|
drugs"), the war profiteering, the "military-industrial complex," the "prison-industrial complex," the bankster bailouts, the tax cuts for the rich, the "TRADE SECRET" code vote rigging, the filthy lobbying and all the rest of the bullshit we've been inflicted with, by our real rulers--our multinational corporate/war profiteer oligarchy--and rebelled with massive protests, and government overreaction prompted portions of the military to defect to the protestors, with arms, and civil war broke out, how restrained do you think our oligarchy would be in the use of military power to smash the armed rebellion? And WHO would have a right to create a "no fly zone" over the United States to stop the government from defending itself?
This is the question: The Gaddafi government was the legitimate government of Libya, recognized by the UN, by the U.S., by England, by France, by all of Europe, by all of the Middle East, by all of Africa, by the whole world. The U.S., England, France, Italy and others were happy to do business with this government. WHO has the right to take military action against Libya over an internal conflict? Everyone had the right to call for a ceasefire and negotiation, and to STOP doing business with Libya until its government agreed to an armistice and talks. But NO ONE had a right to use military force to support one side of a civil war.
A long long time ago--so long ago, it's hard to remember--war was considered a LAST RESORT. Now it has become a first resort--especially when the oil supply is at issue. That is very bad news, indeed. The U.S. and its allies will use force whenever they damn please, and invade whatever country they damn please, for whatever purpose they damn please. And in the U.S., that DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.
I agree that Libya presented a difficult dilemma. I strongly suspect, however, that the ranks of the democracy protestors in Libya were infiltrated, and that the rebellion was prematurely triggered to create conditions for U.S., British and European interference. They want to, and will, dictate who ends up ruling Libya. That's what they do.
And if the same situation occurred here, or in England, or in France, or in Italy, there would be NO QUESTION that the government has the right to defend itself against armed rebellion. In fact, they would help the U.S. government put down an armed rebellion here, in the interest of all of their multinational corporations, banksters and war profiteers. It's because Libya is an Arab/African country that they assume proprietary rights over its government and its oil. This has absolutely nothing to do with carnage or justice. Have we so quickly forgotten this week's carnage in the Forever War in Afghanistan, or the half decade of carnage that the U.S. inflicted on Iraq, or the carnage that our $7 BILLION in military aid has been used for in Colombia? Carnage means nothing to these powerbrokers! Absolutely nothing! This is NOT about democracy or justice. This is about OIL.
And I would have more respect for people calling for Gaddafi's head if they were also calling for Bush's head! But such low sentiments never do serve justice. I was appalled at the hanging death of Saddam Hussein. And I'm sure that that horrible image was exactly what the Bushwhacks wanted to impress upon the world, while avoiding a real trial in which their own filthy collaboration with Saddam Hussein might have been revealed. Death is never the answer. Life and truth are the answer. That's what we should aim at. Life. Truth. Killing MORE Libyans--with our planes and bombs--is NOT the answer to that situation. Negotiation was the right thing to do and it was not even tried (in so far as we can tell). Why? Because I think that this is what our actual U.S. rulers and their corporate allies in England and Europe wanted all along--the excuse to interfere and set up a government to their liking, for their maximum profit.
|