3 ms·

> Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. A

> Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine. Nope. NATO has no argument here. You can't invade a Sovereign State, destroy it, put it into chaos and then say you did it because you are "enforcing rule-based order". That is bullshit. The rule-based order is simple: Every Sovereign State is Sovereign. How it handles its mess, politics is its own. You do not interfere in there unless the Government of that State calls for help. Here there was no call for help. The people were already fighting the civil war. It is for Libyans to decide who they want, what they want. Who are you, me or anyone else to decide on their behalf? Either ways, NATO has no such mandate. If you can point me to an Article/Clause in NATO which says it can invade any Sovereign Country it chooses you can post it here. AFAIK, there is no such Article/Clause. > People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position. Which is exactly what the West is doing right now. Time to sit back and introspect.

adventured 5y ago
Libya wasn't a sovereign state. There's no such thing as a legitimate sovereign dictatorship, the notion of national sovereignty doesn't exist in the context of slavery: the people in question were not sovereign. Any free foreign nations had a moral right to invade the US south before the US Civil War and attempt to free the slaves. Any free foreign nations had a moral right (not a moral requirement) to invade Libya in an attempt to free its people from Gaddafi's dictatorship. Ukraine was a sovereign state and a burgeoning liberal democracy, which is why Russia had to try to destroy it.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  Is Saudi Arabia a sovereign state? Or any other dictatorship that the US supports.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Saudi Arabia, as with Iran, is a theocracy that also enslaves its population. Saudi Arabia merely throws in a ruling family aspect to it. No, Saudi Arabia is not a sovereign state. Its people are not remotely close to being free, they are de facto slaves of the House of Saud. You seem to have missed a critical point. Free countries do not have a moral imperative to invade and free enslaved nations, they have a moral right to do so, at their choosing (insofar as it aligns with their national self-interest for example). > Or any other dictatorship that the US supports. Did you really think my answer would change because of US support or lack thereof as it pertains to a given dictatorship? I'm not in Russia, in the US I'm free to say what I actually believe about my own country, good or bad. I have no problem calling the US out for its negatives, most people are familiar with such already anyway. The US also made a pact with the devil in its alliance with Soviet Russia during WW2. Historically the US has held alliances with vile regimes from time to time for strategic reasons. Here are some of the primary US allies: Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, Norway, Slovenia, Poland, Portugal Iceland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel. And you can probably realistically add Finland and Sweden to the list. Just a large collection of the free, affluent nations of the world. Now show me Russia's allies. Then let's compare the levels of corruption and the style of government of each nation's allies. What do you suppose that says about the US and Russia? It's obvious and everyone - without exception - understands exactly what it says. It says the same thing it said 35, 50, 70 years ago: Russia is still on the wrong side of history.
- throwaway_434 5y ago
  > Libya wasn't a sovereign state It was and still is a Sovereign State. Except now it is a failed State thanks to Western invasion. I don't know where you get your definition of "Sovereign State" from but in the dictionary it has a clear definition: "a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not subject to or dependent on another power." Merriam Webster: "Nations and states are also sometimes described as "sovereign." This means that they have power over themselves; their government is under their own control, rather than under the control of an outside authority". It doesn't talk about "Democracy" anywhere. Nor does it state that the State is Sovereign only when it is by the people. > legitimate sovereign dictatorship, the notion of national sovereignty doesn't exist in the context of slavery: the people in question were not sovereign. Bullshit. > Any free foreign nations had a moral right to invade the US south before the US Civil War and attempt to free the slaves Bullshit again. > Any free foreign nations had a moral right (not a moral requirement) to invade Libya in an attempt to free its people from Gaddafi's dictatorship. More bullshit. "Sovereign State" has nothing to do with political nature/structure of the State: it can be a Democracy, Dictatorship, Religious State (like Vatican or Islamic countries) or anything it wishes to be. You, me or anyone else in the World have no moral standing to bomb it to oblivion and destroy it. Period. It is for the people to decide. If they want to overthrow the Dictatorship it is their Right to do it. They can do it. There was already a Civil War in Libya to oust Gaddafi. The people would have decided to bring down Gaddafi on their own. There was no need for Western invasion of Libya. The Western invasion was for nefarious purposes. But I'll be digressing. Also, if Libya wasn't a "Sovereign State" it wouldn't even be a member of the United Nations. Do you mean to say you have every right to invade most Islamic Nations because they aren't democracies? What about the Vatican? You feel you should invade it and "free" the people because it is not a Democracy? It is a Theocracy and a Dictatorship too. > Ukraine was a sovereign state and a burgeoning liberal democracy, which is why Russia had to try to destroy it. Russia is wrong too. Not going to defend Russia here. No country has any moral standing to invade another country unless the Government in power, in that country, asks for help or the country attacked your country. Anyways, even if I go by your definition of it being a "moral right" to invade a Dictatorship and "free the slaves", even in that mission the West failed miserably. The West replaced Dictator Gaddafi in Libya with Islamic Terror groups/warlords + Slave markets. The West replaced Dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq with ISIS + Slave markets. Demolished all Civilization and turned them into literal ghost towns. The West invaded Afghanistan to catch Osama Bin Laden and get rid of Taliban, demolished everything, rebuilt everything, and when we were all going to exclaim that finally one US intervention led to peaceful Afghanistan with Democracy, the US left, without cleaning out the Taliban, with Taliban taking over the Country + 85 billion dollars worth of advanced weapon systems. So even by your own definition of establishing a "Sovereign Nation", the West failed in achieving its objectives.

adventured 5y ago

Libya wasn't a sovereign state. There's no such thing as a legitimate sovereign dictatorship, the notion of national sovereignty doesn't exist in the context of slavery: the people in question were not sovereign. Any free foreign nations had a moral right to invade the US south before the US Civil War and attempt to free the slaves. Any free foreign nations had a moral right (not a moral requirement) to invade Libya in an attempt to free its people from Gaddafi's dictatorship. Ukraine was a sovereign state and a burgeoning liberal democracy, which is why Russia had to try to destroy it.

nextaccountic 5y ago
Is Saudi Arabia a sovereign state? Or any other dictatorship that the US supports.
- adventured 5y ago
  Saudi Arabia, as with Iran, is a theocracy that also enslaves its population. Saudi Arabia merely throws in a ruling family aspect to it. No, Saudi Arabia is not a sovereign state. Its people are not remotely close to being free, they are de facto slaves of the House of Saud. You seem to have missed a critical point. Free countries do not have a moral imperative to invade and free enslaved nations, they have a moral right to do so, at their choosing (insofar as it aligns with their national self-interest for example). > Or any other dictatorship that the US supports. Did you really think my answer would change because of US support or lack thereof as it pertains to a given dictatorship? I'm not in Russia, in the US I'm free to say what I actually believe about my own country, good or bad. I have no problem calling the US out for its negatives, most people are familiar with such already anyway. The US also made a pact with the devil in its alliance with Soviet Russia during WW2. Historically the US has held alliances with vile regimes from time to time for strategic reasons. Here are some of the primary US allies: Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, Norway, Slovenia, Poland, Portugal Iceland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel. And you can probably realistically add Finland and Sweden to the list. Just a large collection of the free, affluent nations of the world. Now show me Russia's allies. Then let's compare the levels of corruption and the style of government of each nation's allies. What do you suppose that says about the US and Russia? It's obvious and everyone - without exception - understands exactly what it says. It says the same thing it said 35, 50, 70 years ago: Russia is still on the wrong side of history.
throwaway_434 5y ago
> Libya wasn't a sovereign state It was and still is a Sovereign State. Except now it is a failed State thanks to Western invasion. I don't know where you get your definition of "Sovereign State" from but in the dictionary it has a clear definition: "a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not subject to or dependent on another power." Merriam Webster: "Nations and states are also sometimes described as "sovereign." This means that they have power over themselves; their government is under their own control, rather than under the control of an outside authority". It doesn't talk about "Democracy" anywhere. Nor does it state that the State is Sovereign only when it is by the people. > legitimate sovereign dictatorship, the notion of national sovereignty doesn't exist in the context of slavery: the people in question were not sovereign. Bullshit. > Any free foreign nations had a moral right to invade the US south before the US Civil War and attempt to free the slaves Bullshit again. > Any free foreign nations had a moral right (not a moral requirement) to invade Libya in an attempt to free its people from Gaddafi's dictatorship. More bullshit. "Sovereign State" has nothing to do with political nature/structure of the State: it can be a Democracy, Dictatorship, Religious State (like Vatican or Islamic countries) or anything it wishes to be. You, me or anyone else in the World have no moral standing to bomb it to oblivion and destroy it. Period. It is for the people to decide. If they want to overthrow the Dictatorship it is their Right to do it. They can do it. There was already a Civil War in Libya to oust Gaddafi. The people would have decided to bring down Gaddafi on their own. There was no need for Western invasion of Libya. The Western invasion was for nefarious purposes. But I'll be digressing. Also, if Libya wasn't a "Sovereign State" it wouldn't even be a member of the United Nations. Do you mean to say you have every right to invade most Islamic Nations because they aren't democracies? What about the Vatican? You feel you should invade it and "free" the people because it is not a Democracy? It is a Theocracy and a Dictatorship too. > Ukraine was a sovereign state and a burgeoning liberal democracy, which is why Russia had to try to destroy it. Russia is wrong too. Not going to defend Russia here. No country has any moral standing to invade another country unless the Government in power, in that country, asks for help or the country attacked your country. Anyways, even if I go by your definition of it being a "moral right" to invade a Dictatorship and "free the slaves", even in that mission the West failed miserably. The West replaced Dictator Gaddafi in Libya with Islamic Terror groups/warlords + Slave markets. The West replaced Dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq with ISIS + Slave markets. Demolished all Civilization and turned them into literal ghost towns. The West invaded Afghanistan to catch Osama Bin Laden and get rid of Taliban, demolished everything, rebuilt everything, and when we were all going to exclaim that finally one US intervention led to peaceful Afghanistan with Democracy, the US left, without cleaning out the Taliban, with Taliban taking over the Country + 85 billion dollars worth of advanced weapon systems. So even by your own definition of establishing a "Sovereign Nation", the West failed in achieving its objectives.