Most of this thread stemming from my comment has been around "conspiracy theories" and such, which I find disappointing, because there is a healthy level of skepticism and distrust that should be applied to these institutions.
It's not covered by mainstream news, because it's not really a news item.
It's also reasonable to suggest that this will catch the ire of the US and their diplomatic corps, but it's really not an important thing.
It's 'conspiratorial' to suggest that this was in any way a primary reason for killing Gaddafi.
Gaddafi was already getting increased investment from many Western firms, and the US was literally looking to pass his public image to the extent that he provided reparations for Lockerbee and stopped acting crazy. Everyone was keen on 'being normal and making money'.
But the Arab Spring happened, and he made public statements that went to far, people feared the worst and that was the straw that broke the camels back.
The decision to intervene was barely a consensus, nobody really wanted to do it, Obama was super reluctant.
If Gaddafi were to have made a different public statement about his intentions, and were to have signalled in some way that he was unwilling to commit to blood or something ... he would have suppressed the insurrection and probably be still ruler today.
Qatari special forces that ended up killing him were only able to act because of the various forms of American cover and intel. support and of course the chaos of the war with him on the run.
The petrodollar is an important part of American foreign policy and they will get 'really mad' if people try to move away from it, but that's a far cry from the conspiracy stories.
Also, BTC is a giant distraction from reality, it serves to fuel hype and headlines as much as anything.
I am Canadian and I remember when we would send peacekeepers to stabilize a country under the name of the UN. In this case the UN authorized a nofly zone. Western powers took that as their opportunity to bomb Libya into the stone age and before the NATO-backed rebels were even in power they immediately established a central bank linked to the bank of international settlements [1].
Instead of installing peacekeepers to stabilize the region, once the “dictator” was disemboweled (instead of facing a fair trial) NATO powers left the country to it’s own devices. Shortly after the country devolved to the point where open air slave markets are a thing in the 21st century. Thanks NATO! [2] I would argue if a group of nations violently overthrow a government, then they are responsible for the consequences.
As such the US, Canada, France, UK, and Italy all have the blood of slaves on their hands in Libya. Curious how the mainstream news so rarely connects the dots on that one.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2011/03/28/libyan-rebels-form-their-own...
You've offered no evidence of 'false pretenses' and not illustrated any rational benefit for Western powers. Just the opposite - SNC Lavalin (Montreal) and others lost lucrative contracts.
And this "As such the US, Canada, France, UK, and Italy all have the blood of slaves on their hands in Libya" - is completely ridiculous. It's reddit-rhetoric, essentially to blame one 3rd party for incidental actions in some other area, at the same time not holding primary antagonists accountable for their actions. Like blaming the US for bombing Japan ... after Japan spent 35 years invading, mass murdering, mass raping, looting, firebombing, all sorts of countries, 100's of millions of people displaced or killed in SE Asia ... and then attacked the US.
Gaddifi, a known antagonist who blew up a civilian airliner, publicly stated he was going to commit mass murder in E. Libya. That's a legitimate pretense.
Did the Western powers stretch their mandate by continuing to support forces in E. Libya after NATO destroyed advancing columns? Yes, but that's completely within the boundaries or rational action.
Libyans did most of their own fighting, NATO provided air cover and Intel, and other ME forces (i.e. Qatar etc.) chose to work on the ground. Their choice.
That some rebels, who were temporarily victorious were able to set up bank accounts for clearing payments is not suspicious. That would be the #1 thing they, and we, would want them to do. To the extent that they seem like 'the best choice out of bad options, good enough to lead the country', then it's reasonable that other countries recognize the new leadership. It's each countries choice to do that.
"Instead of installing peacekeepers" ... this is not what peacekeepers do.
I'm also Canadian, and was in the Armed Forces, and am deeply acquainted with this type of mission.
The notion of 'peacekeeping' is misunderstood by the general public to the point of dangerous naivete.
'Blue Helmet' style peacekeepers can generally only work in situation where most parties have agreed to end hostilities, and usually where the forces aren't very powerful or advanced. They are observers, and generally unable to project force in a manner that would keep the situation under wraps. Literally they observe, make notes and generally don't have the established rules of engagement (or force) to be able to do anything material.
Only 'vastly more powerful application of force' can forcibly 'keep the peace' between antagonizing powers. The US occupation of Iraq, for example, would be truly what we think of as a 'peace keeping operation'. The chaos and tumult and even low-grade violence that was common there is normal and expected. That's what 'actual peacekeeping' looks like.
Because of the reluctance of Western powers to put any physical presence (i.e. 'boots on the ground') they opted to support a group that could somehow, possibly form enough of a coalition to keep the situation intact.
... but because of how Gaddafi adeptly managed to keep the tribes fragmented, at each other's throats, disunited and feckless ... there was nothing reproaching a legitimate political opposition or even coalition that could provide leadership.
And so you have what you have today, which is probably worse than what you have in Iraq.
Paradoxically - Libya would have been much easier to occupy than Iraq. They don't share a border with powerful antagonists (Syria, Iran), they don't have individually powerful groups, they don't have deep infiltration of more radical elements (Al Queda, ISIS etc. - although that could happen) and there's no way for them to be supplied. Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt are not going to allow shenanigans across their borders. The desert route is too long and the areas to the south are hostile.
A NATO-led coalition occupation might have been 'the most ideal of a list of bad options', but it would have to have been on a large scale, there would have been low-grade violence on the news, and garrisons could be expected to be there for decades. Only the US has the ability to really do that, but neither they nor most other advanced nations have the appetite for it.
I would like to point out that you are now the one stating "conspiracy theories" without evidence. A government employee of Ghaddafi's blew up an airliner. I'm not aware of any evidence, one way or the other, that he was personally involved with the planning or execution of it.
I wouldn't doubt it. But you're demanding one set of standards of information while not adhering to it yourself.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamahiriya_(disambiguation)
