#Libya Intervention

[tmarshconnors]

Wars, 0 trials. Enough said.

George H. W. Bush (1989-1993)

Gulf War (1990-1991): Also known as Operation Desert Storm, this conflict was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. A U.S.-led coalition drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

Operation Just Cause (1989): The U.S. invasion of Panama aimed at deposing Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.

Bill Clinton (1993-2001)

Bosnian War (1992-1995): The U.S. became involved in NATO-led operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the enforcement of no-fly zones and airstrikes against Bosnian Serb forces. This culminated in the Dayton Agreement.

Kosovo War (1998-1999): NATO, led by the U.S., conducted a bombing campaign against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to stop human rights abuses against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

Operation Gothic Serpent (1993): This was part of the broader United Nations' intervention in Somalia, aiming to capture warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. It included the Battle of Mogadishu, famously known as "Black Hawk Down."

George W. Bush (2001-2009)

War in Afghanistan (2001-present): Initiated in response to the September 11 attacks, this war aimed to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power.

Iraq War (2003-2011): Launched on the premise that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, this conflict led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime.

War on Terror (2001-present): This is a broader term encompassing various military operations and initiatives aimed at combatting terrorism globally.

Barack Obama (2009-2017)

Continuation of the War in Afghanistan: Obama increased troop levels in Afghanistan in an attempt to stabilize the country, before beginning a drawdown of forces.

Iraq War and ISIS Conflict: While Obama ended the U.S. combat mission in Iraq in 2011, U.S. forces returned in 2014 to help combat ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

Libyan Civil War (2011): The U.S. participated in a NATO-led intervention that led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

Operation Neptune Spear (2011): The mission that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Interventions in Syria: The U.S. was involved in the Syrian Civil War, primarily through support of rebel groups and airstrikes against ISIS targets.

[jessaerys]

rare putin w

[jloisse]

«Spoliation de l’Afrique»: pour détruire le dinar or, la France et l’OTAN ont détruit la Libye et Kadhafi

Le projet de dinar or de Kadhafi était une menace pour la France et les Etats-Unis, rappelle Moussa Ibrahim.

Et l'ex-porte-parole du dirigeant libyen de détailler:

«Quand Kadhafi a dit aux Français:"Mêlez-vous de vos affaires, c’est notre continent, c’est notre pétrole, nos banques, notre monnaie, nous voulons l'indépendance", c’était nuisible aux intérêts impérialistes de la France. »

[immaculatasknight]

Servitor of empire

[z34l0t]

Hillary Clinton And Condi Rice Rewrite History On Jon Stewart's Show

[psychotrenny]

The whole Bourdain quote about beating Kissinger to death rings very hollow when you remember that Bourdain was a straight up US State Department asset; "Henry Kissinger for people who drink craft beer". Like he spent most of his post 2006 career manufacturing consent for the US Imperialism, including for one of the most devastating interventions of the 21st century. Like you know that if Bourdain had been had been born a few decades earlier he would have gone on about how the beautiful people of South Vietnam are under threat from oppressive Northerners infiltrating from their border with the ineffectual regime running Cambodia. Like that Kissinger quote is an excellent example of how liberals will condemn every atrocity but the one currently happening. And to paraphrase that quote; once you've been Libya, you'll never stop wanting to beat Anthony Bourdain to death with your bare hands"

[matan4il]

Out of curiosity, what does the UN actually gain from keeping the terrorists in power? Obviously antisemitism but way do they materially gain?

Anon, don't be so quick to dismiss antisemitism. It's a really powerful motivator, for some people even more than money, because it is often to connected to a person's views of themselves, their society and the world. As such, antisemitism can be linked to issues of self-worth or hope for the future. And the place where someone's self-worth depends on demonizing Jews, or their future hopes depends on the notion that their society will be so much better, if only a Jewish collective (whether the Jewish religion, race or state) will be dismantled, they are emotionally invested in ways that can be far more crucial to them than money.

So I personally do think that antisemitism played a big role in how the UN has acted regarding Israel for decades.

For example, the UN sets up a special agency to help Koreans in Dec 1950 (UNKRA). By Jul 1958, less than 8 years later and 5 years after a ceasefire was achieved between the two Koreas, the agency was seen as having served its purpose, and was dismantled. Since then, if there are ever Korean refugees still in need of help, it goes through the general UNHCR (established 1951. It replaced the UN's temporary agency IRO, established Dec 1946, which itself took over from UNRRA, established Nov 1943), the UN refugee agency that takes care of ALL refugees in the world... except the Palestinian ones. Their agency (UNPRP) was established by UN resolution 212 in Nov 1948, and later became UNRWA in Dec 1949.

Now, take a second to consider how there was NEVER any UN agency dedicated specifically to help about 1.5 million Jewish Holocaust survivors at the end of WWII, which is May 1945 (with many of them still being murdered after the end of the war, in places like Poland in Jul 1946 or Libya in the Nov 1945 and Jun 1948 pogroms). No special agency for them, no intervention to protect people who had literally been through and somehow survived the worst genocide in human history, and were still being targeted and killed after it was done, even though the UN had a talent for establishing plenty of refugee agencies just fine during those years. But there was a special agency set up for the Arabs in the Land of Israel, even though they were the aggressors in the 1947-1949 Independence War, and it still operates to this day, unlike UNKRA, which was set up later than UNRWA. Why? What reason is there for treating Holocaust victims worse than the Arabs who declared a war of extermination against Jews in Israel? Or for treating Palestinians better than any other group of refugees in the world, even though other groups often need the help much more?

I can only see one thing in common when it comes to all of these illogical, counterintuitive decisions, and that is antisemitism. Dislike the Jews? Deprive them of getting their own agency, even while others get one. Hate the Jews? Dedicate special resources to the refugees who can be used as a political pawn against the Jewish state, while still counting them as refugees even after being resettled with citizenship elsewhere, unlike every other refugees group.

And never forget, the UN's voting "democracy" (where antisemitic abuse is not penalized in votes) IS inherently vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. There is only one Jewish state at the UN. There is a block of over 20 Arab countries, another of over 50 Muslim ones, and when they're told a lie such as the one invented by Amin al-Husseini in 1929, that the Jews are attacking the al-Aqsa mosque, then it's easy to recruit all of them against Israel without even much effort. Then add countries which have vested interests in keeping the Arab and Muslim countries on their side, or who have issues with the pro-west, pro-democracy countries (and Israel is not only one of them, it is closely allied with the US, which is the leader of that stance) and basically the one Jewish state has close to no chance.

But over the years, in addition to being invested in keeping the issue of the Palestinian refugees going as a tool against Israel, to present the Jewish state as uniquely oppressive, the UN has also become invested in the jobs that the conflict produces for its members. UNRWA alone employees over 30,000 people and is, by the UN's own admission, one of its biggest employers.

On top of that, the UN also has other workers who deal specifically with the conflict (and therefore are employed thanks to it), such as OCHA oPt. OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) is the "humanitarian arm" of the UN and oPt is its branch that takes care specifically of the Palestinians. WHY is there even a need for this, if the Palestinians already have (UNIQUELY!) an entire UN agency dedicate just to them? And then on top of that (yes! A redundancy on top of a redundancy!) they also have a Palestinian branch for the OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights).

Having so many employees dedicated to this specific conflict does make the UN financially invested in keeping it from being resolved. Also, it's probably easier to get donations for the UN when talking about this falsely over-hyped conflict (here's a recent example, a report shows there's no famine in Gaza, the UN has known this and kept it quiet), especially when the hype is fed by so many antisemites happy to spread libels about the Jewish state. Some of the antisemites are likely very rich and happy to donate to any organization targeting Israel (I can even name some very wealthy governments happy to continuously donate to the UN and UNRWA, when they're also known for their antisemism, like financially sponsoring known antisemitic professors at US universities).

I do think the antisemitism is what enabled the creation of the financial aspect to the UN's anti-Israel bias, and interest in preserving the conflict, but now I'll mention one more factor. It's also one that IMO was preceded by the antisemitism and financial interest, but now it adds its own fuel to the fire. Since 2007, when Hamas violently took over Gaza, in order to keep its programs running there, the UN has been collaborating with Hamas. Because that's what happens in an actual dictatorship, which has absolute power over its people, and doesn't allow for any civilian liberties. If you wanna run a UN agency in North Korea, you will HAVE to collaborate with Kim Jong Un's dictatorial regime. And if you want to run a UN agency in Gaza post Jun 2007, you will HAVE to collaborate with Hamas. So that's exactly what the UN has been doing in Gaza. In doing so, it has been collaborating with a genocidal, antisemitic, radical Islamist, terrorist organization. And as has allowed Israel to enter Gaza and gather evidence, we have more and more proof that the UN is complicit in Hamas' crimes. That is NOT something the UN wants the world to realize. So it's trying its best to stop Israel from fighting in Gaza, to prevent the gathering of further evidence, at the same time that the UN is doing its best to screw over Israel's credibility. If the UN can vilify the best witness against it, who will believe the evidence about its complicity anyway?

I hope that helps answer the question!

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[ptseti]

AMERICA IS THE BIGGEST GANG IN THE WORLD’

“America is the biggest gang in the world.”

Legendary rapper Tupac explains how US foreign policy is no different to the gang mentality seen on America’s streets. If it doesn’t like something, it steams in to show who’s boss – whether it’s Cuba or Yugoslavia where war had raged around the time Tupac gave this interview. Since then, of course, the US has carried out a string of interventions which included the destruction of Libya in 2011.

Tupac was more than a hip-hop hero, he was an activist dedicated to African liberation in America. And he had a way of speaking that resonated with millions

[mariacallous]

On a sunny April afternoon in 2006, thousands of people flocked to the National Mall in Washington, D.C., for a rally with celebrities, Olympic athletes, and rising political stars. Their cause: garner international support to halt a genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region.

“If we care, the world will care. If we act, then the world will follow,” Barack Obama, then the junior Illinois senator, told the crowd, speaking alongside future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That same week, then-Sen. Joe Biden introduced a bill in Congress calling on NATO to intervene to halt the genocide in Sudan. “We need to take action on both a military and diplomatic front to end the conflict,” he said.

Flash-forward 18 years, and the prospect of genocide again looms in Sudan amid an explosive new civil war. But this time, there are no rallies, no A-list celebrities, no calls for outside military intervention. Few world leaders pay anything more than lip service to condemning the atrocities.

Fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the rival Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced some 9 million since the conflict began in April 2023. The United States accused both sides of committing war crimes and atrocities and concluded that the RSF and its allied militias have committed ethnic cleansing.

Western officials and aid workers working on Sudan say they are vexed, and horrified, by the lack of international attention and resources the conflict is receiving—particularly compared to the global response to the conflict in 2006, which was the progenitor of the current conflagration.

If this trend continues and there is no forceful international crisis response, they warn, Sudan will likely collapse into a failed state and could face full-fledged genocide once again.

“You can’t help but watch the level of focus on crises like Gaza and Ukraine and wonder what just 5 percent of that energy could have done in a context like Sudan and how many thousands, tens of thousands of lives it could’ve saved,” said Alan Boswell, an expert on the region at the International Crisis Group.

The top general of the SAF, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the head of the RSF, Mohamed Hamdan “Hemeti” Dagalo, jointly seized power from a transitional government in a coup in 2021. Tensions between the rival sides escalated and finally erupted into war in April 2023.

In the 13 months since, the RSF has entrenched its positions around the national capital of Khartoum, forcing the SAF to relocate its headquarters to the coastal city of Port Sudan. The RSF has made steady gains in seizing control of Darfur and advancing southward and eastward against SAF forces. The SAF still controls territories around Khartoum and up the Nile River, a vital strategic route to Egypt; along the Red Sea coast; and the eastern borders with Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The conflict has also expanded into a full-fledged regional proxy war. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as Riyadh’s arch regional rival Iran, back the SAF, while the United Arab Emirates is reportedly funneling arms and military supplies to the RSF. The RSF also reportedly receives support from Chad and from Russia through its affiliated mercenary groups.

The focal point of the conflict now is on El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur and the center of fighting. The RSF has taken control of vast swaths of western and southern Sudan in its war against the SAF. El Fasher is the last SAF stronghold in Darfur, occupying a strategically important position for trade routes from neighboring Libya and Chad.

The RSF recently began its advance on El Fasher where an estimated 2 million to 2.8 million civilians have sought to take refuge from the fighting. (Precise figures are hard to come by.)

“The risk of genocide exists in Sudan. It is real, and it is growing every single day,” Alice Nderitu, the U.N. special advisor on the prevention of genocide, warned in a U.N. Security Council meeting last week.

A lengthy report from Human Rights Watch documented how the RSF and allied militias committed widespread atrocities, including mass rape, child murder, and massacres of civilians when it captured the Sudanese city of El Geneina last year. U.S. and U.N. officials and human rights experts warn that the same will likely happen if the RSF takes control of El Fasher, but on a much wider scale. The United States and aid groups have accused the SAF of blocking vital food aid from entering the country and RSF forces of looting humanitarian stocks, exacerbating the crisis and pushing regions of the country closer to famine.

“The potential fatality generation here is off the charts,” said Nathaniel Raymond, executive director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale’s School of Public Health who runs a research project that monitors the conflict in Sudan. “What will happen when the RSF takes El Fasher? Exactly what is happening in every other place they control.”

“There is Hiroshima- and Nagasaki-level casualty potential,” he added, referring to the U.S. atomic bombs dropped on Japan in World War II that killed up to 225,000 people.

Aid organizations and officials who work on Sudan have long decried the relative inattention the conflict in Sudan gets compared to Ukraine or the war in Gaza. Some 20 million people—or 10 times the population of Gaza—are at risk of famine in various regions of Sudan. “Very few people who don’t work on Sudan know that Darfur is on the brink of famine,” Boswell said. “Obviously, everyone knows about the risk of famine in Gaza.”

U.S. President Joe Biden’s own social media posts about Gaza versus Sudan provide another, albeit imperfect, window into the attention each conflict receives. Biden tweeted about Israel or Gaza at least 107 times in the six months since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks that started the Israel-Hamas war. Since the war in Sudan began over a year ago, he has tweeted about Sudan four times—three of which were about the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum right after fighting broke out.

Aid groups are strained for resources to tackle the humanitarian crisis caused by the war. In February, Doctors Without Borders warned that in one refugee camp alone in North Darfur, one child was dying every two hours of malnutrition. In April, on the conflict’s first anniversary, aid groups said the international humanitarian response plan to aid the Sudanese was only 6 percent funded. At a donor conference that month in Paris, countries pledged $2 billion more—though that is still only about half of what aid groups estimate the country needs.

Biden appointed a special envoy for Sudan in February—Tom Perriello, a former U.S. representative from Virginia and State Department veteran. Most experts have cheered Perriello’s new push to hold cease-fire talks in the months since and engage U.S. lawmakers on Capitol Hill to bring more levers of U.S. power and financing to bear on Sudan, but they also fear his efforts may be too little, too late for the civilians trapped in El Fasher.

“It will be very hard to deescalate the situation, though everyone should try. But there is an aura of inevitability that this is all going to blow up,” Boswell said. “The degree of mobilization from all sides is hard to walk down.”

Diplomatic and aid officials working on Sudan have some theories on why the atrocities in Darfur and across the country are receiving such little attention now compared to the 2000s, but none gives a full answer.

In 2006, the United States was still reaching the heights of its post-9/11 “war on terror” campaign. Sudan, under former dictator Omar al-Bashir, had given safe haven to Osama bin Laden as he built up al Qaeda’s global terror network, and “bashing Bashir and his genocide in Darfur couched nicely with [counterterrorism] priorities” of the U.S. government at the time, said Nicole Widdersheim, a former senior National Security Council official now with Human Rights Watch.

The memories of failed and successful international interventions to halt genocide—Rwanda in 1994 and the Balkans later that decade, respectively—were still relatively fresh in the minds of policymakers. The costly Western campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya that later exposed the shortcomings and blowback of military interventions were still underway.

It also preceded the current era of great-power competition, where Washington is intensely focused on countering Russia and China. Sudan also competes with the ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine for international attention and humanitarian resources. Others suggested racism built into Western foreign policy played a part. “It’s seen as yet ‘another war in Africa like all the others,’” said one official dryly. Not one single factor can explain it all, experts concluded.

“Gaza is taking up the always limited American public interest and activism on a foreign crisis, but to be fair, there was nearly no public activism or engagement on the Sudan war before” the Israel-Hamas war, Widdersheim said.

Experts say the relative inattention Sudan has gotten from the top echelons of the White House and other Western powers that could have influence in pressuring the warring sides in Sudan to sit for peace talks has led to the current protracted state of the war.

Biden hosted Kenyan President William Ruto for a state visit this week, where the two called on “the warring parties in Sudan to facilitate unhindered humanitarian access and immediately commit to a ceasefire” toward the end of a lengthy joint statement but did not elaborate further. U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Samantha Power and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas Greenfield have also been outspoken about urging an end to the conflict in Sudan.

Successive cease-fire talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, over the past year, brokered by the United States and Saudi Arabia, failed to clinch any lasting deal. Those talks were led on the U.S. side not by a top White House official or Secretary of State Antony Blinken, but by the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, Molly Phee.

Behind-the-scenes efforts by some members of Congress in December 2023 to appoint a special presidential envoy on Sudan—one who would report directly to the White House, rather than an envoy reporting to the assistant secretary of state—were unsuccessful, multiple officials and congressional aides said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration dynamics. Perriello was appointed two months later.

Perriello in mid-April said that cease-fire talks would resume in Jeddah “within the next three weeks,” but so far those talks have yet to materialize. Several current and former officials familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak candidly, said the talks in Jeddah could resume in June, by which point the RSF could have already captured El Fasher from the mostly cutoff SAF forces.

“The need to start formal peace talks in Jeddah is absolutely urgent, and the United States is working exhaustively with partners to make that happen,” said a State Department spokesperson. “But we are not waiting for formal talks to begin—rather, we have accelerated our diplomatic engagements to align international efforts to end this war, mitigate the humanitarian crisis, and prevent future atrocities.”

Cease-fire talks have worked in limited ways in the past, such as when the United States got both sides to briefly stop fighting in Khartoum so it could evacuate its embassy in April 2023. “When the right leverage is put on the table at the right time to get the RSF and SAF to stop fighting, it can be done,” said Kholood Khair, a Sudanese policy analyst and founding director of Confluence Advisory, a Sudan-focused think tank. “The international community has just chosen not to deploy that same leverage this time around.”

Khair added that the Jeddah talks format has failed before, and it will likely fail again. “The concern is that because of the laziness and complicity of the international community at this point, you don’t have any diplomats who are looking for a new way of doing things. Jeddah in many ways is blocking the start of any new diplomatic efforts or other good ideas that could be effective.”

“Diplomats are fixated on Jeddah now, simply because it’s already there,” Khair said.

As Perriello engaged in frenetic diplomacy, he has also publicly marveled at how little attention the scale of the conflict and death in Sudan is receiving on the international stage.

“One of the things that to me captures just how invisible and horrific this war is, is that we don’t have a credible death count,” Perriello said during a congressional hearing in front of the 21-member Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month. “We literally don’t know how many people have died—possibly to a factor of 10 or 15. The number was earlier 15,000 to 30,000. Some think it’s at 150,000,” he said. During the course of Perriello’s hearing, senators cycled out of the room due to scheduling conflicts, often leaving only one senator in the room and 20 empty seats.

[mightdeletelater]

I spent 15 hours, across three days, watching and taking notes on the legal proceedings at the International Court of Justice, where South Africa filed a genocide case against Israel. 

South Africa's case was a temporal snapshot that lay the weight of decades of historical context. Although the specifics of the case pertained to Israel's actions in Gaza, its overarching objective reached beyond these particulars. At its core, the case sought to address the substantial disparity between the lived reality of Palestinians and the narrative propagated by dominant political forces.

Across the globe, public anger regarding the events in Gaza has manifested on the streets. However, political leaders consistently chose to overlook, dismiss, ban, or vilify this collective sentiment. Maybe it is recency bias, but in my lifetime, there has never been such a disconnect between politicians and their people than when it comes to Gaza. 

The significance of South Africa's case before the International Court of Justice is that it publically challenges the portrayal of the Palestinian cause as a fringe issue.

Beyond merely outlining the severity of events – 23,000+ killed in Gaza, the 1.9 million displaced, the 7,000+ missing under the rubble, and the thousands of bombs dropped, making this the deadliest rate of conflict of the 21st century – the case links these claims to the Geneva Conventions and human rights law. 

But where are we as a society, as a human race even, that we are at a point where the case was brought forth in the first place? Such an initiative questions the legitimacy of the international response and underscores the diminishing persuasive power of Western logic in an increasingly multipolar world. 

The case represents a broader confrontation within international institutions, raising doubts about the actual existence of the human rights infrastructure. The conflict has placed Western allies in the precarious position of undermining or neglecting their own established systems, eroding their credibility on the global stage. When you're against the United Nations and hundreds of human rights organisations and objecting to a submission in a global court (in the case of the US and UK, a court that they themselves established), you are simply pulling apart your house with the very tools that built it.

Western powers, having previously failed to support a Gaza ceasefire, will from now on be viewed in the global south as fighting on Israel's side. More so than they were already. And why wouldn't they be? These politicians have made it clear that they want to supply arms and military support to a regime, and their intervention, it seems, is contingent upon the safeguarding of goods shipment. These politicians assert that financial resources are lacking for reconstructing their nations, yet readily allocate funds for military endeavours. Why? How is any of this normal? 

After the legal proceedings, Netanyahu said, "We will continue the war in the Gaza Strip until we achieve all our objectives. The Hague and the axis of evil will not stop us." Without compelling a policy change from Israel, what hope is there that South Africa's case will avail? It was obvious that Israel would use support from the US and the UK to prosecute the real agenda that Netanyahu and hundreds of Israeli politicians have hidden in plain sight (i.e. admitted on camera constantly): the destruction of Palestine and its people.

The recurring pattern is evident. Gaza transforms from an open-air prison to an open-air slaughterhouse under Israeli actions. Iraq faces invasion and fragmentation fueled by falsehoods and lies. Libya, once somewhat stable, descends into a state of civil war. Afghanistan witnesses invasion followed by prolonged failure and abandonment. Yemen endures relentless bombing, culminating in one of the most severe humanitarian crises in recorded human history. Syria? Also bombed, resulting in the displacement of thousands of refugees.

All of this, and more, is the legacy of Western "intervention", war, and policy in the Middle East.

Strangely, I find myself distanced from all this turmoil, yet the impact remains surprisingly profound. So many people I love have been impacted, yet I still experience a sense of detachment.

I go about my life. I have family and friends. I have hobbies and a job. But multiple times a day, it will hit me. I'll remember the videos I've seen of a mother crying over her son's body. Or the father carrying the remains of his children in plastic bags. Or the doctors performing amputations in overcrowded hospitals with nothing more than a dull butter knife. A wave of deep sorrow washes over me, settling in my chest like a persistent ache, lingering until I find a sufficiently absorbing distraction. And then, the cycle restarts.

But I don't want to be distracted. And I don't want to forget. I feel like I don't deserve to forget. It feels like the least I can do. Because I, unfortunately, do not have a megaphone loud enough to shout to those in positions of authority and tell them they are cowardly individuals sitting on chairs fashioned from the bones of Gaza's children.

In 2024, you would think that we would only be quoting Martin Luther King to learn about history and not to still use his message for current happenings, but he honestly said it best: "No one is free when we are all free." 

[zvaigzdelasas]

The junta have explicitly justified their coup as a response to the “continuous deterioration of the security situation” plaguing Niger and complained that it and other countries in the Sahel “have been dealing for over 10 years with the negative socioeconomic, security, political and humanitarian consequences of NATO’s hazardous adventure in Libya.” Even ordinary Nigeriens backing the junta have done the same.[...]

Only years [after enacting regime change] would a UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report publicly determine, echoing the conclusions of other post-mortems, that charges of an impending civilian massacre were “not supported by the available evidence” and that “the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element” that carried out numerous atrocities of its own.

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and John Kerry (D-Mass.) all called for a no-fly zone. “I love the military ... but they always seem to find reasons why you can’t do something rather than why you can,” complained McCain. The American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka said it would be “an important humanitarian step.” The now-defunct Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) think tank gathered a who’s who of neoconservatives to repeatedly urge the same. In a letter to then-President Barack Obama, they quoted back Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech in which he argued that “inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later.”

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reportedly instrumental in persuading Obama to act, was herself swayed by similar arguments. Friend and unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal assured her that, once Gaddafi fell, “limited but targeted military support from the West combined with an identifiable rebellion” could become a new model for toppling Middle Eastern dictators. Pointing to the similar, deteriorating situation in Syria, Blumenthal claimed that “the most important event that could alter the Syrian equation would be the fall of Gaddafi, providing an example of a successful rebellion.”[...]

Despite grave and often-stated reservations, Obama and NATO got UN authorization for a no-fly zone. Clinton was privately showered with email congratulations, not just from Blumenthal and Slaughter (“bravo!”; “No-fly! Brava! You did it!”), but even from then-Bloomberg View Executive Editor James Rubin (“your efforts ... will be long remembered”). Pro-war voices like Pletka and Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz immediately began moving the goalposts by discussing Gaddafi’s ouster, suggesting escalation to prevent a U.S. “defeat,” and criticizing those saying Libya wasn’t a vital U.S. interest. NATO’s undefined war aims quickly shifted, and officials spoke out of both sides of their mouths. Some insisted the goal wasn’t regime change, while others said Gaddafi “needs to go.” It took less than three weeks for FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly, the organizer of the neocons’ letter to Obama, to go from insisting it would be a “limited intervention” that wouldn’t involve regime change, to professing “I don’t see how we can get ourselves out of this without Gaddafi going.”

After only a month, Obama and NATO allies publicly pronounced they would stay the course until Gaddafi was gone, rejecting the negotiated exit put forward by the African Union. “There is no mission creep,” NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen insisted two months later. Four months after that, Gaddafi was dead — captured, tortured and killed thanks in large part to a NATO airstrike on the convoy he was traveling in.

The episode was considered a triumph. “We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton joked to a reporter upon hearing the news. Analysts talked about the credit owed to Obama for the “success.” [...] [In October 2011], Clinton traveled to Tripoli and declared “Libya’s victory” as she flashed a peace sign.

“It was the right thing to do,” Obama told the UN, presenting the operation as a model that the United States was “proud to play a decisive role” in. Soon discussion moved to exporting this model elsewhere, like Syria. Hailing the UN for having “at last lived up to its duty to prevent mass atrocities,” then-Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth called to “extend the human rights principles embraced for Libya to other people in need,” citing other parts of the Middle East, the Ivory Coast, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.[...]

Gaddafi’s toppling not only led hundreds of Tuareg mercenaries under his employ to return to nearby Mali but also caused an exodus of weapons from the country, leading Tuareg separatists to team up with jihadist groups and launch an armed rebellion in the country. Soon, that violence triggered its own coup and a separate French military intervention in Mali, which quickly became a sprawling Sahel-wide mission that only ended nine years later with the situation, by some accounts, worse than it started. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the majority of the more than 400,000 refugees in the Central Sahel were there because of the violence in Mali.

Mali was far from alone. Thanks to its plentiful and unsecured weapons depots, Libya became what UK intelligence labeled the “Tesco” of illegal arms trafficking, referring to the British supermarket chain. Gaddafi’s ouster “opened the floodgates for widespread extremist mayhem” across the Sahel region, retired Senior Foreign Service officer Mark Wentling wrote in 2020, with Libyan arms traced to criminals and terrorists in Niger, Tunisia, Syria, Algeria and Gaza, including not just firearms but also heavy weaponry like antiaircraft guns and surface-to-air missiles. By last year, extremism and violence was rife throughout the region, thousands of civilians had been killed and 2.5 million people had been displaced.

Things are scarcely better in “liberated” Libya today. The resulting power vacuum produced exactly what Iraq War critics predicted: a protracted (and forever close-to-reigniting) civil war involving rival governments, neighboring states using them as proxies, hundreds of militias and violent jihadists. Those included the Islamic State, one of several extremist groups that made real Clinton’s pre-intervention fear of Libya “becoming a giant Somalia.” By the 2020 ceasefire, hundreds of civilians had been killed in Libya, nearly 900,000 needed humanitarian assistance, half of them women and children, and the country had become a lucrative hotspot for slave trading. Today, Libyans are unambiguously worse off than before NATO intervention. Ranked 53rd in the world and first in Africa by the 2010 UN Human Development Index, the country had dropped fifty places by 2019. Everything from GDP per capita and the number of fully functioning health care facilities to access to clean water and electricity sharply declined. Far from improving U.S. standing in the Middle East, most of the Arab world opposed the NATO operation by early 2012.

8 Sep 23

[dougielombax]

So.

Turkey in its present form turns 100 today.

And while it has plenty to celebrate I’m sure, It also needs to recognise that it’s current state was built on bloodshed and genocide.

As well as it’s continued sponsoring of genocide denial. Denying the Armenian and Assyrian genocides, (AND continued persecution of Armenians and Assyrians still living there) in turn allowing continued bloodshed with impunity on its own part, as we see with its actions against the Kurds, and its intervention in Syria and Libya.

To say nothing of its fuckery in Cyprus.

Just leaving these here.

[qqueenofhades]

Ok so what were conservatives accusing Hillary of doing with her emails in 2016 anyway?

Literally me aging 50 years upon reading this ask:

Please tell me, dear nonnie, your secret to being a sentient human on the internet in the year 2022 and managing to remain blissfully ignorant of the BUT HER EMAILS!!! screaming. In very brief sum, during her tenure as Secretary of State under the Obama administration, Clinton applied for (and received) permission to use a private email server to conduct some government business. Republicans had already been running a virulent smear campaign against her for decades, and the attacks intensified as she became tipped as the 2016 Democratic nominee. The BUT HER EMAILS!!! affair quickly mushroomed into evidently the most egregious political scandal ever suffered by any country anywhere, along with a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four people and was evidently, somehow, Totally Hillary's Fault.

The Republican-controlled House held endless "investigative" hearings (including forcing Hillary to testify for 11 hours straight, which she did calmly and with grace and without pleading the Fifth 400 times), which Kevin McCarthy straight up admitted were simply intended to damage her in the eyes of the American public and reduce her viability as a presidential candidate. The bullshit this incredibly gifted and well-qualified woman endured, even as she warned us over and over exactly what Trump would do and was rewarded with absolutely hysterical and endless misogyny and demonization as a result, from both the right and left, is truly unbelievable. We could have had her, our first female president, and we got. This.

In short, after YEARS of investigating BUT HER EMAILS and finding NOTHING incriminating, then-FBI director James Comey announced, with literally 11 days to go until the 2016 presidential election, that they were going to reopen the case. This was the most blatantly political intervention imaginable and it took just enough off Clinton's margins in key states, as the race had already been tightening even after the "just grab them by the pussy!" Trump tape dropped, to swing the election.

Anyway. All those Republicans who howled for years about how elected officials weren't above the law, classified information should be properly handled, LOCK HER UP, etc, are absolutely dead silent now (or rather, they are screaming that this is a horrible awful thing that has never happened to anyone and is totally unfair to do to Trump). I wonder why.

[irithnova]

Looking at her(?) post, myrddin is the incarnation of the stereotype of the american who thinks their country only do good vs the evils other dicatorships. I saw that post not long ago where she was talking about rusame fans and basically she saids it brushed her the wrong way that people where making content about this meanwhile russia is a pariah/mafia state waging a genocidal war since 2014 (or before if you go back to chechnya and georgia). Considering she lost a friend in ukraine it's understable that she has these feelings. The problem is that it became very hypocrite when someone pointed out that she don't gave a fuck about the countries her nation had destroyed and the thousands of civilians merely considered as collateral damage, (so it was kind of weird to ask people to cancel a country because they do horrible things but it surprisingly doesn't apply to your). And she answered by posting an article about a russian nationalist killed and called the poster a vatnik. adding the facts that often she post about nato that she considere a 100% peaceful organisation (hi libya and afhganistan who were NOT asked by UN),Usa (hi MeNa/LatAm), that people who posted about iraq war where russians trolls (no way it's people who gets hurt by us intervention, huh ?) everyone who disagree with her is paid by the kremlin and because usa are the 1st global power they should be kind of the world police. It looks like she just is an american nationalist who doesn't aknowledge that her country is as much of a terrorist state as russia, and the millions lives who gets destroyed are barely collateral damages(or they deserved it, these damn 7 yo jihadist).

Sorry for the long post and for the possible non-comprehension, english is not my first language and i wanted to talk about it without being treated as a russian agent.^^'

Disclaimer: Do not send threats to myrddin ffs

The myth of American benevolence and American exceptionalism is a plague lmao. Yeah as someone who's country (Philippines) was directly affected by American imperialism and who's suffering under American imperialism is constantly downplayed because of the myth of American exceptionalism I really don't appreciate any mention of America's imperialist reality being met with "YOU'RE A VATNIK! YOU'RE A RUSSIAN SPY!"

Yeah it's incredibly hypocritical to get mad at people for drawing hetalia Russia art because of the invasion of Ukraine but be completely fine with hetalia America art despite... Everything about America's imperialist legacy which persists to this day. The U.S helped implement a racial hierarchy system in the Philippines and the affects are still felt to this day. American imperialism/interventionism is still tearing people lives apart.

I do sympathise with the fact that they've lost a friend in Ukraine - that's terrible. However that doesn't mean that in some sort of logical sequence it then justifies running around with a blindfold on trying to ignore America's faults.

I admit that I get annoyed myself when people woobify Russia too much because surprise - I'm not a fan of the Russian state either (I despise it) despite the vatnik accusations, and I've been quite vocal about my distaste for their actions myself, but unless the content is crossing the line into Russian (or American) imperialist apologia, it's just content that annoys me/is annoying at the end of the day and that's that. By their logic they should not be America posting then? They hate rusame art/content because of Russian imperialism but... Nothing about American imperialism?

But wait - the U.S and NATO have done nothing wrong, right? And anyone and everyone who levels well founded criticisms at them MUST be being paid off by the Kremlin, right? Including people whose families' lives, countrymen's lives, and even own lives who were ripped apart due to their actions? Right?

Their lived experiences = Russian agent now I guess.

The fact that it got to the point where myrddin defended what they thought was a Ukrainian using "Mongol" as an insult towards Russians because I said it was racist/had it's basis in Nazi eugenicist science and that it should not be tolerated, and accused me of spreading Russian propaganda of "Ukrainians being Nazis"... Yeah myrddin, you're just racist lol. The fact that they had the gall to make (really bad) posts about hetalia Mongolia beforehand too. The gall of it all.

Considering English isn't your first language - if you sent an ask into Myrddin anyways they'd probably point that out and laugh at you. Because they're like that (saying this because they've explicity made fun of a LatAms grammar before when they sent in criticism) I guess.

If you're so American imperialist brainrotted that it comes to that, please get the fuck off my blog.

[ladymazzy]

MPs deliver damning verdict on David Cameron's Libya intervention | Libya | The Guardian

A reminder of some of Cameron's diplomatic skills now that this fucking guy - unelected no less - has been given an honour just so that he can be Foreign Minister

No thanks to Cameron's blundering, Libya is a failed state, complete with people traffickers abusing and exploiting Africans in open slave markets

As if there aren't enough crises in the world... Crises that he *absolutely* does not have the wherewithal to be involved with

This fucker presided over a decade of austerity which saw people in the UK die destitute, had Theresa May as Home Secretary with her van doing tours of cities threatening immigrants with deportation. Cameron lacked the diplomacy to even engage reasonably with the EU, despite the fact that he was a 'remainer' who only dumped the referendum shitshow on us because he was so convinced that the majority would vote to stay. And when *he* lost (because it was primarily about him and his fragile ego), he literally sauntered off whistling with his hands in his pockets. The sheer arrogance of the man

We don't need another charmless private school prick filled with hubris in positions of power like this

[mapsontheweb]

Russian military operations abroad in the past decades.

by @XemartinLaborde 

In twenty years, Vladimir Putin has committed his soldiers to several theaters of operations, placing military force at the center of his policy

Chechnya, 1999-2009: In September, the Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, launches a “counter-terrorism operation” in Chechnya, whose separatists are accused of having committed attacks in Russia. Grozny, already devastated by the war from 1994 to 1996, was pounded by the air force. Control of the region is locked by the installation in power of Akhmad Kadyrov. Russia's new strongman won the 2000 presidential election in the first round.

Georgia, 2008: After clashes between South Ossetian separatists and the Georgian army, the latter started a military intervention. The conflict spreads to Abkhazia. Russia is deploying 40,000 troops in support of the separatists. Three months earlier NATO had welcomed “the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia; In five days, the troops of Tbilisi are crushed. The independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is recognized by Moscow, which retains control of 20% of Georgian territory.

Ukraine, 2014: Annexation of Crimea, and war in Donbas with the military support of Russia

Libya, 2016, in progress: The fall and death of Gaddafi in 2011, thanks to NATO's support for the Libyan rebellion, are experienced as a humiliation by Moscow, which sees its influence diminishing in a region that has long gravity in the Soviet orbit. From 2016, during the second Libyan civil war, Russia sent arms and mercenaries in support of Marshal Khalife Haftar, against the government of Tripoli.

Syria, 2015, in progress: On September 30, Vladimir Putin launched a vast military intervention to rescue the regime in Damascus, which now controls only a small portions of the territory. The massive aerial bombings reversed the balance of power. Bashar Al-Assad is kept in power. The Russian army maintains strategic military bases east of the Mediterranean.

Nagorno-Karabakh, 2020, in progress: At the end of September, Azerbaijan launched a victorious offensive and recaptured the separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh, supported by Armenia. Moscow, linked to Yerevan by a military alliance, does not intervene in the conflict, but imposes itself as a mediator. According to the November 9 peace agreement, Russia deploys a peacekeeping force of 2,000 men for five years, reinforcing its military presence in the South Caucasus.

Ukraine, 2022, ongoing: Under the guise of protecting ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers from a "nazi" state and “without legal existence", Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine on February 24, using in particular his troops based in Belarus and his allies from the self-proclaimed republics in the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. This "special military operation" must serve to reaffirm its power in the face of a NATO presence, denounced as aggressive.