Muammar Gaddafi has no similarities with such tyrants as Hitler or Stalin. The future of Libya should be decided by Libyan people. As we see, the international community has made great efforts since the Libyan crisis started. The representatives of Libyan government have agreed to cease fire during the talk launched by the African Union. We all hope the Libyan situation can be eased by peaceful negotiations.
However, some colonial powers are still imposing war on Libya. They have been continuously bombing non-military facilities and killing innocent civilians in the name of protecting Libyan people. But the civilians they claim to protect are actually anti-government forces. Up to now, the military attacking has made the death toll rise to 114, causing severe humanitarian catastrophe.
Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology
. Complete opposite of people being able to freely choose their political leaders
Exactly your kind of thing.
I don't think that's true. What all human beings want is to be safe from oppression, but that is not exactly the same thing. Nobody wants a tyrant who abuses and terrorises you or your kin and strips your country of its wealth. But to presume that means that everybody desires Western-style democracy (far less its sudden arrival out of nowhere) is a pretty arrogant Western idea that has been repeatedly disproved. Many people in non-Western societies would be content enough to be ruled by a fatherly-figure, strict without being cruel, and only mildly corrupt. That is not to mean they don't desire further freedoms, it only means that they prefer less freedom within a system that respects their ways and culture rather than more freedom under a system that is alien to that culture.
We have no right to be involved in Libya in order to install our idea of democracy, only to aid Libyans who want reform and avoid their being physically exterminated by a violent tyrant. But just what exactly is the extent and the sort of reform they want is something that only Libyans can settle.
I don't think anybody, neither in Libya nor in the Arab world, nor even in the West, wants another Iraq-style fiasco. If the West only cared about oil in this case, it only had to wait a couple of weeks until Gaddafi stamped out the revolt with an iron fist. Dear old Muammar has proven his willingness to keep Europe's oil and gasoduts well furnished as long as the money keeps coming into his bank account. No need for bombs to getour share of his energy resources. Bussiness as usual.
What's is striking in this case is that -in sharp contrast to Iraq- the case for intervention hasn't come from the top down, no need for invented excuses and months of spin and propaganda, in this case rather the opposite has happened. Sarkozy in particular -ever the populist and the opportunist- has cynically jumped at the chance to take the lead of a public opinion over most of Europe that was shocked by the passiveness and the lack of empathy with which Western leaders were reacting to popular revolts in the ME. Don't know about what went on elsewhere, but the press of both countries I usually read (Spain and UK) had for weeks been full to the brim of articles, editorials and letters scorning the West for its hypocresy and its lack of resolve, an opinion that was particularly widespread among European citizens/residents of North African heritage. Obama's almost immediate back-peddling, Berlusconi's at best halfhearted approach and Merkel's pettyness would stand against any wider Western conspiracy, as would the fact of France's initial extremely poor response to the crisis in Tunisia -trying to be forgiven for that goes a long way into explaining Sarkozy's sudden rush to make the frontpages in this issue-.
Quite another thing is whether the European public opinion will be able or willing to force its leaders to keep supporting true change in the Maghrib, or whether, once forced to interfere, those leaders will resume playing their old games. While that risk is certainly there and is even likely, the fault will not lie with the fact that for once we stood on the right side of this struggle, but with our resolve (by 'our' I mean us citizens) to demand a true change in how our countries have dealt with third world affairs for much too long.
One can only hope.
Your assumption about liberty is appalling. The myth of personal liberty as a paramount value of western civilisation was a creation from liberal thinkers, closely associated with the ascension of the bourgeoisie.
what makes you think that a majority of libyans actually want your help? this idea of the great western saviours coming in their high white horses to rescue the unfortunate poor has got to go out of the window when the help hasn't been truly asked by a considerably group of people representing the nation.
more over, what makes you think that western help is the best for lybia's future? in this point, i'd recommend reading the al-jazeera op-ed in the post above.
finally, what makes you think that the west won't try to impose their values and obtain some monetary benefit from the invasion? if anything, past history doesn't show that.
a true change would be to leave the third world alone. just let it be alone with their own problems and their own successes and mind your own business. to think that you've got the moral highground to decide when a country needs to be intervened and when it can't is simply wrong. this type of paternalist and condescending attitude of the rich nations towards the third world is part of the problem, not the solution.
I tend to agree.
However, it seems almost a lose/lose situation in Libya. If the U.S. and Europe stand by and allow the rebels to be crushed, they are regarded as hypocrites greedy for oil and if they intervene they are imperialists.
It's like Rwanda -- that was clearly an internal issue, but should the world have stood by and let it happen? Ditto the Sudan.
While your idea appeals to me, I see the fallacies in it as well.
The Rwandan story is a bit different. African tribal wars are related intimately to the way the western colonial powers divided their colonial possessions.
westerners like to think they've got a free media when in point of fact the mainstream media is mostly tied to the interests of their governments.
Mostly to the interests of business.
Probly we are saying the same thing.
no-one is paying the protestors. obviously gadaffi is a terrible leader and he has his deserved detractors. that doesn't mean that every detractor wants the west to intervene, of course.
Yeah, their weapons were built from scratch. Of course they're financed by the west.
When you are bombarded with rockets, you don't give a flying fuck who helps you, as long as somebody does.
Again, I'll ask you something I've heard before, what if the west hasn't interfered, and Kadaffi would have caused a masacure, killing not a 100 people, but 1000, 10,000, 100,000? Would you still think the west should sit by? Tell me, what would have been your breaking point?
Hypocrisy. Do you have an idea of how many people died in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil during the 60s, 70s and 80s? The world powers never cared about them being tortured, ***** and massacred by sadist dictatorships. Why do they care now?