Libya was decapitated because France wanted it done. A cynic might say that it happened because Sarkozy was facing a scandal over having knowingly received campaign funds from Qaddafi.

The Obama administration actually went through this whole bizarre spin cycle about "leading from the rear" over having been pushed to action by the French and British when no one in DC (other then Bill Kristol and presumably John McCain) was really for doing it. The Obama Administration was also a bit off balance from his "red line" statements over Syria.

The main reason the US physically participated to the degree that it did was because the British and the French ran out of munitions very quickly in the middle of the process. Again, there was an embarrassment for the Obama Administration because Obama was caught by the US media talking shit about the Europeans over this.

This was one of the rare moments in which the US media aggressively covered the Obama Administration...presumably because security state apparatchiks were aggressive leaking against him. Of the new directors of the 5 US TV news networks, the Obama White House Communications Team included siblings of two of them. And one of those blood bound news directors had at the time recently changed networks, so while running one network, his former subordinates still predominated at another.

It had not occurred to me that you might be "angry".

I am glad It didn’t come across like that. The reason why Gadaffi was disposed of was because of the intentions of creating a Central African bank. This would have rivalled the US dollar.

In addition, a united African currency. This currency would have been based on gold. Effectively erasing the US dollar - the US imposes sanctions using this. The bank would have freed Africa from debts. He was also for Africa taking control of its minerals like Libya under his control had over the oil. He was also for a united African military.

Plus, an anti-imperialist. The US had a part to play. So don’t pin it on France and Britain.

In addition to this. He made Libya the African country with the highest living standard. He assisted many countries in Africa. Gaddafi challenged Western influence. Just like politicians like Castro, Allende, Chavez, he was removed. The ones who fired cruise missiles were Britain and the US. Over 110 of them. RAF, French Air Force and the Royal Canadian Air Force performed raids and sorties. Naval blockades. France launched air strikes. Etc.

No, that is not why things happen the real world. Libya had zero chance of successfully doing any of those things for many reasons. Your views of Qaddafi and how Africa works politically are naïve and ill-informed.

Just to offer you a point of reference to help connect your postulation to the real world, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordan Brown attempted to sell the entire gold reserve stockpile of the UK on global commodity markets around the year 2000. Had he been successful, they would have been sold for roughly 2.5 billion dollars. He could not do so without crashing the liquidity of global gold markets and thus abandoned the effort soon after starting.

UK gold reserves (per Wikipedia): 310.3 tonnes
1 tonnes = 1000 kgs
1 kg = 2.2 pounds
1 pound = 16 ounces
1 ounce of gold = $250 (circa 2000)
310.3 * 1000 * 2.2 * 16 * 250 = $2,730,640,000.00

Now start thinking over the net trade imbalance that the UK currently faces just importing energy from Norway this winter. Marking things up to current prices, still leaves the UK with only about 18 billion dollars. Even just trying to move gold around to balance out net deficits across a few countries would result in running out of physical gold very quickly.

Are you really giving the US credit for Castro dying at 90? Chavez's cancer?

Leaving that on hold for a few minutes, may I ask where did you learn about economics or politics?

Grad School :oP

So, you state that there is 0 chance Gadaffi would have been able to do this. And have been unable to give me a realistic reason as to why he was removed in a NATO effort at a large expense for all countries involved. Except for “France wanted it done”. Or perhaps that because Sarkozy was funded by him. Do you see how ridiculous this sounds? All of NATO does not get involved in a quarrel between two nations. Especially France and it’s former colony. Unless there is a true issue. These issues have been confirmed many many times. And are a widely known fact that Gaddafi was in fact supportive of these prior listed objectives/ ideas. I do not understand your reasoning or in fact what you are debating about. You first said. France and Britain fired cruise missiles at Libya. That was incorrect. And that the European issues of ammunition was a main driving force of the US joining. That was incorrect. Then you state that these issues are “fake news”. If there is anyone here that is nïeve, it is you I am afraid. You cannot talk about ill-informed when you cannot accept things or indeed get your own points factually correct before you post them. Using larger words and complicated clauses to the layman to make your argument sound intelligent. So that perhaps it is not questioned.

That is basic economics. If he did indeed sell all of the UK’s gold then yes, the price of all gold would have dipped massively due to the availability after the UK sold it’s 310.3 tonnes. This could have definitely affected the possibility of a currency based on gold under Gadaffi. You seem to forget that the gold-based or backed currency was proposed after this did not fall through in 2009. Witnessing that this would never happen. If it was made a reality under Gadaffi then yes, a massive sell like the UK may or may not crash the currency. However. That is the value of gold itself and not the currency. It is gold- backed and based. It is not exclusively gold nuggets they are using. Gold is a relatively stable source of investment and for this reason exactly: It barely fluctuates and regarding that currency depending on its success it may raise the value of gold significantly. And if and only if a massive sell like that was proposed then that would not be a massive issue. Sanctions could be proposed and enforced to deter other powers from doing this. They could halt gold mining to raise prices back to a norm. Controlling 22% of the worlds gold mining would have a definite effect. Not to mention they hold 13% of the world’s gold reserves. This would only grow seeing as Gadaffi wanted Africa to have control of it’s own resources. And in addition to this the currency would still have it’s genuine value compared to the dollar despite gold prices lowering. The fact that the currency is gold is a fall back in case the monetary value of the currency crashes then it still has it’s physical value. It is not what you seem to believe that the currency is only gold and that is it.

Regarding Castro and Chavez. There were attempts made by the US made on Castro in 1960 on the 17th of March to explore removing him from power. The CIA had a budget of 13 billion dollars approved by Eisenhower. So do not say to me that the US does not have a reputation lol. And Chavez. In 2002 there was a coup d’état to remove Chavez from power. The Bush administration had tried to distance itself from the coup rather sneakily but really messed up when they immediately endorsed the government under Pedro Carmona. Suggesting that they had support for it. It lasted 47 hours until Chavez came back into power. Sure, they failed. But the US still tried to remove their power. Is there anything else that you would like me to correct or perhaps provide you with links to correct sources? Or talk about even more history the US has had with these issues before you start to defend their involvement again?

Then I do not know why you cannot see me point : )

My*

"And have been unable to give me a realistic reason as to why he was removed in a NATO effort at a large expense for all countries involved."

Libya was a fairly cheap intervention. That is why it was left to devour itself afterwards. France was the driving force behind Qaddafi's removal with British agreement. It did not come from DC. Why Sarkozy picked that battle to fight is, as I hope was clear, speculative from my perspective.

"All of NATO does not get involved in a quarrel between two nations."

"All of NATO" was not involved in decapitating Libya. It was at most three countries meaningfully involved. Italy specifically demanded a NATO banner in exchange for operational support precisely to prevent the French military from being completely in charge.

"Especially France and it’s former colony."

Libya was never a French colony.

"And are a widely known fact that Gaddafi was in fact supportive of these prior listed objectives/ ideas."

By the end, Qaddafi was well into his decadent, debauched emperor stage. He was clearly on drugs to the point of near psychosis. He was not capable of translating any of his grandiose, slurred ranting into action by the end nor did anyone in Africa take him seriously. No external leader in his right mind would have gotten into bed with Libya under Qaddafi. Even when he was at the peak of his mental abilities and less demonstrably unstable emotionally, he hired Carlos the Jackal to murder Yamani and Amuzegar while masking the assassination as a terrorist action by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and did not seem to anticipate that Carlos & company would sell him out. He was always a reckless and unreliable partner.

"And that the European issues of ammunition was a main driving force of the US joining."

A quick Google search returns a Washington Post article from April 15th and a document from The Atlantic Council dated April 17th about France and Britain running short of munitions after basically 2 weeks of an air campaign.

"That is basic....that is it."

You are missing my point entirely. The UK could not settle its own foreign trade accounts in gold due to not having enough physical gold to do so as a practical matter. The world has not had a currency regime meaningfully based on gold since before the first world war. The interwar system was a house of cards that had only been half way set up when it froze up and then collapsed in the late 1920s. When the US owned nearly all of the gold in the world after World War II, France was able to crash the system almost single handedly when the US did not even trade that much with France as compared to Germany. And the world has undergone a financial expansion of nearly unimaginable scale since Nixon and Connally [temporarily] closed the gold window in 1971. The idea that physical gold could be used on a practical level to internationally settle multilateral trade imbalances among even a small number of relatively autarkic countries seems extremely unlikely to me.

"Just like politicians like Castro, Allende, Chavez, he was removed."

I read this as an assertion that Castro and Chavez were removed, which seems ludicrous.

"In 2002 there was a coup d’état to remove Chavez from power."

I remember it happening and had professional reasons to be paying attention. I am confident that the US government was caught almost completely off guard by events on the ground in Caracas. The interruption to oil flows was actually VERY inconveniently timed given other more important things that were going on at the time. What happened was far less of a "coup d’état" than Chavez's attempt.

"He was also for a united African military."
You may want to check his record of complete failure. As gopher27 said, he wanted to do a lot of things but stood no chance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Arab_Republics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Islamic_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian–Libyan_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian–Libyan_War

"Especially France and it’s former colony."
Mate, are you seriously referring to this short stint in the least populated part of Libya?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fezzan-Ghadames_Military_Territory

I just want to say, I did make a mistake. I mistook Libya for a French colony. I completely forgot it was Italian. When Gopher mentioned that it was never French my mind suddenly remembered Mussolini and the influx of Italians into Libya. A stupid mistake. I apologise for that.

Gopher, I believe you are correct. Libya was a cheap intervention but regardless, money was spent. And quite a lot in retrospect. Not as much as usual but still a lot nonetheless. Rebels were also a factor here so arms were given etc. Sarkozy probably was in cahoots with Gadaffi of some sort. Leading to the war. But the most widely accepted opinions are of the points I stated causing the war. British agreement would not necessarily be granted otherwise. Especially to a French president who is warring over funding issues. Unless Gadaffi really had a hold on Sarkozy. Enough to warrant the British to take it seriously for the sake of French leadership. But I very much doubt that is the reason. However, in my personal opinion, using your point about speculation on why the war started is not enough to deny my points about why it started when you propose no alternative we can discuss.

By all of NATO I meant France, Britain and The US. The most considerable and influential forces of NATO at the time. My point still stands though. There is no viable reason why they would all get involved over Sarkozy’s funding. Unless it was really serious. In which case an investigation into that should have taken place. It must have been Gadaffi’s ambition that was a main reason. I do not see any other way. If you do please let me know.

The point you argued doesn’t in fact relate to that he was supportive of it. I am stating that he was supportive of it. I did not mention any other countries getting into bed with Libya. Even when he was sane he was still supportive of it. Regardless of his drug use later in life. You have to remember a lot of Africa is corrupt. There would have been many leaders willing to cooperate probably to increase influence and power. Again, let us get off of that. We have established that he was supportive of those ideas.

Laser-guided bombs were running short. That is basically it. There are many other viable routes and I find it very hard to believe that the US joined because we nearly ran out of those bombs… The US had every reason to get involved against Gadaffi as he went against their ideas and against the West. The munitions issue was one of a few that they needed to justify their involvement. As we know, the US has a history of doing exactly what happened to Gadaffi or at least trying to do it many times. That is why I refuse to believe that munitions was the genuine main reason for involvement in a war.

Perhaps I am wrong to believe that it would work but I am willing to believe so regarding the united bank. It has not been used in such a long time as a backing for a currency. And I think it would have a definite effect. Then again I cannot say what I predict to be true because it never happened. And you cannot say for definite that it would not have worked. There is not enough evidence to suggest one over the other substantially.

I did perhaps write that wrong, there were attempts. They were not successfully removed.

Regarding Chavez, it was an overthrow via rebellion to put a new president up. He regained power due to friends in the military. That is a coup d’état that removed him from power. Sure, other events were badly timed but it does not change that fact. The US’ immediate support for the new government was foolish. A celebration too early. It just makes me think that they had something to do with that coup.

Again JECE, I did not say he stood a chance or anything like that. I purely said that he supported these ideas.

I addressed your other point JECE. It was my mistake.

Also, I know Mussolini did not colonise Libya. Not what I said. It is what came to mind. Simple as that : )

Not for you.

If Lord Saviour dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!

"But the most widely accepted opinions are of the points I stated causing the war."

I honestly have no idea upon what you base this assertion.

Qaddafi took power in September of 1969 and remained in power until 2011. His erratic trouble making was pretty consistent over that entire period. He probably enjoyed his best relations with the US in the immediate lead up to the Arab Spring. ExxonMobil, Hess and Occidental were actively preparing to return to Libya on a large scale at the time after Qaddafi's rapprochement with the US. Everyone seemed at the time to be preparing for the transition to power of his son Gamal, who seemed much more emotionally stable. To steal a Simpsons reference, "But Krusty, why now? Why not 20 years ago?"

Much of what you are saying seems to me rather like the childish worldview of a 20 year old undergraduate with an at best cursory knowledge of world events and little experiential understanding of how human beings behave.

Going after inexperience when apparently not enough experience has been made, while actively trying to gain this very experience, seems unfair to me.

I am at least glad that there is no realistic scenario of Russia falling into unrest internally as was and still is in Libya today, the consequences on at least two continents would be difficult to contain for anyone or any state.

Mid- to longterm it is very interesting to see who is going to lead the nation after Putin, since, overthrow, resignation or death, somehow his reign will end, but the system is so very focused on this persona, that everything beyond him is nebulous. Are there any viable options?

I’d hope for Russia joining the EU in a distant, better future, but the time is not now.

I think that it's the lack of humility, not the lack of experience, that provoked the wrath of the gopher.

The only organized opposition party with a broad base of support is the CPRF. Or it least it was, anyway. It's harder to judge internal developments in Russia since the war started. If Gennady Zyuganov goes before Putin, maybe his successor would actually stand a shot at winning democratic elections. Of course, free elections may be a pipe dream.

Gopher, at this point you can have those views, I can have mine. It is as simple as that. We are not really getting anywhere with this so it is best to leave it. I especially want to seeing as it is getting to you calling me childish, etc etc. I’m not going to sit here and debate when all you are seeming to do is insult my intelligence. Doesn’t seem like a great nor fair debate to my mind. Further to your point. I am from England. I am 26 and I have a phd. Far more than an undergrad. You know about quite a lot through dms.

Regardless of that, I welcome debate from anyone but instead of insulting someone younger than myself I would correct them and more. Perhaps teach them a thing or two. I admit, you have taught me a few small things but you yourself have had your fair share of incorrect facts and points that make no tangible sense. Not to mention the immaturity when it comes to calling my views childish. I honestly expected more.

I have one gripe to say though. When I make a point you do not talk directly about it a lot of the time. You come up with another point that is loosely related and the just state that. If you must know what I meant by that quoted text then here we go:

The reason for NATO’s involvement was Gadaffi’s anti-Western Ideology. The US has a strong history of either removing or attempting to remove leaders like this from power. I have given you examples and you have acknowledged these. His support for the points I mentioned was also a leading factor. His mad drugged nature as you seem to put it was another. He started losing control of his country with the rise of rebels. These are all points that lead to the war. I am saying that the points I mentioned are a widely accepted reasoning for why the war started in Libya. Let us not forget that your counter argument to this was Sarkozy’s funding might have been the cause. So, this ‘assertion’ is based of many thought through reasons. I have now shared them with you.

JECE seems to think that I am being unreasonable and self absorbed. Lacking humility as he put it. I do not see where I have not been fair or where I have insulted someone’s intelligence. Perhaps that is what lacking humility is. The placement of yourself above another due to intelligence. Of which Gopher has no right to accuse me of being lower than himself. Maybe think about that.

If no one disagrees with that reasoning then we will leave it there. (I will leave it there regardless.)

GOD, as for replacements for Putin I would think that a refresh of the system would be necessary. I am doubtful that even after Putin has died or resigned, etc; that a fair election could take place. Putin was and still partially idolised in Russia. His party would retain majority even after the war in my opinion. Despite the growing unrest and realisation that Putin was the bad guy so to speak. It would probably just be a senior member of his current party that replaces him. I do not know who.

"JECE seems to think that I am being unreasonable and self absorbed."
No, I used the word 'humility'. What doesn't sound humble are the unequivocal statements on a subject that you're not an expert on and comments like "Then I do not know why you cannot see My point".

"His party would retain majority even after the war in my opinion. Despite the growing unrest and realisation that Putin was the bad guy so to speak. It would probably just be a senior member of his current party that replaces him. I do not know who."

Is United Russia really a party, though, or more of a cult of personality?

It is on paper a party but when you look into it it is a cult. That is why I said refresh the system. The US seems to be good at removing corruption. (Unfortunately they bring it wherever they go.) So perhaps while Russia is vulnerable they MAY I said MAY so don't crucify me for this please. It is all hypothetical. Remember, MAY. They MAY be able to get some influence inside Russia in the poltitical window after Putin is gone. JECE, read the whole message please.

So it is not humble for myself to question or take part in a debate of which I did not study the subject directly? That seems a bit backwards. Lack of humility is also placing yourself above others. Which is effectively what you are doing by saying that I can or should not take part due to my area of expertise. I never put myself above anyone and I disagree that those comments were lacking humility. I spoke to Gopher in dms about them and apologised if I came across as rude or arrogant. He did not mind. If you want to keep talking about it I can copy and paste the dms into here but I think that would be innapropriate.