At the UN General Assembly, Mali and Burkina Faso reiterated their rejection of a military intervention against Niger, recalling the devastating 2011 NATO-led war on Libya and its role in fueling violence in the Sahel
The only thing NATO did was enforce the UN resolution to close their naval and airspace, and run sorties against Gaddafi.
"Oh they only bombed the country to ashes, no big deal". Do you hear yourself right now?
There were two resolutions United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 contained a provision not to use the resolution to justify military intervention, and the suggested provision to include a no fly zone was rejected. It was the later resolution, Resolution 1973, which authorised the no fly zone, and was not unanimously agreed to. This is when France started bombing Libya and NATO assumed military command of the operation. NATO and UAE special forces were also on the ground in Libya, which is beyond what was stipulated in Resolution 1973. Without NATO air support and intelligence/command, NATO armament of rebel groups in violation of Resolution 1970, and special forces on the ground (arguably in violation of Resolution 1973), there is little chance the rebels would have won the war.
Please get off of the western propaganda train. I'm begging you.
I'm writing, not speaking, but yes, I read what I write as it is being written.
"Bombed the country to ashes". What a hot take, considering it was the largest operation of guided munitions in history. Next you'll trot out the disproven 500,000 civilians killed figure. The country is in shambles now because they never achieved a unified government in the decade since the death of Gaddafi. The only thing NATO truly reduced to ashes was the Gaddafi compound.
So the UAE put guys on the ground but you're claiming that is a NATO issue? Weird. Also no, that didn't go against the resolution. It specifically states occupation forces, which special forces are not.
The 1970 resolution also contains no mention of what you claim in regards to intervention. I would suggest you reread both so you can familiarize yourself with the facts you are attempting to distort.
So was it a NATO war or a civil war? You can't say the rebels wouldn't have won without NATO assistance and also insinuate NATO started it. Perhaps you should worry less about my "western propaganda" and hop off whatever BRICS-sponsored train you're riding. I'm begging you.
"Oh they only bombed the country to ashes, no big deal". Do you hear yourself right now?
There were two resolutions United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 contained a provision not to use the resolution to justify military intervention, and the suggested provision to include a no fly zone was rejected. It was the later resolution, Resolution 1973, which authorised the no fly zone, and was not unanimously agreed to. This is when France started bombing Libya and NATO assumed military command of the operation. NATO and UAE special forces were also on the ground in Libya, which is beyond what was stipulated in Resolution 1973. Without NATO air support and intelligence/command, NATO armament of rebel groups in violation of Resolution 1970, and special forces on the ground (arguably in violation of Resolution 1973), there is little chance the rebels would have won the war.
Please get off of the western propaganda train. I'm begging you.
I'm writing, not speaking, but yes, I read what I write as it is being written.
"Bombed the country to ashes". What a hot take, considering it was the largest operation of guided munitions in history. Next you'll trot out the disproven 500,000 civilians killed figure. The country is in shambles now because they never achieved a unified government in the decade since the death of Gaddafi. The only thing NATO truly reduced to ashes was the Gaddafi compound.
So the UAE put guys on the ground but you're claiming that is a NATO issue? Weird. Also no, that didn't go against the resolution. It specifically states occupation forces, which special forces are not.
The 1970 resolution also contains no mention of what you claim in regards to intervention. I would suggest you reread both so you can familiarize yourself with the facts you are attempting to distort.
So was it a NATO war or a civil war? You can't say the rebels wouldn't have won without NATO assistance and also insinuate NATO started it. Perhaps you should worry less about my "western propaganda" and hop off whatever BRICS-sponsored train you're riding. I'm begging you.