[flagged]
Oh, wait...
Maintaining 'a few hundred warheads' costs a lot more than $225000/month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_cruiser_Ukraina
A properly educated, cynical perspective proceeds from the above factual context and proceeds thusly: The biggest opponent to the Libyan invasion was Italy, because France and Italy have vied for influence in North Africa for over a century, and Italy's initial instincts were to take the other side of France's gamble and protect Gaddafi. But even Italy came aboard. Why? Until Ukraine, France's commitment to NATO has always been tenuous. In fact, it was only in 2009 that France rejoined NATO's Military Committee, and to this day France still has a special arrangement with NATO. Libya was NATO's reward to France for both previous and future concessions. France's entire foreign policy outside Europe has revolved around maintaining its influence in Africa, including in particular its oil interests in Libya. (This oil interest was made very explicit by France--no need to read between the lines or engage in conspiratorial speculation.) And because of France's size (population, GDP, military budget, nuclear capability, etc), and Libya's pariah status, France's participation in NATO meant far more to NATO member states than Libya, albeit with Italy being a close call--but not because it cared about Libya, per se. Therefore, placating France was an easy call. Almost everybody fell into line in short order, which is so rare for NATO or Europe even when it comes to U.S. demands, the way it unfolded was really quite fascinating.
Was Hillary eager to invade Libya? I don't know. It doesn't matter. France initiated it. France compelled it. The U.S. tagged along no less than any other NATO member state. For obvious reasons the U.S. still committed the larger share of resources, but notably, excluding cruise missiles, it was the Europeans, including France, who led the air offensive. To some extent Libya was also a sop to the Europeans generally, letting them take the reins to NATO.
You know it really amuses me both with saddam and gaddafi how people wonder why they were invaded. Excuse the language but they fucked around and found out.
If someone threatens to kill you, do you say to yourself "nah, he won't actually do it?" Or remove them from a position of threar against you like having them jailed?
Well between nations, it isn't exactly unprecedented to invade a country and remove from power leaders that publicly and vocally threaten to cause you harm. Bush lied about wmds because of oil but the reality is, if saddam was friendly to the US or even indifferent he would have been left alone.
Now vietnam and korea, I can see how you can argue the US had no business being involved but the moment saddam, thr taliban and gaddafi threatened the US, the US was involved. Pre-emptivr strike is term they used to justify these invasions. You don't have to agree with the concept to appreciate the fact that the US is one of many countries in a long line of countries that invade in response to a threat made by other countries.
NATO failed to kill Gaddafi. The Misrata militia killed him.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Capture_and_as...
While you’re sadly correct, that doesn’t mean a rules based international order can survive when the most powerful actors think this way, greatly increasing global instability.
And tbh, I was ranting there a bit, gadaffi was very terroristy until he saw what happened to saddam the he started to act in accordance to his strength. His downfall was how he treated his own people, the US would have at least avoided taking part in his invasion had he not been so hostile in the past.
This is transparently false. International relations are deeply driven by both popular and elite opinion, which is why national agents constantly work closely with media to justify their narratives. If the narratives fail to sway the opinion of key actors (whether individuals or populations) there can be severe consequences if the policies are followed anyway. That’s why we have lots of small states around the globe - even though it would be a profitable action to colonize those states in theory, in practice limitations on both elite and popular opinion prevent these activities.
If you are going to have a war anyways, use that horror as a signpost that tells others "this is what will happen to you" to avoid more wars. If you say "we're sorry, won't happen again" guess what? It will happen again because they will use direct or indirect means to threaten other nations and the by the actions of one dictator millions die. This isn't about justifying war but about preventing it.
One of the first actions of the new Libyan government was to instate the death penalty for blasphemy. Which was then used on anyone from political opposition to women daring to seek education. The government collapsed before any sentences could be carried out, but that's intent to apply repression on a vastly broader scale than Gaddafi cared to.