4 ms·
The invasion of Libya was fully authorised by the UNSC, and it was not conducted or approved solely by NATO. Libya was also already in a highly destructive civi
by _djo_ 2y ago
The invasion of Libya was fully authorised by the UNSC, and it was not conducted or approved solely by NATO. Libya was also already in a highly destructive civil war before the intervention, which is why it happened, so it’s not like they went in and destabilised a stable country. Gaddafi had built Libya’s security around himself in a cult of personality, things were always going to fall apart once his power waned.
Which other countries did NATO invade?
- M2Ys4U 2y agoNATO's intervention in Kosovo is the one that routinely cited. That wasn't defensive by any means, but that also doesn't make it unjustified nor should it really be called "aggressive". Chomsky, naturally, denied that ethnic cleansing was happening there because it wasn't the US or "western" countries doing it.
- _djo_ 2y agoAgreed, Kosovo is the only actual NATO intervention of that sort. And agreed that it was neither unjustified nor ‘aggressive’.
- pydry 2y ago[flagged]
- _djo_ 2y agoSee my other reply. In any case, that you can refer to these as ‘aggressive imperialist power plays’ shows you’re both not to be taken seriously and are not willing to engage in a good faith and informed discussion.
- pydry 2y agoYes... in your other reply you said it was a humanitarian intervention to stop a genocide in Kosovo. Exactly like a Putin supporter would say about Ukraine. Except there was no genocide in Kosovo (Kosovo is not Bosnia) and there is no genocide in Ukraine. There is one in Gaza though and it is backed by NATO, the same people you called humanitarians. A Putin supporter also wouldnt be bothered about the murderous hypocrisy, but Chomsky was. Thats what set him apart.
- _djo_ 2y agoThe Serbian campaign was ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, forcefully and methodically expelling over a million Kosovar Albanians from the area by the time they were stopped by NATO’s intervention. That does, arguably, rise to the level of genocide under the standard definitions. Just because someone can claim something doesn’t mean it’s right. That determination is up to independent observers, experts, and courts, and tribunals. Russia tried to claim at the ICJ that it was invading Ukraine under the Genocide Convention. The court ruled that it had to end to the invasion immediately, which Russia ignored.
- jcranmer 2y agoThe other NATO interventions: * Intervention in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, invited to do so by the UN in response to the genocide going on there. * Invasion of Afghanistan, following the invocation of Article 5 after an attack on a NATO country (i.e., 9/11).
- _djo_ 2y ago> * Intervention in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, invited to do so by the UN in response to the genocide going on there. Indeed. So not an aggressive invasion but a humanitarian intervention. > * Invasion of Afghanistan, following the invocation of Article 5 after an attack on a NATO country (i.e., 9/11). Not quite. Technically speaking, neither of the official NATO missions in Afghanistan, ISAF and Resolute Support, were Article 5 missions. When the US triggered Article 5 in October 2001 it explicitly did not request a full NATO response, but initially only for support such as NATO AWACS aircraft in US airspace. When it invaded Afghanistan, which was entirely justified in international law as an act of self defence, a handful of NATO countries opted to send support contingents, like SOF, as a way of showing solidarity. But it was not a NATO mission under NATO command: Operation Enduring Freedom was American-led and commanded from the beginning. At best you can say several NATO allies invaded. Later, NATO launched ISAF and Resolute Support and became more involved as an organisation deploying forces, but that was post-invasion.
- pydry 2y agoThe invasion of Afghanistan was as much self defence as the invasion of Ukraine. Probably less, actually. The idea that it was any kind of self defence is kind of pathetic, and mirrors Putinesque propaganda. It was occupation pure and simple. America really wanted to set up military bases there. It was a black spot in the world which it lacked imperial force projection and it was right between 3 major rivals (Russia, China and Iran).
- _djo_ 2y agoIn what sense was it not self defence under international law?
- pydry 2y ago>The invasion of Libya was fully authorised by the UNSC, Yes as I pointed out. As I pointed out that made it worse because they lied to the security. They simply wanted to take sides in a civil war. Did you read what I wrote at all?