Incase anyone tells you that lemmy.ml is not a tankie instance.

  • aleph@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn’t mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.

    In 2007, the UK’s Tony Blair visited Libya to strike up energy deals, and France’s Sarkozy met with Gaddafi for military and economic agreements.

    Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 months ago

      That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn’t mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.

      That was my point about him swapping out friends sporadically. Gaddafi had massive swings in political alignment throughout his time as leader of Libya. The reason nato/un could actually make a move on his government without greater political ramifications is because he’s burned every bridge across the political spectrum.

      Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?

      Literally yes… Is it that surprising the west would work with a crazy despot that has a bunch of oil?

      • aleph@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It seems we’re largely in agreement then - that 1) NATO did, in fact, make a move on Gaddafi and 2) the West supported him when it was beneficial but turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          that 1) NATO did, in fact, make a move on Gaddafi

          Not something I ever disputed? Would be kinda hard for a rebel force to get a cruise missile.

          1. the West supported him when it was beneficial but turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating.

          This I don’t really agree with as it’s a bit of a reductionist mischaracterization. Gaddafi literally funded terrorist attacks on the US in the 80s, which led to about 15-20 years of political disruptions between the two countries. They normalized relations again in the early 00s, with the US eventually going as far as to delist them from the state sponsored terror list in 08.

          It would be hard to describe that as “turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating”. There’s a reason why no one in the UN, including Russia and China UN vetoed the resolution.

          • aleph@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Gaddafi literally funded terrorist attacks on the US in the 80s, which led to about 15-20 years of political disruptions between the two countries.

            According to the Regan administration perhaps, but not according to intelligence agencies from several European countries. There was a concerted effort to link Gaddafi to individual terrorist attacks, like the Lockerbie bombing, although there was no hard evidence to support that.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              According to the Regan administration perhaps, but not according to intelligence agencies from several European countries.

              Again, a reductionist interpretation. There’s been a lot of conspiracies over the years due to so many groups initially claiming responsibility. However the trial held in the UK and a recent one in 2020 both point to the same culprit.

              I think you may be talking about the bombing in Germany.

              Either way, the point is that Gaddafi has sponsored over 15 violent paramilitary groups in other people’s countries. Not exactly going to be winning a lot of friends on the global stage by doing that.

              This is not what stable leadership looks like …