NATO imperialism and the Libya flood catastrophe

[lukethethird]

This horrific catastrophe is not only the product of severe weather, intensified by climate change. It flows from the war NATO waged against Libya in 2011, which shattered the country and plunged it into civil war. Those who launched the NATO war in Libya or applauded it as a “humanitarian” intervention, and who today are backing a NATO war against Russia in Ukraine on similar grounds, bear direct political and moral responsibility for the Derna catastrophe.
NATO imperialism and the Libya flood catastrophe

Will the madness ever end?

 

[Estro Felino]

People tend to reply to the threads which blame Russia. When it deals with American responsibilities, they elude questions.

Destroying Libya was the most useless, horrific act that the US and the NATO ever did in 70 years of recent history.

Libya was one of the wealthiest countries in the Mediterranean.

And Hillary's words pretty sum up the monstrosity of the operation.

 

[Augustus]

The wars in Iraq and Libya were criminal, idiotic folly and did untold harm from multiple perspectives.

Most folk have no problem acknowledging that.

I’m not following the logic behind “western imperialism bad, therefore Russia had to invade Ukraine and their imperialism should be excused” though.

Perhaps we can blame Putin’s imperialism on the 19th C creation of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan or Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia?

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder how many sock puppets Putin has on the internet?

 

[Estro Felino]

The wars in Iraq and Libya were criminal, idiotic folly and did untold harm from multiple perspectives.

Most folk have no problem acknowledging that.

I’m not following the logic behind “western imperialism bad, therefore Russia had to invade Ukraine and their imperialism should be excused” though.

Perhaps we can blame Putin’s imperialism on the 19th C creation of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan or Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia?

The fact that the United Stated are not invading more countries...implies there has been repentance.
Destroying Libya was a big mistake.

 

[Estro Felino]

I wonder how many sock puppets Putin has on the internet?

Putin would have never destroyed Libya...for instance.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you really defend Obama and Hillary?
Do you think Mr Hussein is better than Putin?

I'll answer your disingenuous questions.

Spoiler: My answers

 

[Estro Felino]

I'll answer your disingenuous questions.

Spoiler: My answers

Academic-like arguments, I see.

You are confirming what I wrote in post 2.
When it deals with NATO's responsibilities, people are not able to give a proper justification.
Because there is none.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I’m not following the logic behind “western imperialism bad, therefore Russia had to invade Ukraine and their imperialism should be excused” though.

That the ICFI serves as a conduit of pro-Putin propaganda is rich irony. The background groaning sound one hears is that of Trotsky turning over in his grave.

 

[Stevicus]

The wars in Iraq and Libya were criminal, idiotic folly and did untold harm from multiple perspectives.

Most folk have no problem acknowledging that.

I’m not following the logic behind “western imperialism bad, therefore Russia had to invade Ukraine and their imperialism should be excused” though.

Perhaps we can blame Putin’s imperialism on the 19th C creation of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan or Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia?

I'm not sure if Putin's invasion is being "excused," whatever that means. The main bone of contention seems to revolve around the West's unfounded, unevidenced claims that, if Putin is "allowed" to annex parts of Ukraine, this will embolden Russia (and possibly China) to launch more invasions of more countries.

One might bring up U.S. invasions as a counter example to demonstrate that "just because a country invades another country, it does not automatically indicate a desire to invade more countries." The U.S. invaded Libya but did not invade any of their neighboring countries. The U.S. invaded Iraq, but did not invade Turkey or Iran (although we did make incursions into Syria).

Why automatically assume that just because an invasion occurs, it automatically means a desire to conquer the entire world? That doesn't seem very logical to me, yet it's based on that logic that the West's position rests.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not sure if Putin's invasion is being "excused," whatever that means.

This certainly sounds like excusing it to me:

"As the NATO imperialist powers escalate the war in Ukraine and conspire to divide up Russia and grab its natural resources, they again present themselves as defenders of “democracy” and “freedom”—this time, against Russian President Vladimir Putin"


(The "natural resources" trope is another classic that is wheeled out literally ever war Kosovo, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. That it was wrong then never seems to change its applicability to the next war though...)

Why automatically assume that just because an invasion occurs, it automatically means a desire to conquer the entire world?

It's not about the world, but irredentism. This is not "unevidenced" based on Putin's actions and rhetoric.

 

[Stevicus]

This certainly sounds like excusing it to me:

"As the NATO imperialist powers escalate the war in Ukraine and conspire to divide up Russia and grab its natural resources, they again present themselves as defenders of “democracy” and “freedom”—this time, against Russian President Vladimir Putin"


(The "natural resources" trope is another classic that is wheeled out literally ever war Kosovo, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. That it was wrong then never seems to change its applicability to the next war though...)

The statement quoted above appears to be directed at NATO and perhaps carries a slightly cynically mocking tone of the West's constant refrain that their only motivation in global military adventurism is "democracy" and "freedom." I don't see anything in that statement which could be interpreted as any "excuse" for Putin. Even if the above statement is true, it does not excuse Putin's actions, since he still could have responded differently. He didn't have to invade. Moreover, considering that the Russian military was inadequately prepared for such a fight, the invasion was a mistake.

It's not about the world, but irredentism. This is not "unevidenced" based on Putin's actions and rhetoric.

Irredentism may be a factor, yes. But that's actually evidence against the commonly-held contention that this invasion constitutes a "threat" to NATO or the West. If this is just a border dispute between Ukraine and Russia, then it's just a fight between them - and no one else.

 

[Estro Felino]

The U.S. invaded Libya

I haven't understood why, yet.
The reason why the US invaded and destroyed Libya.

Nobody has clarified it yet.
At least Putin clarified 100 times why he invaded Donbas, and the other two regions of the Azov Sea.

although we did make incursions into Syria

The reason?
Why did they invade Syria? Out of whim?
Without any reason?

Why automatically assume that just because an invasion occurs, it automatically means a desire to conquer the entire world? That doesn't seem very logical to me, yet it's based on that logic that the West's position rests.

I totally agree with that: Russia's invasion isn't justified, but we Europeans have the situation under control, since Ukraine is joining the EU, and we will help this country rise from evil

But that doesn't change the fact...which is the topic of this thread: what Russia did in Donbas is not even 1/10 of the evil that was done during the Obama administration. So it looks like the speck of dust compared to the log.

 

[Estro Felino]

This certainly sounds like excusing it to me:

"As the NATO imperialist powers escalate the war in Ukraine and conspire to divide up Russia and grab its natural resources, they again present themselves as defenders of “democracy” and “freedom”—this time, against Russian President Vladimir Putin"


(The "natural resources" trope is another classic that is wheeled out literally ever war Kosovo, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. That it was wrong then never seems to change its applicability to the next war though...)


It's not about the world, but irredentism. This is not "unevidenced" based on Putin's actions and rhetoric.

The fact that we are speaking of Putin in a thread bout Libya demonstrates that there are double standards.

Nobody is excusing Putin. He should have never invaded Ukraine. He did wrong.
But the evil that was done during the Obama administration makes Putin look like a saint.
Really.
And I underline that, my country is in the NATO...so I criticize any NATO country, including mine.

 

[Augustus]

The statement quoted above appears to be directed at NATO and perhaps carries a slightly cynically mocking tone of the West's constant refrain that their only motivation in global military adventurism is "democracy" and "freedom." I don't see anything in that statement which could be interpreted as any "excuse" for Putin. Even if the above statement is true, it does not excuse Putin's actions, since he still could have responded differently. He didn't have to invade. Moreover, considering that the Russian military was inadequately prepared for such a fight, the invasion was a mistake.

I think you are being excessively generous in your reading.

Irredentism may be a factor, yes. But that's actually evidence against the commonly-held contention that this invasion constitutes a "threat" to NATO or the West. If this is just a border dispute between Ukraine and Russia, then it's just a fight between them - and no one else.

Off the top of my head, NATO has maybe 5 members who are directly threatened by Russian irredentism.

 

[Stevicus]

I think you are being excessively generous in your reading.

Or maybe you're reading too much into something that isn't there.

Off the top of my head, NATO has maybe 5 members who are directly threatened by Russian irredentism.

It depends on which time frame their irredentism goes back to. Russian Imperial control of Poland, the Baltics, and Finland only goes back to the Napoleonic Wars, but they have no ancient claims on any of those territories.

 

[Augustus]

Or maybe you're reading too much into something that isn't there.

When you claim arming a country that has been invaded is “escalation” and note those arming are “imperialists”, you are shilling for the aggressor.

It depends on which time frame their irredentism goes back to. Russian Imperial control of Poland, the Baltics, and Finland only goes back to the Napoleonic Wars, but they have no ancient claims on any of those territories.

“Peter the Great waged the great northern war for 21 years. It would seem that he was at war with Sweden, he took something from them. He did not take anything from them, he returned [what was Russia’s],”

That’s pretty straightforward is it not?

 

[Estro Felino]

That the ICFI serves as a conduit of pro-Putin propaganda is rich irony. The background groaning sound one hears is that of Trotsky turning over in his grave.

Speaking of Putin in a thread about Libya...and the NATO... says it all.

 

[Augustus]

Speaking of Putin in a thread about Libya...and the NATO... says it all.

The OP brings up Ukraine, and the person who posted it continually shills for Putin.

If the cap fits…

 

[Stevicus]

When you claim arming a country that has been invaded is “escalation” and note those arming are “imperialists”, you are shilling for the aggressor.

If that's how you read it. It does seem, at the very least, reasonably factual to state that, if a war between two countries starts to involve other outside powers, it would be a fair statement to call that "escalation." If such actions lead to an increase in fighting and casualties (as opposed to decreasing them or calling for a truce), then why is it incorrect to refer to it as "escalation"?

As for the West being "imperialists," that's been an overall criticism of the West long before this. They can be called that for any number of reasons, not because they're arming Ukraine.

Again, none of it actually "excuses" Putin's actions, which is what you suggested. It merely points out that the West's motives here may not be entirely honorable, based on their overall historical track record. Putin's motives don't appear honorable either, but one doesn't really have anything to do with the other.

“Peter the Great waged the great northern war for 21 years. It would seem that he was at war with Sweden, he took something from them. He did not take anything from them, he returned [what was Russia’s],”

That’s pretty straightforward is it not?

That appears to refer to an ancient claim, even going back before Peter. Alexander Nevsky got his name from defeating the Swedes at the Neva River.