Except there is strong evidence that Western powers (predominantly France, the UK and US) created the fiction of Gaddafi being a global supervillain and then used NATO forces to enact regime change in Libya, under the pretext of “preventing civilian casualties”. In fact, the real objective was to secure Libyan oil reserves and open the country up to western markets.
NATO is often used an extension of Western foreign policy. To pretend it is solely a benevolent peace keeper is just as simplistic and naïve as saying that everything the West does is pure evil.
No. He might get assassinated by an individual or a small group of conspirators. He won’t get paraded through the streets while being raped with a sword until he dies. But nice try.
It’s weird that some random German thinks they know what American hillbillies are capable of or actively talk about doing when their memory doesn’t even go back more than three years and they have literally zero knowledge of history or the nature of angry mobs.
Oh, no, wait, that’s not weird, I always forget some people are just average.
He certainly played up to the role, presumably for egotistical reasons, but most of it was sabre rattling bravado. He wasn’t seen as a genuine threat by Western intelligence agencies.
Also, NATO forces didn’t have to kill Gaddafi directly in order to be instrumental to his deposition. Their air strikes were highly effective in destabilizing the regime and empowering opposition forces within Libya. Besides, you only have to look at the history of US intervention in Latin America for many examples of how regime change can be carried out via proxies and rebel groups.
He certainly played up to the role, presumably for egotistical reasons, but most of it was sabre rattling bravado.
My dude, this ignores like 40 years of him being the most unhinged leader in North Africa. He’s always been a wild card on the global political stage, swinging wildly from befriending revolutionary leftist, and then immediately dumping them for right winged dictators.
The man literally tried to sell surface-to-air missiles to a street gang in Chicago… No one had to make him seem crazy, he was crazy.
Now that doesn’t mean I think the US should have intervened, but I don’t think anyone had to really do any work to make him seem like an insane supervillain.
That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn’t mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.
In 2007, the UK’s Tony Blair visited Libya to strike up energy deals, and France’s Sarkozy met with Gaddafi for military and economic agreements.
Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?
That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn’t mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.
That was my point about him swapping out friends sporadically. Gaddafi had massive swings in political alignment throughout his time as leader of Libya. The reason nato/un could actually make a move on his government without greater political ramifications is because he’s burned every bridge across the political spectrum.
Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?
Literally yes… Is it that surprising the west would work with a crazy despot that has a bunch of oil?
It seems we’re largely in agreement then - that 1) NATO did, in fact, make a move on Gaddafi and 2) the West supported him when it was beneficial but turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating.
Not something I ever disputed? Would be kinda hard for a rebel force to get a cruise missile.
the West supported him when it was beneficial but turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating.
This I don’t really agree with as it’s a bit of a reductionist mischaracterization. Gaddafi literally funded terrorist attacks on the US in the 80s, which led to about 15-20 years of political disruptions between the two countries. They normalized relations again in the early 00s, with the US eventually going as far as to delist them from the state sponsored terror list in 08.
It would be hard to describe that as “turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating”. There’s a reason why no one in the UN, including Russia and China UN vetoed the resolution.
Gaddafi literally funded terrorist attacks on the US in the 80s, which led to about 15-20 years of political disruptions between the two countries.
According to the Regan administration perhaps, but not according to intelligence agencies from several European countries. There was a concerted effort to link Gaddafi to individual terrorist attacks, like the Lockerbie bombing, although there was no hard evidence to support that.
US involvement in South America has been brutal- murder, terrorism, starting civil wars…Societies were torn apart in ways they may never recover from. How can you consider this an option and publicly advocate for it? That’s fucked up
Edit: ITT people downvoting me who don’t want to hear about US operations in South America and also people who like US operations in South America.
Cause the USA could leave NATO tomorrow and the discussion of NATO vs Russia wouldn’t change. So the USA is irrelevant in this conversation. Plus, those were USA/CIA actions, not NATO actions. And NATO isn’t ruled by the USA, no matter how much some people around here like insisting.
During Arab Spring, the West was (naively) hoping that Libyans would rise against Gaddafi and create a democraty. When he saw what was happening, he threatened to a) flood Europe with migrants and b) expose Sarkozy’s illegal campaign funds.
a) made him a political adversary, b) made them launch a military campaign to topple him
Except there is strong evidence that Western powers (predominantly France, the UK and US) created the fiction of Gaddafi being a global supervillain and then used NATO forces to enact regime change in Libya, under the pretext of “preventing civilian casualties”. In fact, the real objective was to secure Libyan oil reserves and open the country up to western markets.
NATO is often used an extension of Western foreign policy. To pretend it is solely a benevolent peace keeper is just as simplistic and naïve as saying that everything the West does is pure evil.
Gaddafi was a supervillian. Almost literally:
It also wasn’t NATO who directly killed him. His own citizens did, and they weren’t kind about how they did it.
NATO also wants stable oil reserves. Both these things can be true.
Gaddafi was so popular among Libyans that in the end they dragged him to the street and raped him with a sword. Allegedly.
You think that couldn’t happen with Biden?
No. He might get assassinated by an individual or a small group of conspirators. He won’t get paraded through the streets while being raped with a sword until he dies. But nice try.
It’s weird that some random German thinks they know what American hillbillies are capable of or actively talk about doing when their memory doesn’t even go back more than three years and they have literally zero knowledge of history or the nature of angry mobs.
Oh, no, wait, that’s not weird, I always forget some people are just average.
Removed by mod
I removed it because it was an unnecessary insult on the other person’s intelligence. If you feel like restoring it 2 weeks later, that’s fine by me.
That’s why it was removed.
Removed by mod
He certainly played up to the role, presumably for egotistical reasons, but most of it was sabre rattling bravado. He wasn’t seen as a genuine threat by Western intelligence agencies.
Also, NATO forces didn’t have to kill Gaddafi directly in order to be instrumental to his deposition. Their air strikes were highly effective in destabilizing the regime and empowering opposition forces within Libya. Besides, you only have to look at the history of US intervention in Latin America for many examples of how regime change can be carried out via proxies and rebel groups.
My dude, this ignores like 40 years of him being the most unhinged leader in North Africa. He’s always been a wild card on the global political stage, swinging wildly from befriending revolutionary leftist, and then immediately dumping them for right winged dictators.
The man literally tried to sell surface-to-air missiles to a street gang in Chicago… No one had to make him seem crazy, he was crazy.
Now that doesn’t mean I think the US should have intervened, but I don’t think anyone had to really do any work to make him seem like an insane supervillain.
That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn’t mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.
In 2007, the UK’s Tony Blair visited Libya to strike up energy deals, and France’s Sarkozy met with Gaddafi for military and economic agreements.
Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?
That was my point about him swapping out friends sporadically. Gaddafi had massive swings in political alignment throughout his time as leader of Libya. The reason nato/un could actually make a move on his government without greater political ramifications is because he’s burned every bridge across the political spectrum.
Literally yes… Is it that surprising the west would work with a crazy despot that has a bunch of oil?
It seems we’re largely in agreement then - that 1) NATO did, in fact, make a move on Gaddafi and 2) the West supported him when it was beneficial but turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating.
Not something I ever disputed? Would be kinda hard for a rebel force to get a cruise missile.
This I don’t really agree with as it’s a bit of a reductionist mischaracterization. Gaddafi literally funded terrorist attacks on the US in the 80s, which led to about 15-20 years of political disruptions between the two countries. They normalized relations again in the early 00s, with the US eventually going as far as to delist them from the state sponsored terror list in 08.
It would be hard to describe that as “turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating”. There’s a reason why no one in the UN, including Russia and China UN vetoed the resolution.
According to the Regan administration perhaps, but not according to intelligence agencies from several European countries. There was a concerted effort to link Gaddafi to individual terrorist attacks, like the Lockerbie bombing, although there was no hard evidence to support that.
US involvement in South America has been brutal- murder, terrorism, starting civil wars…Societies were torn apart in ways they may never recover from. How can you consider this an option and publicly advocate for it? That’s fucked up
Edit: ITT people downvoting me who don’t want to hear about US operations in South America and also people who like US operations in South America.
Cause it’s whataboutism, not cause it’s wrong.
Yey USA tankies!
calling something whataboutism is such a cop-out. what has the user said that distracts from the greater debate?
Cause the USA could leave NATO tomorrow and the discussion of NATO vs Russia wouldn’t change. So the USA is irrelevant in this conversation. Plus, those were USA/CIA actions, not NATO actions. And NATO isn’t ruled by the USA, no matter how much some people around here like insisting.
the conversation had mentioned the US, western powers and derailed to an extent from the original post.
You people seriously hate history and facts, don’t you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
And what is dropping this wikipedia link supposed to prove?
Does it contradict the scholarly article I cited which supports everything I said?
P.S. who is “you people”?
The article was supposed to educate you on what type of person and leader Kadaffi was but something tells me education is not your strongest suit.
“You people” are teenage armchair communists with zero life experience and disdain for history books.
During Arab Spring, the West was (naively) hoping that Libyans would rise against Gaddafi and create a democraty. When he saw what was happening, he threatened to a) flood Europe with migrants and b) expose Sarkozy’s illegal campaign funds.
a) made him a political adversary, b) made them launch a military campaign to topple him
Interesting, thanks