EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Libya, Hypocrisy and Betrayal by the United Nations
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever.” - George Orwell.
The bombing of Libya will begin on or nearly to the day, of the eighth anniversary of the beginning of the destruction of Iraq, 19th March, in Europe. Libya too will be destroyed - its schools, education system, water, infrastructure, hospitals, municipal buildings. There will be numerous "tragic mistakes", "collateral damage", mothers, fathers, children, babies, grandparents, blind and deaf schools and on and on. And the wonders of the Roman remains and earlier, largely enduring and revered in all history's turmoils as Iraq, the nation's history - and humanity's, again as Iraq and Afghanistan, will be gone, for ever.
The infrastructure will be destroyed. The embargo will remain in place, thus rebuilding will be impossible. Britain, France and the US., will decide the country needs "stabilising", "help with reconstruction." They will move in, secure the oil installations and oil fields, the Libyan people will be an incidental inconvenience and quickly become "the enemy", "insurgents", be shot, imprisoned, tortured, abused - and a US friendly puppet "government" will be installed.
The invaders will award their companies rebuilding contracts, the money - likely taken from Libya's frozen assets without accounting - will vanish and the country will remain largely in ruins.
And the loudest cheerleaders for this, as Iraq, will be running round tv and radio stations in London, Europe and the US, then returning to their safe apartments and their UK/US/Europe paid tenures, in the knowledge that no bombs will be dropping on them. Their children will not be shaking uncontrollably and soiling themselves with terror at the sound of approaching planes.
And this Libyan "Shock and Awe"? Shame on France, shame on Britain and the US and a UN avowed: "... to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." Every shattered body, every child maimed or blown to bits, every widow, widower, orphan, will have their name of those countries, and the UN., written in their blood in their place of death.
And the public of these murderous, marauding Western ram raiders, will be told that we were bringing democracy, liberating Libya from a tyrant, from the "new Hitler", the "Butcher of Bengazi."
The countries who have ganged together these last days to overthrow a sovereign government have, again, arguably, conspired in Nuremberg's: " ... supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole", and yet again, plotted to overthrow a sovereign government, with a fig leaf of "legality" from an arm twisted UN. We have seen it all before.
Ironically, as I write, here in the UK., on the day Prime Minister Cameron is to make an announcement in Parliament on the proposed attack on Libya, it is Red Nose Day, founded in 1988, out of 1985's Comic Relief - which came from a refugee camp in Sudan, which borders Libya - to raise money for the children in need, in Africa. This red nose day, we plan to bomb them.
In time, it will emerge, who was stirring, bribing, de-stabilizing - and likely few will be surprised at the findings. But by then, Libya will be long broken and its people, fleeing, displaced, distraught.
When it comes to dealing with the usual "liberators", be careful what you wish for. In six months or so, most Libyans, whatever the failings of the last forty years rule, will be ruing the day.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
61 Comments so far
Show AllJust another good days work for the EMPIRE.
Yes, flunkdaddy, this whole thing, under the supposed cover of 'humanitarianism' is a monstrous scam to expand a plan that already exists:
This whole plan is based on Tom Barnett's 2004 explosive and heavily studied book "The Pentagon's New Map" --- in which the entire swath of countries he calls the "GAP" are to be absorbed into the "OLD CORE" (which is the Western empire), and to be prevented from falling under the influence of the "NEW CORE" (easy to guess -- BRIC).
The geo-strategic plan is an up-dated version of the 1990's PNAC plan that precipitated the Iraq and Afpak wars --- but now expanding to include N. Africa, all Middle East, and South Central Asia.
This is a MUCH bigger and more carefully planned global war map for the current global Empire (politely called the "CORE") to engage in during the 2011 to 2020 time-frame.
Anyone who does not include in their research and analysis Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" is woefully underestimating the breadth, depth, and scope of this plan to expand from Iraq and Afpak wars to the full "GAP" (from Tunisia through Libya, Egypt, the whole Middle East, and all the way to the Chinese and Indian boarders).
As Cheney was infamous for saying, this is "BIG TIME" for the global Empire --- and must be stopped before it precipitates WWIII.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Liberty over violent empire -- People's Party
You get it!
Of course the US does not want the MidEast etc to move out of its control.
So, explain how this Libya intervention, with an uncertain outcome, is going to help further that, when Gaddafi was ALREADY in bed with the west?
That Gaddafi was ALREADY in bed with the west before all this started, is something that many people seem to want to gloss over.
As for expanding the war all throughout the region, if anything the "new core" will probably celebrate, as doing so will bankrupt the "old core".
Libya - another country to be bombed back to the Stone Age. At this rate, that's where we're all going. After the dismal attempts at global fascism self-destructs.
khaddafi is the one who ruined his own infrastructure, and killed thousands of his own people with bombs and heavy artillery and direct fire on unarmed people. He will also systematically exterminate anyone who they find was against him.
so who is the bad guy here??
the only problem i have is they waited basically till he took back almost the whole country, meaning that now more than a no fly intervention is required to get him out of power
"...meaning that now more than a no fly intervention is required to get him out of power"
Please don't tell me you think that was an accident.
What proof do you have that gaddafi has killed 'thousands of his own people?' Did a little bird tell you?
In Iraq.
The United States obliterated the infrastructure. They killed some 1 million Iraqis and forced some 4 million to flee. The country a disaster with no clean water, little electricity and a corrupt and brutal government. They systematically destroyed anyone that stood against them and saturated that country with DU munitions.
In Fallujah as example they stated anyone remaining in the city would be deemed a target and eliminated.
This to stop someone THEY claimed was killing his own people.
So now the people of Libya have to be killed and see their infrastructure destroyed so they are not killed and see their infrastructure destroyed.
The logic evades me. I suppose to some having Nato Airstrikes kill Libyans and destroy infrastructure before Gaddafi can kill Libyans and destroy infrastructure is logical.
Gee, still holding onto good guys/bad guys thinking? So if Khaddafi is a bad guy we must be the good one? Idiotic trolling, or something.
Now, as you say, a no fly intervention won't be enough. How many times does this murderous analysis have to occur, in how many countries, until people like you are laughed down?
A segment of the Libyan people rebelled against their leader. Good for them! They did so knowing full well that it would result in bloody conflict, and they obviously felt it was a price worth paying, or they wouldn't have rebelled.
Now tell me, djb: just HOW is this any of the U.S.'s business? Or France? Or any other effing country? Who made us the world's cop? This is a Libyan civil war. So let Libya handle it.
I'm so sick of this exceptionalist attitude that you and so many others like you have, that America has the God-given right to flex its military muscle and intervene in other countries' affairs whether they have the right or not. Someday, when America is a broke, 3rd-world nation - well on its way towards that already, thank God - you can see it from the other perspective when America is bombed and invaded and raped in the name of "democracy" by other world powers who think they have the right to do so. That will be quite the attitude-adjustment for you and your exceptionalist ilk.
Sounds so familiar, a little bird whispered to them that if they rebelled the US would help. Through our proxi the UN, we have now commited to attack.. what a surprise! Follow the money folks, to know who the winner is!
I'm not really upset bombs.bullets, morgage based dirivitives it's always ends up the same, fatcats get fatter, the rest of uf us lose! the only point is that we've all been setup for a fall!
>^^<
... kinda like the democrats and republicans killing our on citizens with its evil healthcare system, no? And lets not forget Clinton and Madeline's brutal murder of 80+ citizens (including women and children) in Waco and Ruby Ridge, by burning them alive or shooting them in the back – using illegal federal military weaponry. In front of the entire world.
And don't even get me started on America's infrastructure.
The real no-fly zone needs to be placed over Washington D.C... permanently.
Well-freaking-said.
Spoken like a good little imperialist running dog. Good doggy. C'mon ,run along with us as we kill people and destroy another anti-imperialist,semi-socialist government not under the heel of the multinationals. (But,djb,where is your treat? Are you performing for nothing? Dumb dog ! )
I think the same: Libya will be transformed into another Iraq.
In the name of peace, there will be more war. To the butchery committed by the Libyan governmental forces will be added the massive butchery inevitably committed by Western planes dropping DU bombs and the Devil knows what else.
War profiteers surely are salivating.
Not holding my breath, but, wouldn't a no-fly zone over Gaza be awesome?
And with the Saudis backing Bahrain shooting unarmed people. No US meddling there?
Now it makes more sense when I read that the Saudis paid the blood money in Pakistan to get the CIA numb-nutz released.
Funny how these things work out.
1st) Unforgiven666", Great points! 2nd) Not as a literal fact but rather an alternate way of framing what you're watching... what if you found that, years ago, The Mob had taken over the US government. Knowing what you know about how avaricious they are, how murderous and devious, what would they be doing on the international stage today?
Well, I'm fairly speechless. All I can say is, good article, Felicity.
What a shameful day for France. What a long way we have come since the eloquent defense of the peace by the corrupt Chirac and his ambassador Villepin in 2003 when they opposed Bush's warmongering.
Somehow the international War Party weaseled Sarkozy and Merkel into the top posts of France and Germany, and ever since there has been no European counterweight to the Empire's onslaught on the Middle East, South Asia, and their resources.
When Snarko Sarko, upon election, named 'Socialist' Bernard Kouchner his foreign minister, the idiotic French press feigned surprise. It was no surprise to me, only cause for dismay: Zionist Kouchner was the only prominent 'Socialist' who had supported the US invasion of Iraq.
We have been witnessing the bitter fruits of these carefully planned policies for some time now: French Special Forces in Somalia, increased French presence in Afghanistan, silence on Israel's destruction of Lebanon and Gaza when Chirac would have protested loudly; and now Libya.
And let's not forget, on the home front, Sarko's forced, violent expulsion of thousands of Roma Gypsies and the destruction of their trailer camps. (Was this even covered at CD?)
Sarko must go.
It is time for the Westerners to emulate the Arabs, to take their cue from the Greeks, as they did in ancient times.
This must not stand. No pasaran.
clovis, I agree what France is doing is shameful. And Britain, Italy, etc. But I should point out that France's apparent objection to invading Iraq was just a one-off kind of posturing, since there was a lot of international opposition anyway. But as part of NATO, French troops are still in Afghanistan.
France has had a very shameful history full of hypocrisy, starting soon after the "Revolution". When they proclaimed "liberty, equality, fraternity", they did not specify liberty for whom. Apparently not for the people of Haiti - as the French under Napoleon sent in their navy to Haiti after a rebellion to reinstate slavery - in 1804. And then again by Charles X. And most shamefully, France agreed to let go of Haiti only in exchange for compensation for their "lost profits" from slavery and slave trade.
Fast forward to the 20th century. After having their collective asses saved by outsiders, not once, but twice, in both the World Wars, supposedly fought in the name of freedom, France was up to its old tricks again. They were not about to let go of their colonies as in "Indochina" (Vietnam) without a nasty fight, aided by the British.
And a few years later, the French, along with the British and their Israeli accomplices, were the masterminds behind the Suez Crisis of 1956 - after Egypt's Gamel Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.
France was by now a "permanent member" of the UN Security Council and brazenly started work on nuclear weapons development. Why France was allowed to be a permanent member when they had to be rescued by outsiders can only be explained by European and American imperialism and racism.
France continued testing nuclear weapons - all the way until early 1996 - the same year when the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) banning nuclear explosions came into effect. But conveniently, France was carrying out its nuclear explosions far away from home, near inhabited islands in the Pacific, despite opposition from the islanders and a whole lot of activists.
These are only examples, picked at random to show that French hypocrisy is NOTHING new. The presence of the bigger, meaner bully called the USA has acted as a convenient cover for so many despicable actions by other imperial countries for far too long.
For fun, try this: go to google.com (not the search bar, but go to the site), and type "French military victories" and click on "I'm Feeling Lucky".
I agree with everything you write, Alcyon, except for the assertion that the French opposition to the Iraq war was 'posturing.' Don't forget, before Iraq, the US and its allies only had the dubious justification of 9/11 for its invasion of Afghanistan. The pre-emptive nature of the Iraq invasion was unprecedented in the post-WWII order of things. However hypocritical the French are, a great deal was at stake, geopolitically, morally, and ideologically, in Bush's war plans. And France, don't forget--and I mean official France, not that odious bunch of useless intellectuals spearheaded by Bernard-Henri Lévy, Pascal Bruckner, and a few others, who preach the droit d'ingérence, or the "right to intervene" for dubiously "humanitarian" reasons--France was also seriously opposed, at first, to the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, knowing that once the military genie is let out of the bottle, it's very hard to put back in. Chirac was dead serious in 2003, just as he was serious about his attempts at fairness in the Israel-Palestine question and was one of the few, if not the only, western leader to stand up to the thuggish Israelis. And since, as you rightly point out, so much of France's ruling class is as cynical and imperialistic, you can imagine the sort of internal pressure he was up against.
Unprecedented in the post-WWll order of things? We have had the most active military since even before WWll. We go all over the planet and blow the hell out of anyone we feel like.
"When they proclaimed "liberty, equality, fraternity", they did not specify liberty for whom. Apparently not for the people of Haiti - as the French under Napoleon sent in their navy to Haiti after a rebellion to reinstate slavery - in 1804. And then again by Charles X."
That's pretty impressive, imagining that events of 1804 somehow reflect upon the French Revolution even though the Revolution was dead as stone by then. Citing events of Charles X's reign--Charles the freaking X--as further "proof" of the hypocrisy of the Revolution is just the rancid icing on the unpalatable cake.
What do you mean by "the Revolution was dead as stone by then"? How many years after the French Revolution do you think was 1804? If you are going to claim that the people who took part in the Revolution were not responsible for what Napoleon or Charles X did, fine. OK. But then why did France go on a colonizing binge if the French truly believed in liberty and equality? I'm talking, after the Revolution.
Why did the French NOT decide "enough with colonies" after WW-II and walk out of Indochina, Algeria, etc.? And how do you explain the Suez intervention of 1956 as anything other than imperialism and shamelessness? Shameless because, it was only a decade after they were saved by outsiders. Same with Britain.
And carrying out nuclear explosions right until the point when a test ban treaty was to come into effect, and that too near a Pacific atoll - far from their own homeland, but where other people live, is despicable and completely nullifies any bogus claim to liberty, equality and what not. Oh, and then France pushing for sanctions against Iran as punishment for its nuclear ambitions, now THAT would be your icing on the cake when it comes to hypocrisy.
"What do you mean by "the Revolution was dead as stone by then"? How many years after the French Revolution do you think was 1804? If you are going to claim that the people who took part in the Revolution were not responsible for what Napoleon or Charles X did, fine. OK. But then why did France go on a colonizing binge if the French truly believed in liberty and equality? I'm talking, after the Revolution.
"
The years are irrelevant, stop pretending to be obtuse. But then, maybe you are, with your ridiculous Charles X reference.
All right, georgekaplan and rfloh. I admit that a bit more accuracy and precision are called for when citing examples such as these so as to avoid appearing "obtuse". What I did not elaborate on was my general conclusion about imperialism:
There are lots and lots of enablers and beneficiaries of imperialism within an imperialist society even though these same people may profess to be against imperialism and for equality. Hypocrisy is a shared trait amongst a much larger section of the population than is generally acknowledged. In fact, even that part of the population that considers itself victim is also hypocritical to the extent that it does not rise up and put an end to imperialism, and especially when it has a chance to do so.
The French people did not force their government to pay reparations to Haiti for the actions of their rulers and previous exploitation from which they benefited to varying degrees. To that extent, they too are complicit. You may call this obtuse, I don't care. I see it as logical.
One of the reasons that imperialists conquer and plunder other parts of the world has always been to keep their domestic population under control by sharing just enough of the spoils with the commoners. It's one thing to carry out such plunder in ancient times when communication and information flow was limited so that ideas questioning the morality of such actions perhaps did not permeate the whole society. It's completely another thing when so-called revolutions take place in the name of equality and where certain "Rights of Man" are explicitly spelled out and where certain truths are declared to be "self-evident" and then to continue acts of injustice internally and elsewhere. And nations created supposedly on the basis of such revolutions are hypocritical. You are free to nitpick and argue that the blame is limited only to some bad guys.
"Hypocrisy is a shared trait amongst a much larger section of the population than is generally acknowledged. In fact, even that part of the population that considers itself victim is also hypocritical to the extent that it does not rise up and put an end to imperialism, and especially when it has a chance to do so.
"
Sure. In that case, much of the human population is hypocritical.
"The French people did not force their government to pay reparations to Haiti for the actions of their rulers and previous exploitation from which they benefited to varying degrees. To that extent, they too are complicit. You may call this obtuse, I don't care. I see it as logical.
"
Neither have the American people, the British people, the Japanese people, the Belgian people, the Dutch people, the Spanish people, etc.
"It's one thing to carry out such plunder in ancient times when communication and information flow was limited so that ideas questioning the morality of such actions perhaps did not permeate the whole society. It's completely another thing when so-called revolutions take place in the name of equality and where certain "Rights of Man" are explicitly spelled out and where certain truths are declared to be "self-evident" and then to continue acts of injustice internally and elsewhere. And nations created supposedly on the basis of such revolutions are hypocritical. You are free to nitpick and argue that the blame is limited only to some bad guys.
.."
Communications during the era of the French Revolution were hardly not limited. All nations are hypocritical. Every nation makes claims about equality, whether or not they have a French style revolution or not.
You are free to nitpick and argue that the blaim is limited to some bad guys, ie the French.
>>rfloh wrote: "You are free to nitpick and argue that the blaim is limited to some bad guys, ie the French."<<
That's the silliest thing in your posts on this thread. Here's a recap for you - since you obviously seem too lazy to see the context of my posts:
My whole argument was triggered by ***this*** part of clovis's post - Mar 18 2011 - 9:52am:
">>What a shameful day for France. What a long way we have come since the eloquent defense of the peace by the corrupt Chirac and his ambassador Villepin in 2003 when they opposed Bush's warmongering."<<
What I sensed in the above lines (although I might have been wrong) was a lamenting of France having moved away from earlier position of relatively superior morality when Chirac opposed the invasion of Iraq. This was what prompted me to point out that the French have a long history of imperialism and hypocrisy, and, as far as I'm concerned. the "ideals" expressed during their Revolution were just words.
So let me point out to you once again: "clovis" wrote about France, with the implication that France had somehow moved away from a position of peace under Chirac to warmongering under Sarkozy. Judging by the history of French acts of colonialism and imperialism, I said that Chirac's position was likely just posturing, to which "clovis" disagreed, and that was that.
So, the whole thread started with a talk about ***France*** and my argument was only to point out that the French have a long history of hypocrisy. That was all, and nothing more was said about other countries, or that hypocrisy was limited only to the French. Therefore, your last post is a ***complete non sequitur*** . Here are your exact lines:
>>>"Sure. In that case, much of the human population is hypocritical." ... "Neither have the American people, the British people, the Japanese people, the Belgian people, the Dutch people, the Spanish people, etc." ... "You are free to nitpick and argue that the blaim is limited to some bad guys, ie the French."<<
And this part of your post is WRONG - because NOT every nation is founded on any explicit declaration of UNIVERSAL rights such as France and USA have done:
">>Every nation makes claims about equality, whether or not they have a French style revolution or not."<<
These declarations were supposedly a result of the so-called "Enlightenment", which is another bogus, pretentious claim by the Europeans and their descendants. It is definitely an improvement in the conditions for the average person compared to their earlier miserable conditions, but this was made possible only by the conquest of territory and resources and the enslavement of other peoples. It's easier to get along and talk about logic, reason, equality, human rights and all that when there are spoils of plunder that can be shared. The real test for "Enlightenment" is how a society gets along in times of scarcity.
And nations that had to be rescued by outsiders during the World Wars, but then instead of learning from their experience and standing up for other victims or otherwise choosing a different path, go on with their same old imperialist policies, and worse, enjoy a "respectable" status such as being permanent members of the UN Security Council, "legally" able to possess nuclear weapons, etc., need to be called out for their hypocrisy in particular. I know I've written more than just countering your post - only to indicate where I'm coming from and to point out why certain forms of hypocrisy are worse than others.
"France has had a very shameful history full of hypocrisy, starting soon after the "Revolution". When they proclaimed "liberty, equality, fraternity", they did not specify liberty for whom. Apparently not for the people of Haiti - as the French under Napoleon sent in their navy to Haiti after a rebellion to reinstate slavery - in 1804. And then again by Charles X. And most shamefully, France agreed to let go of Haiti only in exchange for compensation for their "lost profits" from slavery and slave trade.
"
Napoleon was not part of the Revolution. And really Charles X? I'm sure that you know full well that Charles X was one of the most reactionaries of the Bourbons, one of those who opposed the Revolution the most, so why even try to pretend to conflate Charles X's actions with the Revolution, unless you're being extremely disingenuous?
There are far better, and far more recent examples of French hypocrisy, for example in France former colonies in Africa, for example what happened in Rwanda.
See my reply above: Alcyon Mar 19 2011 - 1:33pm
When bribery doesn't work, the neo-liberal globalists resort to smashing countries and hoping to scrape profit out of the wreckage.
"Whatever the undisputed failings of the Libyan regime, the "humanitarian intervention" aspect does not sit too well in a country, where, according to the Human Development Index (HDI) (which measures life expectancy, health, literacy and well being) an "extensive" social services programme, included a comprehensive pension system, compensation for sickness and work injury, maternity benefit, free medical care and education, with a "dramatic" improvement in literacy over two decades and the lowest infant mortality rate and highest life expectancy in Africa.
Never forget Libya has the ninth largest oil deposits on earth.
The HDI is the highest in Africa and rates 53rd over all (in context, Brazil 73rd.) Whilst Colonel Gadaffi's treatment of opponents leaves plenty to be desired, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo, and secret torture renditions across the planet, the potential treatment of Julian Assange and the actual treatment of Bradley Manning, are hardly platforms from which to preach human rights."
This is from another long, referenced article by Arbuthnot on Globalresearch.ca
13th March.
The best or among the best living standards in Africa is hardly anything impressive, since Libya has so much oil.
Libya should have the among the highest living standards in the world.
This article is a refreshing palate-cleanser that took away the unpleasant aftertaste of Immanuel Wallerstein's misguided argument for Western military intervention in Libya published here yesterday.
It's a shame, though not a surprise, that there are still many people who identify themselves as "leftist", one way or another, yet remain suckers for spposedly virtuous or ethical unilateral military intervention in nominally sovereign nations.
Over and over again-- from Vietnam to Panama to the Balkans to Iraq and Afghanistan-- the political and military leaders of the West, led by the Amerikan imperium, have gone to war on the premise that there is a Truly Evil Dictator (or totalitarian regime) who is oppressing Persons Sitting in Darkness who cry out to heaven for help!
And isn't Amerika the closest place to heaven on Earth, and its political and military leaders the closest beings to angels around?
Yes, this latest action is being taken by the "United Nations". But it's no accident that New York City is home to the United Nations, which in these circumstances is much like that association of comic-book superheroes, The Justice League of Amerika.
And the U.S. is its "Superman"; nothing much gets done without its permission and cooperation.
Such intervention is always accompanied by a one-two punch of rhetorical realpolitik: it's in the immediate, narrow interests of the oppressed populace of the target nation to intervene, and also in the long-term international interests of the intervenors-- i.e., promoting international "peace", security, and mutual prosperity.
And over and over again, even before the dust settles it's obvious that this noble altruistic motivation was but a glittering shroud to cover the worst crimes of despotic multinational capitalism-- manipulative political mendacity and hype to grease the skids of the war buccaneers' juggernaut and turn the cumbrous iron of public dissent into the fools' gold of enthusiastic support.
Yet, every time this recurring scenario presents itself, like a well-known three-card monte scammer setting up a card table in a new alleyway, a crowd automatically starts lining up to play.
Maybe it would help if we razed monuments like the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, restored Mount Rushmore to its pre-disfigured appearance, and instead erected vast statues of P.T. Barnum and Charles Ponzi to remind Amerikans of our true national character.
And moved the U.N. to the Cayman Islands while we're at it.
Superb post, OS.
You are one of my favorite writers, O.S.! I don't mean posters. I mean writers.
I third the applause! A great post, as usual.
I fourth! :)
You got it right again, Obed. Great post.
The Barbarian Brotherhood (Brits, France and US) seems to have gotten together and decide that since the US is a trifle overextended at present, France would play the role of Chief Asskicker on this project. Of course they intend to divide the black, gushing spoils after they have destroyed the country.
I thought it surprising that both Russia and China merely abstained on the no-fly vote when either could have vetoed. Why did they not veto? Since they are far from fools, they must have a very good reason for not having vetoed.
China would love to have an unhassled Quadaffi sell them oil from undestroyed oil fields, it would seem, but now these oil fields are in danger, and China put them there by not using its veto. Curiouser and curiouser.
Methinks the barbarian need beware, because there might be a strategy afoot that escapes his understanding.
I fifth!!!! Oh, wait, my obedient spirit possessed me. Did Wallerstein really argue for Western military intervention? No, a careful reading of the article (pace OS) will reveal Wallerstein simply raised the issue of the ambivalent relationship of Qaddafi to the world left. Where does he argue for Western military intervention? Nowhere. Does Wallerstein's questioning of Chavez necessarily amount to an endorsement of the opposite? OS is jumping to conclusions here.
Wallerstein may deserve criticism for not having a nuanced enough of Chavez's own stance toward Qaddafi. In which case Chavez himself is just as divided as the world left and not (as it seems to be reported in the MSM) giving carte blanche support. This is a legitimate argument to have with Wallerstein. However, to jump from the fact IM criticizes Chavez to characterizing IM as just another shill for the Empire is a serious misreading.
What are we going to do about our Saudi King buddies who are helping Qaddaffi (sp?), bomb them too?
Gaddafi's air force is made up of Swiss, French, Russian and US planes (according to the site listed below).
If he didn't have that equipment then the people would have won already.
If he getting any more supplies from corporations? His military can't run forever without outside help.
Perhaps the Great Game involves letting the people and Qaddafi weaken each other, and then the West moves in.
//www.newportaero.com/home/airforces/search?country=Libya
Ah, the absurdity of it all - Our mighty air forces can go and shoot down Qaddafi's Boeings, and the French can shoot down their old planes.
The corporations continue to win, the people continue to lose.
I saw some shill on MSM in Libya this morning. I can't remember because i was half asleep. But he was imploring the usa to come over and wage war on you know who. He even said "If you want money, we will pay you for it". He was so obvious. Reminded me of those 'nurses' who testified before Gulf War number one, that Saddam's people were killing babies in incubators in Kuwait. They were actors, which was glaringly obvious to me at the time.
Best article I have read on this site in many months.
For all that say we are stopping a madman from killing people with planes.
please help these people.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/17/c_13784458.htm
thanks
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations...Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter."
UN Charter - 1: Purposes and Principles
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
A rather straightforward passage from the opening lines of the UN's founding document. Yet it is equally straightforward to see that the vote on Libya was in blatant disregard of and complete opposition to this passage which supposedly defines the UN's very purpose for existence.
It's time for the well-meaning leftists and liberals who still cling to the idea of the UN as the great protector of the sovereignty of small nations to move on from that outdated notion. The UN might *occasionally* have served that purpose when you had anti-imperialist governments like the USSR and the People's Republic of China as Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, and they could use their veto votes (no matter how you may feel about the nature of these governments and their domestic policies, their foreign policy line was often more "anti-imperialist" than that of the Western powers). But since 1991, that is no longer the case in even the smallest way. The UN, dominated by the Security Council, now only exists to provide a cloak of international legitimacy for great power aggression against defenseless small states and the rapacious spread of free market economics through blunt force.
Scholars of international law, such as Arend and Beck, recognized this paradigm shift as early as 1993 (see, International Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the U.N. Charter Paradigm). Antiwar progressives, however, seem to be almost two decades behind the times in this regard, and still cling to the notion that the UN can be of some use as a counterbalance to the imperialist realpolitik of the 21st Century. Sorry guys, but it can't, and quoting the UN Charter with naive indignation gets us exactly nowhere.
The emperor does have clothing, and the UN is it. The UN is a blatantly undemocratic legal body, jerry-rigged to ensure total domination by the great powers which are the five Permanent Members of the Security Council. Just look at the long, long list of UN resolutions condemning Israel which have been defeated by the veto power of the US. How long until progressives realize that they would be in a better position as opponents of a naked emperor?
Hear, hear!
I third it. I wonder what a truly democratic international governing regime would look like. A reformed UN? Something else? What would it look like to transcend the logic of real politik?
The Security Council is the heart of the UN, so it is never going to be "reformed" out of existence; that wouldn't be merely a reform, that would be creating a totally new and radically different organization. We will never see an international legal body that really represents the interests of humanity at large if the rich and powerful countries are represented within it. We need organizations of developing nations, both global (like the Group of 77) and regional (like Mercosur, etc), but we need the member countries to be much more invested in them (and less invested in bodies like the UN, which the U.S. and other western powers can readily manipulate). In a word, we need third world solidarity to counter first world hegemony. And the key to that is independence from rigged "global" organizations like the UN.
Of course, the G77 is merely a grouplet within the UN, so I'm not saying that it remotely resembles what we need in substance. I'm only using it to point out the membership principle of "no first world countries allowed".
And there are the obvious steps, like going back to a time when developing countries were actually wary of the IMF, WTO, and World Bank, rather than following their every dictate and tripping over themselves to get loans from these organizations.
I'm just throwing out ideas here, but the one thing I'm convinced of is that the UN serves no progressive purpose. Vijay Prashad's book The Darker Nations is a good overview of the previous attempts made at forming third world solidarity blocs.
The demise of the UN as an impartial organization began in 1947. It had inherited the Mandate of Palestine from the League of Nations. The mandatee, Britain, was obliged to develop Palestine into a viable independent state hence the UN still had the same obligation. Instead it arrogated to itself the authority to atomize the mandate and threw the Palestinians under the bus. I am not arguing that this should be fully made undone now. I am arguing that any "hope" that the UN would become a useful international peacekeeping organization should have been abandoned in 1947. The UN has always been the empowerer of the big bullies. Suppose that there is another violent T-square protest in Beijing. Do you really believe that the other bullies will demand a no-fly zone over China?
Spare me. The USSR was just as imperialist as the US. To claim that the USSR was anti-imperialist renders anything and everything you say worthless. Opposing one empire, because you want your own empire does not make you anti-imperialist.
Who clings to the idea that the UN is the great protector of small nations? You are arguing against a strawman. Most people understand that full well that the UN is biased in favour of those who have SC vetoes.