@vivify saidI believe that interpretation is a result of the common assumption that NATO is subservient to the USA in all things. Can you provide evidence that the USA actually did any leading?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/
"fifth anniversary week of the U.S.-led Libya intervention"
https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-libya-20140627-story.html
"the United States didn’t do more to mend Libya, since the U.S.-led military campaign had broken the old order."
I've always thought it was agreed the U.S. led a disastrous effort that failed to plan for the recovery of the country.
Apologies for long cut and paste:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
21 February 2011: Libyan deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Ibrahim Dabbashi called "on the UN to impose a no-fly zone on all of Tripoli to cut off all supplies of arms and mercenaries to the regime."[40]
23 February 2011: French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed for the European Union (EU) to pass sanctions against Gaddafi (freezing Gaddafi family funds abroad) and demand he stop attacks against civilians.
25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."[55]
26 February 2011: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 was passed unanimously, referring the Libyan government to the International Criminal Court for gross human rights violations. It imposed an arms embargo on the country and a travel ban and assets freeze on the family of Muammar Al-Gaddafi and certain Government officials.[56]
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from "airlifting mercenaries" and "using his military aeroplanes and armoured helicopters against civilians."[45]
1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
19 March 2011: French[73] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces with strikes against armoured units south of Benghazi and attacks on Libyan air-defense systems,
26 Jan 22
@vivify saidBOO! Found you😱!
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/
"fifth anniversary week of the U.S.-led Libya intervention"
https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-libya-20140627-story.html
"the United States didn’t do more to mend Libya, since the U.S.-led military campaign had broken the old order."
I've always thought it was agreed the U.S. led a disastrous effort that failed to plan for the recovery of the country.
@no1marauder saidGee I guess you do not live in Europe so it’s a non issue.
Gee, I had no idea that this grotesque level of paranoia had survived the fall of the USSR.
The Russians willing and anxious to sweep to the Channel sounds soooooooooooo 1950.
Your level of f you Jack I’m alright is noted .
It’s the Russians who have amassed 125 thousand troops on the border of the Ukraine, it’s the Russians that have demanded in writing a return to the Warsaw Pact demarcation lines in Europe.
Stop denying reality because in reality you just do not care, just admit that you do not care what happens to Europe.
@vivify saidThat doesn't really mean anything, though. American commentators to this very day pretend that the USA led the Allied powers in World War II.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/
"fifth anniversary week of the U.S.-led Libya intervention"
https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-libya-20140627-story.html
"the United States didn’t do more to mend Libya, since the U.S.-led military campaign had broken the old order."
I've always thought it was agreed the U.S. led a disastrous effort that failed to plan for the recovery of the country.
@shallow-blue saidThe difference is that claiming the U.S. led the Allied Forces makes America look heroic, while Libya is generally seen an utter disaster. In other words, Libya is an embarrassment for the U.S., considered Obama's biggest failure.
That doesn't really mean anything, though. American commentators to this very day pretend that the USA led the Allied powers in World War II.
I doubt saying Libya was U.S.-led was motivated by any kind of nationalism.
@kevcvs57 saidI don't live in Europe.
Gee I guess you do not live in Europe so it’s a non issue.
Your level of f you Jack I’m alright is noted .
It’s the Russians who have amassed 125 thousand troops on the border of the Ukraine, it’s the Russians that have demanded in writing a return to the Warsaw Pact demarcation lines in Europe.
Stop denying reality because in reality you just do not care, just admit that you do not care what happens to Europe.
That doesn't mean the level of paranoia you are bleating about Russia's anxiousness to conquer the continent is justified.
@no1marauder saidYou don't live in Europe, therefore you do not understand that this is not paranoia.
I don't live in Europe.
That doesn't mean the level of paranoia you are bleating
Seriously, marauder, you are way, way out of touch with what is really happening here. You have no bleeding idea what you're pontificating about. No idea whatsoever.
@shallow-blue saidFunny, I don't see Euros being shy about giving their opinions regarding matters in this hemisphere.
You don't live in Europe, therefore you do not understand that this is not paranoia.
Seriously, marauder, you are way, way out of touch with what is really happening here. You have no bleeding idea what you're pontificating about. No idea whatsoever.
This type of arrogance seems the last gasp of those who can't support their opinions with facts. NATO has been at least as aggressive as Putin's Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union, attacking countries and staging occupations in areas outside the supposed area that it was formed to defend. Seeing the entire dispute as Russia wearing a big black hat (with Putin an evil mustache twirler) and NATO wearing a pristine white one is childish , no matter where the person who sees it that way is situated.
29 Jan 22
For a more balanced view of the crisis: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2021-12-28/what-putin-really-wants-ukraine
"it’s crucial to note that Putin has presided over four waves of NATO enlargement and has had to accept Washington’s withdrawal from treaties governing anti-ballistic missiles, intermediate-range nuclear forces, and unarmed observation aircraft. For him, Ukraine is the last stand."
@no1marauder saidputin is not giving biden his cut of the proceeds from the new pipeline…Ukraine leader is begging US to stay away
For a more balanced view of the crisis: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2021-12-28/what-putin-really-wants-ukraine
"it’s crucial to note that Putin has presided over four waves of NATO enlargement and has had to accept Washington’s withdrawal from treaties governing anti-ballistic missiles, intermediate-range nuclear forces, and unarmed observation aircraft. For him, Ukraine is the last stand."
@sonhouse saidRussia has as part of its military doctrine that it will use tactical nuclear weapons if it is losing in a war.
@AThousandYoung
NOBODY is launching nukes over Ukraine.
I think I heard that somewhere.