So, can someone remind what the justification for intervening in Libya given by Clinton and Obama?

[Pressure]

Be careful posting the truth . You might end up with a racism warning .

It's not entirely accurate for the time line. For example, France had already decided they were dropping bombs before the PanAfrican currency emails. Also much of the information from the leaked emails were all over the place.

The Arab spring was rolling and the US was and always has been very much into spreading western style democracy if the opportunity presents itself.

 

[killacal]

Arab Spring popped off. Qaddafi was threatening to slaughter tens of thousands.

You need help

 

[Colilluminati]

It's not entirely accurate for the time line. For example, France had already decided they were dropping bombs before the PanAfrican currency emails. Also much of the information from the leaked emails were all over the place.

The Arab spring was rolling and the US was and always has been very much into spreading western style democracy if the opportunity presents itself.

Man your a white woman in a thread about Africa . Stop . Stop quoting me all together . Your opinion and ideas are horrible . You don’t even respond when I ask you something in a thread . You act like you never seen it until one of your white friends show up with the democrat playbook .GO THATAWAY. Stop quoting me boy I don’t like you . Please leave me the fukk alone . I don’t care what you have to say in any thread.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You need help

Do you know how hard it is to actually pull off insurgencies?

 

[killacal]

Do you know how hard it is to actually pull off insurgencies?

Do you know where your local mental health office is?

 

[Pressure]

Man your a white woman in a thread about Africa . Stop . Stop quoting me all together . Your opinion and ideas are horrible . You don’t even respond when I ask you something in a thread . You act like you never seen it until one of your white friends show up with the democrat playbook .GO THATAWAY. Stop quoting me boy I don’t like you . Please leave me the fukk alone . I don’t care what you have to say in any thread.

Educated, successful black men are now white women?

:youmadcam:


Would you like to point out what was inaccurate in my post? Would you like to offer some input in this thread instead of derailing it?

Edit: nikka are you quoting mumble rappers?

 

[Colilluminati]

You are ignoring content by this member .

I was so sick of yo bytch ass @Call Me James

You can be a white woman in peace now

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

This topic can't even be discussed properly without coli-militants, trolls and conspiracy theorist derailing it with bullshyt information.

Arab Spring popped off
Qaddaffi was threatening to kill citizens that protested during Arab Spring against his regime
France wanted NATO allies to intervene
Clinton told Obama they should remove Qaddaffi
The rest is history

 

[newworldafro]

Should be good.

 

[DirtyD]

This is still false.

Theres ALWAYS a subtext.

Always.

Just because theres a subtext doesn't mean the original intention just goes away.

What was the original intention to spread democracy? The United States is and been in bed with all types of vicious dictators, what made Qaddafi any worse than any of the multitude of other despots the world over?

It's not entirely accurate for the time line. For example, France had already decided they were dropping bombs before the PanAfrican currency emails. Also much of the information from the leaked emails were all over the place.

The Arab spring was rolling and the US was and always has been very much into spreading western style democracy if the opportunity presents itself.

Why did France attack then? Official British investigations reveal that the reasons originally given for the bombings were bullshyt so either every Western leader was lying or is a fukk up for making a decision based on such shoddy intel. The British even say that France's decision were based on economics and not humanitarianism.

A new report by the British Parliament shows that the 2011 NATO war in Libya was based on an array of lies.

"Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK’s future policy options," an investigation by the House of Commons' bipartisan Foreign Affairs Committee, strongly condemns the U.K.'s role in the war, which toppled the government of Libya's leader Muammar Qaddafi and plunged the North African country into chaos.

"We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya," the report states. "UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence."

The Foreign Affairs Committee concludes that the British government "failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element."

The Libya inquiry, which was launched in July 2015, is based on more than a year of research and interviews with politicians, academics, journalists and more. The report, which was released on Sept. 14, reveals the following:

• Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians. This myth was exaggerated by rebels and Western governments, which based their intervention on little intelligence.
• The threat of Islamist extremists, which had a large influence in the uprising, was ignored — and the NATO bombing made this threat even worse, giving ISIS a base in North Africa.
• France, which initiated the military intervention, was motivated by economic and political interests, not humanitarian ones.
• The uprising — which was violent, not peaceful — would likely not have been successful were it not for foreign military intervention and aid. Foreign media outlets, particularly Qatar's Al Jazeera and Saudi Arabia's Al Arabiya, also spread unsubstantiated rumors about Qaddafi and the Libyan government.
• The NATO bombing plunged Libya into a humanitarian disaster, killing thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands more, transforming Libya from the African country with the highest standard of living into a war-torn failed state.

U.K. Parliament report details how NATO’s 2011 war in Libya was b...


Also, the US is interested in spreading western style democracy only when it advances its own interests.

 

[Pressure]

Why did France attack then? Official British investigations reveal that the reasons originally given for the bombings were bullshyt so either every Western leader was lying or is a fukk up for making a decision based on such shoddy intel. The British even say that France's decision were based on economics and not humanitarianism.

France clearly did so for influence and economic reasons. The US used the humanitarian reason to back them up. Those were the initial justifications I remember.

Second part I'll answer again from my personal opinion: He was an authoritarian leader and toppling authoritarian leaders when it's convenient has been in the US playbook for my entire life. This also includes undermining and destabilizing them to get to that point (UN, NATO, and US covert action).

Also, the US is interested in spreading western style democracy only when it advances its own interests.

Of course. I've never suggested it was altruistic. Spreading western style democracy can almost always be substituted with advancing US interest.


Edit: It should be noted that American leaders generally think American influence and western style democracy is best.

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

some articles that express the position at the time (without commentary from me):

Everyone says the Libya intervention was a failure. They’re wrong.

The Big Lie About the Libyan War

The Obama Doctrine

There’s your answer. Neocons masquerading as the “establishment”, a weird desire on behalf of people in power to create a “legacy” that revolves around use of military power and the kind of willfully blind arrogance that leads someone to claim that the catastrophe which followed the Libyan invasion wasn’t in fact a failure.

 

[Pressure]

There’s your answer. Neocons masquerading as the “establishment”, a weird desire on behalf of people in power to create a “legacy” that revolves around use of military power and the kind of willfully blind arrogance that leads someone to claim that the catastrophe which followed the Libyan invasion wasn’t in fact a failure.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

International policy and extremely complex situations in countries like Libya, are always going to have unintended, sometimes unexpected, vast and wide ranging. There are no easy answers for any of it. This is why we need people like Clinton, Obama in head of state positions, not the current admin.

The easy answer is mind your own and stop trying to police the world.
Whatever the reason we invaded Libya is not a good one.

 

[the cac mamba]

because we cared about the citizens of lib......

we wanted to promote democracy and electio....