Thread: NATO never goes for a dictator that doesn't turn against them first

This guy lays out exactly why Gaddifi was targeted, and over all why only certain brutal dictators ever get targeted. I thought it was strange how Libya's resistance got all this media attention while there is so much civil oppression in Southeast Asia that gets almost no media attention at all except some shitty rambo movie.

The media is straight up implicit in allowing fuckers to rebrand Burma as Myanmar

The bottom line is that governments are both historically and currently the mafias that gain control. The nato governments tends to use gimmicks like 'elections' and whatnot to maintain legitimacy. I hear that governmenets in Europe even provide things like healthcare. Because they're mafias they target competing mafias.

Mafias?

Pretty sure it was the Libyans that turned against Gadhaffi. Preeetty sure about this.

But how does that allow us to complain about our governments!

Originally Posted by Xei

Pretty sure it was the Libyans that turned against Gadhaffi. Preeetty sure about this.

Pretty sure that many people have attempted to rise up against dictators that were friendly with our government and got repressed by death squads trained at the "school of the americas". Preeetty sure about this.

So your "argument" is pretty much pointless. The US provided assistance to the Lybyan rebels. Why didn't they provide assistance to e.g. the Sandinistas?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Pretty sure that many people have attempted to rise up against dictators that were friendly with our government and got repressed by death squads trained at the "school of the americas". Preeetty sure about this.

Emphasis on "your" government. I like my government's track record on international conflicts.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Pretty sure that many people have attempted to rise up against dictators that were friendly with our government and got repressed by death squads trained at the "school of the americas". Preeetty sure about this.

So your "argument" is pretty much pointless. The US provided assistance to the Lybyan rebels. Why didn't they provide assistance to e.g. the Sandinistas?

I don't care. But the Arab spring was clearly Muslim. Was the US pissed off with Mubarak? No, they wanted him to stay there, and they dragged their feet like hell when the people rose up against him. Thread disproven, cya.

What the fuck is this guy talking about? What does he mean by "redacted" UN resolution 1973? And how was Tony Blair negotiating with Qaddafi "hailing the big chief"?

Originally Posted by mirror.co.uk

No business deals of any nature were discussed. At the time, governments around the world were engaging with Libya. Gaddafi was received in several European capitals including Brussels, Rome and Paris.

"There was therefore at that time no reason whatsoever for not continuing to engage with him, especially since Mr Blair in office had been responsible for getting Gaddafi to give up his chemical and nuclear weapons programme and renounce terrorism.