Incase anyone tells you that lemmy.ml is not a tankie instance.

  • aleph@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • aleph@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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?

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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?

    • workerONE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

        • squid_slime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          calling something whataboutism is such a cop-out. what has the user said that distracts from the greater debate?

          • nyctre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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.

            • squid_slime@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              the conversation had mentioned the US, western powers and derailed to an extent from the original post.