4 ms·
Because they were hostile. You know it really amuses me both with saddam and gaddafi how people wonder why they were invaded. Excuse the language but they fuck
by _8j50 4y ago
Because they were hostile.
You know it really amuses me both with saddam and gaddafi how people wonder why they were invaded. Excuse the language but they fucked around and found out.
If someone threatens to kill you, do you say to yourself "nah, he won't actually do it?" Or remove them from a position of threar against you like having them jailed?
Well between nations, it isn't exactly unprecedented to invade a country and remove from power leaders that publicly and vocally threaten to cause you harm. Bush lied about wmds because of oil but the reality is, if saddam was friendly to the US or even indifferent he would have been left alone.
Now vietnam and korea, I can see how you can argue the US had no business being involved but the moment saddam, thr taliban and gaddafi threatened the US, the US was involved. Pre-emptivr strike is term they used to justify these invasions. You don't have to agree with the concept to appreciate the fact that the US is one of many countries in a long line of countries that invade in response to a threat made by other countries.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pessimizer 4y agoAny specific reference to Libya, or just a general grievance against any country that refuses to obey the US? We killed Gaddafi after he gave up the weapons and started working with us.
- _8j50 4y agoIt isn't disobedience but making threats that is the problem. You can give the US the middle finger without threatening anyone's lives.
- Maursault 4y ago> We killed Gaddafi NATO failed to kill Gaddafi. The Misrata militia killed him.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Capture_and_assassination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Capture_and_as...
- actionfromafar 4y agoYour honour, my bullet and gun didn't kill the victim, the bloodloss did.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- simple-thoughts 4y agoThis is a transparent might makes right argument. USG employees frequently threaten countries that merely possess resources USG wishes to add to its base. These countries are unable to take action against USG due to a massive power differential. While you’re sadly correct, that doesn’t mean a rules based international order can survive when the most powerful actors think this way, greatly increasing global instability.
- _8j50 4y agoI was not justifying the US, in international relations all you have is reality. There is no law nations have to follow, only treaties. Both the US and Russia ignore "rules of war" and get away with it. The reality is might is all a country has, either directly or via alliances to determine its fate and guarantee the security if its people. And it is incredibly reckless to act mighty without having actual might. And tbh, I was ranting there a bit, gadaffi was very terroristy until he saw what happened to saddam the he started to act in accordance to his strength. His downfall was how he treated his own people, the US would have at least avoided taking part in his invasion had he not been so hostile in the past.
- simple-thoughts 4y ago>in international relations all you have is reality. This is transparently false. International relations are deeply driven by both popular and elite opinion, which is why national agents constantly work closely with media to justify their narratives. If the narratives fail to sway the opinion of key actors (whether individuals or populations) there can be severe consequences if the policies are followed anyway. That’s why we have lots of small states around the globe - even though it would be a profitable action to colonize those states in theory, in practice limitations on both elite and popular opinion prevent these activities.
- _8j50 4y agoYou're talking about diplomacy there, those opinions matter so long as the mighty cares about them, everyone is at the mercy of the whims of the strongest
- mjfl 4y agoWhat an incredibly irresponsible opinion that completely disregards the civilian lives lost or destabilized due to these interventions.
- _8j50 4y agoNo, my point was actually to regard those lives. Gadaffi was ovethrown by his people, it was a conflict of their choosing and there is no known civilian casualty in that invasion by the way. But wars can be avoided and civilian lives saved if dictators big and small knew their invasion was a guarantee if they threatened a mighty country they can't resist. If you are going to have a war anyways, use that horror as a signpost that tells others "this is what will happen to you" to avoid more wars. If you say "we're sorry, won't happen again" guess what? It will happen again because they will use direct or indirect means to threaten other nations and the by the actions of one dictator millions die. This isn't about justifying war but about preventing it.
- 2xpress 4y agoMore civilian lives would be lost or destabilized if there were no interventions.
- arcanemachiner 4y agoI would love to borrow your crystal ball if you can spare it.
- mjfl 4y agoI have a really hard time believing that. Syria for example.
- DoItToMe81 4y agoI could see an argument being made with Saddam, considering the treatment of the Kurds. But Libya post Gaddafi has had more extrajudicial killings than even under the bloodiest parts of his reign. In part by collapse of the new government allowing terrorists to run rampant, but also in part because the new government before the collapse was partially staffed by the bloodthirsty lunatics he was repressing. One of the first actions of the new Libyan government was to instate the death penalty for blasphemy. Which was then used on anyone from political opposition to women daring to seek education. The government collapsed before any sentences could be carried out, but that's intent to apply repression on a vastly broader scale than Gaddafi cared to.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]