic self defeating speech when in a televised announcement he claimed that the protesters "would ignite civil war in which Libya's oil wealth would be burned." This is tantamount to putting a gun to his head and saying "stop or I'll shoot". Truly the desperate words of a madman. This regime will fall within the week. The only reason it has lasted for 40 years is because the people have tolerated these sycophant sophists for reasons which also prove their power to dissolve it.

While Gadhafi's son's statements may not be a complete bluff, the fact is that it is an extremely nearsighted tactic that possesses no strategic insight whatsoever. I would love to meet this man in battle.

His statements are only those made by a person who does not possess the will or the wisdom to see past his fears. The man is both terrified of the future, and resistant to change. Furthermore, he is likely angered by both of these shortcomings.

Aggression is a poorly mixed ration of frustration and fear, and does not carry the nutrient rich supplement of freedom that the people, driven by truth and logic, can sustain themselves with. No amount of aggression will carry the regime once the chips truly begin to fall in place. It takes an extremely courageous man to utter words of reticence in the face of imminent danger, and neither Gadhafi Sr., nor his son, appear to display any such character trait.

Why the United States ever tolerated such a prescient and flamboyant buffoon truly escapes logic. His regime could never support any nation's peoples because he could never afford to pay his minions anything less than a kings ransom to do his bidding.

The country clearly appears to have been run like a drug cartel for over 40 years. The fact is that no such regime can last indefinitely, and as well it is likely that his has been shored-up by shadow masters with extremely powerful friends and nefarious goals for decades.

How can Gadhafi fight anything in this Libyan debacle, when he has only helped to exacerbate it? He can do little more than elicit cooperation and compliance from those who decide that it is in their best interests to do so. This means that there must be an incentive great enough to overcome the fact that any such aid to Gadhafi's brutal actions are a denial of one's own humanity, and if understood in the realms of equative reasoning, can only lead to their demise; regardless of how many people they kill.

The death toll can only survive the regime to a finite number. Once any death toll, on either side reaches terminal velocity, the battle is won by the people. Gadhafi is playing a losing hand.

Those who agree to suppress their humanity with material rewards, or promises of power, offered by Gadhafi, are simply mental deficient's that will, almost all, choose to spare themselves further shame once the tide begins to turn to the east of the west. Any such suppression will make for the high ground, and likely join the opposition simply out of a realization that they had chosen poorly.

This is where one begins to understand why all dictators must squander the majority of their influence to silence debate. However, the anti-logic fallibility of this strategy is always their downfall because as the military is forced into realms of debate that can no longer be suppressed, this military begins to see the light that once had blinded them, and typically chooses to surrender their strength to a more humanitarian logic, and thereby moral code of conduct.

This recent brutality in Libya is simply a mirror of the scourge that has been swelling under Gadhafi's regime for decades. That the people of Libya have so long endured such oppression has honed their resolve to a degree that even the most violent retaliation by Gadhafi will only stir in the heart of the masses a stronger disdain for this ignorant and rebellious fool of a man.

The Gadhafi Regime's thugs (dubiously called 'security forces') are reported to have fired tear gas and live ammunition into crowds of demonstrators who were merely throwing rocks at a billboard of Gadhafi, proof that the violence perpetrated by the Gadhafi Forces is a deliberate action that is the result of specific commands to murder protesters in an effort to break their resolve.

In an obvious response to reports of hundreds of peaceful protesters being killed by military gunfire, Gadhafi Jr. is said to have explained - quite mendaciously to be sure - that the military 'made some mistakes during the protests because troops were not trained to deal with demonstrators.' However, the facts tell a much different story, because nearly all of the dead ,or seriously wounded, were shot in the head and neck, chest and torso, or femoral artery.

This clearly shows that the Army was trained perfectly for their mission, and that mission was obviously to kill. The problem is that it is the worst strategy that Gadhafi could have chosen, since this will force him from power regardless of what line he chooses to tip toe along from here on out.

There is no standing army which can defeat its nation's people. It can only defeat itself if it is determined to seek aggressive action to an end.

Furthermore, Libya cannot fall into civil war as was claimed by Gadhafi Jr. For the simple fact that this is nothing more than a despot's attack upon an honorable force.

The battle waging in the Middle East, and in Libya, is for Freedom, and thus it can never be fought as one civility against another. It is only a civility against an aggressor, and in these cases civility always wins.

Reference:

MSNBC; msnbc.com "Gadhafi to fight to the 'last bullet'; @

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41689225/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/