If the Western military do do some stuff which helps the Libyan people, we don't have to thank them. They're giving back one millionth of what they have taken from the poorer countries, and they are planning to turn on the people at any moment.
The central point is about spreading understanding of how imperialism works, and not posing "Are you for or against this?" ultimatums. That some Left groups have been recommending maximum distrust of Western rulers does not seem to be a bad thing. This distrust will be needed for a very long time, in Libya and elsewhere. The best way out would be for the Libyan revolution not to take into account imperialist interests (like paying Gaddafi's debts or guaranteeing oil for the West). This will be harder now but can be done.
Even a civil war is first and foremost a political event. Some of Gaddafi's soldiers have been persuaded to change sides on the ground. Air strikes will *not* be the number one element in the next few months in deciding who wins.
If Western intervention was meant to reinforce people's power in Libya, how come Hillary Clinton is flying into London to discuss with other Westerners the future government of Libya? The key element necessary for the peoples who have suffered so long under dictatorships supported by the West is the spread of revolutionary determination. That is why Syria is so important this week;
I don't know if they are reading this blog, but those people who have been saying for many years that popular revolutions are impossible these days might have the decency to keep their mouths shut say for a decade and smell the coffee.
Release the billions of dollars in frozen Gaddafi assets to the rebels, and sell them arms.
The USA is not serious about democratization - the list of countries I would have to cite to show this is too long for the comments space.
Well, IMHO bombing and oil explains one whole bunch more of contemporary history than outrage and diplomancy. Those who believe it is a complete coincidence that Libya (where there is oil) gets bombed when a hundred dictatorships (where there isn't) don't, mau need a refresher course in maths 101.
Or one could conclude that the US rulers are not and can never be reliable allies for people's in revolt. Lefties accusing superpowers of defending murderous regimes cannot be countered by accusing them... of spelling mistakes!
Genuine sense of outrage from those who had armed him for decades, and still support crushing rebellions in Bahrein and elsewhere this very week. Euh I don't think so. If the West were seriously opposed to Gaddafi they coudl release to the rebels the billions of dollars of frozen assets Gaddafi has around, or give arms to the rebels. The intervention is much more about gaining a foothold again in the region. Highly selective outrage don't hack it.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
If the Western military do do some stuff which helps the Libyan people, we don't have to thank them. They're giving back one millionth of what they have taken from the poorer countries, and they are planning to turn on the people at any moment.
The central point is about spreading understanding of how imperialism works, and not posing "Are you for or against this?" ultimatums. That some Left groups have been recommending maximum distrust of Western rulers does not seem to be a bad thing. This distrust will be needed for a very long time, in Libya and elsewhere. The best way out would be for the Libyan revolution not to take into account imperialist interests (like paying Gaddafi's debts or guaranteeing oil for the West). This will be harder now but can be done.
Even a civil war is first and foremost a political event. Some of Gaddafi's soldiers have been persuaded to change sides on the ground. Air strikes will *not* be the number one element in the next few months in deciding who wins.
If Western intervention was meant to reinforce people's power in Libya, how come Hillary Clinton is flying into London to discuss with other Westerners the future government of Libya? The key element necessary for the peoples who have suffered so long under dictatorships supported by the West is the spread of revolutionary determination. That is why Syria is so important this week;
I don't know if they are reading this blog, but those people who have been saying for many years that popular revolutions are impossible these days might have the decency to keep their mouths shut say for a decade and smell the coffee.
Bad analogies and bad spelling, that's what's really important in all this.
Release the billions of dollars in frozen Gaddafi assets to the rebels, and sell them arms.
The USA is not serious about democratization - the list of countries I would have to cite to show this is too long for the comments space.
Oh dear. When people are reduced to telling you you are intelligent, it normally means you messed up big time!
Well, IMHO bombing and oil explains one whole bunch more of contemporary history than outrage and diplomancy. Those who believe it is a complete coincidence that Libya (where there is oil) gets bombed when a hundred dictatorships (where there isn't) don't, mau need a refresher course in maths 101.
What should "America" do? Dissolve itself, of course. Failed state.
Or one could conclude that the US rulers are not and can never be reliable allies for people's in revolt. Lefties accusing superpowers of defending murderous regimes cannot be countered by accusing them... of spelling mistakes!
Genuine sense of outrage from those who had armed him for decades, and still support crushing rebellions in Bahrein and elsewhere this very week. Euh I don't think so. If the West were seriously opposed to Gaddafi they coudl release to the rebels the billions of dollars of frozen assets Gaddafi has around, or give arms to the rebels. The intervention is much more about gaining a foothold again in the region. Highly selective outrage don't hack it.