Russia: Libyan People, Not Foreign 'Meddling', Should Bring About Democracy

[Purveyor]

Source: DPA and Haaretz Service

Russia came out Wednesday in favor of a regime change in Libya, saying it should come about from the people themselves and not as a result of outside interference.

"It is clear that there must be another, democratic, leadership,' Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. "But the Libyans have to decide that for themselves without any foreign meddling."

Russia, a major arms supplier to Colonel Muammar Gadhafi, opposed weapons deliveries by the west to rebels seeking to topple the Libyan leader, the news agency Interfax quoted Lavrov as saying.

The foreign minister appealed to NATO to stick to its pledge to remain impartial, and called for an immediate ceasefire and the start of talks to resolve the conflict.

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/russia-libyan-people-not-foreign-meddling-should-bring-about-democracy-1.352955

[aquart]

1. Well, we're still grateful to Lafayette.

When your enemy is hiring foreign mercenaries, (the British hired the Hessians) foreign help of your own is certainly welcome.

[daleo]

4. True, but the French had their own revolution shortly thereafter

Largely this was due to taxing French peasants to death to support foreign wars and a parasitic aristocratic class. History has many lessons.

[conspirator]

13. +1000. Plus the french were more afraid of a strong imperial Britain then worried about "freedom"

Otherwise they would have given independence to Haiti, which we know only happened by force

[WatsonT]

18. Indeed, the French had some of the most oppressive and brutal

colonial governments in the new world/Africa.

Freedom wasn't an issue to them, we were all colonials to be exploited.

All they cared about was sticking it to Britain.

Notice that they didn't get involved in our Civil War.

[WatsonT]

17. The French helped as part of a larger war they were waging against the British

Which greater enemy are we fighting in Libya?

[kenny blankenship]

2. And what will bring about Russian democracy?

Your country Minister Lavrov, is a fucking gangster cartel led by a KGB chief who murders journalists routinely and uses the power of the state to appropriate large businesses and divvy their assets out to friends. You don't get to lecture ANYONE on democracy.

[PurityOfEssence]

3. The Russians still sting from the sizeable U.S. Military intervention in Russia in 1918 to 1919

After the Czar fell, there was a pluralist government in Russia that lasted for the better part of the year. The problem was that they wanted to continue the war, which the people didn't. The Bolsheviks, helped by the Germans, were reinserted and they seized power. The United States and other allied powers intervened to try to bring down the Bolsheviks with their direct efforts and by supporting Czarist and other reactionary (and legitimately non-communist, but decent elements) to try to wrest control from them.

The Russians have never forgotten this meddling in their affairs, nor should they.

Whether good or bad, we interfered in their affairs when they were weak, confused and suffering, so they don't take a particularly charitable view toward our version of "liberation".

This is, however, extremely hypocritical in light of their history of brutal intervention in the affairs of others, but that doesn't negate the facts of history.

[SkyDaddy7]

6. "Meddling"? Right, the USA was simply "Meddling"...

At least you acknowledged the fact Russia/Soviet Union "meddles" as well.

[jakeXT]

5. Oh come on, a bit of a CIA uprising sprinkled with Depleted Uranium isn't democracy ?

Russia could have voted no, they knew well what would happen.

[TheLastMohican]

11. Russia has good chess players

and their politics is a game of chess.
For them US committed to yet another war is a good sign - it will drive the oil prices further up. Plus US overextends once again and with the economy in the shitter there may be another 1991 when one very warrior-like empire fell like a deck of cards.

[CJvR]

7. Translation:

"We are for a regime change, but against everything that would make it possible - so that we can go back to selling weapons to Gaddafi once he kill off his rebels."

[joshcryer]

14. +1

[Octafish]

8. It's called an ELECTION.

No link, but it is better than war.

[AllTooEasy]

10. You need a democracy first.

[Octafish]

12. True. But to form a democracy, you don't need a war first.

That should be the last option.

"Money trumps peace", though.

[christx30]

15. And what happens

when the incumbent powers do not like the results of the election when they lose?

[Octafish]

16. You call the United fucking Nations.

And they can send troops to enforce its will, law, business arrangements. Whatever.

[AllTooEasy]

9. And how do they think that would have worked out? Russia sucks!

Russia is just mad that the US/NATO are proving to the world just how useless Russian arms can be?

[fascisthunter]

19. they are right

but because of "politics" the truth has no place on a political discussion forum, at least for those who place politics above principle.