3 ms·

Comrade, the relationship with Gaddafi was a bit too close, don't you think? The article specifically mentioned that Italy failed help building up structures/pe

by lispm 9y ago

Comrade, the relationship with Gaddafi was a bit too close, don't you think? The article specifically mentioned that Italy failed help building up structures/people who could take over control after Gaddafi was gone... Italy was caught on the wrong foot. The relationship with Gaddafi was providing lots of strenge encounters. Here he was preaching Islam to Italian 'glamour girls': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6583305/Colonel-Gaddafi-preaches-Islam-to-200-glamour-girls.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce... Generally I agree that the role of the US, UK in the whole destabilization effort was way worse. Can't say much of the French role. Didn't read much about it.

toyg 9y ago
> Italy was caught on the wrong foot. Because there was no plan to replace him in the short term. He was in good health, had a relatively solid grip on power structures, and was busy realigning with NATO on the common ground of fighting Saudi-financed extremists and the Muslim Brotherhood - as exemplified by the agreement Blair struck only a few years earlier. The plan was to have the country in a better position some time down the line, letting him establish better trading links and so on. The acceleration from Sarkozy was not expected and very unwelcome.