5 ms·

I cannot understand why you were downvoted. Your comment made excellent sense. I think the benefits of the empire are overlooked when compared to the romantic f

I cannot understand why you were downvoted. Your comment made excellent sense. I think the benefits of the empire are overlooked when compared to the romantic fantasy of rebellion. Then, in a galaxy far, far away, as now, I must wonder what alternatives may have been avoided by imperialism, such as secretarian civil wars or intragalactic economic warfare, such as the blockade of Naboo.

wmeredith 11y ago
Or control by organized crime like the Huts. We were shown first hand what their brand of justice looked like. brutal dismemberment at the hands of animals for entertainment's sake.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  The question is whether that was outlawed in Imperial space, or if it was tacitly given a pass for the sake of the larger order, like the CIA overthrow of Guatemala's elected government at the behest of the United Fruit Corporation.
acqq 11y ago
Can anybody demonstrate any advantages people of Libya have from the West supported removal of Gaddafi? As far as I understand, before it was at least peace in the land, now it's a second home of ISIS.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Gaddafi enabled state-sponsored terrorism. The West has wanted him gone for ages. In their eyes, it was better for him to be gone and have their own people safe than to have a stable Libya that could participate in terrorist activity. It doesn't justify what they did, but it is worth knowing the overthrow was not primarily done for the sake of your everyday Libyan.
  - acqq 11y ago
    Saudi Arabia's money was effectively behind Bin Laden and most of the attackers of 9/11 were Saudis. They also supported ISIS until it was clear that ISIS would rule over them too. Why not Saudi Arabia? And also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi "In 2001, Gaddafi condemned the September 11 attacks on the U.S. by al-Qaeda, expressing sympathy with the victims and calling for Libyan involvement in the War on Terror against militant Islamism." Why Gaddafi in 2011 then? The "rebels" against Gaddafi were al-Qaeda, and the US was supporting the "rebels" and "the rebellion." And when were the last terrorist attacks connected with Gaddafi? Anybody remembers them?
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      Your thinking is too America-centric. Gaddafi's aims have always been more focused on Europe and Israel. His regime has been connected with countless bombings in Europe - including the infamous Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988 - and aid to terrorist groups such as the IRA since the 70s. http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-got-off-list/p10855 http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-got-off-list/p10855 In Back to the Future, there is a reason the designated terrorist figures were Libyan. At that time Gaddafi was actively seeking nuclear weapons material.
      - acqq 11y ago
        That's why I'm asking. Since 1988 a lot of things happened, including the rise of first al-Qaeda and now ISIS, and he was against al-Qaeda and significantly improved the relation with the West since 1988. Anything newer? It just has no sense removing a guy who supported a terrorist act in 1988 by supporting the guys who did 9/11 and plan to do more. And now we even have the guys who are "too extreme" even for those of 9/11.
        rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
        Once a state-sponsor of terrorism, always a state-sponsor of terrorism. He simply could not be trusted. Just because he allegedly stopped sponsoring terrorism and aligned himself against al-Qaeda doesn't mean he wouldn't ever cause trouble in the future. Vladimir Putin is also against ISIS. How much do you trust him?
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  Sorry for edging over into what may be partisanship, but I don't see why this doesn't get more ink. It seems that the Left is fond of trumpeting how the 2nd Iraq War was a mistake, leading to the genesis of ISIS. But why do they stop the narrative there? If you're going to tell the story, don't you need to continue on the US strikes on Libya, Syria, etc., which created the regionally widespread power vacuum in which ISIS could take root and grow?
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    I could write a book to adequately respond to your question. In the interests of HN I will try to be brief. Gaddafi was a historic enemy of the West in a turbulent region. His course of action was unpredictable and had a history of sponsoring terrorism. There is no way to debate a counter factual, such as whether this historic enemy would resume terrorist activities. In my mind, the mistake was not to use force, but to leave a power vacuum. The Kennedy CIA would be ashamed.

wmeredith 11y ago

Or control by organized crime like the Huts. We were shown first hand what their brand of justice looked like. brutal dismemberment at the hands of animals for entertainment's sake.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
The question is whether that was outlawed in Imperial space, or if it was tacitly given a pass for the sake of the larger order, like the CIA overthrow of Guatemala's elected government at the behest of the United Fruit Corporation.

acqq 11y ago

Can anybody demonstrate any advantages people of Libya have from the West supported removal of Gaddafi? As far as I understand, before it was at least peace in the land, now it's a second home of ISIS.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Gaddafi enabled state-sponsored terrorism. The West has wanted him gone for ages. In their eyes, it was better for him to be gone and have their own people safe than to have a stable Libya that could participate in terrorist activity. It doesn't justify what they did, but it is worth knowing the overthrow was not primarily done for the sake of your everyday Libyan.
- acqq 11y ago
  Saudi Arabia's money was effectively behind Bin Laden and most of the attackers of 9/11 were Saudis. They also supported ISIS until it was clear that ISIS would rule over them too. Why not Saudi Arabia? And also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi "In 2001, Gaddafi condemned the September 11 attacks on the U.S. by al-Qaeda, expressing sympathy with the victims and calling for Libyan involvement in the War on Terror against militant Islamism." Why Gaddafi in 2011 then? The "rebels" against Gaddafi were al-Qaeda, and the US was supporting the "rebels" and "the rebellion." And when were the last terrorist attacks connected with Gaddafi? Anybody remembers them?
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Your thinking is too America-centric. Gaddafi's aims have always been more focused on Europe and Israel. His regime has been connected with countless bombings in Europe - including the infamous Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988 - and aid to terrorist groups such as the IRA since the 70s. http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-got-off-list/p10855 http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-got-off-list/p10855 In Back to the Future, there is a reason the designated terrorist figures were Libyan. At that time Gaddafi was actively seeking nuclear weapons material.
    - acqq 11y ago
      That's why I'm asking. Since 1988 a lot of things happened, including the rise of first al-Qaeda and now ISIS, and he was against al-Qaeda and significantly improved the relation with the West since 1988. Anything newer? It just has no sense removing a guy who supported a terrorist act in 1988 by supporting the guys who did 9/11 and plan to do more. And now we even have the guys who are "too extreme" even for those of 9/11.
      - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
        Once a state-sponsor of terrorism, always a state-sponsor of terrorism. He simply could not be trusted. Just because he allegedly stopped sponsoring terrorism and aligned himself against al-Qaeda doesn't mean he wouldn't ever cause trouble in the future. Vladimir Putin is also against ISIS. How much do you trust him?
CWuestefeld 11y ago
Sorry for edging over into what may be partisanship, but I don't see why this doesn't get more ink. It seems that the Left is fond of trumpeting how the 2nd Iraq War was a mistake, leading to the genesis of ISIS. But why do they stop the narrative there? If you're going to tell the story, don't you need to continue on the US strikes on Libya, Syria, etc., which created the regionally widespread power vacuum in which ISIS could take root and grow?
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  I could write a book to adequately respond to your question. In the interests of HN I will try to be brief. Gaddafi was a historic enemy of the West in a turbulent region. His course of action was unpredictable and had a history of sponsoring terrorism. There is no way to debate a counter factual, such as whether this historic enemy would resume terrorist activities. In my mind, the mistake was not to use force, but to leave a power vacuum. The Kennedy CIA would be ashamed.