and they weren't peaceful about it in the past. I think you know how horrified I am at the intolerable, unacceptable extremes Gaddafi went to but the more I read about this, the more unsettling questions I've been coming up with. I think the Libyan rebels interest in a repeat of Egypt was superficial because they didn't organize at all like the Egyptians or have the same goals. In the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, labor groups and social activists were at the forefront and were pushing a progressive agenda. In Libya, East Libya has been in on/off revolt for years without any progressive agenda, pushed by religious fundamentalists (I kid you not, read the Wikicables), with no visible support from labor or women's group and waving the old monarchy flag while the heir to the throne is proclaiming his willingness to return and
serve the people.
It's a bloody mess right now.
My bet is Libya's going to be split in two with Benghazi as the capital of a new, pro-western country that controls most of the oil fields and joins the ranks of countries like Bahrain and Syria- a good replacement for what we lost in Egypt where the January 25 Revolution Youth Coalition just
told Clinton she wasn't welcome in their country.
I still had this on my clipboard from my last post. You might be interested.
Chris Floyd has an excellent, thoughtful article about this.
A People Betrayed: West Launches New War for Oil in Libya
WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD
FRIDAY, 18 MARCH 2011 01:53
And so now, another war. Led by the United States and the religious extremists in Saudi Arabia, the UN Security Council voted to intervene on behalf of one side in the Libyan civil war. Having already armed and trained Moamar Gadafy's armies and security forces, the Western war-profiteers have now decided to do the same for his opponents.
...
Finally, it should be noted that the UN Resolution is not in any way restricted to establishing a "no-fly zone" to keep Gadafy from bombing Libyan cities. This has been the holy grail of our humanitarian interventionists who, despite the evidence of their own eyes over several decades, still seem to believe that military action -- the application of massive, violent force -- can be done without hurting anybody but the mean old bad guys whom we suddenly don't like anymore for whatever reason.
But this is no "light touch" intervention. The UN decree greenlights everything short of an outright land invasion of Libya. Indeed, within minutes of the resolution's passing, American officials were already talking about a "no-drive zone": direct attacks on Libyan tanks and artillery. What's more, US officials were already considering sending in "military personnel to advise and train the rebels."
...
But now that Gadafy is doing exactly what the United States government would do if an armed faction took over whole swathes of its territory -- respond with furious, murderous force -- he has suddenly become a monster again.
...
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2105-a-people-betrayed-west-launches-new-war-for-oil-in-libya.htmlAnother thoughtful article is by Michael Brull of Independent Australian Jewish Voices.
The West’s noble mission: stop worrying and love US power
MICHAEL BRULL
When asking what should the West do, it seems to skirt over what it can and ought to do. A no-fly zone in Libya is a drastic step, with dubious popular support at best, and little evidence has been presented that it would help anyone in Libya. On the other hand, there are places where we could more easily impose a no-fly zone. For example, Hamid Karzai has been begging us to stop bombing Afghanistan for years. We could impose a no-fly zone by ending our bombardment, which would also stop us from killing more civilians.
We could also stop bombing Yemen, which WikiLeaks reveals we’d been doing, and lying about. We could end the drone attacks on Pakistan. WikiLeaks shows that president Zardari thinks “Collateral damage worries you Americans. It doesn’t worry me”. Plainly, it doesn’t worry us either. Over a thousand people have been killed, primarily civilians. Yet again, in this case, the evil isn’t so bad that the West is called upon to intervene. The reason is straightforward: intervening would mean stopping our crimes, and it is considered far more morally courageous in the West to call for an end to their crimes. ....
The point of all this: we in the West should not be wringing our hands over what to do. There is plenty of good we can do. We could withdraw support for dictatorships in the Middle East, end support for repression in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, end our occupation of Afghanistan, stop drone attacks in Pakistan, and withdraw military support from Israel, which is used to brutalise and oppress the Palestinians.
...
Just be sure to avert your gaze from Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Palestine, Afghanistan, Honduras, Haiti and any other country where we are already intervening, but on the wrong side.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45190.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
