Comments by "Dennis" (@Dennis-nc3vw) on "Libya's Revolution Is in Ruins" video.

The "outsiders" simply bombed targets for the revolution. The only way the outcome could possibly been different without "outsiders" is that the rebels would have lost or the war would have dragged on like Syria.
3
The US didn't star the war in Libya, it simply came to the aid of the rebels. Likely Libya would have gone the way of Syria otherwise. The US was hands off on Syria for years.
2
@123skillax Oh for God's sakes, the US did not start intervening in Syria until YEARS into the Syrian Civil War. Is there ANYTHING you people won't blame America for?
2
No one even attempts to have a morally coherent philosophy when addressing these issues. If freedom (a country's self-determination) is more important than safety, intervening was not wrong because research seems to show the majority of Libyans supported it. If safety is more important than freedom, then colonialism, REAL colonialism (not the progressive bastardization of the term) is not morally wrong, so long as it can be shown to make a nation more safe. Instead of confronting their cognitive dissonance, they just shout hate at America.
1
Why on Earth do you think things would have played out different if America were not involved?
1
@tpicard88 Thank you, patriots are in such short supply today.
1
How would this have gone any different if the West didn't get involved? The only difference is that the rebels might have lost.
1
Yet if the US intervened on behalf of Gaddaffi, on the pretext he was a necessary stabilizing influence, you'd say what horrible monsters we were for preserving tyranny against a populist uprising. The fact is some countries are going to be in a s*** situation no matter what, and people like you just use the US as a scape goat. The most reasonable outcome if the US had not intervened is Libya would have gone the way of Syria. The West was hands-off on Syria for years.
1
@michaelotieno6524 What on God's Green Earth makes you think the US "messed up" Panama and Grenada? Grenada literally has a holiday celebrating US intervention in their country and a CBS poll showed 92% of Panamanians supported the invasion.
1
@alikaudjdhdhr23 Isn't it convenient how when Iraqis or Afghans take up arms against America, you magically assume they represent the will of their populace, but when Libyans take up arms against Gaddaffi, they don't represent the will of the Libyan people? If 2 + 2 = 4 stood in your way of hating America, you'd say 2 + 2 is 5.
1
@mintymus FFS no, a revolt was underway before any foreign countries intervened. If the West had not intervened Libya likely would have gone the way of Syria, where we kept our hands off for years. BTW it was France which did most of the work.
1
@TengkuAmier And when is that? If its not when people rise up and revolt for it, then when?
1
There's nothing "Western" about this democracy. The West helped the Libyans beat Gaddaffi and then let them do their thing.
1
@jeff9774 So why did you put the word "Western" there? If Libya hadn't intervened, Libya would have likely gone the way of Syria. The didn't touch Syria for years and what happened?
1
@jeff9774 That's not true at all. Grenada and Panama are prime examples of interventions that worked. It's just that the Muslim world seems particularly fucked up.
1
Yeah, who could possibly think siding with a people's revolt against a dictator who was shooting protestors with jets was a good idea?
1
If the US hadn't intervenned, chances are Libya would have gone the way of Syria.
1
@words007 The American government has to greenlight Hollywood movies?
1
Oh please, the Libyans started this revolt. If the West hadn't intervened, they likely would have gone the way of Syria. And bombed them into the stone age? Please, Europe's involvement in Libya last...what, like two weeks?
1
@SuperSanic.. You don't have a spread of evidence the Libyan revolution was funded by the US and its allies, not before official intervention began, when the revolution was already well underway. And Baharian is a "puppet colony"? What about Egypt? Mubarak was America's greatest ally in the Middle East yet the US asked him to step down.
1
@Nigerianreaction He has a moral compass and stands for truth. You decide your position on everything by labelling America the bad guy and then working backwards to support that conclusion.
1
@TheSMR1969 What a deep, thought provoking, well researched rebuttal.
1
So were the Libyans who started the uprising also idiots who didn't think ahead?
1
@1997lordofdoom You people are absolutely disgusting. There's nothing morally unreasonable about siding with a dictator against a protestor shooting protestors from jets and pulling the plug on hospitalized dissidents and you know it. Think about it if the US had instead come down on the other side of the war, on the pretext Gaddaffi was necessary for stability in the Middle East. You'd be chewing off your own lips to find words hateful enough to throw at us. But you can't say both paths are monstrous. That's logically indefensible and you know it.
1
@reddawn8253 Oh please, do you even know how what you said makes any logical sense? Where do you think its easier for American corporations to set up shop and do business, in a stable country or an unstable one? It's kind of bad for business when stuff blows up. I don't think McDonalds wants to set up shop in a country where they might get carbombed or their employees might get their heads hacked off.
1
@noursaccount So somehow the US was supposed to foresee this bad outcome, but not the Libyans themselves who revolted? And if they were, why? Should no one revolt from their government, ever, because the risk of chaos? These comments are absolutely delusional. Anti-Americanism is all you believe in. If America said 2 + 2 was 4, you'd say its 5.
1
The US didn't start this. Libyans revolted, the US simply chose a side. And it wasn't even us who did most of the bombing.
1
@f9658 Try saying something you actually believe for a change.
1
No matter what the West does, we'll always be in the wrong. We live in a world of absolute moral delusion. If America sides with the revolution, we created chaos and disorder, and we're the bad guys. But we all know we had instead chosen Gaddafi's side under the pretext he was a stablizing force in the Middle East, you'd be chrewing off your own lips to find words hateful enough to throw at us. And then, of course, if we do nothing, they make movies like Hotel Rwanda condemning our cowardice. Even if the last part wasn't true, you can't have it both ways. You can advocate non-interventionism from a stand point of American self-interest, but you can't logically argue the US is evil for supporting a dictator because he's a tyrant when you'd also argue the US is evil for supporting a rebellion because dictators are a benevolent, stabilizing force.
1
Right, its totally just a coincidence it happened during the Arab Spring.
1
The US didn't start the war, they aided an uprising that was already going on. If we had stayed out of it, it likely would have gone the way of Syria (a country where we waited years to intervene).
1
@AverageLoner551 If the West hadn't intervenned, Libya would have likely gone the way of Syria.
1
@MONKEYSCHANNEL327 Why on God's Green Earth would the US want to destablize ANY country? I thought we were all about big business. Well I'm pretty sure Exxon doesn't want to drill for oil in a country where oil pipelines get blown up, and it doesn't want its tankers to drive on highways that might be bombed at any second. I'm pretty sure McDonalds doesn't want to set up shop in a country where its employees could get their heads hacked off. You people will believe ANYTHING that allows you to hate America, no matter how little sense it makes.
1
Why don't you at least try make sense instead of hedonistically gorging yourself on anti-Americanism? How does an unstable Iraq and Libya benefit America?
1
Our "crime against humanity" was literally giving the Libyan people what they wanted. There's nothing America can do without being labelled the bad guy.
1
@arifudin9151 And Germany, and Kuwait, and Panama, and Grenada.
1
Yes, we are so corrupt for giving the majority of Libyans what they wanted. Funny how you call us imperialists yet our crime is not knowing what's best for a country than the locals themselves do. When the West imposes our will on countries, even if they are better off for it, we're the bad guys. When the West sides with the will of the local majority, we're also the bad guys. Funny how that works.
1
Oh please, this was Libya's revolt. The West simply picked a side.
1
A 2012 poll showed the majority of Libyans approved of the US leadership at the time. That almost certainly means they approved of the US intervention. In other words, the West's only crime was assuming we didn't know what was best for Libya better than the Libyans themselves.
1
Anti-Americanism is truly the most remarkable mass hysteria in human history. No matter what America does, we'll always be wrong. And no matter what, if the outcome is bad it was always part of a conspiracy for our benefit. Nevermind no one could tell me how an unstable Libya benefits America in anyway if their life depended on it, they'll still insist it does because Anti-Americanism is all they live for. It's their truth, their God, all they know and all they believe in. If 2 + 2 = 4 was a pro-American statement, they'd say 2 + 2 were 5.
1
Yes, blame the US and NATO for supporting the Libyans in an uprising that the majority of their population supports. People in the Middle East never have any agency of their own, unless they're Israelis.
1
Oh right, because a dictator who shoots down protestors from jets and pulls the plug on hospitalized dissidents totally isn't a bully. How can you be a "badass big brother" without sticking your nose where it doesn't belong? America didn't change, your perspective did.
1
@velimc52 When we "deploy troops to secure people" you cry that we're "occupiers."
1
At the time the majority of Libyans felt the same way. You have the nerve call us "colonialists" and then criminalize us for not thinking we knew better than the Libyans what was best for Libya. Is that the essence of colonialism?
1
The Libyans started this revolt. Isn't it convenient how when Iraqis picked up arms against the US, you automatically assume they represent their people, but when Libyans do the same with Gaddaffi, they don't.
1