4 ms·

Not that odd of a take. It's difficult to have internal stability when you face externally-sourced "reorganizations" every generation or so.

slashdev 3y ago
You only really have external interventions because there’s no internal stability and strength.
- closewith 3y ago
  You're very close to an epiphany here. Why would that be the case and who would have benefited from that situation when they were drawing those borders?
azinman2 3y ago
Internal stability helps prevent external forces.
- salt-thrower 3y ago
  Plenty of internally stable nations have been toppled by imperialism. It's not really a good metric for how well you can "prevent external forces."
  - slashdev 3y ago
    It helps a lot. Having a strong military with competitive technology and training is also very important. Having strong alliances is even more critical. Or in the modern era, having nukes. Which is why isolated dictatorship countries want them so badly.
    - dundarious 3y ago
      True, Libya gave up their nukes to appease the same force that then turned around and bombed them. That doesn't undermine the strong impression I have that the intervention in Libya was the proximate cause of most of the modern crises in the Sahel, northern Iraq, with ISIS, "fortress Europe" response to migration, etc. The US in particular, but also plenty of NATO and European powers, have not learned any lessons from the era of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: supporting the most barbaric reactionary forces in a bid to destabilize/topple a disfavored central government, leads to widespread suffering in the region, and eventually on home turf. And the US nearly directly caused a similar dam catastrophe in recent memory: https://archive.md/20230606233936/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/us/airstrike-us-isis-dam.html https://archive.md/20230606233936/https://www.nytimes.com/20... Reading about that conflict should remind people that the US military uses the same tactics that Russia is using right now in Ukraine (indiscriminate shelling), except with air superiority, the bombardment is more varied and destructive.
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        Libya had a nuclear weapons programme, and actively pursued development or acquisition of nuclear weapons from the 1970s until 2003 when all such work ceased. But it never actually had nuclear weapons to the best of my knowledge. See: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_and_weapons_of_mass_dest...> <https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/giving-the-bomb-revisiting-libyas-decision-to-dismantle-its-nuclear-program https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/giving-the-bomb-revis...>
        dundarious 3y ago
        You're right, I was wrong. I remember now that they had existent chemical weapons and a nuclear weapons program. Over time, my memory of talk of them "giving up their WMD" led to conflation and "giving up their nukes". I think it's an important and interesting corrective, but fundamentally doesn't affect my argument about the intervention in Libya and its effects. It's just less ironic now.
        dredmorbius 3y ago
        Respect for owning up Thank you for that. That's been rare in this and a few related threads. I hope others might follow your lead. I'd also like to point out that the situation is complicated, long-standing, has antecedents which trace back centuries, and has and is viewed as a chessboard for proxy battles by numerous foreign interests, as well as its own internal divisions. And that some seem hell-bent on fighting ideological battles over a situation where 20,000 souls may well have been lost, which somewhat disappoints me.
        dundarious 3y ago
        Yes, I don't like meta-commentary (i.e., talking about other comments on HN without actually directly responding to them), but I have been angered to see so many "might is right", "we only destroyed them because they were so weak" comments in response to people noting any potential for responsibility beyond local mismanagement.
    - salt-thrower 3y ago
      As someone else already mentioned, this is especially ironic to bring up in the case of Libya because Libya gave up their nukes to appease Western powers. Then were invaded and toppled by those same powers later on.
avereveard 3y ago
Bah most of the modern states had event of traumatic reorganization, some in Europe less than two generation ago. Heck some g8 states like Italy were quartered under four different crowns less than 200 years ago. And the worst part of this take is that is also denies agency for populations that had their own centennial empire at some point in history as if they were never more than paesant in some scheme. Thats deeply flawled in so many ways. for those that downvoted this comment, lol open a book sometime.
- JetSpiegel 3y ago
  200 years, 20 years, 2 years. What's the difference, really?

slashdev 3y ago

You only really have external interventions because there’s no internal stability and strength.

closewith 3y ago
You're very close to an epiphany here. Why would that be the case and who would have benefited from that situation when they were drawing those borders?

azinman2 3y ago

Internal stability helps prevent external forces.

salt-thrower 3y ago
Plenty of internally stable nations have been toppled by imperialism. It's not really a good metric for how well you can "prevent external forces."
- slashdev 3y ago
  It helps a lot. Having a strong military with competitive technology and training is also very important. Having strong alliances is even more critical. Or in the modern era, having nukes. Which is why isolated dictatorship countries want them so badly.
  - dundarious 3y ago
    True, Libya gave up their nukes to appease the same force that then turned around and bombed them. That doesn't undermine the strong impression I have that the intervention in Libya was the proximate cause of most of the modern crises in the Sahel, northern Iraq, with ISIS, "fortress Europe" response to migration, etc. The US in particular, but also plenty of NATO and European powers, have not learned any lessons from the era of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: supporting the most barbaric reactionary forces in a bid to destabilize/topple a disfavored central government, leads to widespread suffering in the region, and eventually on home turf. And the US nearly directly caused a similar dam catastrophe in recent memory: https://archive.md/20230606233936/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/us/airstrike-us-isis-dam.html https://archive.md/20230606233936/https://www.nytimes.com/20... Reading about that conflict should remind people that the US military uses the same tactics that Russia is using right now in Ukraine (indiscriminate shelling), except with air superiority, the bombardment is more varied and destructive.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Libya had a nuclear weapons programme, and actively pursued development or acquisition of nuclear weapons from the 1970s until 2003 when all such work ceased. But it never actually had nuclear weapons to the best of my knowledge. See: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_and_weapons_of_mass_dest...> <https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/giving-the-bomb-revisiting-libyas-decision-to-dismantle-its-nuclear-program https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/giving-the-bomb-revis...>
      - dundarious 3y ago
        You're right, I was wrong. I remember now that they had existent chemical weapons and a nuclear weapons program. Over time, my memory of talk of them "giving up their WMD" led to conflation and "giving up their nukes". I think it's an important and interesting corrective, but fundamentally doesn't affect my argument about the intervention in Libya and its effects. It's just less ironic now.
        dredmorbius 3y ago
        Respect for owning up Thank you for that. That's been rare in this and a few related threads. I hope others might follow your lead. I'd also like to point out that the situation is complicated, long-standing, has antecedents which trace back centuries, and has and is viewed as a chessboard for proxy battles by numerous foreign interests, as well as its own internal divisions. And that some seem hell-bent on fighting ideological battles over a situation where 20,000 souls may well have been lost, which somewhat disappoints me.
        dundarious 3y ago
        Yes, I don't like meta-commentary (i.e., talking about other comments on HN without actually directly responding to them), but I have been angered to see so many "might is right", "we only destroyed them because they were so weak" comments in response to people noting any potential for responsibility beyond local mismanagement.
  - salt-thrower 3y ago
    As someone else already mentioned, this is especially ironic to bring up in the case of Libya because Libya gave up their nukes to appease Western powers. Then were invaded and toppled by those same powers later on.

avereveard 3y ago

Bah most of the modern states had event of traumatic reorganization, some in Europe less than two generation ago. Heck some g8 states like Italy were quartered under four different crowns less than 200 years ago. And the worst part of this take is that is also denies agency for populations that had their own centennial empire at some point in history as if they were never more than paesant in some scheme. Thats deeply flawled in so many ways. for those that downvoted this comment, lol open a book sometime.

JetSpiegel 3y ago
200 years, 20 years, 2 years. What's the difference, really?