This is a wrong thread for this discussion, but the argument just proves that NATO and the US has been continuously involved in the government changes around the world, so Ukraine 2014 is not an exception. The fact the false flag (Libyan planes shooting at their own civilians) was used to justify the NATO led military intervention in Libya, the same as in Iraq few years earlier, just proves my point. The UN SC resolution did not authorize arming and backing of the rebels, nor a government change.
I am glad that you took time to read the article I provided a reference to, but you obviously choose to leave out the main condition of the handover. They were asking for a proof, but the USA told them we don't need to give anything to you.
Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.
"
If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.When analysing NATO’s role in the Libya conflict, it is important to consider the legitimacy of human rights abuse claims that NATO had initially justified the intervention upon. When the preliminary reports of the protests emerged, statements such as ‘witnesses say warplanes have fired on protesters in the city’
[18] made mainstream news,
yet these exaggerations largely turned out to be false. These false statements were confirmed in a Pentagon press conference:Do you see any evidence that he [Gaddafi] actually fired on his own people from the air?… if so to what extent?” U.S Secretary of Defence Robert Gates replied, “We’ve seen the press reports but have no confirmation of that”, with Admiral Mullen adding “that’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever[19].This is a crucial issue in evaluating why NATO decided to intervene. It certainly casts doubt on the premise that it was under the principle of Responsibility to Protect and subsequently it is clear that there was hyperbole in the reporting of the uprisings in Libya. According to Forte, ‘this is important… [as] myths of atrocities perpetrated from the air took on added value as providing an entry point for foreign military intervention that went far beyond any mandate to “to protect civilians”’
[20].
These shortcomings in NATO’s ability to prioritise their fundamental objectives emphasises that regime change was the priority for NATO’s involvement.As always, and underwhelming effort Ailo.
To What Extent Was the NATO Intervention in Libya a Humanitarian Intervention? (e-ir.info)
