7 ms·

The "EU and America" didn't assassinate Gaddafi. Right. "We came, we saw, he died! [lol]" Gaddafi was "assassinated" because there was a full-on civil war and

by themgt 3y ago

The "EU and America" didn't assassinate Gaddafi. Right. "We came, we saw, he died! [lol]" Gaddafi was "assassinated" because there was a full-on civil war and the EU and America bombed the massive convoy he had sent to crush the rebellion in Benghazi and enforced a no-fly zone otherwise Gaddafi's planes would obliterate the rebel forces and the civilians living in those cities This is just revisionist nonsense. There was no "full on" civil war in Libya until NATO intervened and turned it into such. This video [1] (from 9 years ago) does a good job laying out the counterargument - the US took the opportunity of a small-scale uprising to regime change Gaddafi and plunged the country into now a decade of chaos and destruction with no end in sight, destabilizing most of North Africa and flooding Europe with refugees in the process. Everyone's "performance" has been bad, but why don't we talk about Syria/Russia/[Al-Qaeda] dealings in Libya in the last ~5 years? Why don't we talk about how the US illegally invaded Syria, allied itself with Al-Qaeda offshoots and tried to topple another antagonist Ba'athist government, failed, and plunged that country also into now an effectively permanent low-level civil war? Why is it the US and NATO can invade and bomb and occupy the territory of anyone they want by claiming "their leaders are bad" but if anyone else does it to our friends (many of whom are also bad) it's all "territorial integrity" and "national sovereignty" and "the rules based order"? Because our foreign policy is run by utter amoral hypocrites and liars. We are the flailing, declining hegemon, leaving a path of destruction in our wake. And in cases like Syria or Libya its hard to avoid the conclusion our perspective is "if we can't have it we'll settle for wrecking it". [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH3D-sOLpHE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH3D-sOLpHE

orwin 3y ago
For accuracy's sake (i can't find the Atlantic article talking about it, and i'm not bored enough to spend my day going through Wikileaks, so right now the source is trustmebro, i hope that someone have the documents/article in favorite), thanks to Hilary's leaked emails, we know that Obama's administration wasn't keen on going in Libya, and only Sarkozy(France) and Cameron(UK) insistence on attacking decided the US to support the invasion (and it was mostly logistical support). Again thanks to Hillary's emails, we can suspect that the CIA had a hand in eliminating the new candidate that france wanted to support (we had contact with both Kaddafi's son and the leader of a rebel group, both died), but i wouldn't put that war, then civil war, on US. Also, while France supported eliminating Kaddafi here, they supported the dictator in Tunisia with police forces and weapons (that are marked as non-lethal, but since we haven't found many nonlethal weapons after the revolution, either there was a kickback, or a lot were stolen/lost, or a part of what was sent were lethal weapons). And for Syria it's the same, Obama's administration wasn't really focused on that part of the middle east, and Hollande (France) forced their hand. Truly, i cannot believe France's reputation in Africa is that low. I wonder why.
- boppo1 3y ago
  How did France compel the US about anything?
  - continuitylimit 3y ago
    The powers have long divided ‘loot’ — meaning weaker nations that they can exploit — between themselves. Africa is very much French territory. It’s like asking how does a Don from the Council compel the God Father to agree to a hit. “It’s just business”. Qaddafi got what he deserved from a karmic point of view. He was instrumental in gifting the Islamic Republic to Iran so hope you enjoyed that bayonet Colonel. But obviously his regime was far better for Libya and Africans than the loonies that are cranked up, trained, and armed by Western intelligence agencies as part of their mad approach to managing exploited realms. But again “it’s just business”.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    The US and EU were in the middle of a trade dispute over Airbus subsidizes at the time, which was largely French led. The WTO ended up finding the EU guilty in 2020.
  - orwin 3y ago
    For Libya, mostly by giving fake intel to the UN (and by extension to the US), George W Bush 'WMD' style (though it was a bit more compelling). I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if the UK was aware of it or if the Mi6/SIS was fooled. For Syria, Obama made threats to try to prevent the use of chemical weapons. The UK wanted to avoid another Libya, the other EU countries aren't warmongers, Turkey wouldn't have said anything, so only France did the 'actually, they used chemical weapons, and the US is not alone if you go so you won't have another Iraq!'. I don't know what happened to Hollande, why he grew a pair suddenly, but I don't think we ever had a president who didn't stir shit at least once in 70 years.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  > we know that Obama's administration wasn't keen on going in Libya, and only Sarkozy(France) and Cameron(UK) insistence on attacking decided the US to support the invasion (and it was mostly logistical support). Yep. Can confirm. This was publicly reported during the 2011-12 period as well. There were a couple press junkets Obama, the State Dept, and DoD did at the time highlighting this stance of non-interventionism. Read some of the older Economist articles from that era as well. I didn't know Emailgate actually had emails from that time.
PedroBatista 3y ago
I already see there is no point in continue this conversation. I notice your standards for US/EU intervention are very very high and basically nobody should ever being killed. Why don't you apply the same reasoning to Gaddafi's regime and Syria/Russia/Al-Qaeda? You seem to have every problem existing in the Universe when the evil West does something ( and also a problem when it doesn't, also a problem that the West exists I suspect ), yet not a peep when these regimes torture and kill people by the thousands, or are you going to tell me that's just a fantasy? Or when they do it it's justify because it's the West's fault too, so those poor victims have no other choice than to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them? Btw, I'm not even "defending" the US/EU track record in Libya. I think they did a really bad half-assed job, but I also recognize the context of it all. Anyway, I've had it.
- themgt 3y ago
  Why don't you apply the same reasoning to Gaddafi's regime and Syria/Russia/Al-Qaeda? What reasoning? First of all I'm an American citizen, so I concern myself more with what my country does with my tax dollars than what other countries do, especially within their own borders or in situations that don't directly affect American citizens. I don't believe America's job is global law enforcement. It's like asking an American "why don't you apply the reasoning that President Trump is corrupt to President Ali Bongo of Niger? Why aren't you calling for President Ali Bongo's arrest? Double standard?" also a problem that the West exists I suspect It's fascinating that my criticism of the US/NATO bombing and invading and occupying other countries leads you to suspect I have a problem "that the West exists". In your conception perhaps "the West" would cease to exist as such if it were not the global hegemon? yet not a peep when these regimes torture and kill people by the thousands Saudi Arabia tortures and kills people by the thousands. If China or Russia invaded Saudi Arabia and attempted to turn it into a client state using the justification of Saudi misdeeds, would you support them? I suspect not, but we're back to "when the US/NATO does it it's good, when US/NATO adversaries do it it's bad" being the "rules-based order" many believe should exist.
  - misja111 3y ago
    > but we're back to "when the US/NATO does it it's good, when US/NATO adversaries do it it's bad" You're talking about the hypothetical situation when China or Russia would invade a country to stop the regime from torturing and killing people by the thousands. And you proceed to claim that when they would do it, the West would say "it's bad". There have been plenty of occasions in, say, the last 75 years where China or Russia have invaded some country. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but not one single time was it to stop the regime from torturing and killing people by the thousands. Otoh there have been, and still are, plenty of regimes that are killing and torturing like that, and which receive the full support from China and Russia.
IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
>>>>>>>> Because our foreign policy is run by utter amoral hypocrites and liars. No. Don't assume malice where ineptitude will be sufficient. Our Foreign Policy is run by armchair, master-degree wannabe-generals in suits and ties, some dark triad, some not, but always away from real bullets, to instead being preoccupied with their own advancement, protecting their friends, and increasing the size of their portfolio, justifying their grand aims with real (or imagined) claims of good intentions
- logicchains 3y ago
  >to instead being preoccupied with their own advancement, protecting their friends, and increasing the size of their portfolio, justifying their grand aims with real (or imagined) claims of good intentions This is the essentially same thing the person you're replying to said: amoral hypocrites and liars.
edgyquant 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 3y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
2devnull 3y ago
This is almost the offensive realist viewpoint were it not for the intense American exceptionalism. Great powers are going to do what they do. Accept this and everything becomes more hopeful. Otherwise, the world will always seem to be ruled by terrible amoral people and nihilism and despair are all you will ever have. There is no glorious future without rulers or parties, therefore wars and competition. Our western Judeo-Christian morality will never replace other modes of thinking, even in our own government!
- ganglandfee 3y ago
  Hah. You realize you just said facts are facts and that facts are just that, they are neither right or wrong, hypocritical or amoral or immoral. Hmmm. That’s tough to argue against when you put it like that. Another way to put it is that many facts can be true at the same time. Superpowers are gonna Superpower, but they are also hypocrites operating on a double standard.
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    Yes! That’s exactly right! So then the question is, are all facts the same? The answer I’ve come to is that some facts are more useful than others. The fact that America is a great power is a very important fact. The fact the great powers act alike is a useful fact. The fact that can derived from these, that America does great power stuff, is of no value. It’s just the obvious result of other facts which are more important if your goal is prediction or parsimonious explanations for historical events.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ganglandfee 3y ago
      [flagged]
LargeTomato 3y ago
What parts of North Africa were affected? Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and Less Rocco (sometimes called Western Sahara) are either stable or were not destabilized by the Libyan civil war.
marcosdumay 3y ago
When a government orders their military to openly kill protesters, it's perfectly reasonable to call that a "civil war" (even though I prefer the term "genocide"). And honestly, that makes the government heads free target for anybody willing to intervene. You won't get any sympathy for that opinion. Other US military interventions have varying levels of righteousness, but this one is a pretty clear-cut case.
dang 3y ago
Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how right you are or feel you are? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by themgt 3y ago

orwin 3y ago

For accuracy's sake (i can't find the Atlantic article talking about it, and i'm not bored enough to spend my day going through Wikileaks, so right now the source is trustmebro, i hope that someone have the documents/article in favorite), thanks to Hilary's leaked emails, we know that Obama's administration wasn't keen on going in Libya, and only Sarkozy(France) and Cameron(UK) insistence on attacking decided the US to support the invasion (and it was mostly logistical support). Again thanks to Hillary's emails, we can suspect that the CIA had a hand in eliminating the new candidate that france wanted to support (we had contact with both Kaddafi's son and the leader of a rebel group, both died), but i wouldn't put that war, then civil war, on US. Also, while France supported eliminating Kaddafi here, they supported the dictator in Tunisia with police forces and weapons (that are marked as non-lethal, but since we haven't found many nonlethal weapons after the revolution, either there was a kickback, or a lot were stolen/lost, or a part of what was sent were lethal weapons). And for Syria it's the same, Obama's administration wasn't really focused on that part of the middle east, and Hollande (France) forced their hand. Truly, i cannot believe France's reputation in Africa is that low. I wonder why.

boppo1 3y ago
How did France compel the US about anything?
- continuitylimit 3y ago
  The powers have long divided ‘loot’ — meaning weaker nations that they can exploit — between themselves. Africa is very much French territory. It’s like asking how does a Don from the Council compel the God Father to agree to a hit. “It’s just business”. Qaddafi got what he deserved from a karmic point of view. He was instrumental in gifting the Islamic Republic to Iran so hope you enjoyed that bayonet Colonel. But obviously his regime was far better for Libya and Africans than the loonies that are cranked up, trained, and armed by Western intelligence agencies as part of their mad approach to managing exploited realms. But again “it’s just business”.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  The US and EU were in the middle of a trade dispute over Airbus subsidizes at the time, which was largely French led. The WTO ended up finding the EU guilty in 2020.
- orwin 3y ago
  For Libya, mostly by giving fake intel to the UN (and by extension to the US), George W Bush 'WMD' style (though it was a bit more compelling). I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if the UK was aware of it or if the Mi6/SIS was fooled. For Syria, Obama made threats to try to prevent the use of chemical weapons. The UK wanted to avoid another Libya, the other EU countries aren't warmongers, Turkey wouldn't have said anything, so only France did the 'actually, they used chemical weapons, and the US is not alone if you go so you won't have another Iraq!'. I don't know what happened to Hollande, why he grew a pair suddenly, but I don't think we ever had a president who didn't stir shit at least once in 70 years.
alephnerd 3y ago
> we know that Obama's administration wasn't keen on going in Libya, and only Sarkozy(France) and Cameron(UK) insistence on attacking decided the US to support the invasion (and it was mostly logistical support). Yep. Can confirm. This was publicly reported during the 2011-12 period as well. There were a couple press junkets Obama, the State Dept, and DoD did at the time highlighting this stance of non-interventionism. Read some of the older Economist articles from that era as well. I didn't know Emailgate actually had emails from that time.

PedroBatista 3y ago

I already see there is no point in continue this conversation. I notice your standards for US/EU intervention are very very high and basically nobody should ever being killed. Why don't you apply the same reasoning to Gaddafi's regime and Syria/Russia/Al-Qaeda? You seem to have every problem existing in the Universe when the evil West does something ( and also a problem when it doesn't, also a problem that the West exists I suspect ), yet not a peep when these regimes torture and kill people by the thousands, or are you going to tell me that's just a fantasy? Or when they do it it's justify because it's the West's fault too, so those poor victims have no other choice than to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them? Btw, I'm not even "defending" the US/EU track record in Libya. I think they did a really bad half-assed job, but I also recognize the context of it all. Anyway, I've had it.

themgt 3y ago
Why don't you apply the same reasoning to Gaddafi's regime and Syria/Russia/Al-Qaeda? What reasoning? First of all I'm an American citizen, so I concern myself more with what my country does with my tax dollars than what other countries do, especially within their own borders or in situations that don't directly affect American citizens. I don't believe America's job is global law enforcement. It's like asking an American "why don't you apply the reasoning that President Trump is corrupt to President Ali Bongo of Niger? Why aren't you calling for President Ali Bongo's arrest? Double standard?" also a problem that the West exists I suspect It's fascinating that my criticism of the US/NATO bombing and invading and occupying other countries leads you to suspect I have a problem "that the West exists". In your conception perhaps "the West" would cease to exist as such if it were not the global hegemon? yet not a peep when these regimes torture and kill people by the thousands Saudi Arabia tortures and kills people by the thousands. If China or Russia invaded Saudi Arabia and attempted to turn it into a client state using the justification of Saudi misdeeds, would you support them? I suspect not, but we're back to "when the US/NATO does it it's good, when US/NATO adversaries do it it's bad" being the "rules-based order" many believe should exist.
- misja111 3y ago
  > but we're back to "when the US/NATO does it it's good, when US/NATO adversaries do it it's bad" You're talking about the hypothetical situation when China or Russia would invade a country to stop the regime from torturing and killing people by the thousands. And you proceed to claim that when they would do it, the West would say "it's bad". There have been plenty of occasions in, say, the last 75 years where China or Russia have invaded some country. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but not one single time was it to stop the regime from torturing and killing people by the thousands. Otoh there have been, and still are, plenty of regimes that are killing and torturing like that, and which receive the full support from China and Russia.

IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago

>>>>>>>> Because our foreign policy is run by utter amoral hypocrites and liars. No. Don't assume malice where ineptitude will be sufficient. Our Foreign Policy is run by armchair, master-degree wannabe-generals in suits and ties, some dark triad, some not, but always away from real bullets, to instead being preoccupied with their own advancement, protecting their friends, and increasing the size of their portfolio, justifying their grand aims with real (or imagined) claims of good intentions

logicchains 3y ago
>to instead being preoccupied with their own advancement, protecting their friends, and increasing the size of their portfolio, justifying their grand aims with real (or imagined) claims of good intentions This is the essentially same thing the person you're replying to said: amoral hypocrites and liars.

edgyquant 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dang 3y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

2devnull 3y ago

This is almost the offensive realist viewpoint were it not for the intense American exceptionalism. Great powers are going to do what they do. Accept this and everything becomes more hopeful. Otherwise, the world will always seem to be ruled by terrible amoral people and nihilism and despair are all you will ever have. There is no glorious future without rulers or parties, therefore wars and competition. Our western Judeo-Christian morality will never replace other modes of thinking, even in our own government!

ganglandfee 3y ago
Hah. You realize you just said facts are facts and that facts are just that, they are neither right or wrong, hypocritical or amoral or immoral. Hmmm. That’s tough to argue against when you put it like that. Another way to put it is that many facts can be true at the same time. Superpowers are gonna Superpower, but they are also hypocrites operating on a double standard.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  Yes! That’s exactly right! So then the question is, are all facts the same? The answer I’ve come to is that some facts are more useful than others. The fact that America is a great power is a very important fact. The fact the great powers act alike is a useful fact. The fact that can derived from these, that America does great power stuff, is of no value. It’s just the obvious result of other facts which are more important if your goal is prediction or parsimonious explanations for historical events.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ganglandfee 3y ago
    [flagged]

LargeTomato 3y ago

What parts of North Africa were affected? Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and Less Rocco (sometimes called Western Sahara) are either stable or were not destabilized by the Libyan civil war.

marcosdumay 3y ago

When a government orders their military to openly kill protesters, it's perfectly reasonable to call that a "civil war" (even though I prefer the term "genocide"). And honestly, that makes the government heads free target for anybody willing to intervene. You won't get any sympathy for that opinion. Other US military interventions have varying levels of righteousness, but this one is a pretty clear-cut case.

dang 3y ago

Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how right you are or feel you are? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html