Chavez, Ortega, back Gaddafi oppression

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
West Coast Greeny
Chavez, Ortega, back Gaddafi oppression

SMFH

West Coast Greeny

Hugo Chavez tweets

Quote:
Gaddafi is facing a civil war

Long live Libya, long live the independence of Libya

Nicaragua president Ortega phones

Quote:
Gaddafi is again waging a great battle to defend the unity of his nation

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

 

West Coast Greeny

Worth noting: Castro, Ortega and Chavez have been awarded the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights. 

Fidel

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.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

West Coast Greeny wrote:

Hugo Chavez tweets

Quote:
Gaddafi is facing a civil war

Long live Libya, long live the independence of Libya

What part of that is false?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

West Coast Greeny wrote:

Worth noting: Castro, Ortega and Chavez have been awarded the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights.

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.

 

howeird beale

Yes, yes, the people have no impact on the people's struggle, what else is new.

See the plutocrat with his tophat make them dance to his jig! See the People's Strongman bend history like an iron bar!

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

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.

Buddy Kat

The big problem is..with the long deranged history of the US involvment in other countries and all the assasinations and overthrows etc etc...it is really hard to  know what is going on..Maybe the US has been bombarding gadaffi with experimental mind numbing ultrasonics or lasers o rrf...maybe they have contaminated the coffee with noxious mind altering chemicals...maybe the US IS behind it?...

 

That's the problem..Chavez and Castro know how evil the US can be ...how they will use via the cia any kind of weapon against leaders of other countries. It is a very technologocally advanced time in history where it would be easy to pull of "dirty tricks" and the US is full of them.

So is Gadaffi nuts ? Probably...but the crux is who or what drove him nuts....Castro and Chavez have an idea ...do you?

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Buddy Kat wrote:

So is Gadaffi nuts ? Probably...but the crux is who or what drove him nuts....Castro and Chavez have an idea ...do you?

 

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

contrarianna

Regrettably, Bec, I partly agree with you on this one.

Yet the situation is  certainly not as clear cut as you make it to be.

As for Gaddaffi's allies, until this last power struggled the US had embraced rapprochement and quietly endorsed its own oil companies (and PetroCanada) paying the fines for Gaddaffi's terrorist activities as part of doing business. At first reluctant to take sides, the US sees business as usual is no longer viable--this is the morality of the indignant western powers.

As for Chavez, Castro etc. They have stuck the longest with their ally against the low-level warfare the US has been waging against any nation's attempt to challenge the US God-given sphere of exploitation.
Like hot warfare (confer WWII, West and Stalinist Russia) isolation and low-level warfare can mean allies are where you find them.
Even so, the response from dissident Latin America countries  to Gaddaffi's atrocities has hardly been enthusiastic:

Quote:
Gaddafi’s LatAm allies tread carefully

By John Paul Rathbone in London

Published: February 25 2011 15:33 | Last updated: February 25 2011 15:33

The upheaval in Libya has put Muammer Gaddafi’s traditional Latin American leftist allies in an awkward bind, with Venezuela and Cuba taking care not to endorse the Libyan leader but warning that the US might use the situation to topple the regime and seize Libyan oil reserves....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d06fc980-40d5-11e0-9a37-00144feabdc0.html

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

What part of that is false?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

contrarianna

Snert wrote:

Hilariously, Castro is perfectly ready to condemn the United States for the imperialist takeover of Libya that hasn't happened and may never...

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

contrarianna

duplicate post

Snert Snert's picture

I didn't say it couldn't happen, I said it hasn't already and it might not -- though Castro is already condemning it.

But stuff that HAS happened already, it's apparently "too soon" for him to criticize.

My guess is that "never" would be too soon for one old dictator to criticize another. 

If you're a Castro or Chavez supporter, I can understand how their behaviour regarding their old friend Muammar might make you feel a bit sweaty and concerned, though.  What to do, what to do?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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

West Coast Greeny

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

 

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 wouldn't characterize it that way. Assange supporters and hacktivists at Anonymous aren't very near the centre by any measure. Where people are standing on Libyan intervention hasn't been very well correlated with where you sit on the political spectrum. Where people are standing over whether Chavez's, Ortega's and Castro's responses are appropriate or not really seems to just depend on whether you just support being anti-American over anything else. Including basic human rights.

West Coast Greeny

Buddy Kat wrote:

The big problem is..with the long deranged history of the US involvment in other countries and all the assasinations and overthrows etc etc...it is really hard to  know what is going on..Maybe the US has been bombarding gadaffi with experimental mind numbing ultrasonics or lasers o rrf...maybe they have contaminated the coffee with noxious mind altering chemicals...maybe the US IS behind it?...

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.

Snert Snert's picture

If you've got a few minutes to kill, [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f__NO9MY6Q]here's[/url] a YouTube video of Chavez honouring his friend Gaddafi with a replica of Simon Bolivar's sword.

 

Touching.

milo204

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.

 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

What's touching is the mock and selective concern for human rights by certain babblers, such as Snert, that exactly matches the ideology of the US State Deparment. e.g., the failure of the US or Canadian regimes to show the same kind of genuine concern over their friend, Mubarak, in Egypt, or the horrific regime in Saudi Arabia, or the puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, or .....  as they do in Libya. 

Once it becomes clear that the USA cannot steal Libya's oil then their views will fall back to the usual imperial indifference.

 

Supplemental - Chavez is perfectly correct to draw attention to the likely plans of Uncle Sam to incinerate the Libyan population if there is any chance of stealing their oil the way Uncle Sam stole Iraqi oil, killed millions, (inlcluding a million children) and drove millions into exile.

USA! USA! How many kids did you kill today!??

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

It's not a cliche by the State Dept. They mean it ... and are indifferent to anything other than the economic and politial interests they represent.

Nobody here supports Gaddafi's murderous troops and police. Neither does anyone with a shred of decency support the murderous Yanqui regime. Unfortunately, babble is infested with supporters of the latter.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Snert wrote:

If you've got a few minutes to kill, [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f__NO9MY6Q]here's[/url] a YouTube video of Chavez honouring his friend Gaddafi with a replica of Simon Bolivar's sword. 

Touching.

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?

West Coast Greeny

milo204 wrote:

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.

 

A few (key word: few) on the left are very serious support for Chavez and Castro. Not much, but enough to make us look bad.

West Coast Greeny

N.Beltov wrote:

Supplemental - Chavez is perfectly correct to draw attention to the likely plans of Uncle Sam to incinerate the Libyan population if there is any chance of stealing their oil the way Uncle Sam stole Iraqi oil, killed millions, (inlcluding a million children) and drove millions into exile.

USA! USA! How many kids did you kill today!??

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

Quote:
'I would like to stress that NATO as such has no plans to intervene. We have not received any request in that regard and any actions should be based on a UN mandate,

al-Qa'bong

The evidence shown in this thread is proof that brown men are all the same, and they're out to get your mama.

West Coast Greeny

N.Beltov wrote:

What's touching is the mock and selective concern for human rights by certain babblers, such as Snert, that exactly matches the ideology of the US State Deparment. e.g., the failure of the US or Canadian regimes to show the same kind of genuine concern over their friend, Mubarak, in Egypt, or the horrific regime in Saudi Arabia, or the puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, or .....  as they do in Libya. 

Barack Obama wrote:

All governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion

Robert Gibbs, US Press Secretary (on pace of transition in Egypt) wrote:

"Now means now."

"The government must respect the rights of the Egyptian people and turn on social networking and the internet"

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:

Quote:
(Venezuela) trusts that the situation will find on its own the road to harmony, justice and wellbeing

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

al-Qa'bong

West Coast Greeny wrote:
milo204 wrote:
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.

A few (key word: few) on the left are very serious support for Chavez and Castro. Not much, but enough to make us look bad.

How about this bunch?

Quote:
Uprising in Libya: Tremble, tyrants!

Power is rapidly slipping out of the hands of Muammar Gaddafi, as anti-government protests continue to sweep the African nation despite a brutal and bloody crackdown. As city after city falls to the anti-Gaddafi forces his only base is now Tripoli. The East is in the control of the insurgents and most of the West has fallen into the hands of the rebels, including cities very close to the capital

FIGHTBACK! The Marxist Voice of Labour and Youth

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

West Coast Greeny wrote:

A few (key word: few) on the left are very serious support for Chavez and Castro. Not much, but enough to make us look bad.

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

WillC

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?

http://tinyurl.com/wikileaks-stream

Unionist

I read this thread and am amazed at how self-styled progressives, at the first report of atrocities in some far-away country, rally to attack heroic fighters like Chavez and Castro, and to support Obama and "our" way of life. It's fairly skin deep, isn't it.

 

 

Slumberjack

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.

Le T Le T's picture

Castro and Chavez are simply pointing out that these are exactley the situations that the US/NATO/Capitalist Imperialism likes to take advantage of, you know like all of Eastern Europe and stuff.

Quote:
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.

Actually the CIA doesn't really do the whole violent regime change thing too much anymore. They leave that to the Coalition of the Willing/NATO. The CIA does set up lots of fake NGOs to funnel money into pro-US opposition in countries that are of strategic importance to USian billionaires. Like, Venezuala for instance.

 

The split that some have described in the revolutionary left has always been there since Bakunin told Marx to shove it. The non-revolutionary left has always supported the dominant power stucture to the detriment of revolution. So the leftist split on Libya is a little more complicated than centrists being anti-Gaddafi and leftists being pro-Gaddafi.

 

Quote:
The evidence shown in this thread is proof that brown men are all the same, and they're out to get your mama.

Can you expand on this a bit, Bong?

 

Slumberjack

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.

WillC

Unionist wrote:

I read this thread and am amazed at how self-styled progressives, at the first report of atrocities in some far-away country, rally to attack heroic fighters like Chavez and Castro, and to support Obama and "our" way of life. It's fairly skin deep, isn't it.

Your impression of what has been said here is far different from mine.  I haven't been amazed by the number of posters who "support Obama and 'our' way of life."  I haven't read anyone who has done that.  Please quote anyone who has.

My amazement was at the posts that rush to defend a leader who has committed viscious, brutal acts.  And the way these acts are defended is by accusing those who point them out as being supporters of US imperialism. 

By the same logic, anyone who pointed out the misdeads of Stalin, would have been accused of being a lacky of John Foster Dulles.  There aren't just two sides.  When Bush said you are either for us or against us, he was as twisted as the defenders of Gaddafi are now.

 

 

West Coast Greeny

al-Qa'bong wrote:

The evidence shown in this thread is proof that brown men are all the same, and they're out to get your mama.

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. 

M. Spector wrote:

West Coast Greeny wrote:

A few (key word: few) on the left are very serious support for Chavez and Castro. Not much, but enough to make us look bad.

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

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

 

West Coast Greeny

Le T wrote:

Castro and Chavez are simply pointing out that these are exactley the situations that the US/NATO/Capitalist Imperialism likes to take advantage of, you know like all of Eastern Europe and stuff.

Quote:
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.

Actually the CIA doesn't really do the whole violent regime change thing too much anymore. They leave that to the Coalition of the Willing/NATO. The CIA does set up lots of fake NGOs to funnel money into pro-US opposition in countries that are of strategic importance to USian billionaires. Like, Venezuala for instance.

True, but I don`t sense any CIA intervention going on here. The only American who can be blamed/credited with this wave of protests is Mark Zuckerberg.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

 

West Coast Greeny wrote:
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.

 

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.

sanizadeh

Unionist wrote:

I read this thread and am amazed at how self-styled progressives, at the first report of atrocities in some far-away country, rally to attack heroic fighters like Chavez and Castro, and to support Obama and "our" way of life. It's fairly skin deep, isn't it.

I am more amazed at the fact that some self-styled leftists here (not you, unionist), who supposedly must be in favour of people's power and people's movements, find it so hard to believe that the people of third world countries MIGHT be able to attempt to overthrow their rulers without being instigated by CIA or the US or the west in general. Seems western supremacy and racism is ingrained in some people's mind whether they are left or right.

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
True, but I don`t sense any CIA intervention going on here. The only American who can be blamed/credited with this wave of protests is Mark Zuckerberg.

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?

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
I am more amazed at the fact that some self-styled leftists here (not you, unionist), who supposedly must be in favour of people's power and people's movements, find it so hard to believe that the people of third world countries MIGHT be able to attempt to overthrow their rulers without being instigated by CIA or the US or the west in general. Seems western supremacy and racism is ingrained in some people's mind whether they are left or right.

I think that there is an obvious movement in Libya but I also think that the US/Western Powers will try to exploit any opportunity to expand their power and influence/ability to get oil.

sanizadeh

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.

 

 

sanizadeh

Le T wrote:

Quote:
True, but I don`t sense any CIA intervention going on here. The only American who can be blamed/credited with this wave of protests is Mark Zuckerberg.

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?

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.

sanizadeh

Le T wrote:

I think that there is an obvious movement in Libya but I also think that the US/Western Powers will try to exploit any opportunity to expand their power and influence/ability to get oil.

The western powers have had easy access to Lybian oil, and their relationship with Gadhaffi was quite warm in recent years. There is no question that western powers (like any other state) would try to exploit any opportunity, but their real power on the ground is far more limited than what people think, especially in recent decades. This is just a projection of power, not real power.

sanizadeh

Fidel wrote:

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.

I always wonder how someone who claims to be a leftist can be so racist. Yeah, the brown people of ME could not have done anything without all goals being planned for them from Pentagon headquarters. they are just hand puppets, or our friend Fidel thinks so.

Frmrsldr

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!

milo204

I don't see this at all as a CIA/western inspired revolution at all.  Why on earth would the CIA try and overthrow dictators it already had in their pocket?  

 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

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.

Frmrsldr

milo204 wrote:

I don't see this at all as a CIA/western inspired revolution at all.  Why on earth would the CIA try and overthrow dictators it already had in their pocket?  

That's precisely it.

"Blowback" is the unintended consequences of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

Why are the people of the Mideast rebelling?

They are rebelling against economic and political oppression.

In the modern era, from 1914 (First World War) to 1956 (Suez Canal Crisis) through to 1962 (end of Algierian War) it was Britain and France that caused economic and political oppression by controling the economies and putting in power and propping up puppet dictators in the Mideast.

By 1953 (CIA imprisoning Iranian President Mossadegh and bringing back the brutal Shah) to 1956 (Suez Canal Crisis, Egypt) through (Gulf War I + II, Iraq) the present, it was the U.S.A. with its proxy policeman/army Israel that has been controlling Mideast countries' economies, resources, politics and people through oppression, exploitation, war and propping up puppet dictators.

What is occurring in the Mideast right now, are the peoples' natural reaction to these decades of (U.S./Western/Israel backed) abuse, murder (by police and/or war), torture, imprisonment, exploitation and oppression.

The U.S.A./CIA never countenanced that the people they were imprisoning, torturing, murdering, impoverishing, starving, exploiting and oppressing would have the effront to stand up, rebel and liberate themselves.

All power to the people.

Frmrsldr

N.Beltov wrote:

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.

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.Cool

 

Fidel

sanizadeh wrote:

Fidel wrote:

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.

I always wonder how someone who claims to be a leftist can be so racist. Yeah, the brown people of ME could not have done anything without all goals being planned for them from Pentagon headquarters. they are just hand puppets, or our friend Fidel thinks so.

Me a racist? Speak for yourself. Because I could have easily mistaken you as an apologist for the racist American imperialists and  beginning with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East#Criticism_and_usage]John Foster Dulles[/url] who originally branded certain North African countries as part of the "Middle East" when planning the carving-up of that region of the world in their insanely racist and imperialist  minds at the time. I, however, prefer not to use the racist language of imperialists and news agencies in the service of empire.

Wesley Clark admitted publicly to reading a US Defense Dept. memo in the mid 2000s that described a list of countries targeted for regime change within half a dozen years or so. Libya was on the list as were Iraq and Iran, Syria, Lebanon etc. How can apologists for the vicious empire possibly make them appear to be so many bungling Road to Singapore clowns in the service of imperialism in the way Bob Hope and Bing Crosby were when that kind of smoking gun confession by a former NATO supreme commander is dropped for the whole world to scoop?

It's like Chomsky describes. The world is run like the mafia, and nothing goes down without the godfather's approval. The US Government was funelling money to dissidents against Hosni Mubarak all the while they were supplying Mubarak with billions of dollars in weapons and money. Are you suggesting that the CIA or even al-CIA'da haven't had a hand in Libya's affairs at any time? What made Gadaffi knuckle under to IMF diktats that led to the Balkanization effect of the economies in this region of the world?

So before you go smearing me with the racist label again, why don't you get real and tell us what you really think about what's happening in Libya.

Pages

Topic locked