Meanwhile in Libya...

[Abdülmecid I]

...the situation has deteriorated even further. To give a very simplified summary, the country is mainly divided into two major coalitions. Firstly, there is the UN-recognized Government of National Accord, which essentially dominates what could be defined as Tripolitania (including the cities of Misrata, Sirte and, of course, the capital, Tripoli). On the other side, we have the significantly more powerful faction of the Libyan National Army (supposedly under the jurisdiction of the civilian body of the House of Representatives, which is based on "Cyrenaica", in the east of the country). The Libyan National Army is led by general Haftar, an army officer, who joined the anti-Gaddafi opposition, after he was captured during the disastrous (for Libya) war with Chad. Haftar returned to Libya, following the events of the Arab Spring, where, thanks to his remarkable skills in political manoeuvres, has succeeded in evolving from an asset of CIA into a fearsome warlord.



In the last days, hostilities have intensified, because the Libyan National Army, attacked the positions of the "Tripoli-regime'', threatening to "liberate the capital", after he had previously conquered the south of the country. Haftar easily advanced in the open countryside, but his offensive has stalled in the urban environment, where his superior equipment and relatively well-trained soldiers is less efficient against fortified defenses, manned by determined irregulars. The future of the capital is incertain, while foreign diplomats maintain a neutral and flexible stance, attempting to reconcile the opponents. For example, both France and Italy (the two countries, which have invested the most into the countries oil production) superficially pretend to tolerate the Government of National Accord, while they also enjoy cordial relations with general Haftar. Haftar was viewed even more positively in the past, as the most reliable friend of the West in Libya, but his aggressive and opportunistic tactics (apart from the ongoing war and invasion, Haftar has tried to overthrow the authorities multiple times in the past, which led to the negotiated compromise of being officially recognized as the head of the armed forces) have put his meekness and loyalty into doubt, in comparison to the days when he obediently cooperated with the American intelligence services. Haftar's biggest atout is that his forces hold the vast majority of Libya's oilfields and pipelines, in the south and east, with the exception of the refinery and port of Zawiya.

In my opinion, what renders Libyan's prospects particularly dim is that neither LNA nor GNA are unified organisations, with a clear hierarchical order. The former does not even pretend to deploy a regular army, but instead its forces are recruited by a great variety of militias, protecting the interests of a myriad of warlords and cities (my personal favourite is the mighty Petroleum Facilities Guard). GNA isn't much better, as it owes its expansion to the strategic alliance with equally numerous tribal militias and political parties. The troops of the Amazigh, the Tuareg or even the fans of the Jamahiriya frequently join and abandon the coalitions, in order to increase their influence, usurp political power or even declare their independence. In the meantime, Sudanese mercenaries offer their services to the highest bidder, while jihadists raid isolated communities. This leads to the conclusion that even if Haftar manages to totally destroy the GNA and even achieve international recognition, there is nothing stopping Libya from fragmenting again, because Haftar's partners will quarrel over their share of the profits, while his defeated enemies will exploit his weakness to regain their privileges. In contrast to Syria, Libya lacks even a skeleton of the state apparatus, which could provide the chance, thanks to war exhaustion, of a unification of the wrecked country and the gradual reconstruction of the destroyed infrastructure.



This is why, for me, at least, in contrast again to the very cleverly orchestrated by Washington Syrian intervention, Operation Odyssey Dawn was a grave mistake, not only from a moral, but also from a cynical perspective. French and Italian firms (Paris and Rome, and secondarily Rome, were the most dedicated advocates of regime-change, as the United States participated only after the European militaries proved incapable of decisively prevailing over the underfunded Libyan army), as well as a couple of Gulf monarchies, basically aspired to sign advantageous contracts with the "revolutionary" administration, at the expense of their Chinese competitors. However, due to the fact that the rebels only won, because of the impact, both material and moral (encouraging Gaddafi officials to change sides) of the aerial campaign, the result of the civil war was a vacuum of power and an almost uninterrupted civil war. As a consequence, oil exports experienced dramatic rises and falls, which doesn't exactly contribute very positively to company revenues. To conclude, I suspect that Libya's future will involve either a continuous conflict or a loose federation. In the latter and most optimist scenario, trade and overall productivity could somewhat recover to pre-2011 levels, but daily life and communications will remain extremely vulnerable to flare-ups of sectarian, tribal and political violence, between local warlords.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

The GNA is even weaker than you present it, as a third faction you've not mentioned, the "National salvation government" controls significant portions of the capital, Tripoli, aswell as parts of several other important cities such as Misrata and Sirt. Meanwhile Haftar's hold on the east of the country is firm, especially with his recent reconquest of Derna from Jihadists that controlled it since pretty much the outbreak of the war, as well as him having defeated Jihadists in Benghazi and Ajdabiya.

[Heathen Hammer]

To conclude, I suspect that Libya's future will involve either a continuous conflict or a loose federation. In the latter and most optimist scenario, trade and overall productivity could somewhat recover to pre-2011 levels, but daily life and communications will remain extremely vulnerable to flare-ups of sectarian, tribal and political violence, between local warlords.

I recall the thread about Libya during the outbreak of civil war there our resident self-proclaimed "defenders of liberal democracy" praising "moderate opposition" and NATO for getting rid of "horrible dictator", predicting how prosperous and democratic Libya will be moving forward. Now it is a failed state with a constant civil war between various war lords.
Objectively, you'd have to thank NATO for providing air-support for the jihadist "opposition" .

[Diocle]

Among the secret objectives/consequences of the attempt to conquer Tripoli perpetrated by the infamous French puppet Haftar₍₁₎, it may there be also the immigration policy of the the Libyan government of Fayez al Serraj, which is actively supporting Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini in his decision to stop illegal immigration from Libya, blocking in this way, the main route of human trafficking between Africa and Europe.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

comparison of data about illegal immigrants landed in Italy in the years 2016/2017/2018:



data about illegal immigrants' landings in Italy from 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019, compared with the data about the same period in the previous years 2017 and 2018



Central and Eastern route:

I think that the French puppet's coup is doomed to fail for many reasons, the most important is the lack of any real American and European support, but it may be just some sort of my personal wishful thinking .. we will see.




(1) Pic of the infamous French puppet Aftar in sweet conversation with the French nonentity, Macron; doesn't it look like a true love story?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[dogukan]

Haftar is a Russo-Egyptian-UAE ally. France is not his priority. He is getting his military support from these factions, not France...

[Abdülmecid I]

Yes, France is primarily a financial partner, mainly because of Total's involvement in the refining and exportation of the Libyan oil. The role of the Gulf monarchies has been relatively neglected, but, on general terms, we can observe the same split as shown in other Middle Eastern fronts: The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt support LNA, while Qatar and Turkey maintain closer ties with GNA. However, all these ''alliances'' are very fluid and prone to radical shifts, once the balance of power changes. Both France and, at a smaller level, Italy play a double-game, as they necessarily rely more on whoever controls the oilfields of the south.

The GNA is even weaker than you present it, as a third faction you've not mentioned, the "National salvation government" controls significant portions of the capital, Tripoli, aswell as parts of several other important cities such as Misrata and Sirt. Meanwhile Haftar's hold on the east of the country is firm, especially with his recent reconquest of Derna from Jihadists that controlled it since pretty much the outbreak of the war, as well as him having defeated Jihadists in Benghazi and Ajdabiya.

I think the National Salvation government is essentially dissolved, since Ghwail was forced to order a retreat from Tripoli, following the offensive of GNA. The National Salvation is now mostly composed of the local militias in Misrata and other towns, while their Islamist allies have gone independent. Probably all of these factions will collaborate with GNA, in order to protect their interests against the advances of the more threatening party of general Haftar.

[Papay]

Haftar is 77 year old. He wont have the time to capture Libya and stabilize it

[Gallus]

Haftar is a Russo-Egyptian-UAE ally. France is not his priority. He is getting his military support from these factions, not France...

He's a strange one. A former CIA agent backed by France and allied to Russia. I honestly don't know what to make of him.

[Cyclops]

So if a bloody handed dictator gets killed it doesn't immediately lead to sunshine and roses? I guess we're getting some sort of idea of what Syria might have become if we'd taken out Assad, with obvious allowance for different local conditions.

He's a strange one. A former CIA agent backed by France and allied to Russia. I honestly don't know what to make of him.

Apparently we're making a President out of him. He's about the same age as Gaddafi would have been, so the Libyan state was entering a transition phase in any case. External forces including the West just decided to help make the transition as ugly as possible, but change was already on the cards.

Given Pompeo is a Koch servant (they are in oil aren't they?) and not a presidential hopeful looking to put a new page in the history books (thanks Hilary) he should at least work to stabilise oil production, but he might look to throw out Total in favour of a US mob. I guess that usually takes a war (as in Iraq and Iran).

I hate to be so cynical but maybe Libya needs a strongman/tyrant to keep the warring factions quiet, shut the ****ing Saudi murderers out and maybe give the ordinary people some peace and quiet.

[Vanoi]

The GNA is even weaker than you present it, as a third faction you've not mentioned, the "National salvation government" controls significant portions of the capital, Tripoli, aswell as parts of several other important cities such as Misrata and Sirt. Meanwhile Haftar's hold on the east of the country is firm, especially with his recent reconquest of Derna from Jihadists that controlled it since pretty much the outbreak of the war, as well as him having defeated Jihadists in Benghazi and Ajdabiya.

You do know the National Salvation Government dissolved in 2016 right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ion_Government

The GNA is arguabaly stronger than the LNA. The Misrata brigades are not a joke.

Abdul may oppose the intervention but the mistake made here was blowing up the country and not staying to make sure it got fixed.

And a Cold War decision coming back to haunt the US.

[Love Mountain]

Defending yet another failed intervention. Never surprised.

[Vanoi]

Defending yet another failed intervention. Never surprised.

Cause a civil war that kill thousands and spreads outwardly is much much better right? Unlike you Suki, i actually debated in the original Libyan civil war thread here. People forget how bad it got and why it started in the first place.

Funny enough, all of these "stable" strong man dictators keep causing civil wars that are now tending to spread beyond their own borders. Gaddafi's Tuareg mercenaries would later go on to cause complete unrest and civil war in Mali itself.

I do favor intervention, but the alternatives offered are worst at best. Libya failed because no one actually wanted to help re-build it. Just blow it up. Even Iraq with all of its problems could be argued a more successful example when compared to Libya. At least they tried to re-build there.

None of this will end though until one of them lose. I'm betting on the LNA, but thats all assuming one of their benefactors doesn't come in and give them support in some way.

[Love Mountain]

Cause a civil war that kill thousands and spreads outwardly is much much better right? Unlike you Suki, i actually debated in the original Libyan civil war thread here. People forget how bad it got and why it started in the first place.

You want a medal for your participation? Thousands are dying now. Thousands are dying then. I can see how our participation made things, oh so much better. Intervention was not necessary to achieve such disastrous results. This was a civil war, not a genocide.

Funny enough, all of these "stable" strong man dictators keep causing civil wars that are now tending to spread beyond their own borders. Gaddafi's Tuareg mercenaries would later go on to cause complete unrest and civil war in Mali itself.

That's your argument? That armed gangs go on to terrorize the population once the command structure collapsed? Brilliant.

I do favor intervention, but the alternatives offered are worst at best. Libya failed because no one actually wanted to help re-build it. Just blow it up. Even Iraq with all of its problems could be argued a more successful example when compared to Libya. At least they tried to re-build there.

None of this will end though until one of them lose. I'm betting on the LNA, but thats all assuming one of their benefactors doesn't come in and give them support in some way.

The alternatives are not invading and destroying the country. Libya failed because Western powers helped create the chaos and destroy existing authority. Civil Wars need to run their course and if you really want to help people, help pick up the pieces, instead of blowing everything up to smithereens. There are times when an intervention is required. Rwanda, Bangladesh, North Korea, Cambodia, the list goes on forever. Anyone help them? Of course not. Authoritarian sitting on oil supplies and in the midst of a power struggle? Bombs away.

Instead of killing people, we should consider expanding US Aid and expanding the cooperation of the US Military to help build, develop, and deliver aid to potentially hazardous areas. Of course that's not never going to happen. Not only because the average voter will never consider this, but because just like you, the Pentagon just loves blowing up. Don't they? All those guns and rockets just waiting to be air-dropped to all kinds of rebels around the world.

[Abdülmecid I]

We can't argue with hypothetical scenarios, as there is simply no way to know whether Libya under Gaddafi's family would be a better place or not. Perhaps, we will have a chance to find out, if Saif al-Islam prevails in the upcoming presidential elections... Serioustly though, even the definition of "better" is a purely subjective matter, especially in the case of Libya, where the civil war was clearly tribal in nature. I am sure the Misrata militias enjoyed the outcome, but the same cannot be said for the inhabitants of Tawergha, a neighboring town completely erased from the map by the vengeful rebels. I personally oppose intervention, on the basis of the fact that neither the United States nor any other great power has been divinely appointed to meddle in the domestic affairs of a foreign country, as the uprising against an authoritarian government is purely the business of the local people and not of outside actors.

The usual excuse is that, hadn't the West bombed the army, war-crimes against the people would have been committed, but, apart from the reports being grossly exaggerated, the truth is that if a revolution is truly popular, nothing will save the position of the dictator. The conscripts will immediately desert on a massive scale and the state apparatus will collapse on itself. There are exceptions, concerning countries whose population is so small (like the Arab Spring in Bahrain, for example), that public order can be restored by the deployment of mercenaries, but Libya is too large for such tactics to be effective. The Libyan Civil War was almost exclusively tribal, as mainly the eastern provinces revolted (around Benghazi and Tobruk), because they were intentionally disenfranchised by the Gaddafi regime, due to them being the basis of support for the Sennousi dynasty. The officials and militias who later abandoned the government and collaborated with the rebels were motivated by opportunism and not their frustration over the lack of democracy or prosperity.

Of course, all this debate is irrelevant, considering that human rights were essentially the pretext to morally justify the military operation, while the main reason was about the creation of a friendly environment towards French and secondarily Italian or British investment. Foreign policy is determined by financial and diplomatic interests, which is why any arguments based on subjectively formed moral principles is pointless and often misleading. Lastly, the occupation with ground forces was out of the question, from the beginning: The subsequent casualties to insurgency, the inadequacy of the European armies and the limited budget meant that such a strategy would be politically suicidal. Warmongering served its propaganda purpose, by presenting Paris or the State Secretary as liberal/conservative hawks, but maintaining the war effort after the fall of Tripoli would have been totally foolish.

[Vanoi]

You want a medal for your participation? Thousands are dying now. Thousands are dying then.

Mentioned it because its obvious you know jack about this conflict in general. No, way more people were dying in the 2011 civil war than now. Even the flare doesn't compare when cities were being flattened.

I can see how our participation made things, oh so much better. Intervention was not necessary to achieve such disastrous results. This was a civil war, not a genocide.

Letting the civil war go one and destroy the country is better? Always never offering a real alternative at all. Never change Suki.

That's your argument? That armed gangs go on to terrorize the population once the command structure collapsed? Brilliant.

I only mentioned it because of the disastrous arguments you make. Same thing in Venezuela right? You are more than content to let disaster happen because it doesn't affect you. Dictators don't bring stability. They bring civil wars and unrest that threatened their neighbors. Venezuela, syria, and Libya are great examples of it. These civil wars and unrest cannot happen without the dictator.

The alternatives are not invading and destroying the country.

Talking out of your ass isn't going to work here. What was the alternative in 2011 during the civil war? You do know the events and actions taken leading up to it right?

Libya failed because Western powers helped create the chaos and destroy existing authority.

Chaos and civil war already rained before that so save the crappy argument.

Civil Wars need to run their course and if you really want to help people, help pick up the pieces, instead of blowing everything up to smithereens.

That is ing hilarious. You would let civil wars spread and topple countries around them if you wanted. Your alternative will create more death and chaos than these interventions ever could. If we used your approach in Syria ISIS would have toppled Iraq and Syria already.

Sorry we have tried your approach before. It creates worse outcomes. See Rwanda.

There are times when an intervention is required. Rwanda, Bangladesh, North Korea, Cambodia, the list goes on forever. Anyone help them? Of course not. Authoritarian sitting on oil supplies and in the midst of a power struggle? Bombs away.

Save the oil nonsense for someone else.

Instead of killing people, we should consider expanding US Aid and expanding the cooperation of the US Military to help build, develop, and deliver aid to potentially hazardous areas.

You mean like in Venezuela? Oh wait, Maduro doesn't want aid. Or in Syria? Where Assad plain out denied aid to areas under siege? This is just naive at best.

Of course that's not never going to happen. Not only because the average voter will never consider this, but because just like you, the Pentagon just loves blowing up. Don't they? All those guns and rockets just waiting to be air-dropped to all kinds of rebels around the world.

Better than being content and letting others die while you sit in that ivory tower of yours.

The usual excuse is that, hadn't the West bombed the army, war-crimes against the people would have been committed, but, apart from the reports being grossly exaggerated, the truth is that if a revolution is truly popular, nothing will save the position of the dictator. The conscripts will immediately desert on a massive scale and the state apparatus will collapse on itself. There are exceptions, concerning countries whose population is so small (like the Arab Spring in Bahrain, for example), that public order can be restored by the deployment of mercenaries, but Libya is too large for such tactics to be effective.

Well the war was pretty popular. At the time of the intervention in 2011, Gaddafi's forces were stuck trying to take Misrata. They hired mercenaries for a reason. Libyan troops couldn't get through a bunch of what? tribals as what you describe and opportunists? Thats what stopped a full fledged army? Either the Libyan Army was in incredibly poor shape or this uprising was more popular than you think it was.

Of course, all this debate is irrelevant, considering that human rights were essentially the pretext to morally justify the military operation, while the main reason was about the creation of a friendly environment towards French and secondarily Italian or British investment. Foreign policy is determined by financial and diplomatic interests, which is why any arguments based on subjectively formed moral principles is pointless and often misleading. Lastly, the occupation with ground forces was out of the question, from the beginning: The subsequent casualties to insurgency, the inadequacy of the European armies and the limited budget meant that such a strategy would be politically suicidal. Warmongering served its propaganda purpose, by presenting Paris or the State Secretary as liberal/conservative hawks, but maintaining the war effort after the fall of Tripoli would have been totally foolish.

That makes little sense. It was the US pushing for intervention the most at first. Only later on did the it become more of a NATO affair. Not saying they intervened out of the goodness of their hearts, but for French and Italian investment? Sorry thatsa conspiracy theory at best.

[Love Mountain]

Mentioned it because its obvious you know jack about this conflict in general. No, way more people were dying in the 2011 civil war than now. Even the flare doesn't compare when cities were being flattened.

So you do want a medal? And you are talking about the same 2011 Civil War where we intervened right? That's your argument?

Letting the civil war go one and destroy the country is better? Always never offering a real alternative at all. Never change Suki.

I always give an alternative and my preferred action. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I don't give it.

I only mentioned it because of the disastrous arguments you make. Same thing in Venezuela right? You are more than content to let disaster happen because it doesn't affect you. Dictators don't bring stability. They bring civil wars and unrest that threatened their neighbors. Venezuela, syria, and Libya are great examples of it. These civil wars and unrest cannot happen without the dictator.

What disastrous argument did I give? I recall saying this in Venezuela thread,

We have the capability to prevent bloodshed. Things may come down to Maduro slaughtering opposition supporters if an insurgency appears. At that point, it may be simply better for everyone to intervene militarily. Gets rid of the violence and Maduro in one fell swoop. Hold elections, and go from there.

. I meant to reply to you, but I figured it's pointless seeing as how to this day you still claim Iraq is a success. Literally, I haven't seen an intervention that you don't like. Your best criticism of any major intervention I recall you commenting on, is that they don't go far enough. Sorry, Vanoi, but there is more to diplomacy than bombing people after a short talk that you didn't like.

Talking out of your ass isn't going to work here. What was the alternative in 2011 during the civil war? You do know the events and actions taken leading up to it right?

Letting it fight itself out.

Chaos and civil war already rained before that so save the crappy argument.

What argument? That we actively aided in the outcome of this situation? Stop talking out of your ass. We both know that this was something everyone could've well stayed out of.

That is ing hilarious. You would let civil wars spread and topple countries around them if you wanted. Your alternative will create more death and chaos than these interventions ever could. If we used your approach in Syria ISIS would have toppled Iraq and Syria already.

Your approach doesn't solve anything. It simply engages in regime change after regime change and ignoring the cases that actually matter.

Sorry we have tried your approach before. It creates worse outcomes. See Rwanda.

That's not my approach. That's yours. Invading countries that you don't like. That's why nobody helped Rwanda, because they're full of and don't care about actual humanitarian causes. That's always a secondary objective. It's always about geopolitical goals or flexing.

Save the oil nonsense for someone else.

Save your humanitarian nonsense for someone who believes it.

You mean like in Venezuela? Oh wait, Maduro doesn't want aid. Or in Syria? Where Assad plain out denied aid to areas under siege? This is just naive at best.

Better than being content and letting others die while you sit in that ivory tower of yours.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venezu...rian-1.5026963

United States refuses to send help in a way that would actually achieve that goal. This isn't about Venezuela's people, it's about toppling Maduro's government. So take your sappy, humanitarian out of here. Nobody is buying it.

[Vanoi]

So you do want a medal? And you are talking about the same 2011 Civil War where we intervened right? That's your argument?

It's like I am arguing with a child right now. You claimed thousands are dying now and back then. That's not even remotely true. It was much worse before the intervention. I forgot though you don't tend care if people.

I always give an alternative and my preferred action. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I don't give it.

Sitting around and watching isn't an alternative. Not all of us live ivory towers.

What disastrous argument did I give? I recall saying this in Venezuela thread,



. I meant to reply to you, but I figured it's pointless seeing as how to this day you still claim Iraq is a success. Literally, I haven't seen an intervention that you don't like. Your best criticism of any major intervention I recall you commenting on, is that they don't go far enough. Sorry, Vanoi, but there is more to diplomacy than bombing people after a short talk that you didn't like.

I didn't say Iraq was a success. It's why I said in comparison to Libya in the efforts to actually re-build it. Do try and actually read my posts Suki.

Diplomacy is not sitting by and watching others die. Your diplomacy leads to genocides and massacres.

Letting it fight itself out.

So I was right? Let the fighting spread to it's neighbors, let people die and governments topple? And you honestly try and claim my approach is worse.

What argument? That we actively aided in the outcome of this situation? Stop talking out of your ass. We both know that this was something everyone could've well stayed out of.

Stating out would have led to worse outcomes. Claiming intervention led to this point is pure ignorance. You don't know one thing about the Libyan Civil War. That's obvious. Continue to talk out of your ass.

Your approach doesn't solve anything. It simply engages in regime change after regime change and ignoring the cases that actually matter.

Causes can be addressed after. Your approach leads to the situation spiraling out if control and making it far worse than intervention.

That's not my approach. That's yours. Invading countries that you don't like. That's why nobody helped Rwanda, because they're full of and don't care about actual humanitarian causes. That's always a secondary objective. It's always about geopolitical goals or flexing.

No that's definitely your approach. Sitting by and watching it happen and do nothing. Let the fighting fight itself out right? Just like you said earlier. Now you are even contradicting yourself.

Save your humanitarian nonsense for someone who believes it.

I can't hear you all the way up on your high horse. Please speak louder for us lowly folk.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venezu...rian-1.5026963

United States refuses to send help in a way that would actually achieve that goal. This isn't about Venezuela's people, it's about toppling Maduro's government. So take your sappy, humanitarian out of here. Nobody is buying it.

Yep cause it's the US who destroyed the Venezuelan economy and led to the current situation. It's the US who refuses aid to Venezuela right?

sa your apology nonsense. I argued your your points in the Venezuela thread. Just like there, you keep talking out of your ass. Try that someone else please.

[Vanoi]

So you do want a medal? And you are talking about the same 2011 Civil War where we intervened right? That's your argument?

It's like I am arguing with a child right now. You claimed thousands are dying now and back then. That's not even remotely true. It was much worse before the intervention. I forgot though you don't tend care if people.

I always give an alternative and my preferred action. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I don't give it.

Sitting around and watching isn't an alternative. Not all of us live ivory towers.

What disastrous argument did I give? I recall saying this in Venezuela thread,



. I meant to reply to you, but I figured it's pointless seeing as how to this day you still claim Iraq is a success. Literally, I haven't seen an intervention that you don't like. Your best criticism of any major intervention I recall you commenting on, is that they don't go far enough. Sorry, Vanoi, but there is more to diplomacy than bombing people after a short talk that you didn't like.

I didn't say Iraq was a success. It's why I said in comparison to Libya in the efforts to actually re-build it. Do try and actually read my posts Suki.

Diplomacy is not sitting by and watching others die. Your diplomacy leads to genocides and massacres.

Letting it fight itself out.

So I was right? Let the fighting spread to it's neighbors, let people die and governments topple? And you honestly try and claim my approach is worse.

What argument? That we actively aided in the outcome of this situation? Stop talking out of your ass. We both know that this was something everyone could've well stayed out of.

Stating out would have led to worse outcomes. Claiming intervention led to this point is pure ignorance. You don't know one thing about the Libyan Civil War. That's obvious. Continue to talk out of your ass.

Your approach doesn't solve anything. It simply engages in regime change after regime change and ignoring the cases that actually matter.

Causes can be addressed after. Your approach leads to the situation spiraling out if control and making it far worse than intervention.

That's not my approach. That's yours. Invading countries that you don't like. That's why nobody helped Rwanda, because they're full of and don't care about actual humanitarian causes. That's always a secondary objective. It's always about geopolitical goals or flexing.

No that's definitely your approach. Sitting by and watching it happen and do nothing. Let the fighting fight itself out right? Just like you said earlier. Now you are even contradicting yourself.

Save your humanitarian nonsense for someone who believes it.

I can't hear you all the way up on your high horse. Please speak louder for us lowly folk.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venezu...rian-1.5026963

United States refuses to send help in a way that would actually achieve that goal. This isn't about Venezuela's people, it's about toppling Maduro's government. So take your sappy, humanitarian out of here. Nobody is buying it.

Yep cause it's the US who destroyed the Venezuelan economy and led to the current situation. It's the US who refuses aid to Venezuela right?

sa your apology nonsense. I argued your your points in the Venezuela thread. Just like there, you keep talking out of your ass. Try that someone else please.

[Abdülmecid I]

The Libyan army was in a pretty bad state. Even if Gaddafi hadn't intentionally neglected the military, its efficiency would have remained abysmal anyway. A large portion of the budget was embezzled by corrupt officials, the officer corps was dominated by incompetent men, who owed their promotion to the client system and drilling was essentially nonexistent. The regulars were still better than the undisciplined militias, but they lacked the necessary tactics to overcome urban defenses. Despite this, the Libyan Army was in the verge of capturing Benghazi, before their artillery and tanks were destroyed by the coalition. If Benghazi had fallen, the rest of the eastern cities would soon follow, while an isolated Misrata could not resist forever. Instead, the defeat in Benghazi led to a rapid retreat and prompted many allies of the government to defect to the stronger side. The civil war was more complicated than a popular revolution against the caricature of an oriental tyrant. It was basically a tribal conflict, as unfortunately the only organised ideological opposition came from the Islamist camp. Nowadays, progressive middle class is too feeble to actually matter and is easily infiltrated by Salafists, while leftist parties have either been eliminated by the regime or watched their support base being infatuated by the new trend of religious fundamentalism.

[Love Mountain]

It's like I am arguing with a child right now. You claimed thousands are dying now and back then. That's not even remotely true. It was much worse before the intervention. I forgot though you don't tend care if people.

Child?

Unlike you Suki, i actually debated in the original Libyan civil war thread here.

Very relevant to the discussion. I think it's pathetic to justify deaths by embarking on an intervention that causes yet more deaths. The one who doesn't actually care about people and their rights is you, not me. It's not up to Washington's bureaucrats to decide destinies of other countries. We should only intervene to prevent genocides and massive death counts. Or to defend our interests.

Sitting around and watching isn't an alternative. Not all of us live ivory towers.

It absolutely is. Especially when it's a civil war, not a genocide. People die in wars.

I didn't say Iraq was a success. It's why I said in comparison to Libya in the efforts to actually re-build it. Do try and actually read my posts Suki.

Diplomacy is not sitting by and watching others die. Your diplomacy leads to genocides and massacres.

Diplomacy is getting both sides to sit down. Diplomacy is determining cost/benefits of our actions. Diplomacy is negotiating the rules and plans to limit civilian or collateral damage. Diplomacy is lots of things. Diplomacy isn't dropping bombs. And fine, you didn't call Iraq a success, though I do recall you defending our actions there time and time again. Even now you call Iraq as a "better example than Libya". What the hell is that? An endorsement of interventions? Your argumentation is a disease. It enables and justifies invasions that only seek to topple, plunder, and dictate American hegemony to people who don't want it.

So I was right? Let the fighting spread to it's neighbors, let people die and governments topple? And you honestly try and claim my approach is worse.

Right about what? We can certainly provide asylum to those who are displaced. We can help governments who are affected by nearby conflict. None of these involve invading. None of these involve toppling governments. Yes, your approach is worse. It's not only a failure in discourse, examples of total and complete failure of interventionism are littered across history. The only thing these interventions do, is marr American reputation and accomplish geopolitical goals. And nobody, nobody is fooled by these ridiculous and fabricated humanitarian pretenses.

Stating out would have led to worse outcomes. Claiming intervention led to this point is pure ignorance. You don't know one thing about the Libyan Civil War. That's obvious. Continue to talk out of your ass.

No such thing was said. You mistake my reasoning behind staying out. And intervention helped get things to this point. That's not a dispute. That's pure fact. The intervention was in place in Libya almost from the first week of the hostilities. We don't, and we will never know the full extent of our involvement, but even from what we do know, it was significant. A ten year old child can authoritatively conclude that the intervention was part of the reason why we are here today in Libya. On-going civil war. An uncertain future. Total chaos and islamists roaming various parts of the country that are not under direct control.

Instead of talking about how wrong I am, why don't you reflect on the history of interventionism and how it got us to this point.

Causes can be addressed after. Your approach leads to the situation spiraling out if control and making it far worse than intervention.

No it doesn't. "My approach" would see United States intervening in all kinds of humanitarian disasters across the world. A force for good. Your approach would see us intervening in every country you deem "rogue" in the same manner that Bush declared certain countries as an "axis of evil". We would be basing massive long-term interventions based entirely on your whims and your arbitrary definition of what determines a threat to people's lives and what doesn't. Your approach is not only dangerous and reckless, it's completely based on opinion, it lacks any kind of process to determining who is a threat to world peace and who isn't.

No that's definitely your approach. Sitting by and watching it happen and do nothing. Let the fighting fight itself out right? Just like you said earlier. Now you are even contradicting yourself.

You are aware it's possible to help out civilians and engage in diplomacy without ing bombing everything, right? Stop putting words in my mouth.

I can't hear you all the way up on your high horse. Please speak louder for us lowly folk.

You can't hear me because you're too busy blowing up. Not because I'm claiming a moral high ground. Oh no, that's you. You presume to be the arbiter of what's right and wrong. Of which regime needs to be toppled and which one doesn't. Of why we need to drop bombs on a country.

Yep cause it's the US who destroyed the Venezuelan economy and led to the current situation. It's the US who refuses aid to Venezuela right?

You're moving goalposts. First, you claimed Venezuela doesn't want aid. Now we're suddenly talking about their economy and who's fault it is.

sa your apology nonsense. I argued your your points in the Venezuela thread. Just like there, you keep talking out of your ass. Try that someone else please.

No. I responded in a perfectly sensible manner in Venezuelan thread and I provided a lot of credible and good points in there. I would've continued the debate there as well, and in fact I still have a reply typed out from long ago that I haven't posted due to real life and site downtime.

And enough with the personal references. Am I going to get an apology for all of the insinuations you've made so far? I know you love skirting the ToS to get a few insults in. Am I gonna get an apology and respectful debate out of you? Or not?