There can be few people in the world who would embrace Gaddafi (well apart from the US, British, Spanish, Italian and other leading politicians plus royalty who did so in recent years) but I feel uneasy about the current military action in Libya.
I agree the people of Benghazi should be saved but then so too should the people of Zimbabwe, the Congo, Sudan, Israel, Gaza and many other places in the world too numerous to mention who have come under fire and been slaughtered whilst the world stood by.
Indeed many of these are not past events but current. Zimbabwe is about to have another violent election but by all accounts has still found time to send “troops” to aid Gaddafi in his fight.
We do not even know who we are saving in the rebel part of Libya. Hilary Clinton admits the US hasn’t got a clue. Yet she wants to arm them in the same manner as the US did in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq in years gone by. Then, years later, the US is amazed when the barrels are aimed at them by the very same people who they thought were on their side.
So why was the British Government so keen to intervene? To cover up for the botched attempts to evacuate its nationals? To divert attention from the real economic crisis facing the British people? Cameron may want to be a world leader – but please sort the mess out at home first.
US Republicans were angry because Obama didn’t rush in to Libya straight away. Now they are furious because he has taken action. The madness is worthy of a scenario involving Gaddafi.
Either the world intervenes to stop carnage or its stands by. You can’t step into oil States such as Libya and Iraq and stand by idly in Zimbabwe and countless other African and Arab nations.
There is no good carnage and bad carnage only carnage.
The West backed numerous despots because they ruled in the West’s national interest. Now the people of these countries want to be governed in their own interests not those of Washington, London, Paris or Rome.
The fact is the Western governments haven’t a clue whether they are coming or going – but in the meantime they’ll bomb Libya.
2 comments:
Has nobody noticed the fighting in Ivory Coast with more deaths than in Libya - obviously not!
Well said, Mark! Mind you, if there was any ivory left in the Côte d'Ivoire (a French colony as it once was - the French being all too interested in bombing Lybia)there would have been immediate intervention, no doubt...
But have they noticed that, having armed the Taliban in Afghanistan, they then went in to fight them because they didn't like them and are still being shot at with those same arms?
History, recent or otherwise, is there to be learned from. But no, gung-hoism is rampant in political circles the world over.
Ah, I hear you say: war means money from industry, so maybe the ulterior motive stems from that.
(Sancho: the squiggle code I have to type in says 'lesswin' - is this an omen?)
Post a Comment