609

Ukraine tells critics of slow counteroffensive to 'shut up' (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

1144 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

They were very defensive in Libya and Yugoslavia

[-] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago

Nice argument, however the population supported it:

According to a Gallup poll conducted in March and April 2012, a survey involving 1,000 Libyans showed 75% of Libyans were in favor of the NATO intervention, compared to 22% who were opposed.[1] A post-war Orb International poll involving 1,249 Libyans found broad support for the intervention, with 85% of Libyans saying that they strongly supported the action taken to remove the Ghadafi regime.[2]

[1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/156539/opinion-briefing-libyans-eye-new-relations-west.aspx [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20170608060559/https://www.orb-international.com/article.php?s=4-in-5-libyans-agree-country-heading-in-right-direction-according-to-post-revolution-citizen-poll

So it sounds more like you are just anti-NATO from an ideological perspective

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Libya ended in open air slave markets lmao, and you're citing western sources saying "well they aaked for it

[-] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago

That is a ridiculous argument and you know it, unless your idealism has blinded you. "Something bad happened later so something good can't have happened before"

Yet you gloss over what it was like in these countries before. Here is an example of how Iraq was before: https://youtu.be/CR1X3zV6X5Y?si=QVE1b277NIVHnOUB

Does that mean the Iraq invasion was good? No. However don't remove all nuance from a discussion about helping the population overthrow a dictatorship, and the potential consequences of that action, just to attempt a cheap shot.

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Gaddafi had his problems but sol massively improved under him. Given we back plenty of much worse dictatorships, it wasn't done for altruistic reasons. It was done because he was giving a cut of the wealth to the masses instead of to neocolonial powers. Incidentally, improving sol and education like Gaddafi was doing tend to trend to democratic transitions over time.

The open air slave markets were a direct result of the intervention. The US backed regime didn't have a democratic mandate and didn't have Gaddafi's entrenched power structures and collapsed.

[-] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago

It was done because he was giving a cut of the wealth to the masses instead of to neocolonial powers

No, a no fly zone was instated because Gaddafi was ordering air strikes on his own citizens, to the extent that his own representative to the UN asked for the no fly zone:

21 February 2011: Libyan deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Ibrahim Dabbashi called "on the UN to impose a no-fly zone on all of Tripoli to cut off all supplies of arms and mercenaries to the regime."

https://web.archive.org/web/20110226113522/http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/201102219941/Libya-Politics/libyan-ambassador-to-un-urges-international-community-to-stop-genocide.html

Are you going to continue just making things up?

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, the US which is the largest drone striker in the world and where it is explicitly legal for the president to kill US citizens without trial went in with a moral imperative because of air strikes.

Even if the Spanish sabotaged the USS Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin wasn't made up, and WMD were in Iraq, the cassi belle are not the structural reasons why the invasions happened. You're being intentionally credulous because you think US empire benefits you. It doesn't.

[-] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah to be honest I'm a bit done with your mixture of fact and deliberate fiction to try to assist your ideology.

Here is an actual factual paper on the reasons for the Libyan invasion

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12290-017-0447-5

There are plenty of discussion points for you without needing to sprinkle in fiction for good measure.

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So did you actually read those links lmao? Because if you did you have to acknowledge you were wrong about what you've said in this thread and I was mostly correct according to your links.