Chavez, Ortega, back Gaddafi oppression

Hugo Chavez tweets

Nicaragua president Ortega phones

Cuba Foreign Minister blames US politicans for "inciting violence"

Fidel Castro writes: It's too early to criticize Gaddafi

Viva la Revolucion. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elGQ0vMxoXQ&feature=related

Viva.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elGQ0vMxoXQ&feature=related

Well at least al-CIA'da gladios are not in the country and trying to assassinate Gadaffi, like last time. All the world's a stage, and I think Fidel and friends smell a rat in all of this. We know that nothing much will change in Egypt except for a face or two. I think the targets for regime change were not Egypt or Tunisia at all. It will be oppressive rule as usual when the dust settles. Their aim was to put a grab on Libya's oil all along.

Yes. Nelson Mandela won that one, too.

And Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. And Julianna Margulies won the Golden Globe for Best Actress.

A quick observation: there seems to be a growing divide between centrist and leftist progressives over Libya (for some strange reason)...  

It would seem one group is getting stuck in a conundrum of sorts.

I'd say he's more desperate and out of touch than mentally insane (ill)... His time has come and he can't believe it; neither can his buddies Chavez and Castro. Leftist seem to be stuck between supporting him for his anti USA/western/imperialism stance and the fact that he is willing to kill his people to stay in power; it's not supposed to be like that for their heroes so something must be wrong. The obvious answer and solution to this dilemma is to blame THIS revolt on the USA, the CIA and whom ever else they don't like for this; not the will of the people as in other revolutions we're seeing. That's only suppose to happen to right-winged western supported dictators... 

I hope this doesn't go the way of 9-11 conspiracies... but if it does I'll sit back and enjoy the show...LOL

Strictly speaking, nothing.

But it's fascinating that he's expressing events in Libya in terms of his old BFF, instead of in terms of the people.

Also fascinating just how little he's said about it, considering how much he'd have to say if, say, Obama were to order air strikes on dissenting U.S. civilians.

Where's the condemnation of tyranny, Hugo? Where's the vitriol against undemocratic despots? C'mon... if Muammar is really your friend, you can tell it like it is and he'll still send you a birthday card.

Did you have a specific death toll in mind that we should wait for, Mr. Castro?

Hilariously, Castro is perfectly ready to condemn the United States for the imperialist takeover of Libya that hasn't happened and may never... evidently it's not too early for that! But to criticize Gaddafi for turning the military and his supporters against his own people? Too early. What a class act.

You have a great sese of humour.

Who could possibly think the US might do such a thing?

There is of course very little history of such activites.

Slaughter, crushing democracies, imperialist occupation and puppet governments, more slaughter -NEVER

Thanks for your thoughtful post at #10, contrarianna. Very helpful.

I'm going to go with Occam's razor. The guy who has an army of 30 female virgins as bodyguards is a little nuts, and the guy who has retained power for 42 years might turn out to be a power hungry dicator bent on taking any measure nessecary to retain power.

I'm perfectly aware of the US's and the CIA's history of violent interventions in world affairs. But this has nothing to do with that. There's a clear progression over how this revolution took place.

Tunisian vendor burns himself to death -> Protests break out in Tunisia -> Tunisian government overthrown -> Young Egyptians inspired, schedule "Day of Rage" through social media -> Egyptian protests snowball to the point Mubarek steps down -> Libyans take to streets.

It's worth pointing out that the regimes that will be installed in Tunisia and Egypt will almost certainly be less aligned with the west.

Thats the great thing about these revolutions. It's not about left vs. right, or who the dictators are aligned with, its about the fact that the dictators are dictators. Some elements on the right are afraid of what will happen to Egypt now that thier man is gone, some elements on the left are afraid of what will happen in Libya now that thier man is on the way out. Sane elements on both sides recognize that organically grown democracy movements are a positive thing.

That chavez is considered a darling to the left is a misconception i think.  the left is rightly criticizing america's stance on him and interference in internal venezuelan affairs, but i've not heard much support for him from any ideological standpoint.

Same as i might hate the taliban, i didn't support the US invading afghanistan.

The same kind of thinking that leads to a support of Gaddafi caused millions who claimed to be leftists to support Stalin, long after his atrocities had become known, and is the same kind of thinking that has led the US to support hundreds of viscious dictators. As the US State Dep cliche goes, "he might be a SOB, but he's our SOB." Perhaps leaders like Ortega and Chavez (not so much Ortega lately) who used to get respect from the true progressive thinking, have the same idea. They want to support their SOB.

Can any progressive thinking include support of a regime which sends in planes to strafe and bomb unarmed demonstrators? Could any socialist ideology defend a leader who position allows his sons to live in disgusting, decadent luxury, while many of his subjects starve?

How many billions of dollars in arms sales has Chavez made to Libya? I mean real arms, not replica swords.

Where the fuck is your sense of proportion?

The only person who is incinerating the Libyan population is Gaddafi. The United States and NATO, militarily speaking, have no plans whatsoever when it comes to Libya.

No plans to intervene in Libya: NATO

The United States did condemn Mubarek. Not as strongly as they should have, but they did.

It's worth noting that the only comments I ever saw Chavez make over Egypt were:

Whatever that means. This comment was during a teleconference with the leader of that beacon of human rights, Syria, and ... Muammar Gaddafi.

News flash: You have no trouble looking bad without any help from us.

Sometimes the enemy of a dangerous and openly declared ideological nemesis becomes a de facto geo-political acquaintance when one is simply casting about for some form of solidarity amidst a reactionary onslaught. ‘Uncle' Joe Stalin could vouch for that. There's no particular fondness for the madman Gaddafi among leftists that I'm aware of. Through the magic of our corporate media, he was painstakingly rehabilitated from international terrorist pariah into an eccentric business worthy stooge with some profitable utility for western oil conglomerates, himself and his family alike. We now hear talk of an 'international' intervention in Libya to safeguard neo-colonial interests, whereas in the case of other vital concerns in Bahrain and Egypt, the empire attempts to secure its position with a series of on the fly manoeuvres ranging from street level bloodbaths to a changing of the guard. From here we can anticipate the usual efforts among us to fashion the latest empty paradox over the bodies of dead human resistors, who should otherwise be mourned.

Apparently it's us vs. them Le T..no matter where or who they are.  When they get all riled up and out of their place, they're simply an inconvenience and a misfortune for some.  A palpable fear decends which typically involves the question of what on earth might become of them without our benevolent assistance.

Oh come on aQ. That's so far away from my point that it's not funny. I liked the article you posted. I'll point out that the economist article mentioned within wasn't exactly a "glowing review" of Libya. At all. 

Economist: Libya - Open yet Closed

It's absolutely true that relations between the West and Libya have improved, but really only from "pariah" to "normalized". The only 3 states in the world that the US doesn't have "normalized" relations with are Cuba, North Korea and Iran. US companies are still the largest foreign investor in Venezuela. 

Yeah. I just saw my grammatical error. Shame on me. Thanks for pointing that out.

Having already bombed Libya and killed members of khadaffi's family that's quite an amusing comment. They'd do it again in a NY moment.

Basically you are arguing that your "sense" about what is going down on the ground in Libya right now is better than the sense of leaders/ex-leaders of countries with intellegence services?

I wonder if Castro thinks it is too soon to criticize Ghadaffi, then when is the right time. Any specific body count or number of years in power required?

Castro might be a hero when he was standing up for his people in old days. But a hero does not always remain a hero forever.

If CIA's reaction to the events in the middle east is any indication, I would say any ordinary person has a better sense of what is going on than all intelligence services combined.

This thread is such a non-issue for a number of reasons:

1. What is happening throughout the Mideast is blowback for the U.S. propping up dictators in the area for the past decades.

2. Since 2003, that includes Muammar Gadhafi. Since 2003, Mr. Gadhafi has allowed Western oil companies to invest in Libya, he has armed himself with U.S. and E.U. weapons and has allowed the IMF to restructure Libya's economy to enrich himself, his family and the families of his supporters while impoverishing the rest of Libyans. Contrary to his convoluted, contradictory and often near or totally nonsensical public addresses over the past few days, Mr. Gadhafi is no (longer an) anti-imperialist defender hero of Libya.

3. So Chavez, Castro and Ortega made public statements that (appear) to be supportive or at least not too critical of Mr. Gadhafi. So what? Do they do their thinking for you? I doubt it. I think Babblers are intelligent enough to think for themselves. It's not that hard to simply admit they are wrong on this issue and leave it at that.

Mr. Gadhafi could have had a peaceful national dialogue with the Libyan people and worked out an amicable agreement where he disbursed some of his powers and moved along the path of democratizing Libya.

Instead, he chose to use armed force and to attempt to remain in power by commiting the atrocity of murdering over 1,000 (and climbing) people.

The instant Gadhafi used armed aggression to murder people is the instant all moral and decent people (should have) dropped any support of him. It was the instant he lost his right to remain in power. Common morality and decency demands no less.

As Malalai Joya would put it, "You cannot import democracy. If a people want democracy and liberty, they must achieve it for themselves."

In other words, what goes on in Libya isn't anyone else's affair but that of Libyans. Let the Libyans decide for themselves the future direction of their country.

NO FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN LIBYA!

Being agnostic about foreign intervention, especially Yanqui, isn't all that different from supporting a US invasion. The Americans used the fraudulent claims of WMDs in Iraq and the odious Sa'adam Hussein regime to kill hundreds of thousands - nay millions - of Iraqis and they are quite capable of doing the same in Libya. Considering that the public discussion in the US and Canadian corporate media is precisely the issue of intervention, US sanctions already in place and being added to, one would think that this is important for so-called progressives. After all, we've seen it before.

Apparently, this is news to some babblers who can't seem to hold two thoughts in their heads at the same time.

Absolutely.

Sanctions are bullshit.

The 1936 League of Nations sanctions imposed during the the Abyssinian/Ethiopian War as they were not imposed against Italy (specifically, the French and Royal Navies, although present in the area - Mediterranean/Red/Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, did not stop, inspect and turn back Italian ships loaded with war materiel) harmed the Abyssinians (specifically by denying them weapons), the very people the League sought to support.

My definition of intervention is: "Any action, either by commission or omission committed by a foreign power (government) that advertently/intentionally influences the internal affairs of another country."

Thus, according to this definition, sanctions (by government) constitute "intervention."

I am a antiwar/anti-interventionist veteran. Some might see that as a contradiction. I'm cool with that.

I make to-do lists all the time. Sometimes shit gets done by someone else before I get around to it.

To whatever extent Chomsky's theory is correct, I think it only applies to state actors. People are certainly capable of saying 'enough is enough', and rising-up against their oppressors without needing the assistance or permission of the U.S.

I have to agree that denying the agency of the peoples of Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere comes across as racist.

And in this case, the US has been fairly successful in convincing NATO allies that Yugoslavia needed a good shellacking after their own neoliberal-IMF policies made basket cases of economies in the former Yugoslavia. Prep'ing those countries for civil war was made easier by spiriting the unemployed mujahideen and al-CIA'da into Bosnia in aiding Izetbeovic to create a purer state modelled on one people, one nation and one fuhrer.

These apologists can't possibly deny that the vicious empire has been on the rampage and marauding into sovereign and oil-rich countries by way of: color revolutions and conquering capital or by US-led blitzkriegs and marching across borders uninvited.

But no one here has said this only you and sanizadeh so far. The pattern and precedent for neoliberal sabotage of economies is there since Chile in 1970s, and Vietnam and Cambodia since the 1990s through to Balkanization of the former Yugoslavia and deliberate pauperizations of South Africa, Thailand, Argentina, Russia and various colour revolutions in Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia so on. Most of those countries have experienced civil unrest, and it's fairly well established by the left that the CIA and US Government and NATO allies all played a hand in destroying those economies with policies for opening them up to marauding capital that has led to social unrest observed in most all of them. Libya is not alone in accepting IMF diktats tied to emergency loans. Sanctions and medieval sieges have worked to devastate a number of countries besides Iraq and Iran, North Korea and Cuba.

Yes there will be social upheaval as a result, is what I am saying. I deny having ever said that "brown people" have no initiative or courage to rise up against their oppressors. That is a bald faced lie, and I will be complaining to moderators.

Khaddafi just another Western puppet.... who knew??

 as another imperialist running dog denounces the regime:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8349048/Libyas-UN-ambassador-denounces-Gaddafi.html

Precisely. And for "Libya", you can substitute Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc.

I'll tell you one thing ....the amount of killing the US has done in the last 10years makes all the killing done by all dictator anywhere all put together look like nothing..nothing at all..

The only difference is..the ones done by dictators is rammed down your throat at nauseum..the ones done by the US and it's allies are COVERED UP..rarely reported .

With the occasional wiki leaks possibly exposing one or two...

Don't worry US your civil war is coming..and it's probably going to start this weekend...then we'll see who kills whose own people...as they are so armed to the teeth and kill with impunity all over the world..it should be real armchair entertainment watching them do there media coverage on that.

USA! USA! How many kids did you kill today!??
Answer ..too many to count and more than the cruelest regime of all time.
Should be tatooed on every Americans forehead,with a branding iron.

Over the top language is entirely understandable given the horrific and seemingly unending foreign (and domestic) atrocities and war crimes by the US regimes. The fact that this stream of bloody crimes is accompanied by the most sophisticated propaganda so that even the victims of the crimes are bewildered by it just makes it all the worse.

No need to get lippy...it's your country commiting the attrocities .. .like I said the US day's  is coming….If  civil war don’t get those creators of terror  ..Ahanaduinajad will..and after that you won’t even have a forehead left to brand much less an arse to stick it up sideways.

The internet is exposing the US and all it’s attrocities for what they are…24/7 and the world is waking up to it….their best bet…build plasma engines and escape the wrath of the planet…..or run to Canada like they all did during the Vietnam war.

USA! USA How many children have you killed today!??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

Yes, sanizadeh, and this is the principal argument we're having in the "Obama, liberator of the Arab world" thread right now.

My guess is that people who have had a steady diet of anti-Arab propaganda for decades have a difficult time seeing Arabs as anything but violent fanatics.  Seeing Arabs engaged in secular non-violent democratic revolts is impossible for minds so propagandised to register.

What's happening in Libya is extremely violent because the dictator declared war on his own people. I'd agree this is the exception  of the revolts we've seen so far.

First Egypt, Next Venezuela?

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46804

"As the wave of popular uprisings has spread across the Arab world, a flurry of articles have appeared suggesting Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez could be the next 'dictator' to be overthrown...They aim to conceal the real threat that haunts imperialism - that the Arab world may follow the example of Venezuela and other countries in Latin America - and break away from Western hegemony.."

Libya: Who is propping up Gaddafi?

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12558066

A man is known by the company he keeps. If either of them is witholding intelligent commentary on this situation to avoid having an awkward moment with their buddy then they've truly lost their way.

That said, has anyone heard more from Castro on this? Is it "time" yet?? No??

Still I can respect them for showing some loyalty to a friend in trouble; it's something you don't see much of today. They are a part of a small unique group of world leaders and they know they have to stick together so I doubt they'd do it (criticize him) publicly anyways, at least not yet. Who knows, perhaps they can convince him to leave instead of fighting to the death and tearing the country to bits worst than what it is.

Yes, don't you know, the CIA is an all knowing and controlling world dominating cabal with tentacles all over the planet. Resistance is futile... NOTHING on this planet happens without their hand being in it. Because as we all know the CIA has an earthquake machine; in the room next to the hurricane machine; down the hall from the world leader mind control machine; right next to the people thought manipulator machine.

I bet there's a CIA guys peeking in your window right now as a matter of fact... (unless the polar bear waiting outside your door got him). I shot the one outside my window last week; but another one is back already. They are persistant to say the least.

The CIA is a US citizen supported, corporate controlled death squad, staffed with the dregs of humanity.

Some people like to have things both ways because it serves their particular purposes: "Gaddaffi is a puppet of the CIA . . . and the CIA is interferring in Libya to overthrow him!" . . . of course, implicit in that is the belief that non-Western people are incapable of governing, or rebelling, on their own.

The CIA is GOD:  all-knowing, all-seeing, invisible, can be everywhere at once, and of course omnipotent.

But riddle me this: if the CIA is all powerful, can they redact a document such that even they cannot read it?

Seems you missed the point that he writes a column that is read and commented on by western media and people like you. You and the British media can chose to ignore his columns at anytime. When his columns have as many readers as Cretien's memoirs I will agree that no one has "sought out" his views. In the meantime seems like many people seek out his opinion and post links to articles and generally discuss his views.  You are a good example of someone who must care because you comment on him.

$80 billion for the CIA, $50 billion for black ops 2009 redacted

Thousands of spooks in every major city around the world and more omnipotent than the Church. That pays for a lot of quiet Americans abroad.

And the STASI would have been envious of the NSA&Telecoms technical abilities for spying on Americans. NSA is an agency supposedly gathering intel on foreign militaries, but their real job is to spy on the lives of millions of Americans and reporting back to shadow government.

Fun Fact: Chavez has a stadium in Benghazi named after him.  Of course, that means it's currently in the hands of the opposition (I wonder what effect that has on his reaction to events in Libya?).

So in a city say of 10 million, New York ish, there is 1 cia spook for every thousand people?  or since you said thousands, maybe there are 1 for every 333 or so, what nonsense.

Some of you honestly seem desperate to see poorly armed citizens come up against a well equipped military without any outside interference, viva la resistance, celebrate the coming massacre, is that it?  That is a likely outcome considering how crazy this bastard is, we can only hope the people who follow him aren't as crazy, we all know that the US is interested only because of the strategic issues involved.  Is that a good enough reason to allow a dictator to bomb or drive tanks over his people? Who else would stop him?

Maybe it is, idk.