Chavez, Ortega, Back Gaddafi Oppression II

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Papal Bull

Fidel wrote:

NDPP wrote:

PB  Fidel is of the opinion that the Taliban/Al Qaeda are run by the Americans, to provide a pretext for a phony war by which they can realize geostrategic aims and domination of the region.

Absolutely, yes. I am of the opinion that Taliban mullahs and Taliban commanders are still controlled by Pakistan's army intelligence agency as well as the CIA since the 1990s. OBL is/was Omar's brother in law. Taliban still enjoy widespread support among Pakistan's half million man army from top to bottom. USA with General Zia's help and financing from US taxpayers Saudi Arabia created the Taliban(as well as the US-backed muhahideen of the 1980s supported by the likes of Hamid Karzai, China, USA, Iran, Turks, Saudis etc etc.

And they created "al-Qaeda". US-CIA and Pakistani ISI support continues today according to various US whistleblowers. Successive US regimes since at least the Reaganauts were and continue to be corrupt to the core and have sold everything from stinger missiles to nuclear weapons technology to the Pakistani military, who in turn control the Taliban and "Qaeda" as well as dozens of splinter factions.

And, there is no such thing as al-Qaeda.

al-Qa'eda = al-CIA'da 

ETA:  Acshully, Qaeda = al-ISI-CIA'da as before only different. This business with Zardari is only a cosmetic leadership. Pakistan is still a US-backed military dictatorship. The cold war is now a colder war. And this other bizness with ISI accusing the CIA of collaborating with Taliban is all for public consumption. It's an illusion. The CIA and ISI have not fallen out of love for each other. Both still control the Taliban and "al-Qaeda" as before. And everything under the sun is the same only slightly different.

 

What an utterly ahistorical and simplistic view of this world.

1. Create? How silly. You don't 'create' a religious movement by the Taliban. It was nascent and existed in Afghanistan for a long time - it was created by poverty. It was a reaction. You underestimate the capability of the third world to organize effective resistance, as unpleasent and unsavory as the resistance must be. I suppose that the Soviet Union was the sole creator of every national liberation and left-wing insurgency around the world?

 

2. China. China helped more than the US did. In fact, from all of the historical records there is no support from the US for the creation of a Pakistani nuclear program. It was indigenous and they sought help from other nations - in fact Libya would've attempted to be more included than the US. Why would the Yanks give a vassal state a weapon of mass destruction? I hope that you understand that this makes no sense. Whatsoever. Furthermore, the nature of the program (Project 706) was so potentially destabilizing to US-Pakistani relations that the CIA sent in crews to try to erode progress and ruin the base of the program - the Pakistani intelligence and military thwarted this plan.

 

3. Al-Qaeda exists. It is absolutely foolish to believe otherwise. Falseflags do happen, the CIA does orchestrate them. Al-Qaeda may be the bastard offspring of American involvement with radical Islam, but it is the work of a man who certainly does exist. His name is Osama Bin-Laden. I had the opportunity to meet one of his nephews when I was at UoT - I figured out who the guy was because Osama Bin-Laden existed then. Whether or not he is alive is insubstantial, to assume that the United States is so omnipotent smacks of some sort of longing for a Godhead of Evil in international relations.

Why would the United States destabilize friendly regimes and potentially force themselves off of Saudi Arabia (the beating American heart of the current American dream (hypocricy, control, oil, oligarchy))?

 

And no, Pakistan is not solely a US-backed military dictatorship - it is a deeply fractured country that exists due to a variety of factors. To assume that an entire nation like Pakistan is solely the puppet of the United States great underestimates the Pakistani people. It bothers me.

 

But further to the point, all of this deludes from the point of the current goings on in Libya. I've contributed enough to the drift, let us take this to another thread?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

The people united will never be defeated. The trick has always been in keeping them united.  

I have some friends who are immigrants from Pakistan and they are well educated and sophisticated political actors.  Their families in Pakistan fit the same description.  The CIA is an evil presence throughout the world but it is really only capable of trying to steer someone else's bandwagon.  In Libya I would expect there are CIA paid agent provocateurs and spies on the streets. But the people seem united in their opposition to any foreign intervention, except for the few "leaders" who serendipitously seem to have the best arms.  They are calling for potential NATO air strikes but their view seem to be a minority opinion. Hopefully it will not provide the cover for a NATO destruction of all of Libya's air force and air defense installations.

ov ov's picture

I stand corrected on a few points. It is Sudan rather than Venezuala that makes up the five countries that are not part of the Federal Reserve system. These five countries may have central banks but they are %100 state owned. In hindsight I wish I would have written:

"My understanding is that right now there are only five countries in the world that have a 100% state owned central bank: North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Sudan and Libya.

A_J wrote:

The current round of abuses and killings have been covered in detail by a variety of news sources and NGO's.

 

My point is that on the subject of Libya the Western media has no credibility. Currently we have no idea how many dead are in Libya or who paid the troops that killed them. It's all kind of deja vu of WMD in Iraq.

 

Slumberjack

Papal Bull wrote:
Why would the United States destabilize friendly regimes and potentially force themselves off of Saudi Arabia (the beating American heart of the current American dream (hypocricy, control, oil, oligarchy)? 

Although the ruling order prefers to manifest itself through the most brutal bullies on the block, adaptability is its most effective and practiced talent. I believe we'd have to seriously reflect upon the reasons why the financial decline of their golden egg laying goose has been set in motion. Beyond the existing levels of gargantuan wealth, is there any level of comprehension and analysis that can adequately explain this continuous demand for more lucrative novelties without regard for the terrible means and ends?

Capitalist stability should be understood by now as a shifting concept whose loyalty can only be guaranteed in the relative short term, despite the most strenuous applications of brutality by tyrants and thugs in the employ. What proved itself useful yesterday and today may not be the perfect fit for tomorrow's familiar tasks. This is not to say that there is a grand design to all of this, a ruling order that can be described as a secretly ensconced cabal with a master plan aimed at arriving at some pre-determined outcome. Nevertheless, it surrounds us everywhere and consists in everything that is shown to us. It more closely resembles a pathological liar with dangerous, literally capable of anything predatory instincts, who must concoct more and more outrageous lies as cover for an entire history of them, lest the entire fake existence collapse upon his head. Each additional lie becomes the new justification and distraction for everything that has transpired before.

The habits of greed and individualistic preservation motivates the entire farce at whatever cost, which now shamelessly reveals itself, as if it were ever otherwise, through an unacceptable toll in human lives and the planet itself, and without so much as the benefit of an apology.  The pathological liar can only be exorcised from the community when people conclude that they've finally had enough, and decide, upon coming together to compare notes, to confront and banish the inexplicable once and for all from their sight.

And so we can better comprehend the entire range of real or imagined conspiracies, the fleeting alliances, the increased levels of unrelenting violence, and the mass media façade which provides cover for the entire spectacle of deceit, as the capable of anything desperation of a charlatan society. We should begin to understand our relative position in all of this, amongst the shoring up of a hopeless and floundering rust bucket on the verge of sinking beneath the waves, where the specter of today's activism with its respective petitioning begins to resemble a gathering of passengers on deck, politely appealing to the beleaguered and entirely unresponsive captain and crew for a mop.

Buddy Kat

USA USA how many children have you killed today!

 

Don't know about today but on tuesday they killed 9.....and they have the nerve to talk about Gaddafi...

 

"Hundreds of Afghan villagers protested the killing of the children. Residents said the demonstrators chanted slogans against the United States and the Afghan government as they marched to the site of the March 1 bombing."

Note NO mass TV coverage of those demonstrations!

http://www.rferl.org/content/afghan_bomb/2325435.html

sorry you have to do a copy paste of the link..babble doesn't seem to be working to good or more like the american servers are on SHAME mode.

NDPP

Major Media Promote War on Libya  - by Stephen Lendman

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/major-media-promote-war-on-libya.html

"When imperial America wants war, peace advocates are shut out by official rhetoric and hawkish media media reports supporting militarism, not diplomatic efforts to achieve peace. Those for it aren't heard. Hugo Chavez's government is one..."

Ghaddafi Chavez Talks Offer

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/20113365739369754.html

"Muammar Gaddafi has accepted an offer from Venezuela to mediate in Libya's political crisis after talks with Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, Al Jazeera has learned. Sources told our correspondent in Caracas that Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's foreign minister, had discussed the offer with Amir Moussa, the head of the Arab League, and that details of the plan could be announced by the Arab League in Cairo on Thursday. Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the head of the opposition National Libyan Council told Al Jazeera he totally rejected the concept of talks with Gaddafi.."

Unionist

I'm just going to make a small plea to Rebecca to be more even-handed when repeating a prejudicial thread title, just because West Coast Greeny decided to stretch the truth a bit. How about just: "Views of Chavez and Ortega on Libya"?

Anyway, here are more of Fidel Castro's views:

[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/castro03032011.html]To the shores of Tripoli? NATO's inevitable war[/url]

 

contrarianna

The new rebel "National Libyan Council"
scores 2 for 2

"No" to foreign intervention
http://topicfire.com/Interim-Libyan-Government-Says-No-to-Foreign-Interv...

and a
"No" to Chaqvez brokered "peace talks" with Qaddafi
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/03/libyan-rebels-reject-chavez-peace-talks/

NDPP

Venezuela's Position On Libya  - by Jorge Valero

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/valero030311.html

"Venezuela's proposal to 'set up a Goodwill International Commission for the search for peace in Libya' mentioned in the statement below has been accepted by the government of Libya but rejected by the opposition Libyan National Council, France and the United States - ed"

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
"No" to Chaqvez brokered "peace talks" with Qaddafi
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/03/libyan-rebels-reject-chavez-peace-tal...

 

Quote:
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is extremely close with Gadhafi and appears to have been keen on saving his rule from the popular revolt.

 

No kidding. More despotic rule, flying the false flag of "peace".

 

"My friend Mr. Gadaffi is prepared to institute a 50% reduction in civilian killings in exchange for an agreement that he shall rule absolutely until he dies. If you agree, please sign here".

Ghislaine

Doesn't that kind of count as "intervention"?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Snert you forgot the link to that outrageous quote from Chavez.  I can hardly believe he said that so please lets have a link. I found his suggestion of himself as a mediator to be absurd.  I think they need a mediator however neither Chavez nor Clinton would fall into that category because they both have conflicting interests.  Peaceful resolution of disputes is always preferable to killing.  The key would be to find a person that both sides could trust.  Anyone from the NATO axis would be inappropriate as would anyone considered to have been a Gaddafi ally.  Maybe a Vietnamese diplomat since they appear to be non aligned and probably would bring a real understanding about the horrors of a civil war.

Snert Snert's picture

I don't disagree with your assessment of bias, and the need for any kind of mediator to be seen as neutral.  Certainly if the U.S. were to graciously offer to help negotiate peace there would be howls of laughter.

But personally, I don't think compromise is a particularly good answer to this. Obviously, if the Libyan people would like to strike a compromise with ol' Moammar then they're free to -- it's their call, not mine -- but besides being entirely unable to imagine any totalitarian dictator agreeing to compromises, I have to figure it's probably too late for that.

I'm reminded of the sick appeasement deal that allowed Robert Mugabe to retain power despite some pretty overwhelming and undeniable electoral interference on his part.  Dictators don't really compromise.

And looking at it from the other side, an attempt to convince the Libyan people to compromise kind of reminds me of a guy coaching an abused spouse to return to their abuser.  An abuser who just happens to be the guy's personal buddy.  "Surely you two could work it out, couldn't you?  We don't really need to do something drastic, do we?"

If Chavez really wants to do something helpful he should pick up the phone, call his old friend, and say "Moammar, stick a fork in yourself -- you're done".  Don't hold your breath for that, though. 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Abusive spouse analogy, really?  Isn't that like way worse than a Nazi analogy.  Family mediation does not act in any manner like your scenario above. in fact that is why we have mediators doing family separation and spousal agreements of all kinds so the abusive behaviour you describe does not happen.  Mediators whether in family law or international affairs can do good work to stop the ongoing violence and get dialogue going.  In my mind it is never a question of when will both sides sit down to talk peace but rather how many people have to die before the talks start.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
 Isn't that like way worse than a Nazi analogy.

 

Why are either of them bad or worse? It's just an analogy. Eitehr it brings clarity or it doesn't.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I think that the use of those kinds of analogies does not bring any clarity to most issues but instead tends to inflame the debate.  Just my opinion and I would hope I have a right to my opinion here and don't have to agree with everything you post.

I tried to discuss the real benefits of mediation and you seem more interested in some strange discourse where you get to be Socrates and ask me questions to prove your points. 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
 Just my opinion and I would hope I have a right to my opinion here and don't have to agree with everything you post.

 

Trust me, you'll never be out of line disagreeing with me here.

 

Quote:

I tried to discuss the real benefits of mediation and you seem more interested in some strange discourse where you get to be Socrates and ask me questions to prove your points.

 

 

 

Just my opinion and I would hope I have a right to my opinion here and don't have to agree with everything you post. Innocent

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Actually I was referring to your questions not your opinions. "Why are either of them bad or worse?" is the one I responded too.  It contains no opinion by you on any issue but merely seems to be some sort of word game.  It certainly did not respond to my opinion that spousal abuse analogies and Nazi analogies are not very helpful in discussions.  You see that is an opinion and unlike a statement of fact it requires no citation.  If I had asked you a question, which I have been known to do sometimes, that would not be an opinion either.

The only opinion you expressed in post #67 is that disagreeing with you is a regular occurrence on this site.  I have no opinion on that opinion.  

A_J

ov wrote:

These five countries may have central banks but they are %100 state owned. In hindsight I wish I would have written:

"My understanding is that right now there are only five countries in the world that have a 100% state owned central bank: North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Sudan and Libya.

The Bank of Canada is also 100% owned by the federal government.

Look, I know what you're trying to get at, but tinfoil hat (not to mention anti-semitic) conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds and the Illuminati owing the world's central banks don't have anything to do with this topic.

A_J wrote:

The current round of abuses and killings have been covered in detail by a variety of news sources and NGO's.

ov wrote:

My point is that on the subject of Libya the Western media has no credibility. Currently we have no idea how many dead are in Libya or who paid the troops that killed them. It's all kind of deja vu of WMD in Iraq.

At least you're now recognising that people are being killed (rather than a rash "accidents" as reported by a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend who works for the regime).  I guess that's progress.

ov ov's picture

Canada lost federal ownership of it's central bank as part of the conditions for being admitted to the G8.

It's not like anything that you or I have to say here will change anything that happens in the future, but if in a few months Libya is occupied and then shortly thereafter we hear how part of the rehabilitation of the country involves Libya losing ownership of their central bank, then I'll be back here to say I told you so that this was the major objective all along.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

OV I would agree that the IMF and World Bank control are all objectives when independent nations are being subjected.  However I don not think it is the major objective just one of many imperialist control mechanisms that will be put in place.  They will also privatize the oil fields, and start a close relationship with the Libyan military in exchange for NATO weapons, especially crowd control devices like those supplied to Egypt.  Once those democratizing measures are in place then any protesters would be illegitimate much like those people who were arrested in Toronto for protesting the G8.

A_J

ov wrote:

Canada lost federal ownership of it's central bank as part of the conditions for being admitted to the G8.

Technically, it was the G6 that Canada joined, making it the G7.

Bank of Canada - Who We Are:

Quote:

The Bank was founded in 1934 as a privately owned corporation. In 1938, it became a Crown corporation belonging to the federal government. Since that time, the Minister of Finance has held the entire share capital issued by the Bank. Ultimately, the Bank is owned by the people of Canada.

But you say Canada "lost" ownership of the Bank of Canada . . . lost ownership to whom?

ov ov's picture

I'd agree, hard to say which is the most major component of a package deal.  Wanting to privatize the oil fields is high on the list (and being raised in a patch trash family with Libyan derived income I think I might have heard all of the reasons why this is good and just and proper), but the fields can be nationalized just as fast as they can be privatized.  Debt however seems to be sacred and forever for some strange reason. If Libya loses ownership of their central bank you can count on their debt going through the roof, in spite of all the trillions of dollars they have in the ground.

Personally I can't see any reason why global bankruptcy and restructuring of debt couldn't be achieved other than it would in affect be displacing the global elite from their position of dominance. What I would like to see would Libya being left alone so that it could serve as a banking center for Africa, using its oil in the ground as backing for currency collateral. 

 

VanGoghs Ear

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Abusive spouse analogy, really?  Isn't that like way worse than a Nazi analogy.  Family mediation does not act in any manner like your scenario above. in fact that is why we have mediators doing family separation and spousal agreements of all kinds so the abusive behaviour you describe does not happen.  Mediators whether in family law or international affairs can do good work to stop the ongoing violence and get dialogue going.  In my mind it is never a question of when will both sides sit down to talk peace but rather how many people have to die before the talks start.

you avoid the main point - why should the abused people of Libya have to comprimise with their abuser, and having a supporter of of the abuser suggest himself as the mediator should make everyone see how ridiculous and phony Chavez pretend diplomacy really is.    The Libyan peoples demands for No outside interference includes Gadaffi's Latin American friends

Pogo Pogo's picture

I am not clear that they want no outside interference.  However I do think that they don't want any outside interference that serves to prop up the regime.  I would think at this point the progressive view would be what are the best steps to ensure that the people of Libya set up the government they want.  It is pretty clear to anyone who is paying the slightest attention that if you took away the weapons superiority held by the current regime that it would have been replaced long ago with no foreign instigators.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

It is also entirely possible, even likely, that the imperialist countries will simply support whoever is losing. That way, they can continue the bloodshed, continue the sales of weapons, (whatever the politicians say), and provide a justification for their likely upcoming atrocities and war crimes. Never underestimate the willingness of the rich countries to kill, discredit their enemies, and make a profit at the same time.

NDPP

Chavez Gambles on Gaddafi Diplomacy

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/201134121327738678...

"Hugo Chavez could yet emerge as a respected peacemaker over Libya, or find himself on 'the wrong side of history'.."

Fidel

[url=http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English/Politics/Libya-Al-Qaeda-behind-... Al-Qaeda behind unrest, Gaddafi tells Serbian TV[/color][/url]

Now they've got al-CIA'da in Libya and probably working with US special forces and British SAS. Sounds like a repeat of when US Liberal Democrats created a militant Islamic base in 1990s Bosnia.

howeird beale

He also says that everybody protesting him is tripping on hallucinogens. Simply because he says this horseshit doesnt make it so.

howeird beale

oops 2x

NDPP
Fidel

howeird beale wrote:

He also says that everybody protesting him is tripping on hallucinogens. Simply because he says this horseshit doesnt make it so.

[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-libya-alqaeda-idUSTRE71N12B... Qaeda backs Libyan protesters and condemns Gaddafi[/url]

al-CIA'da tried to assassinate Gadaffi a few years ago. As one 9/11 truther put it, it's amazing how many al-Qaeda members end up working for the American CIA or British MI6 eventually. They weren't in Iraq before 2003 either. Then all of a sudden al-CIA'da shows up and started  attacking the real anti-US insurgents in Iraq a few years ago.

[url=http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/03/hillary-clinton-us-losing-informatio... Clinton: US Losing Information War to Alternative Media[/color][/url] grtv

Quote:
"During the Cold War we did a great job in getting America's message out. After the Berlin Wall fell we said, 'Okay, fine, enough of that, we are done,' and unfortunately we are paying a big price for it," she said. "Our private media cannot fill that gap."

"We are in an information war and we are losing that war. Al Jazeera is winning, the Chinese have opened a global multi-language television network, the Russians have opened up an English-language network. I've seen it in a few countries, and it is quite instructive," she stated.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Abusive spouse analogy, really?  Isn't that like way worse than a Nazi analogy.  Family mediation does not act in any manner like your scenario above. in fact that is why we have mediators doing family separation and spousal agreements of all kinds so the abusive behaviour you describe does not happen.  Mediators whether in family law or international affairs can do good work to stop the ongoing violence and get dialogue going.  In my mind it is never a question of when will both sides sit down to talk peace but rather how many people have to die before the talks start.

you avoid the main point - why should the abused people of Libya have to comprimise with their abuser, and having a supporter of of the abuser suggest himself as the mediator should make everyone see how ridiculous and phony Chavez pretend diplomacy really is.    The Libyan peoples demands for No outside interference includes Gadaffi's Latin American friends

I thought this was clear enough and exactly to the point.  "I think that the use of those kinds of analogies does not bring any clarity to most issues but instead tends to inflame the debate." 

Using women's suffering to take cheap shots at a political figure does nothing for me.  If you would have read carefully before attacking you would have  noticed that I never said the analogy was not correct only needlessly inflammatory.  

So read and understand my point before you attack, please.

Snert Snert's picture

[IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/20fuel2.jpg[/IMG]

 

You know what's really inflammatory?  Photographs of the proposed mediator, and an involved party enjoying a nice warm hug.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I agree that is also inflammatory.  Strangely enough they were both introduced into this thread by the same person. 

NDPP

From the Arab World to Latin America

http://www.tlaxcala-int.org/article.asp?reference=4011

"We have the impression that a great worldwide liberation process may be absorbed by the unappeasable ferocity of Gaddafi, US interventionism and a lack of foresight in Latin America..."

karinJ

After forty two years of rule, Libyan head Moammar Gadhafi was ousted Sunday, when rebel forces overtook the capital city of Tripoli (Tripoli falls to rebel forces). The fallen leader's whereabouts remain a mystery as thousands cheer in the streets. It's interesting to see where he'll finally surfaces. Laughing I heard it is suspected he may have fled south of the country.

Fidel

Mo'll have to try and escape from NATO terrorists working hand-in-glove with al-Qa'eda again. They should be nicked for this terror attack and 9/11 as well.

NDPP

it ain't over yet...

and the thread title shouldn't be taken as truth - there's never been oppression like the West's

"like being locked in a room with the socio-cultural equivalent of Hannibal Lector.." Ward Churchill

So instead of allowing attempts by Chavez and many others to negotiate a peace, we have NATO mass murder and what may become, as Pepe Escobar said, 'Iraq 2.0'. And, as always, its also all about the crude dude

 

Fidel

[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26164]Canadian reporter's life threatened for telling the truth about NATO's "pro democracy" rebels[/url]

Quote:
Its a Blitzkrieg with the most advanced weapons systems. 20,000 sorties since March 31, according to NATO stats, close to 8000 strike sorties.

Each strike sortie involves several targets, most of which are civilian targets.

Compare this to the bombings of World War II or Vietnam...

Our resolve is to bring back Mahdi to Canada, to ensure his safe return.

Spread the word far and wide.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global research, August 24, 2011. 12.22am EDT

Blood for oil pirates going after Libya's oil like piranhas.

 

NDPP

good you're back, there's lots of nonsense needs debunking here

Hoodeet

Yes, thanks, Unionist, Fidel, NDPP.  Nice to know there are still some anti-imperialist, anti-war people left here who are capable of criticial analysis. 

Merowe

NDPP wrote:

good you're back, there's lots of nonsense needs debunking here

hear hear!

Merowe

I can't even stand to check the news, web-based, radio or telly: all this gleeful crowing over the 'rebels' 'victory' like its some bloody Star Wars movie by the vomit-inducing msm. And re: Al Jazeera, I get all sentimental about it's bright promise when it first appeared...how quickly the mighty are fallen.

Roberteh

There is the sad reality that in order for there to be real change in Libya this dictator has to go.  Right now, we seeing a flourishing of Arab Revolutions that may be heralding in liberal democratic facades but even those are better than what preceeded them - for if we are forgetting our Marx - let us say good-bye to the Bonapartes but thank them for the new world they ushered in.  For when the next Revolution does happen.  It will be permanent and more profound than whatever these decievers and liars have offered to date.  So, yes, NATO bombing is bad...but dictatorship is worse.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Oh yes, things are looking up for the liberated people of Libya: The right to vote for the free flow transfer of wealth. The right to vote for lowering standards of living. The right to vote for privatized education and health care. The right to vote for borrowing billions of $$$ from western banks in order to rebuild bombed infrastructure.

Quote:

The events in Libya helped spark a stock market rally in New York on Tuesday, led by the stocks of energy corporations. There is growing speculation that the big oil conglomerates could, as a result of the US-NATO intervention, get back into Libya, which boasts the largest oil reserves in Africa, under more profitable conditions than ever.

“There are big questions as to who’s going to manage the sector and how revenues will be shared,” Ben Cahill, a North African analyst at the PFC Energy Consultancy firm told the Wall Street Journal. According to the Journal, Libya’s national oil company must be “fundamentally reformed” to meet the demands of the Western oil interests.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/liby-a24.shtml

I find it funny that we are aghast at the increasingly detrimental corporate control over our western governments and yet some would cheer such control in Libya. Political dictatorship replaced by economic dictatorship is not really freedom.

Frmrsldr

Roberteh wrote:

There is the sad reality that in order for there to be real change in Libya this dictator has to go.

Yeah, but we're not the ones to make him go or to institute the changes.

What goes on in Libya is no one's business but the Libyans.

NDPP

Merowe wrote:

I can't even stand to check the news, web-based, radio or telly: all this gleeful crowing over the 'rebels' 'victory' like its some bloody Star Wars movie by the vomit-inducing msm. And re: Al Jazeera, I get all sentimental about it's bright promise when it first appeared...how quickly the mighty are fallen.

NDPP

I knew things would go south when they hired the CBC hack Tony Burman

Jacob Richter

Re. the thread title, at least some on the left re. Islamists and tinpots are merely applying the same kind of Realpolitik that was used in much of the 20th century, from military dictatorships to crony civilian presidencies to earlier Islamist insurgent movements.

They also recognize that worker gains tend to be achieved and maximized under the scenario of a multi-polar world co-existing with vibrant, non-aligned nationalist governments that are not a direct party to the multi-polar tensions.  See: Years leading to WWI, Inter-war period before the Depression, and of course the Cold War.

Roberteh

Frmrsldr wrote:

Roberteh wrote:

There is the sad reality that in order for there to be real change in Libya this dictator has to go.

Yeah, but we're not the ones to make him go or to institute the changes.

What goes on in Libya is no one's business but the Libyans.

I am sorry but I beg to disagree, ask any Jew in Germany in 1933.  Intervention for any reason - No.  Intervention when tyranny crushes liberty - yes.  It is fine edged sword.  The lack of courage to intervene rightly is the challenge our times.  Because once the intervention takes place it must be balanced with allowing the course of events to take hold.  We are also ignorant that once Libya social forces but the chances of new forces coming to fore will be greater after the dictator goes.

Pages

Topic locked