NATO imperialism and the Libya flood catastrophe

[Augustus]

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.

It refers to land that is now part of NATO, so Russian irredentism is a threat to NATO based on Putin’s own words.

 

[Estro Felino]

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

If the cap fits…

But you are the only one, besides me, that acknowledged that invading a country is always wrong, whether it is done by the US, by Russia, or by anyone else.
Because we are both Europeans.

 

[Estro Felino]

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."

Considering that Libya used to be one of the wealthiest and most modern Arab countries in the world...and now it has returned to the Middle Ages (there is slavery and terrorism), the NATO has a very weird notion of "exporting democracy and freedom".

 

[PureX]

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.

The US was wrong to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan. Invasion was not necessary. (The US did not invade Libya.) However, I believe the US (or any other nation) has the right to strike at military targets inside another nation's borders that has allowed those targets to be used to attack US personel, protectorates, or strategic interests.

 

[Stevicus]

It refers to land that is now part of NATO, so Russian irredentism is a threat to NATO based on Putin’s own words.

I believe it refers to the territory once called "Ingermanland," but it's now called the Leningrad Oblast. (The city of St. Petersburg changed its name, while the Oblast retained the old name.) That's currently Russian territory. The Great Northern War involved multiple powers, so if Putin is just making a passing reference to a past war, that wouldn't mean it's a claim on Finnish territory as it stands today. Now that Finland is a member of NATO, it pretty much makes it all moot anyway, since Putin would not be so stupid as to attack a NATO country - unless he's willing to go all in for MAD.

 

[Stevicus]

Considering that Libya used to be one of the wealthiest and most modern Arab countries in the world...and now it has returned to the Middle Ages (there is slavery and terrorism), the NATO has a very weird notion of "exporting democracy and freedom".

I remember when the US media and government seemed kind of obsessed with Gaddafi, for whatever reason - even before he was accused of being behind a nightclub bombing in Berlin where many US servicepeople were killed. The local rock station made a parody song called "Drop it on Gaddafi," added with a touch of warmongers' humor and hubris which dominated the era.

"Bomb them back to the Stone Age!"

Americans are kind of weird that way. We like to talk it up about democracy and freedom, but a lot of Americans truly love war. You can see it in the culture, the slogans, the things that people say. We're a warlike people with a warlike culture. Yet we're on the side of good against evil, and good must always prevail over evil. I believe that must be the first commandment of scriptwriting.

 

[Stevicus]

The US was wrong to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan. Invasion was not necessary. (The US did not invade Libya.) However, I believe the US (or any other nation) has the right to strike at military targets inside another nation's borders that has allowed those targets to be used to attack US personel, protectorates, or strategic interests.

One of the things about geopolitics is that there really isn't any proper forum for objective examination of legal claims and the legal "rights" of nations, such as (in your example) the right to strike at military targets inside another nation's borders. Of course, we have the diplomatic structure and the United Nations, the World Court, etc., but if a nation is strong enough or has veto powers on the UN Security Council, then it's pretty much a dead end.
The bottom line is that we are the most powerful, therefore we get to call the shots. We make the rules, and it doesn't matter if they're fair or if they hold to a consistent set of principles. We just do it because we can.

 

[Estro Felino]

I remember when the US media and government seemed kind of obsessed with Gaddafi, for whatever reason - even before he was accused of being behind a nightclub bombing in Berlin where many US servicepeople were killed. The local rock station made a parody song called "Drop it on Gaddafi," added with a touch of warmongers' humor and hubris which dominated the era.

"Bomb them back to the Stone Age!"

Americans are kind of weird that way. We like to talk it up about democracy and freedom, but a lot of Americans truly love war. You can see it in the culture, the slogans, the things that people say. We're a warlike people with a warlike culture. Yet we're on the side of good against evil, and good must always prevail over evil. I believe that must be the first commandment of scriptwriting.

Honestly I think Gaddafi was a refined enlightened leader.
In Italy everyone used to appreciate him. Right-wing and left-wing. He turned Libya into a wealthy, modern country because he also wrote the Green Book, a very inspiring book of Arab socialism.
Light years away from an individual like Obama. Or Hillary.

And it's so paradoxical that he was eliminated under Obama's administration.

Trump was the only one who empathized with the disaster done in Libya, and started the re-stabilization process, that was entrusted to Italy.

 

[Estro Felino]

The US was wrong to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan. Invasion was not necessary. (The US did not invade Libya.) However, I believe the US (or any other nation) has the right to strike at military targets inside another nation's borders that has allowed those targets to be used to attack US personel, protectorates, or strategic interests.

The NATO did invade Libya..
remember Hillary's words...we came, we saw, he died.
Libya is pretty close to my country...so I do know what happened...

 

[Left Coast]

So 12 years ago NATO intervened to prevent a dictator (a socialist of course - who else would the World Socialist Web defend?) from mass murdering his own people, and so therefore it's NATO's fault a dam just broke there and therefore we shouldn't support Ukraine against Russian takeover?

The nonsense from the Putin apologists never ends.

 

[Estro Felino]

So 12 years ago NATO intervened to prevent a dictator (a socialist of course - who else would the World Socialist Web defend?)

A refined Arab leader who turned Libya into a modern, incredibly wealthy Arab country.
One of the wealthiest states in Africa.
Thanks to a leader, Gaddafi. Who was appreciated in Italy, despite the rumors.

Obama is light years away from Gaddafi... and in fact in my country nobody likes Obama.

Who is Obama? He is the man who caused so much disruption and turmoil in the Mediterreanean area.

from mass murdering his own people, and so therefore it's NATO's fault a dam just broke there and therefore we shouldn't support Ukraine against Russian takeover?

...murdering the terrorists who wanted to take Libya back to the Middle Ages...where women are treated like property, and humans themselves are property (there is slavery now, in Libya, thanks to the NATO).

I also remind you that the US rolls red carpets at countries where women are treated like property and cannot even drive.

The nonsense from the Putin apologists never ends.

I call it coherence. And rejection of double standards.

 

[PureX]

One of the things about geopolitics is that there really isn't any proper forum for objective examination of legal claims and the legal "rights" of nations, such as (in your example) the right to strike at military targets inside another nation's borders. Of course, we have the diplomatic structure and the United Nations, the World Court, etc., but if a nation is strong enough or has veto powers on the UN Security Council, then it's pretty much a dead end.
The bottom line is that we are the most powerful, therefore we get to call the shots. We make the rules, and it doesn't matter if they're fair or if they hold to a consistent set of principles. We just do it because we can.

I agree. Which is why we, especially, should have been far more conscientious about the ethical and moral implications of our actions in the world.

And that's on us.

However, even though the US has made many great moral and ethical mistakes in the past, and will likely to continue to do so, I would not want to witness a world that did not have this kind of relatively free and democratic super power within it! Because had we not been here to mitigate the desires of the many powerful totalitarian dictatorships that have sprung up and surround us, they would have run amok. And that would not have produced a world I'd ever want to live in!

So although we do screw up. Often. I honestly believe our presence on the Earth has saved billions of lives and unimaginable amounts of human suffering. And that it's hugely important that we don't allow what we have here in this country to fall victim to the same greed and stupidity as has befallen so many of these national dictatorships around the world.

 

[Estro Felino]

One of the things about geopolitics is that there really isn't any proper forum for objective examination of legal claims and the legal "rights" of nations, such as (in your example) the right to strike at military targets inside another nation's borders. Of course, we have the diplomatic structure and the United Nations, the World Court, etc., but if a nation is strong enough or has veto powers on the UN Security Council, then it's pretty much a dead end.
The bottom line is that we are the most powerful, therefore we get to call the shots. We make the rules, and it doesn't matter if they're fair or if they hold to a consistent set of principles. We just do it because we can.

Thank you for acknowledging that.
You're great.

 

[PureX]

The NATO did invade Libya..

NATO is not the US, and the US is not NATO. Many nations are involved. Many nations decide what actions will be taken, or not, on NATO's behalf.

remember Hillary's words...we came, we saw, he died.

Politicians are always saying stupid stuff like that. It plays to the more dim-witted voters.

Libya is pretty close to my country...so I do know what happened...

Canada is very close to my country, and I live only 30 miles from the US/Canadian border. But I still have very little idea what all happens up there.

As my old Dad would say: "You talk like a big fat-man!"

 

[Estro Felino]

I agree. Which is why we, especially, should have been far more conscientious about the ethical and moral implications of our actions in the world.
And that's on us.

The US haven't invaded any other country, since then.
It means there has been repentance.

And there have been enormous mistakes made by the entire NATO under Bush and Obama. Equally.

However, even though the US has made many great moral and ethical mistakes in the past, and will likely to continue to do so, I would not want to witness a world that did not have this kind of relatively free and democratic super power within it! Because had we not been here to mitigate the desires of the many powerful totalitarian dictatorships that have sprung up and surround us, they would have run amok. And that would not have produced a world I'd ever want to live in!

If we as West want to set an example to the other geopolitical worlds...we need to be the best, morally, ethically and diplomatically.

Otherwise we are not credible.
They hate us because we produce weaponry and make wars in their countries.

 

[Left Coast]

A refined Arab leader

A refined Arab leader who was committing crimes against humanity and was threatening to go "house to house" to squash political dissent. Yeah, stand up guy.

Who is Obama? He is the man who caused so much disruption and turmoil in the Mediterreanean area.

Ah yes, there was no conflict in Northern Africa until the black President showed up.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

The civil war in Libya had been afoot well before NATO intervened. Gaddafi's mass murder of protesters started it, and his decades-long tyrannical rule reached breaking point when people became so fed up that they were willing to risk their lives to protest against him.

NATO's execution of its intervention could and should have been far more responsible and carefully planned, especially concerning the period after Gaddafi's death. I also don't think it was humanitarian but rather a classic example of a geopolitically motivated resolution, which, in my opinion, was highlighted by NATO's negligence and failure to plan properly for the period after the airstrikes.

However, to say that the civil war was because of NATO is an extreme oversimplification that overlooks all of the other factors that had been building up for decades and eventually led to the uprising against Gaddafi.

Also, most of the comparisons between the Iraq War and the intervention in Libya seem to me largely misplaced. The civilian death tolls in each situation were not remotely comparable. This is not to say that any civilian deaths were justified in the slightest, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed by American aggression, while the figures in Libya were exponentially lower:

CIVILIAN DEATH COUNTS​

Fred Abrahams of Human Rights Watch (HRW), a rights advocacy group, was in Libya in 2011 and had been investigating several dozen civilian casualties allegedly caused in NATO airstrikes, which began in March and ended in October. “By our count, up to 50 civilians died in the (NATO) campaign, perhaps more,” Abrahams told Reuters at the time (here).

A May 2012 report by HRW (here), (here) then said: “NATO air strikes killed at least 72 civilians, one-third of them children under age 18.”

In 2021, Foreign Policy magazine reported on updated numbers based on research by Airwars, an NGO watchdog focused on civilian casualty counts (here), ([here). They counted between 223 and 403 likely civilian deaths resulting from NATO strikes and between 869 and 1,999 people killed by the Gaddafi regime (here).

Social media posts greatly exaggerate estimated civilian deaths during NATO operations in Libya

Available reports contradict social media posts claiming that NATO air strikes in Libya in 2011 led to more than half a million civilian casualties.

www.reuters.com

The Gaddafi regime killed more Libyans than NATO did. To say he was a "refined" leader is to glorify a murderous dictator.

 

[Estro Felino]

A refined Arab leader who was committing crimes against humanity and was threatening to go "house to house" to squash political dissent. Yeah, stand up guy.

The difference is that Gaddafi used to fight ISIS. He was an enlightened Arab leader.

As for Obama...well...Trump said this. What should I think? I prefer Gaddafi, honestly.

Ah yes, there was no conflict in Northern Africa until the black President showed up.

No, there was no conflict before Obama came. Libya was a paradise.
Demonstrate the contrary with a link that shows there was a conflict.

 

[Left Coast]

The difference is that Gaddafi used to fight ISIS. He was an enlightened Arab leader.

As for Hussein Obama...well...Trump said this. What should I think? I prefer Gaddafi, honestly.

You would prefer an authoritarian who killed his political rivals. That tracks.

No, there was no conflict before Obama came. Libya was a paradise.
Demonstrate the contrary.

Read a book.

 

[Estro Felino]

The civil war in Libya had been afoot well before NATO intervened. Gaddafi's mass murder of protesters started it, and his decades-long tyrannical rule reached breaking point when people became so fed up that they were willing to risk their lives to protest against him.

Honestly, Gaddafi's Libya had some little flaws, but was 100,000 times better than those countries where women are treated like property, they cannot drive, they cannot vote.
Libya now is unrecognizable.
They have destroyed a country.

NATO's execution of its intervention could and should have been far more responsible and carefully planned, especially concerning the period after Gaddafi's death. I also don't think it was humanitarian but rather a classic example of a geopolitically motivated resolution, which, in my opinion, was highlighted by NATO's negligence and failure to plan properly for the period after the airstrikes.

There are no justifications.
Assange presented the reasons why they destroyed that country.
And everyone has read them.

However, to say that the civil war was because of NATO is an extreme oversimplification that overlooks all of the other factors that had been building up for decades and eventually led to the uprising against Gaddafi.

It was not the moderates who hated Gaddafi. It was the terrorists and fundamentalists. And that suffices me.