[DFHippie]

> Don't forget that other countries, who supported sanctions against Russia (due to coercion or tight coupling with the Western World), are also watching what is unfolding. They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. Yet it was leveled and Gaddafi was dethroned, and lynched in public. So anyone who says NATO is a defensive alliance is just bullshitting.

Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine.

People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position.

[pydry]

>Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine.

However you frame it, Libya was still destroyed by the NATO intervention on the side of the rebels and it is now a failed state. As Hillary said, "We came, we saw, he died".

It's pretty clear why Putin was incandescent with rage over it.

Putin now thinks (with some justification) that this is a template for Russia. As he eyes up tiny independence movements he has to wonder if they'll suddenly grow into NATO backed rebels with major firepower.

In all likelihood the Ukrainian invasion wouldnt have happened without Libya.

[mcphage]

> Putin now thinks (with some justification) that this is a template for Russia. As he eyes up tiny independence movements he has to wonder if they'll suddenly grow into NATO backed rebels with major firepower.

World powers backing separatist groups with funding has a much, much older history that Libya in 2011. Heck, Russia is currently funding several.

[pydry]

Of course it does. It was a mainstay of the British Empire. America does it all over. Russia does it too, of course. NATO doing it isnt special.

However, by doing it they do automatically become a hostile, aggressive alliance rather than a defensive alliance and that makes them a potential threat.

It's the combination of Ukraine's ultra-strategic location (for threatening russia) and the threat of joining a hostile military alliance that provoked such a violent response from Putin.

[adventured]

The response from Putin is because the window to conquer Ukraine and force it back under the control of the Russian Empire that Putin dreams of, was closing. He knew that if Ukraine got too built-up militarily, or got too close to NATO, his opportunity would vanish. He similarly dreams of reclaiming Belarus formally. Putin hasn't been shy about any of this, he openly admits the lust for conquering former USSR territory and rebuilding the empire.

Putin lied and claimed a big part of the core issue is not wanting NATO's borders moving any closer. So he attempts to annex Ukraine into the empire and move borders closer to NATO. Obvious lies are obvious.

[watwut]

Putin bombed hospital and civilians in multiple states already. He is not in rage from other countries being destroyed. He don't mind it and happily contributes.

[throwaway_434]

> Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine.

Nope. NATO has no argument here. You can't invade a Sovereign State, destroy it, put it into chaos and then say you did it because you are "enforcing rule-based order". That is bullshit. The rule-based order is simple: Every Sovereign State is Sovereign. How it handles its mess, politics is its own. You do not interfere in there unless the Government of that State calls for help. Here there was no call for help. The people were already fighting the civil war. It is for Libyans to decide who they want, what they want. Who are you, me or anyone else to decide on their behalf?

Either ways, NATO has no such mandate. If you can point me to an Article/Clause in NATO which says it can invade any Sovereign Country it chooses you can post it here. AFAIK, there is no such Article/Clause.

> People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position.

Which is exactly what the West is doing right now. Time to sit back and introspect.

[adventured]

Libya wasn't a sovereign state. There's no such thing as a legitimate sovereign dictatorship, the notion of national sovereignty doesn't exist in the context of slavery: the people in question were not sovereign.

Any free foreign nations had a moral right to invade the US south before the US Civil War and attempt to free the slaves. Any free foreign nations had a moral right (not a moral requirement) to invade Libya in an attempt to free its people from Gaddafi's dictatorship.

Ukraine was a sovereign state and a burgeoning liberal democracy, which is why Russia had to try to destroy it.

[nextaccountic]

Is Saudi Arabia a sovereign state? Or any other dictatorship that the US supports.

[adventured]

Saudi Arabia, as with Iran, is a theocracy that also enslaves its population. Saudi Arabia merely throws in a ruling family aspect to it.

No, Saudi Arabia is not a sovereign state. Its people are not remotely close to being free, they are de facto slaves of the House of Saud.

You seem to have missed a critical point. Free countries do not have a moral imperative to invade and free enslaved nations, they have a moral right to do so, at their choosing (insofar as it aligns with their national self-interest for example).

> Or any other dictatorship that the US supports.

Did you really think my answer would change because of US support or lack thereof as it pertains to a given dictatorship? I'm not in Russia, in the US I'm free to say what I actually believe about my own country, good or bad. I have no problem calling the US out for its negatives, most people are familiar with such already anyway.

The US also made a pact with the devil in its alliance with Soviet Russia during WW2. Historically the US has held alliances with vile regimes from time to time for strategic reasons.

Here are some of the primary US allies: Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, Norway, Slovenia, Poland, Portugal Iceland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel. And you can probably realistically add Finland and Sweden to the list.

Just a large collection of the free, affluent nations of the world.

Now show me Russia's allies. Then let's compare the levels of corruption and the style of government of each nation's allies.

What do you suppose that says about the US and Russia? It's obvious and everyone - without exception - understands exactly what it says. It says the same thing it said 35, 50, 70 years ago: Russia is still on the wrong side of history.

[throwaway_434]

> Libya wasn't a sovereign state

It was and still is a Sovereign State. Except now it is a failed State thanks to Western invasion. I don't know where you get your definition of "Sovereign State" from but in the dictionary it has a clear definition: "a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not subject to or dependent on another power."

Merriam Webster: "Nations and states are also sometimes described as "sovereign." This means that they have power over themselves; their government is under their own control, rather than under the control of an outside authority".

It doesn't talk about "Democracy" anywhere. Nor does it state that the State is Sovereign only when it is by the people.

> legitimate sovereign dictatorship, the notion of national sovereignty doesn't exist in the context of slavery: the people in question were not sovereign.

Bullshit.

> Any free foreign nations had a moral right to invade the US south before the US Civil War and attempt to free the slaves

Bullshit again.

> Any free foreign nations had a moral right (not a moral requirement) to invade Libya in an attempt to free its people from Gaddafi's dictatorship.

More bullshit.

"Sovereign State" has nothing to do with political nature/structure of the State: it can be a Democracy, Dictatorship, Religious State (like Vatican or Islamic countries) or anything it wishes to be. You, me or anyone else in the World have no moral standing to bomb it to oblivion and destroy it. Period. It is for the people to decide. If they want to overthrow the Dictatorship it is their Right to do it. They can do it. There was already a Civil War in Libya to oust Gaddafi. The people would have decided to bring down Gaddafi on their own. There was no need for Western invasion of Libya. The Western invasion was for nefarious purposes. But I'll be digressing.

Also, if Libya wasn't a "Sovereign State" it wouldn't even be a member of the United Nations.

Do you mean to say you have every right to invade most Islamic Nations because they aren't democracies? What about the Vatican? You feel you should invade it and "free" the people because it is not a Democracy? It is a Theocracy and a Dictatorship too.

> Ukraine was a sovereign state and a burgeoning liberal democracy, which is why Russia had to try to destroy it.

Russia is wrong too. Not going to defend Russia here. No country has any moral standing to invade another country unless the Government in power, in that country, asks for help or the country attacked your country.

Anyways, even if I go by your definition of it being a "moral right" to invade a Dictatorship and "free the slaves", even in that mission the West failed miserably. The West replaced Dictator Gaddafi in Libya with Islamic Terror groups/warlords + Slave markets. The West replaced Dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq with ISIS + Slave markets. Demolished all Civilization and turned them into literal ghost towns. The West invaded Afghanistan to catch Osama Bin Laden and get rid of Taliban, demolished everything, rebuilt everything, and when we were all going to exclaim that finally one US intervention led to peaceful Afghanistan with Democracy, the US left, without cleaning out the Taliban, with Taliban taking over the Country + 85 billion dollars worth of advanced weapon systems.

So even by your own definition of establishing a "Sovereign Nation", the West failed in achieving its objectives.

[adventured]

> Merriam Webster: "Nations and states are also sometimes described as "sovereign." This means that they have power over themselves; their government is under their own control, rather than under the control of an outside authority".

You just acknowledged I'm right in quoting that. You're admitting that Libya didn't meet the definition of a sovereign state. The people of Libya did not have power over themselves (the people of Libya were not sovereign over themselves, their own being, as such they could not be nationally sovereign as a people); their government was not under their control - they were hostages or slaves of a regime, stripped of most human rights.

A sovereign nation of slaves is a contradiction in terms.

The moral basis for stepping in, is identical to if you witness a weak person being pummelled on the street by a stronger person. You have a moral right to step in and end the attack if you so chose (and again, if you can and if it makes sense in terms of self-interest). Nations are a collection of people, in the case of Libya (or Iraq) it was a collection of weaker people temporarily being tortured by a stronger bully.

One of your bizarre, rambling non-counters is that Libya didn't end up as a bastion of freedom as a consequence of Gaddafi being removed. That doesn't alter anything about the fact that free nations had a moral right to step in and attempt to dislodge Gaddafi's regime from enslaving the population. The success or failure of the attempt doesn't change the moral basis for the action. If the allies had lost in WW2 to the axis powers, that wouldn't have made their effort immoral; the free allies still had every moral right to invade France, invade numerous other European nations, invade Germany, and end Nazi Germany and free as many nations as they could from occupation.

The moral basis to invade Libya is identical to the moral basis for invading Nazi Germany (even if invading Nazi Germany obviously had a far greater national self-interest for the allies). Any free nation had a moral right to do so. Russia, being a non-free nation, did not have a moral right to invade Germany (and of course the resulting outcome of that non-free nation invading, is that Soviet Russia did nothing more than enslave part of Europe that it invaded, taking over the role of Nazi Germany as conquerer of part of Europe).

> Bullshit.

> Bullshit again.

> More bullshit.

Judging from your reply comment and your other responses in the thread, it's pretty clear why you had to set up a throw-away account.

[throwaway_434]

> The people of Libya did not have power over themselves

Read the definition again. Then again. Then one more time. The definition states: "their government is under their own control". "Their" here means the State. Not the people. When India was a Colony of British Empire, India was not a Sovereign State. As Indian Government was under the control of the British Empire. Not under the control of India. Here "their" does not mean the "people". Which is why you have two definitions: "State Sovereignty" and "Individual Sovereignty".

In Dictatorships, the State Sovereignty is embodied into the Dictator. However, the State Sovereignty still exists. It is the Individual Sovereignty that is abolished. Please understand the distinction between the two things.

> A sovereign nation of slaves is a contradiction in terms.

It is not. A Sovereign Nation of Slaves is: A Sovereign Nation of people who have no Individual Sovereignty. The Nation dictates to the Individual. The Nation by itself is Independent and All Powerful and is not a vassal state or a Colony of another Nation. Which is why in a Dictatorship, the Nation is still Sovereign (as it hasn't been Colonized by any other Nation), but the Individuals within the Nation do not enjoy Sovereignty. This distinction is extremely important.

Anyways, your argument falls flat because United Nations only inducts Sovereign Nations as Members. When ROC lost to CCP, UN recognized CCP and de-recognized ROC. Which is why Taiwan is not a member of UN. Do you understand the definition of a Sovereign State now at least?

> You have a moral right to step in and end the attack if you so chose (and again, if you can and if it makes sense in terms of self-interest).

You have that right because you were given that right by your Government. There are laws that govern self-defense, humanitarian help etc. You are protected by the Government in these instances.

> Nations are a collection of people, in the case of Libya (or Iraq) it was a collection of weaker people temporarily being tortured by a stronger bully.

No laws exist on how to deal with Nations that turn against their own people. Simply because if such laws exist, it should be framed by UN and it should be accepted by all member states. But no member state would want to be Governed by a Supranational body. Which is why the intervention in Libya/Syrian Civil Wars etc were violation of State Sovereignty. No doubts about that.

> One of your bizarre, rambling non-counters is that Libya didn't end up as a bastion of freedom as a consequence of Gaddafi being removed

How is it a non-counter? LMAO. You were the one who said that the invasion is justified as it was to re-establish Sovereignty as per your definition of the word. That failed miserably. Today Libya is in utter chaos.

> the free allies still had every moral right to invade France, invade numerous other European nations, invade Germany, and end Nazi Germany and free as many nations as they could from occupation.

They had the right because Germany invaded first. In the case of Libya, Libya did not invade anyone. It was an internal Civil War that was anyways going to end in the ouster of Gaddafi. There was literally no reason for invasion of Libya apart from stealing oil and gold reserves. So no: there was no justification for the invasion. Gaddafi regime would have collapsed anyways.

> The moral basis to invade Libya is identical to the moral basis for invading Nazi Germany (even if invading Nazi Germany obviously had a far greater national self-interest for the allies).

Bullshit. Not at all identical. Nazi Germany invaded neighboring countries. That is why invading Nazi Germany was justified. Libya did not invade any country. It is not at all identical.

> Russia, being a non-free nation, did not have a moral right to invade Germany (and of course the resulting outcome of that non-free nation invading, is that Soviet Russia did nothing more than enslave part of Europe that it invaded, taking over the role of Nazi Germany as conquerer of part of Europe).

Again bullshit. Bereft of facts. Read up on Operation Barbossa. Soviet Union invaded Germany because Germany first invaded Russia.

> Judging from your reply comment and your other responses in the thread, it's pretty clear why you had to set up a throw-away account.

Thank God I did. Just look at your replies. You did not even know that Soviet Union was invaded by Germany. You equated Nazi Germany with Libya. Are you crazy?