True, Libya gave up their nukes to appease the same force that then turned around and bombed them. That doesn't undermine the strong impression I have that the intervention in Libya was the proximate cause of most of the modern crises in the Sahel, northern Iraq, with ISIS, "fortress Europe" response to migration, etc.
The US in particular, but also plenty of NATO and European powers, have not learned any lessons from the era of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: supporting the most barbaric reactionary forces in a bid to destabilize/topple a disfavored central government, leads to widespread suffering in the region, and eventually on home turf.
Reading about that conflict should remind people that the US military uses the same tactics that Russia is using right now in Ukraine (indiscriminate shelling), except with air superiority, the bombardment is more varied and destructive.
Libya had a nuclear weapons programme, and actively pursued development or acquisition of nuclear weapons from the 1970s until 2003 when all such work ceased.
But it never actually had nuclear weapons to the best of my knowledge.
You're right, I was wrong. I remember now that they had existent chemical weapons and a nuclear weapons program. Over time, my memory of talk of them "giving up their WMD" led to conflation and "giving up their nukes".
I think it's an important and interesting corrective, but fundamentally doesn't affect my argument about the intervention in Libya and its effects. It's just less ironic now.
That's been rare in this and a few related threads. I hope others might follow your lead.
I'd also like to point out that the situation is complicated, long-standing, has antecedents which trace back centuries, and has and is viewed as a chessboard for proxy battles by numerous foreign interests, as well as its own internal divisions.
And that some seem hell-bent on fighting ideological battles over a situation where 20,000 souls may well have been lost, which somewhat disappoints me.
Yes, I don't like meta-commentary (i.e., talking about other comments on HN without actually directly responding to them), but I have been angered to see so many "might is right", "we only destroyed them because they were so weak" comments in response to people noting any potential for responsibility beyond local mismanagement.
As someone else already mentioned, this is especially ironic to bring up in the case of Libya because Libya gave up their nukes to appease Western powers. Then were invaded and toppled by those same powers later on.
Having a strong military with competitive technology and training is also very important.
Having strong alliances is even more critical.
Or in the modern era, having nukes. Which is why isolated dictatorship countries want them so badly.