this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
36 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23234 readers
140 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel like Libya is the one to point to directly, because it provides an opportunity to either educate or immediately dunk on the lib you're speaking to because they won't know shit about it. You therefore have an advantage if you've done any reading, versus the more obvious examples of Iraq & Afghanistan where there are very obvious criticisms, but are also 20 years of mainstream propaganda that the suburban grillpilled cracker will have accepted.
Libya was "quick", "quiet" and "successful" in comparison for yankoids, in that it was comparatively kept out of the media, NATO achieved regime change within a year and official boots on the ground were minimal. Hillary got a cute soundbite out of it.
In reality, a state has been utterly destroyed for 15 years and was replaced with widespread death, disease, famine and slavery. Even supposed "rule of law" neolibs can be made to wince at a retelling of Gaddafi being [redacted] to death with a bayonet. There is literally no "success" a NATOist lib can deflect to.
Once you have them on the back foot with Libya, then you keep pressing with Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria