Except there is strong evidence that Western powers (predominantly France, the UK and US) created the fiction of Gaddafi being a global supervillain and then used NATO forces to enact regime change in Libya, under the pretext of “preventing civilian casualties”. The real goal, of course, was to secure Libyan oil reserves and open the country up to western markets.
NATO is often used an extension of Western foreign policy. To pretend it is solely a benevolent peace keeper is just as simplistic and naïve as saying that everything the West / NATO does is pure evil.
During Arab Spring, the West was (naively) hoping that Libyans would rise against Gaddafi and create a democraty. When he saw what was happening, he threatened to a) flood Europe with migrants and b) expose Sarkozy’s illegal campaign funds.
a) made him a political adversary, b) made them launch a military campaign to topple him
No. He might get assassinated by an individual or a small group of conspirators. He won’t get paraded through the streets while being raped with a sword until he dies. But nice try.
It’s weird that some random German thinks they know what American hillbillies are capable of or actively talk about doing when their memory doesn’t even go back more than three years and they have literally zero knowledge of history or the nature of angry mobs.
Oh, no, wait, that’s not weird, I always forget some people are just average.
He certainly played up to the role, presumably for egotistical reasons, but most of it was sabre rattling bravado. He wasn’t seen as a genuine threat by Western intelligence agencies.
Also, NATO didn’t have to kill Gaddafi directly in order to be instrumental to his deposition. You only have to look at the history of US intervention in Latin America for many examples of how regime change can be carried out via proxies and rebel groups.
He certainly played up to the role, presumably for egotistical reasons, but most of it was sabre rattling bravado.
My dude, this ignores like 40 years of him being the most unhinged leader in North Africa. He’s always been a wild card on the global political stage, swinging wildly from befriending revolutionary leftist, and then immediately dumping them for right winged dictators.
The man literally tried to sell surface-to-air missiles to a street gang in Chicago… No one had to make him seem crazy, he was crazy.
Now that doesn’t mean I think the US should have intervened, but I don’t think anyone had to really do any work to make him seem like an insane supervillain.
That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn’t mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.
In 2007, the UK’s Tony Blair visited Libya to strike up energy deals, and France’s Sarkozy met with Gaddafi for military and economic agreements.
Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?
That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn’t mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.
That was my point about him swapping out friends sporadically. Gaddafi had massive swings in political alignment throughout his time as leader of Libya. The reason nato/un could actually make a move on his government without greater political ramifications is because he’s burned every bridge across the political spectrum.
Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?
Literally yes… Is it that surprising the west would work with a crazy despot that has a bunch of oil?
It seems we’re largely in agreement then - that 1) NATO did, in fact, make a move on Gaddafi and 2) the West supported him when it was beneficial but turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating.
US involvement in South America has been brutal- we are responsible for terrorism, murdering innocent people to spread fear, creating civil wars…Societies were torn apart in ways they may never recover from. How can you consider this an option and publicly advocate for it? That’s fucked up
Cause the USA could leave NATO tomorrow and the discussion of NATO vs Russia wouldn’t change. So the USA is irrelevant in this conversation. Plus, those were USA/CIA actions, not NATO actions. And NATO isn’t ruled by the USA, no matter how much some people around here like insisting.
Russia’s decision to abstain in that vote happened under the notoriously “liberal” Medvedev and was a point of heated disagreement between him and Putin. It was arguably the breaking point for Putin deciding he needed to hold onto power indefinitely or else (in his view) a liberal president would let NATO do whatever they want, with Russia presumably being next on the chopping block
What happened in Libya according to them?
One air campaign in Libya (permitted by UNSCR 1973) > fourteen Russian invasions
Checkmate, Westoids
Poor Gaddafi was attacked by the corrupt NATO, to the disgust of the rest of the world (except that it was resolution by the UN security council).
Thanks for the reminder, happy cake day
All the happy cake days to you! What will you do with your time without them? ;) EDIT: i.e., without lemmy.ml
Except there is strong evidence that Western powers (predominantly France, the UK and US) created the fiction of Gaddafi being a global supervillain and then used NATO forces to enact regime change in Libya, under the pretext of “preventing civilian casualties”. The real goal, of course, was to secure Libyan oil reserves and open the country up to western markets.
NATO is often used an extension of Western foreign policy. To pretend it is solely a benevolent peace keeper is just as simplistic and naïve as saying that everything the West / NATO does is pure evil.
During Arab Spring, the West was (naively) hoping that Libyans would rise against Gaddafi and create a democraty. When he saw what was happening, he threatened to a) flood Europe with migrants and b) expose Sarkozy’s illegal campaign funds.
a) made him a political adversary, b) made them launch a military campaign to topple him
Interesting, thanks
Gaddafi was a supervillian. Almost literally:
It also wasn’t NATO who directly killed him. His own citizens did, and they weren’t kind about how they did it.
NATO also wants stable oil reserves. Both these things can be true.
Gaddafi was so popular among Libyans that in the end they dragged him to the street and raped him with a sword. Allegedly.
You think that couldn’t happen with Biden?
No. He might get assassinated by an individual or a small group of conspirators. He won’t get paraded through the streets while being raped with a sword until he dies. But nice try.
It’s weird that some random German thinks they know what American hillbillies are capable of or actively talk about doing when their memory doesn’t even go back more than three years and they have literally zero knowledge of history or the nature of angry mobs.
Oh, no, wait, that’s not weird, I always forget some people are just average.
Your comment has been restored. @[email protected] removed it for no reason.
He certainly played up to the role, presumably for egotistical reasons, but most of it was sabre rattling bravado. He wasn’t seen as a genuine threat by Western intelligence agencies.
Also, NATO didn’t have to kill Gaddafi directly in order to be instrumental to his deposition. You only have to look at the history of US intervention in Latin America for many examples of how regime change can be carried out via proxies and rebel groups.
My dude, this ignores like 40 years of him being the most unhinged leader in North Africa. He’s always been a wild card on the global political stage, swinging wildly from befriending revolutionary leftist, and then immediately dumping them for right winged dictators.
The man literally tried to sell surface-to-air missiles to a street gang in Chicago… No one had to make him seem crazy, he was crazy.
Now that doesn’t mean I think the US should have intervened, but I don’t think anyone had to really do any work to make him seem like an insane supervillain.
That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn’t mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.
In 2007, the UK’s Tony Blair visited Libya to strike up energy deals, and France’s Sarkozy met with Gaddafi for military and economic agreements.
Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?
That was my point about him swapping out friends sporadically. Gaddafi had massive swings in political alignment throughout his time as leader of Libya. The reason nato/un could actually make a move on his government without greater political ramifications is because he’s burned every bridge across the political spectrum.
Literally yes… Is it that surprising the west would work with a crazy despot that has a bunch of oil?
It seems we’re largely in agreement then - that 1) NATO did, in fact, make a move on Gaddafi and 2) the West supported him when it was beneficial but turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating.
US involvement in South America has been brutal- we are responsible for terrorism, murdering innocent people to spread fear, creating civil wars…Societies were torn apart in ways they may never recover from. How can you consider this an option and publicly advocate for it? That’s fucked up
Cause it’s whataboutism, not cause it’s wrong.
calling something whataboutism is such a cop-out. what has the user said that distracts from the greater debate?
Cause the USA could leave NATO tomorrow and the discussion of NATO vs Russia wouldn’t change. So the USA is irrelevant in this conversation. Plus, those were USA/CIA actions, not NATO actions. And NATO isn’t ruled by the USA, no matter how much some people around here like insisting.
Yey USA tankies!
You people seriously hate history and facts, don’t you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
And what is dropping this wikipedia link supposed to prove?
Does it contradict the scholarly article I cited which supports everything I said?
P.S. who is “you people”?
The article was supposed to educate you on what type of person and leader Kadaffi was but something tells me education is not your strongest suit.
“You people” are teenage armchair communists with zero life experience and disdain for history books.
You mean the Security Council over which Russia has veto power? That UN Security Council?
Russia’s decision to abstain in that vote happened under the notoriously “liberal” Medvedev and was a point of heated disagreement between him and Putin. It was arguably the breaking point for Putin deciding he needed to hold onto power indefinitely or else (in his view) a liberal president would let NATO do whatever they want, with Russia presumably being next on the chopping block
Is that why Medvedev is constantly on X threatening to nuke NATO like every 5 minutes?