3 ms·

The only good guarantee is that you can turn an opposing nation into ash. Libya got bombed by NATO shortly after giving up their nuclear program despite them tr

The only good guarantee is that you can turn an opposing nation into ash. Libya got bombed by NATO shortly after giving up their nuclear program despite them trying to reconcile ties to western nations.

pavlov 3y ago
Gaddafi’s Libya was a state that put suitcase bombs on Western passenger airplanes just for kicks (270 innocent people dead in Scotland in 1988). Not even North Korea does that kind of shit. Reconciling was a pipe dream.
- istultus 3y ago
  This case is a true unknown. There is an open question as to who carried out the bombing, with multiple intelligence services blaming Syria. the US decided to blame Gaddafi though, and he was happy to take the blame as it plays well to the "Arab street." The trials resulting from the bombing are considered show trials by some... just an unknown...
  - clarionbell 3y ago
    It was not an isolated incident. Gaddafi had it coming. And his regime too.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  Yeah, at least the US had the decency to use anti-aircraft missiles when it shot down an airliner. It’s all about being honourable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
  - echoangle 3y ago
    Do you not see the difference between a suitcase bomb on an airliner and an accidental shootdown?
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      You see negligence of that magnitude as just an accident? And if so, accidents of that magnitude are ok but suitcase bombings aren’t?
      - echoangle 3y ago
        It’s not ok, but surely it is much less bad to be negligent than to do something on purpose, right?
        lostlogin 3y ago
        In general, yes. But this shoot down had so much going on, it was for all intents and purposes, intentional. The level of aggression shown by that captain, the violations of territorial waters ans deviations from standard practice. He attacked everything that moved and the climate in which his behaviour was tolerated is also a factor. He wanted to shoot a plane down. His colleagues had given him a nickname and his superiors had concerns about the recklessness. The final settlements reflects the indefensible behaviour.
vbezhenar 3y ago
Do you claim that NATO means nothing? I don't think so. Of course all international treaties in the end are the act of good will and nobody can force Americans to fight for Poland if the need arises. But still it seems that Russia afraid of meddling with NATO countries so far.
- exe34 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    > Pootin will start small invasions of NATO countries. To those that doubt this because of the risk, it won't be an outright invasion to start. It'll be a provocation with plausible deniability to test and undermine NATO's resolve and unity. Like a "little green men" scenario from 2014. A low stakes experiment with low risk and high reward. Simultaneously will be attempts to push support for far-left and far-right political ideas, for example by using migrants as a weapon and social media disinformation.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > Do you claim that NATO means nothing? How is NATO working out at the moment with war at its doorstep and a series of threats, provocations and violations? I don’t see any sign that NATO is winning.
  - checkyoursudo 3y ago
    Living in Europe, I would rather be in NATO than not. I do not know if the other NATO countries would come to my country's defense, but the important thing is that the opponents of NATO do not know if they would not. I am not sure what NATO should be winning. We are not currently, formally at war, so to me that seems like winning enough. If NATO is not winning, then who is?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

pavlov 3y ago

Gaddafi’s Libya was a state that put suitcase bombs on Western passenger airplanes just for kicks (270 innocent people dead in Scotland in 1988). Not even North Korea does that kind of shit. Reconciling was a pipe dream.

istultus 3y ago
This case is a true unknown. There is an open question as to who carried out the bombing, with multiple intelligence services blaming Syria. the US decided to blame Gaddafi though, and he was happy to take the blame as it plays well to the "Arab street." The trials resulting from the bombing are considered show trials by some... just an unknown...
- clarionbell 3y ago
  It was not an isolated incident. Gaddafi had it coming. And his regime too.
lostlogin 3y ago
Yeah, at least the US had the decency to use anti-aircraft missiles when it shot down an airliner. It’s all about being honourable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
- echoangle 3y ago
  Do you not see the difference between a suitcase bomb on an airliner and an accidental shootdown?
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    You see negligence of that magnitude as just an accident? And if so, accidents of that magnitude are ok but suitcase bombings aren’t?
    - echoangle 3y ago
      It’s not ok, but surely it is much less bad to be negligent than to do something on purpose, right?
      - lostlogin 3y ago
        In general, yes. But this shoot down had so much going on, it was for all intents and purposes, intentional. The level of aggression shown by that captain, the violations of territorial waters ans deviations from standard practice. He attacked everything that moved and the climate in which his behaviour was tolerated is also a factor. He wanted to shoot a plane down. His colleagues had given him a nickname and his superiors had concerns about the recklessness. The final settlements reflects the indefensible behaviour.

vbezhenar 3y ago

Do you claim that NATO means nothing? I don't think so. Of course all international treaties in the end are the act of good will and nobody can force Americans to fight for Poland if the need arises. But still it seems that Russia afraid of meddling with NATO countries so far.

exe34 3y ago
[flagged]
- hackerlight 3y ago
  > Pootin will start small invasions of NATO countries. To those that doubt this because of the risk, it won't be an outright invasion to start. It'll be a provocation with plausible deniability to test and undermine NATO's resolve and unity. Like a "little green men" scenario from 2014. A low stakes experiment with low risk and high reward. Simultaneously will be attempts to push support for far-left and far-right political ideas, for example by using migrants as a weapon and social media disinformation.
lostlogin 3y ago
> Do you claim that NATO means nothing? How is NATO working out at the moment with war at its doorstep and a series of threats, provocations and violations? I don’t see any sign that NATO is winning.
- checkyoursudo 3y ago
  Living in Europe, I would rather be in NATO than not. I do not know if the other NATO countries would come to my country's defense, but the important thing is that the opponents of NATO do not know if they would not. I am not sure what NATO should be winning. We are not currently, formally at war, so to me that seems like winning enough. If NATO is not winning, then who is?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]