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

[the cac mamba]

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.

how about 'none of the above'

 

[Moich]

Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan

 

[Birnin Zana]

Yeah and hindsight is always 20/20 and I admit at the time it occurred I wasn’t really paying attention to the issue. But thinking back on it I remembering following Iraq and before even Obama came into Office, there was a strain of anti-interventionism in the liberal thought sphere. It’s like it disappeared or was marginalized during this.

It dissapeared because it was a popular democrat doing it. Thus, many Dems/Liberals let it slide. Nothing more.

As for hindsight, if the Obama administration was leary about putting troops on the ground for the aftermath, they shouldn't have intervened. Iraq was still recent at that time, they had a clear example of what can happen if you commit to such an intervention. And after going in on Bush for Iraq throughout his campaign, Obama decided to cosign going to Libya anyway.

The funniest shyt to me is Obama trying to shift most of the blame on the Euros, saying that they didn't hold their end of the bargain. That may be so, but how naive was he to think that Sarkozy, of all people, was an honest broker? Anybody who knew anything about Sarkozy knew that guy was a slimeball in more ways than one.

In the end, we--as a collective--allowed Obama and Hillary to get away with it for a while simply because enough of us "liked" them at the time. There's really no other explanation for it, especially in light of Iraq.

 

[Pressure]

Our mission in Libya was a failure despite hitting our primary goals.

But I'm not willing to go so far as saying it because we attempt to be the world's police.

Right now there's a poverty issue, a slavery issue, and there's been a civil war issue.

Should we merely say libyans should hold there own nuts?

 

[SupremexKing]

 

[QuintessentialMan]

There was no justification.

Sarkozy and Clinton are piece of shyt human beings.

US foreign policy is a joke and these are the results.

Iraq? Failure. Libya? Failure. I could go on.....with any luck eventually their failures will lead to their own demise.

 

[Skooby]

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

https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-...ow-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

Wow man.

Damn the French are criminals. Their whole invasion was based off of Gaddafi wanting a self-sufficient Africa.

The whole thing was a colossal fukk up, and France, Britain and U.S. are solely to blame.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the 2011 NATO bombing, on the other hand, Libya had been the wealthiest nation in Africa, with the highest life expectancy and GDP per capita. In his book "Perilous Interventions," former Indian representative to the U.N. Hardeep Singh Puri notes that, before the war, Libya had less of its population in poverty than the Netherlands. Libyans had access to free health care, education, electricity and interest-free loans, and women had great freedoms that had been applauded by the U.N. Human Rights Council in January 2011, on the eve of the war that destroyed the government.

 

[Jhoon]

They just make up reasons & run with it

And Americans never question it.

 

[thatrapsfan]

@Behelit

The original claim:


The reason given in private correspondence:


Clinton Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention

The article is complete nonsense. The Gaddafi gold-backed currency were the fanciful ravings of a madman ( and there is ample evidence Gaddafi was nuts) it’s actually quite telling that you guys can’t articulate an argument against the intervention that doesn’t rely on InfoWars style conspiracy.

 

[thatrapsfan]

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

More context also was that the Obama admin. was mum initially on Egypt and Tunisia and was facing increasing pressure to support uprisings elsewhere, from within the admin and outside it. I recall clearly many pointing out the hypocrisy of the U.S. rhetorically supporting democracy while back authoritarian leaders in Egypt and Tunisia that were unpopular. The Libya move was seen as a corrective to this, but the Obama admin was clearly split on the decision hence why they preferred for France to lead. Moreover, the aftermath of Libya played significantly into the Obama Admin's decision against intervening significantly in favour of the opposition in Syria. Yet some corners of the internet and political spectrum will tell you that Syria was actually an example of failed American intervention.

 

[DirtyD]

The article is complete nonsense. The Gaddafi gold-backed currency were the fanciful ravings of a madman ( and there is ample evidence Gaddafi was nuts) it’s actually quite telling that you guys can’t articulate an argument against the intervention that doesn’t rely on InfoWars style conspiracy.

Is the British parliament part of these attempts to spread infowar style conspiracies?

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

 

[thatrapsfan]

Is the British parliament part of these attempts to spread infowar style conspiracies?

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

This is a deliberate cherry picking of the report done by a dude who has made a career out of this. They said nothing about the gold currency in the report either.

 

[thekingsmen]

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

False.

 

[thekingsmen]

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

1. Arab Spring created by State Department years before..
2. False....no actual evidence was presented.
3. This was U.S. runned, not France.
4. True

 

[DirtyD]

This is a deliberate cherry picking of the report done by a dude who has made a career out of this. They said nothing about the gold currency in the report either.

The currency may not be in the report and could be fiction, but we have evidence that Sidney Blumenthal, who doesn't appear to have any real reason to lie, was passing on intel that the French aims were far from altruistic to the Secretary of State.

20. A further insight into French motivations was provided in a freedom of information disclosure by the United States State Department in December 2015. On 2 April 2011, Sidney Blumenthal, adviser and unofficial intelligence analyst to the then United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reported this conversation with French intelligence officers to the Secretary of State:

According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:
a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
b. Increase French influence in North Africa,
c. Improve his internal political situation in France,
d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.The sum of four of the five factors identified by Sidney Blumenthal equated to the French national interest. The fifth factor was President Sarkozy’s political self-interest.

We also have evidence that indicates Gaddafidafhi wasn't and wasn't planning on massacring civilians:

32. Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence. The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011.72 During fighting in Misrata, the hospital recorded 257 people killed and 949 people wounded in February and March 2011. Those casualties included 22 women and eight children. Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that Tripoli’s morgues contained more than 200 corpses following fighting in late February 2011, of whom two were female. The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. More widely, Muammar Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/119.pdf