>strong leaders who knew how to keep Islamists in check through brutality, the only language they understand
>manage to keep their countries stable and secular against all odds
>NATO comes along and destroys everything sending millions of refugees flooding into Europe
YOU DESERVE ALL THE REFUGEES YOU GET FLOODING YOUR COUNTRIES
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>not have nuke
>be destroyed
Give thanks to Obama and Bush
NATO had nothing to do with this and only was involved late, and only because 15 of the 19 members of the coalition were NATO countries so it was convenient to coordinate them using NATO.
The intervention in Lybia followed United Nations Security Council Resolution #1973, which was submitted by Lebanon (backed by France and the UK).
10 members ((Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, France, the UK and the US) voted in the affirmative, and the 5 other abstained.
The coalition utlimately involved Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Sweden, none of which are NATO members, and 3 of them being Arab countries.
The security council resolution was not meant to overthrow and kill Gaddafi.
NATO did that. That's one of the reasons why Russia keeps cock blocking the SC regarding Syria. He doesn't trust NATO.
This can all be traced back to perfidious Albion destroying the Ottoman Empire, promoting Saudi Arabia, and creating Israel,
he literally dindu nuffin post-2000
fucking Sarko
Bush wrecking Iraq is the worst, though. Nice Democracy and Freedom they gained. And now Yurop have to deal with millions of rapefugees while the US do nothing but laugh, and ISIS and ISIS-like movements is spreading like a fucking malicious tumor pretty much everywhere they can.
NATO resolution was for a NO FLY ZONE, not a flatten the whole country while we airlift guns, rocket launchers and bombs to Al-CIA-da terrorists under the guise of muh democratic uprising.
Now the country is run by ISIS.
Gadaffi was killed by rebels not foreign forces. I've heard several versions but all agree on that point.
I will grant you that we did get a little carried away on that one, though. But then again, who doesn't, at times?
It was thought very likely that the country would end up in chaos for several generations before a stable democracy emerged. But the same happened in France in the late 18th century and most of the 19th, and we think it was worth it - in the end and are grateful to those generations that made it happen.
The rebels who came to Paris to ask for help and draft a constitution at least understood democracy very well, their ability to pull it off on their first try or even sincerity could be doubted of course, but I still think it was worth a shot.
Libya under Gaddafi was fucking paradise for a NEET
everything was free and everybody received a basic salary
NATO had nothing to do with that.
The resolution was submitted by Lebanon but it's no secret that Sarkozy was behind all this.
Early on France, the US, the UK and Canada all had their own operations.
NATO only became involved as a central command ,and much later, because 15 members had ultimately joined and it began to be difficult to coordinate all this.
NATO only applies if a member state is attacked, which wasn't the case here. Gaddaffi hadn't attacked France, nor was he planning (or able) to do so.
I will agree it was a colossal diplomatic blunder to involve NATO, all the members should have fought under their own flag with UN approval.
And again, 4 of the 19 coaliton members were not NATO members. Sweden is even neutral.
Colombia had a seat on the Security Council at the time and voted in favor of this.
Gaddafi was France's fault, mostly.
Leaked e-mails showed the Libya intervention in 2011 was all about making Nicolas Sarkozy look good.
>Gaddafi was France's fault, mostly.
You can make that entirely. Though we got some help, it was planned to do it anyway.
The only requirements were UN approval (so it wouldn't be a French agression) and the participation, even if on paper, of at least one Arab country, so it couldn't be depicted as a Crusade.
The first French strikes got underway as soon as the vote was secured and Qatar and the UAE agreed to participate. Lebanon had submitted the resolution, too, not us.
>fault
the best scenario didn't materialize but it was a long shot, and recognized as such. Give them 70 years or so before pronouncing Lybia unfit for democracy, though.
Remember people said the same thing about Germany not too long ago. I think we can agree they were wrong, now.
If it fails it will be France's mistake, if it succeeds it will be 19 countries' success.
Doesn't matter, really. It wasn't the business of France or anyone else to get involved in their internal civil war.
It was also bullshit how NATO said it was about "protecting civilians".
>"protecting civilians"
One person's civilians are another's terrorists.
We are not in NATO and we got the worst of it.
Choose better friends next time
That was only true for 50% of the population. If you were unemployed and didn't pay into taxes, you didn't receive any welfare at all.
this
burgers couldnt attack iran bcuz they knew israel would be destroyed
What about the death of Yugoslavia and Kosovo shenanigans?
and dont forgot nato bombed bosnian serbs in 1995 after staged genocide of srebrenica
>Give them 70 years or so before pronouncing Lybia unfit for democracy
Fucking retarded frogs
?
Care to "enlighten" us, O non-retarded user?
Absolutely. The fact that you think the possibility of Lybia being a democracy within 70 years justifies foreign intervention and the subsequent massive inmigration and asylum seeking to countries that orchestrated the very same operation renders you, and by extension, the entire set of french people, retards.
he literally blew up a plane full of his own people on libyan soil
gaddafi did just fine as a leader until he thought he was untouchable that was his mistake he was corrected on several occasions by several nations when he would get unruly even after he was fine the only problem was when he thought he was untouchable the last time he wouldn't correct his behavior and then boom he was dethroned just like that.
Germany started experimeting with democracy in 1918. It wasn't established for sure until 1991 (until then , you heard people claim the Germans, like the Russians, were incapable of having a democracy).
So that took 72 years.
In France, this started in 1789 and wasn't secured until 1871, so it took even longer. In the meantime, the whole of Europe had attacked the new Republic, leading to the Wars of the French Revolution and later Napoleonic Wars.
Speaking for myself, I'd say all this chaos still was worth it in the end. So I'd say it will be the same for Lybia eventually.
You must be one of those "let's grab everything we can during our lifetimes and let the future generations manage by themselves" guys, I'm not sure that's really smarter.
Then again I'm not from Peru, if I were I probably wouldn't have any sense of history, either. And I may even think it is "retarded".
NATO gets a pass for Libya it was the UK and France begging the US for support through the guise of helping the rebels. There was a strict no boots on the ground policy for the US just air support.
Prior to this, Gaddaffi's Lybia had already been bombed, on three separate occasions by France (during the 80s he invaded neighboring Chad several times) and another time by the US.
He sponsored terrorism and was responsible for the destruction of Panam 103 (Detroit-Frankfurt) over Scotland, which killed all 259 people onboard and 11 more on the ground.
He pretended to make amends and was forgiven, but then started to kill his own population again. He couldn't very well be forgiven again and again.
May that be an example for other wannabe Gaddaffis.
>It was worth for Germany and France = It is worth for a totally different country in Africa whose refugees most definitely will storm to the aforementioned countries to help destroy their aforementioned democracies
That's a pretty bold extrapolation if I ever saw one, mahgrebi penis loving internet user.
It has already worked for plenty of African countries too. Many of whom (again) were seen as incapable of democracy.
Gaddaffi was a lesser evil pêh famille.
>In France, this started in 1789 and wasn't secured until 1871
That's republic, not democracy.
yeah, all those african democracies are doing gr8...
Obviously, a couple million of refugees in Europe is a small price to pay for making Lybia look like great, democratic Botswana, Bilel, or should I say, Bilel.
Bostwana, Cape Verde, Ghana, Tunisia and Lesotho all had higher democracy indexes than Peru (which is ranked 65th) in The Economist Intelligence Unit's list for 2015.
In addition, Namibia, Zambia and Senegal are ranked as "flawed democracies", same as Peru, if a little lower in the ranking.
I visited to Gabon and Côte d'Ivoire and they are indeed doing great (though the later needed a little help recently) though I wouldn't expect Sup Forums to believe me.
I hear the revolution in Tunisia worked pretty well too.
Holy shit you mean 5 out of 60 african countries rank higher than mighty Peru. That sure proves absolutely nothing at all. Just close your browser and consider not posting again, Pierre, friendly advice.
That's proof Africans can form democracies (flawed ones, perhaps, but still). So it's worth a shot. There aren't more yet because all of them haven't had an opportunity yet. Like Lybia.
Tunisia only had its revolution only a few years ago, it's already more democratic than Peru.
Get it, now?
Or is that the problem? African countries doing better than you?
>Peru
>less democratic than Lesotho
kek
Germany wasn't an autocracy before WWI, even Russia had their own citizens pressuring the Romanovs for representation, hence the (re?)creation of the Duma.
You can diss this shithole all you want m8, it won't make you any less retarded.
I was using Germany's example because until about 25 years ago, you heard people say "Germans can't have a real democracy".
Like you still hear about Russians sometimes.
It was proven to be absurd of course, so hearing the same about Africa may very well be absurd as well.
You can diss this shithole all you want m8, it won't make you any more democratic.
I'm just glad we don't have to pay him debts anymore
Better a retarded democracy than a flawed one Peru
Jesus christ peru
How are you worse than african nations?
Republic=!Democracy btw. The PeruANO is right, though. You can't force a government system based on European values on other countries and expect it to work like it did on Europe, the cultures are different and forcing your population to adapt to it is a challenge. That's part of the reason for Peru to be a faulty democracy btw, yet you seem oblivious of it.
The warnings were duly submitted.-
>You can't force a government system based on European values
Some members from the transition council came to Paris before this affair and had begun drafting a constitution of their own. Of course there's no guarantee it will work soon but they did know about democracy and understand how it works (of course they could have been lying... the thought occured to us. But that was proof the concepts were known in Libya. Which should be enough).
>Republic!=democracy
Oh, this again. I'm sorry we're not democratic enough for you, for us it works well enough, though. I suppose the UK isn't democratic enough for you either, being a monarchy and theocracy? same for Scandinavian countries?
Anyway they'll do what they decide to do which was the idea all along. But without genociding their population, invading Chad or using their military to destroy civilian airliners.
>Oh, this again.
Calm down. I didn't mean France isn't a democracy, but some have this idea that only republics can be democratic.
I'm just against foreign intervention on those internal affairs, they should solve their problems on their own. I just hope that this intervention will somehow pay off to the Lybian people in the future.
>I'm sorry we're not democratic enough for you, for us it works well enough, though
France is getting less and less democratic dude. And we're also getting less and less relevant.
I'm waiting for the Panamanian guy who hates usa to post
>but some have this idea that only republics can be democratic
Of course not... I gave examples in my post.
Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you meant "republics aren't democracies" which creeps up now and again on the Internet.
>I'm just against foreign intervention on those internal affairs
It wasn't the first reason, Gaddaffi had used his Intel personnel for terrorism. He made amends and was pardonned in the end, but then thought he could start again with impunity. We just can't condone that.
Gaddaffi had to go, provided this wouldn't shit up things too much or for too long (we were against removing Saddam for instance, remember?)
France is only relevant in a few French speaking African countries
We've got work of our own here too, yes.
I don't know about being "relevant" and don't care, I don't think France should work for other people.
>kill his own population
He killed TERRORISTS
Nah, HE was the terrorist, killing innocent civilians.
How did the libyans feel about NATO intervening?
NATO only became involved very late.
The Libyans mostly saw it as a French operation (British to a lesser degree) and were excstatic when Sarkozy visited after Gaddaffi's fall.
Had NATO not intervened, it's possible the conflict in Libya would have dragged on, metastasizing the area and breeding even more war/extremism. It's counterfactual, but plausible.
For examples of non-interventions gone wrong, see: Syria, a conflict which has bred significantly more refugees than Libya ever could, and shows no signs of stopping.
>to keep Islamists in check
they don't need to be held in check.
Trying to repress them is what's making them lash out. You declaw radicalism by giving them an outlet, like voting in fair elections. That's what happened with Hamas, who after winning election in Palestine (even though their legitimate victory was taken away), terror attacks plummeted and suicide bombings dropped from 200 a year to less than a dozen a year in 4 years.
Islamists are no different that the retarded right wing in Europe or the US. But in those places, their votes are actually counted.
Also, NATO wants Libya to be chaos. They don't want Muslim nations stabilizing and forming Democracies and self ruling, because their abundance of oil, a very diverse market, easy access to fertile farm land (in b4 hurr durr it's all desert) and important ports, and high value of education will make the Middle East dominate over Europe economically.
Also, Europe and the US actually benefit from immigrants. In the US, since the 60s, Muslim immigrants have reduced crime rates in the communities they move into, increase property values, and diversify the economy.
>in b4 retards say cuck
This was never proven which is why they had to kill him. His son is still in jail after all these years without a trial.
As has been proven, there were no innocents killed, only Terrorists. The whole country is now controlled by Terrorists.
There was no conflict in Libya, it was all Western propaganda about muh democratic uprising etc which proved to be bullshit.
>There was no conflict in Libya
You are validating the image of deranged, cynical paranoia that dogs followers of "alternative" media.
>Thread's still alive
Fucking seppuku with a baguette Pierre
But France is working for NATO, working for the EU commission, and against its own interests.
The last time we were "relevant" was probably Villepin's speech at the UN.
>Syria, a conflict which has bred significantly more refugees than Libya ever could, and shows no signs of stopping.
Most of the "refugees" aren't even Syrian.
>In the US, since the 60s, Muslim immigrants have reduced crime rates in the communities they move into, increase property values, and diversify the economy.
I don't know, it might be true for the US. But that's completely wrong for Europe.
In 2011 on Sup Forums (/news/) there already were anons posting Gaddaffi's propaganda.
I remember posts like "we would they want a Constitution?", "only 70% of the French population supports this so it's not democratic" and the like.
I suspect they were Lybians doing PR to prevent an intervention. Perhaps user is one of them?
>There was no conflict in Libya
Our first strikes found armored vehicles around Benghazi. Also without a conflict, Gaddaffi wouldn't have been overthrown.
The NTC received massive support from the UN coalition, but only support.
>Terrorists
Someone is always somebody else's terrorist. During WW2 the German military authorities called our resistants "terrorists".
Look, it's Peru again!
Did you become a little more democratic my good friend? try to catch up to those Africans.
Or by next year Libya may be ahead of you too.
>This is a good comeback in France
I just hope you're not an ethnic french m8, if white frogs are like you France is truly fucked
I'll take that as a "no".
>France is truly fucked
And as a Peruvian obviously you're an expert on fucked countries
North American Terrorist Organization will pay for its crimes and all their puppet states will as well.
No evidence all bullshit lies.
>The "french" hivemind unites to defend Africans
youtube.com
WE CAME
WE SAW
HE DIED
Well, there is hope for African countries, but none for Peru.
So yes we'll keep helping them.
>them
Mamadou pls
>NATO
DINDO
NUFFIN
I'm not part of nato so fuck off.