[netsharc]

You seem to have come from another timeline, where that's reality. Wikipedia says:

> On 19 March 2011, a NATO-led coalition began a military intervention into the ongoing Libyan Civil War to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973). The UN Security Council passed the resolution with ten votes in favour and five abstentions, with the stated intent to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against humanity'

but I guess that's fake news...

But I'm more interested about how you can travel between timelines. Is it with a portal gun like in Rick and Morty?

[sonotathrowaway]

Can you let Obama know Libya wasn't his fault and he bears absolutely no responsibility? He seems to be living in that alternate reality - you'd think he would be a better judge of what reality existed, but alas not everyone is as observant as you. Surely the US cannot be held responsible for any action of NATO, they have no relation with that organization at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/12/barack-obama...

While you're there you should also let Hilary Clinton know that she wasn't a war hawk either, and the no-fly zone just spontaneously appeared with no US involvement at all.

[crazybonkersai]

What are you saying exactly? Military intervention is not a war? Obama did not play a decisive role in starting it (mainly to sway away attention from the dragging Afghanistan war which he promised to end)? Or UN mandate makes it somewhat ok, considering NATO broke conditions of the UN resolution already in the first weeks of bombing (which was promptly objected by UN security Council members). Make no mistake. Obama started this war for PR reasons. Had it not been for NATO bombing Libya would still exist as a state instead of a failed entity it is now.

[netsharc]

"ongoing Libyan Civil War".

If I'm joining an ongoing party, did I start the party?

[crazybonkersai]

By this logic Russia did not start Ukraine war but merely joined the internal conflict started by Ukraine in 2014.

It was hardly a civil war before NATO bombing, but rather protests which were brutally squashed by Gaddafi forces. Opposition lacked any means to wage a way before NATO started supplying them with arms too.

[netsharc]

So in the timeline you're from, the Crimean invasion also was an internal conflict... interesting!

Also there, civilized societies should look away and just let it happen when people fighting oppression is being slaughtered. Well, that's quite similar to this timeline, because that's what's happening in Gaza and being ignored by "The West".

[crazybonkersai]

Well, oppression is exactly what people in Crimea and Donbass viewed Maidan events and did not want to have anything to do with this new Ukraine. Go do a research on Crimea referendum or gallups done by Pew or such and you will find out that secession was and still is the most popular option. And sure as hell people of Crimea do not want to be part of Ukraine again.

[pydry]

The UN mandate which NATO were given to use military force only to protect civilians was used as a figleaf to pursue a regime change operation instead.

In the context of that regime change operation they killed many civilians and left a humanitarian catastrophe in their wake. The country is beyond fucked but Hillary did get to say "we came, we saw, he died" afterwards, underscoring the lie. So mission accomplished?

For some reason the UN security council stopped approving NATO "humanitarian" operations after that and Russia started treating NATO expansion as an imperialist, existential threat.