I think the new administration in Pakistan is going to be sorely disappointed. The US really doesn’t give a damn about Pakistan now, the attitude is that the ISI can go fuck itself.
There is a difference between legal protests and illegal sabotage.
Yeah, the Arab spring prompted some internal unrest in Lybia too, like in other countries. But NATO took this as a pretext to rapidly intervene in the most brutal of ways. The UN had intially ordered a no-fly zone. But then, Lybia and especially Tripoli were bombed to the core by NATO. Gaddafi was effectively taken out by NATO, let’s not kid ourselves, it was the goal.
That allowed an actual civil war to replace the unrests resulting from the Arab spring, and this civil war has been going on until now. The battle for the control of oil ressources was eventually ‘won’ by field-marshal Haftar, a mafiaman who controls the oil production (he’s a naturalized US citizen). But contrarily to Gaddafi, who used the benefits of oil sale to enrich his country (Lybia was comparable to several mediterranean European countries in terms of development, education, health care and so on), he keeps all for himself and his clan.
https://nypressnews.com/news/world/europe/who-actually-owns-libyan-oil/
That, alongside the ongoing civil war, has plunged the country in awful poverty. Almost everything in terms of state service has ceased to function. More than one third of the population lives under the poverty line, many of them refugees in their own country.
So, you said that all this is a myth, but no: NATO’s unmoral action in Lybia has horribly thrown back a whole country, from a fully developed state (bar democracy) into a state of chaos. Nothing is done by the so-called ‘international community’ to address the ongoing problem. NATO couldn’t care less, the EU have struck an agreement with Haftar to keep African and Syrian refugees at bay (even if it often means that they’ll end up as slaves), and even the UN seems to keep remarkable silence around this scandalous situation.
I’m confused, wouldn’t it have been the goal given what he was doing to his own civilian citizens? Wasn’t that the whole point of the establishment of the no-fly zone?
So you think they ought to have intervened further, and established their own government? By the way, I’m not sure why his citizenship is relevant here?
The full context was the claim from @Sithbare that the US started the war. There was already a war, that NATO simply intervened in. Whether that was a wise intervention or otherwise, the situation was already a civil war. We don’t know what would have happened if NATO didn’t intervene.
I’m still not sure what you deem immoral about NATO’s actions here, unless you’re insisting that the war itself ignited from NATO actions. Given that the Arab Spring protests were primarily about corruption stealing resources belonging to the state at a time of economic crises in authoritarian regimes, I don’t think the United States had any hand in this, unless you’re also suggesting that the United States government crashed the world economy deliberately, including their own, in order to spark off this war that they haven’t won anything in?
They’ve committed many crimes, but you seem hell-bent on believing massive global conspiracy theories. Sometimes, things really just are what they are. The actions of the United States governments over the years are bad enough on their own without the liberal sprinkling of innuendo and conspiracy theory bullshit, which only serve to muddy the waters. Criticise them for their illegal and immoral actions, not for those where a sensible explanation can be found.
For what it’s worth, Haftar isn’t even backed by the United States/NATO, is he? In fact, it was quite the opposite, most of them (barring France, who decided to support Haftar alongside Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Belarus), were supporting the Government of National Accord.
Lets wait and see on whether pak continues to play the balancing game and succeed.
I suggest you inform yourself about the situation in Lybia before Gaddafi’s fall due to NATO’s intervention. As long as you place Gaddafi on the same level as other North-African dictators who fell or were taken out after 2011, we are going nowhere. He wasn’t like for instance Mubarak, Ben Ali or Hassan II, all full-fledged cleptocrats. He had ideals for his country, despite governing it as a dictator, and more importantly, he had results to show for his efforts. The literacy rate for instance, at the moment he fell, was near to 100% for all people under 65. Those above that age were at around 25%. That’s a telling example of what he managed to achieve. University studies were free for everyone good enough to follow the courses. Healthcare services (good ones) were free, like in Cuba. There was a remarkable level of wealth distribution among the population. The only missing thing was free elections and democratic institutions.
For this, he was facing questions by his population in 2011. Democracy should probably have been the next step of their development, and an ageing Gaddafi was indeed becoming a problem as he refused to acknowledge that situation. But since when has bombing the shit out of another country helped to resolve its internal societal problems? Instead of allowing Lybians to reach democracy, it threw them back into dark ages. The deliberate torpedoing of the state’s structures allowed a grade-A cunt like Haftar to gain power for himself. Without NATO’s help, he’d most probably have been kept in check by the Lybian state.
Right wing populism or populism pamdering to the majority has now been entremched in lots of countries.
I’m sorry you lost your idol. I truly am.
But you’re massively downplaying what was happening internally.
Yet one of the Wikileaks cables suggested that he was. Before you suggest it was an attempt by the United States government to discredit him, this was an internal document that was leaked, unless you’re suggesting that the US government decided to leak it themselves?
You’re putting a civil war in very tame words here. A civil war, with systematic targeting of civilians by the Gaddafi regime, which formed the basis of NATO intervention.
I haven’t questioned this assertion yet. What precisely do you think they bombed? What makes you think the destruction wasn’t the result of the civil war, and would not have happened if the UN (which was the one that authorised the use of force, by the way), looked at it, and just shrugged?
@Flobs Any take on the first round French elections?
I’m always interested, but tbh French politics tend to confuse me
2 Likes
I notice that you’ve conveniently omitted my part about Lybia’s development under Gaddafi. Hmm…
Ok, let’s call it civil war then, and not ‘social unrest with some violence’. The reports about the number of deaths vary wildly between different sources, so it’s difficult to estimate them, but Amnesty International for instance had the number of casualties at less than 200 before NATO’s intervention. Enough to justify bombing the country and actively help the overthrowing of the Gaddafi government?
The number of casualties after NATO’s intervention is equally difficult to estimate, but it mounts to several thousands according to the most conservative sources to several dozens of k according to others. So again, was it worth it, especially considering the state the country is in now, more than ten years after the intervention?
You might also want to read this bit here:
Other criticisms*
In 2015 through 2016 the British parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee conducted an extensive and highly critical inquiry into the British government’s involvement in the intervention. It concluded that the early threat to civilians had been overstated and that the significant Islamist element in the rebel forces had not been recognised, due to an intelligence failure. By summer 2011 the initial limited intervention to protect Libyan civilians had become a policy of regime change. However, that new policy did not include proper support for a new government, leading to a political and economic collapse in Libya and the growth of ISIL in North Africa. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee saw no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya and it “selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence”. The former Prime Minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for this British policy failure.[267][268][269]
A 2013 paper by Alan Kuperman argued that NATO went beyond its remit of providing protection for civilians and instead supported the rebels by engaging in regime change. It argued that NATO’s intervention likely extended the length (and thus damage) of the civil war, which Kuperman argued could have ended in less than two months without NATO intervention. The paper argued that the intervention was based on a misperception of the danger Gadaffi’s forces posed to the civilian population, which Kuperman suggests was caused by existing bias against Gadaffi due to his past actions (such as support for terrorism), sloppy and sensationalistic journalism during the early stages of the war and propaganda from anti-government forces. Kuperman suggests that this demonization of Gadaffi, which was used to justify the intervention, ended up discouraging efforts to accept a ceasefire and negotiated settlement, turning a humanitarian intervention into a dedicated regime change.[270]
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, despite the substantial role his country played in the NATO mission, also spoke out against getting involved: “I had my hands tied by the vote of the parliament of my country. But I was against and I am against this intervention which will end in a way that no-one knows” and added “This wasn’t a popular uprising because Gaddafi was loved by his people, as I was able to see when I went to Libya.”[263][264]
Nothing is ever black and white with these things, but for me, NATO’s intervention is seriously in the dark grey zone, (especially as there was no clear plan for after Gaddafi’s disappearance, just like with Iraq and Afghanistan). Not as diabolical as Putin’s current barbaric invasion of Ukraine, but still.
I omitted it because I’m not contesting it.
I note that our whole debate was whether or not the war was instigated by the US/EU/NATO/your preferred choice of villain to steal resources from Libya. My point to you was that it was not, and there were legitimate reasons for entry (for most of the coalition taking part at least, I think France was accused of wanting to increase the share of French companies partaking in the extraction of oil).
I note that most of the criticisms you cite stem from the negligence and intelligence failure, combined with the existing bias, rather than a wilful malicious intent. I don’t disagree that they messed up with no long-term plan in place, but that would be consistent with the intent to go in to just prevent a humanitarian disaster rather than systematic exploitation of Libya’s resources.
That is why my whole point is that you tend to see shadowy hands in everything, almost a conspiracy theory, when in reality bungling incompetence with exploitation of opportunities is a more realistic way to view this situation.
Confuses me too! 
As expected! except Melenchon did better than I expected, the left rallied behind him. Would have been a quagmire of ‘cacaphonie’ if it had been him vs Zemmour for the second tour.
The far right rallied behind MLP eventually, hard to know where Zemmour’s votes go in the second tour, not the usual far right candidate appealing to pseudo intellectuals who don’t really have a true grasp of history.
It’s also hard to know whether Melenchon’s votes will go to Macron or if they abstain/spoilt votes probably about 50:50.
Pécresse votes will be solid for Macron (they are republicans after all). (as is Melenchon in theory but that’s another of those strange, complicated french political conumdrums and he won’t call for support for Macron leaving it free of course everyone knows he will vote and vote Macron but he just won’t commit (I think that’s fair as it is supposed to be a free democratic vote).
2nd tour I can not see any different than last time 65% to 35% for Macron.
1 Like
I don’t believe in any full-fledged conspiracy. I look at facts:
- Pre-NATO intervention: a flourishing country at many levels, with democracy problems to solve in the longer term, and an uprising of mainly islamist rebels in one of Lybia’s provinces.
- Post-NATO intervention: a country in permanent civil war, with one third of its inhabitants under the poverty line. What’s the part of malice versus incompetence/stupidity in this outcome, I can’t say.
I believe however that shady figures tend to try opportunistic moves in order to favour their personal agenda. I obviously can’t prove it, but you said yourself that some shady figures tend to capture democracy, which I fully agreed with.
1 Like
Wasn’t Gaddafi also trying to set up a gold backed based currency that would have been extended to all African nations and try to get them off the dependency of the US dollar and western aid aimed at breaking ties with the US and the west , to make Africa more free to trade amongst themselves without much restrictions imposed by the west and the IMF ?
This is one of the reasons for the libyan /destabilization invasion. It is not about the dependency on the us dollar per se , it was about forming a united african front and not be bound to the west (namely france which still maintains undue control over its former colonies).
Do you happen to have any evidence of this, or are you just spouting random conspiracy theories for an everything “the west” does is bad again?
So you and I don’t really disagree then?
Again, the main bone of contention that I had with this whole claim was that the original claim by @Sithbare was one where the stated pick-your-own-villain incited the war. This claim was just repeated in this most recent post, suggesting that it was the prospective creation of a rival currency that motivated “Western” intervention.
There is no proof of such a thing, and the closest thing I can find alluding to the veracity of such a claim is a comment on Quora that notes that they were rumours on the battlefront about French motivations, which is a little odd considering that there are very few reasons why the battlefront would have information about motivations for invasions, but there you go.
1 Like
Also, for what it’s worth, that comment I linked to on Quora also addresses that point. Just read it, and see what you think.
Libya is a monumental tragedy, and there were many mistakes made. But let’s not misattribute the key reasons why it happened.