Libya seems to be quite a different event from Egypt--with basically a civil war in the military--Libyan military fighting Libyan military. I think what happened is that the U.S./Western forces may have prompted what is a genuine democracy revolution to occur pre-maturely, so that the U.S./NATO can step into the instability and determine what happens next, with the goal of controlling Libya's oil.
In Egypt, the military fairly quickly sided with the democracy protestors and quickly took over the situation. They are funded/trained by the Pentagon and will insure continued U.S. control of Egyptian foreign policy and other interests. But in Libya, there is no such unity in the military. And this why the carnage is on-going.
And, at this point, all outside parties should be focused on STOPPING the violence. Chavez has no interest in Libya, other than his interest, held in common with Brazil's leaders, and all the new leftist leaders in Latin America, in world peace and "third world" solidarity, trade and cooperation. This is why Brazil's former president, Lula da Silva, invited Iran's president Ahmadinejad to Brazil--which Chavez also did--and went further, and traveled to Iran and Turkey, to arrange a nuclear materials deal to try to avoid U.S.-pushed sanctions--a pre-war maneuver--against Iran. These Latin American leaders are committed to world peace and to strengthening "third world" ties, to create a strong economic/political block, to counter the U.S. super-power and its financial consortium (England, EU, World Bank/IMF) which has wreaked so much havoc on the world's poor. Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves on earth. They have no interest in Libya's oil. And Venezuela is imminently peaceful--has no designs against other countries.
The U.S., England and Europe, on the other hand, not only have great interest in controlling Libya's oil, but they have shown their colors as to quite horrible aggression--and other kinds of bullying--to control oil and other resources, and to destroy or prevent self-determination and democracy in the countries that they want to exploit--for resources, slave labor, privatization of public services, etc. They most certainly want to privatize Libya's oil and take most of the profits, which they would do to Venezuela, if they could, and to Iran. Gaddifi and the military forces that have sided with him, have, unfortunately, given these western powers an opportunity in Libya (and possibly helped design things that way).
I'm afraid that our true rulers--multinational corporations and war profiteers--PREFER bloodshed and mayhem, as a ripe opportunity to get what they want. They couldn't care less about Libyans dying or being oppressed. Hell, they allied with Gaddafi, to insure an oil supply from Libya.
Please see this GD thread for more discussion of this matter:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x533243#534026There are some stupid RW anti-Chavez comments in it, but there are also some intelligent people commenting there. And I tried to be intelligent in my comments, in an effort to understand the world as it is, not as our corporate/war profiteer propagandists would have it.
People who jump to the conclusion that Chavez likes dictators and likes people to be killed and oppressed are making a very stupid comment, indeed. Such profound ignorance of Chavez's actions and policies is dismaying.
I hope he succeeds in getting peace talks initiated and staying the U.S./NATO's military intervention. I don't have much hope for it, but I applaud his having positioned himself to propose it. He may be able to talk to Gaddafi. I didn't fully understand his position, until this moment. As one of the few leaders who has not condemned Gaddafi, he is in a unique position to help end the bloodshed and to get Gaddafi to give up power.
I'm reminded of Lula da Silva's comment that Chavez is "the great peacemaker." Back in 2008, Chavez was able to prevent a war between Colombia and Ecuador, by backing up Ecuador's president and then calming that young rather hot-tempered president down (he was incensed by a U.S./Colombia bombing/raid on a FARC guerrilla camp just inside Ecuador's border). Although there is no comparison of Ecuador's democratic president to Gaddafi, Chavez might be able to do something similar here, because he had extended a hand of friendship to Gaddafi and has not condemned him. Chavez was also quite remarkable in avoiding a war with Colombia during the Uribe regime. (Uribe, a Bush tool, was spoiling for war against Venezuela.)
War profiteers adore bloodshed and mayhem. It's a very profitable business. Western countries, for instance, supplied much of the firepower that the pro-Gaddifi military is using against the anti-Gadaffi rebels and military. In fact, they've armed both sides. (--like the U.S. did during the Iraq-Iran war). Chavez doesn't have this interest either. His and Latin America's interest is quite the opposite. They would all prefer to pour their resources into social justice and development. (Their only enemy--the U.S.--by putting military bases in Colombia and other places in Latin America, and the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean, prompted Lula da Silva to propose a "common defense" but they would much prefer not to have to worry about U.S. aggression.) Anyway, with no interest in Libya other than "third world" solidarity, Chavez might be able to get Gaddafi to the peace table.
I think we also need to understand that Gaddafi is not Murbarak. Gaddafi was once a strong advocate of "third world" solidarity and independence himself. That is why parts of the Libyan military are still loyal to him--whereas Egypt's military quickly abandoned Mubarak. These two revolutions are more dissimilar than similar. Libya's is much more complex (including tribally complex) and there is much less unity. It has been painted as similar--people vs dictator, a black and white "good guy/bad guy" situation--but I'm not sure that it is. And all I can say about it, at this point, is that civil wars are AWFUL, and the best thing is
to stop the bloodshed, if that can be done, without yet another U.S. or U.S./NATO invasion, which could end up being worse than what's happening now. (Look at Afghanistan, for God's sake!)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
