Middle East call for freedom/ Various Israel topics - Page 16 - MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com

MenstennisForums.com is the premier Men's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

Reply

Old 03-27-2011, 01:52 PM   #226
country flag peribsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mallorca (Spain)
Posts: 2,075
peribsen has a reputation beyond reputeperibsen has a reputation beyond reputeperibsen has a reputation beyond reputeperibsen has a reputation beyond reputeperibsen has a reputation beyond reputeperibsen has a reputation beyond reputeperibsen has a reputation beyond reputeperibsen has a reputation beyond reputeperibsen has a reputation beyond reputeperibsen has a reputation beyond reputeperibsen has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Libya/Egypt/Syria/bahrain/Jordan - middle east Mayham

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allez View Post
We'll have to agree to disagree on the freedom front
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennMirnyi View Post
Your assumption about liberty is appalling.
I think you've both misread what I meant about the desire for freedom, or rather that I expressed myself poorly. I don't deny that freedom is valued highly by all human beings, what I meant is that it is a sign of arrogance on the part of the West to think that all peoples understand freedom exactly like we do, or that they all place freedom at the very top of their wish list. Fidel Castro does have a strong point when he argues that there are many forms of freedom, and that the freedom to avoid starvation comes before the personal freedom to vote. My argument is that many people outside the West do want personal freedoms, but prefer to obtain them from within an evolution of their own societies, even if it takes longer, than through a mere artificial imposition of a version of freedom that is alien to their culture. That's what makes the neocon's idea of 'exporting' democracy to places like Iraq such a fiasco. In Libya, to the contrary, the West is responding to a homegrown popular uprising that has actually asked for our help.

Libyans are no different from Tunisians, Egyptians, etc, and what Gaddafi was doing is no different from what would have happened in Egypt if Mubarak had sent in his tanks 'a la Tianamen'. Wonder what we would all be saying about Western hypocresy if the popular movement had been crushed in Tunisia and/or Egypt with say 50,000 people dead and we had stood by only to keep on carrying out business as usual with the dictators.

Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxas21 View Post
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.
What bugs me is that attitudes like yours and Glenn Mirnyi's, though no doubt well intentioned, want to be taken as representative of progressive, anti-imperialist, leftist thought, when in fact I wonder if they are not simply further symptoms of a weakened left that feels defeated and incapable of anything but taking a defensive stance and assuming an automatic, acritical, opposition to whatever happens. This bugs me because I have always voted to leftist parties and feel that the world needs -at this moment maybe more than ever- a strong progressive movement that tries to actually influence policies in a meaningful way, and doesn't only limit itself to passively, defensively, whine about what goes on from the safety -and increasing irrelevance- of its ivory tower.

I don't know if the above paragraph sounds arrogant, I don't really mean it in an arrogant way. I for one don't have any claim to being in possesion of the truth, this issue is very difficult and I guess nobody can be totally sure about what the best line of action may be. But there is something about which I am completely sure: the left needs to try its very best to find a line that will make it actually meaningful in today's world, or face the complete victory of the neo-reactionaries.

I suggest you read the following article, published in an outlet (ZNet) whose progressive credentials would seem out of the question, written by a man who has coauthored books with Chomsky, just to get a glimpse of the possibility of seeing things in a light that is both different yet just as progressive as yours pretends to be. No doubt, in the same webpage you'll find other articles defending other views, more akin to the ones you hold, but i would argue the debate is badly needed.

http://www.zcommunications.org/libya...gilbert-achcar

To reject compromises 'on principle', to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness, which it is difficult even to consider seriously ... (Lenin)

(..)The debate on the Libyan case is a legitimate and necessary one for those who share an anti-imperialist position, lest one believes that holding a principle spares us the need to analyze concretely each specific situation and determine our position in light of our factual assessment. Every general rule admits of exceptions. This includes the general rule that UN-authorized military interventions by imperialist powers are purely reactionary ones, and can never achieve a humanitarian or positive purpose.(..) the belief that any such attitudes should be automatically rejected as a "breach of principles," without taking the trouble of assessing the concrete circumstances, is just unsustainable. Otherwise, the anti-imperialist movement in Western countries would appear as only concerned with opposing their own governments without giving a damn about the fate of other populations. This is no longer anti-imperialism, but right-wing isolationism (..)
(..)The left should learn how to expose imperialist hypocrisy by using against it the very same moral weapons that it cynically exploits, instead of rendering this hypocrisy more effective by appearing as not caring about moral considerations. They are the ones with double standards, not us.
(G Achcar)

Surely food for thought?

Last edited by peribsen : 03-27-2011 at 02:00 PM.
peribsen is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 03-27-2011, 04:04 PM   #227
country flag Ilovetheblues_86
Registered User
 
Ilovetheblues_86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Age: 27
Posts: 10,943
Ilovetheblues_86 has a reputation beyond reputeIlovetheblues_86 has a reputation beyond reputeIlovetheblues_86 has a reputation beyond reputeIlovetheblues_86 has a reputation beyond reputeIlovetheblues_86 has a reputation beyond reputeIlovetheblues_86 has a reputation beyond reputeIlovetheblues_86 has a reputation beyond reputeIlovetheblues_86 has a reputation beyond reputeIlovetheblues_86 has a reputation beyond reputeIlovetheblues_86 has a reputation beyond reputeIlovetheblues_86 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Libya/Egypt/Syria/bahrain/Jordan - middle east Mayham

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennMirnyi View Post


The Rwandan story is a bit different. African tribal wars are related intimately to the way the western colonial powers divided their colonial possessions.


Guga, Lybia was also divided between rival tribes.
__________________
HELLAS TT ARMY


MAY THE SPIRIT OF KOSTAS PROTECT US
Ilovetheblues_86 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 05:30 PM   #228
country flag LaFuria
Registered User
 
LaFuria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,969
LaFuria has a reputation beyond reputeLaFuria has a reputation beyond reputeLaFuria has a reputation beyond reputeLaFuria has a reputation beyond reputeLaFuria has a reputation beyond reputeLaFuria has a reputation beyond reputeLaFuria has a reputation beyond reputeLaFuria has a reputation beyond reputeLaFuria has a reputation beyond reputeLaFuria has a reputation beyond reputeLaFuria has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Libya/Egypt/Syria/bahrain/Jordan - middle east Mayham

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennMirnyi View Post
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.

I guess you being probably the most logical poster here goes beyond tennis.

The liberal definition of "freedom" is self-serving. If the humanitarian justification held any weight, why aren't the Americans and Europeans sending planes to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia right now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxas21 View Post
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.
Well said!

In the case of Rwanda, Europeans are the reason the genocide started in the first place.

Last edited by LaFuria : 03-27-2011 at 05:38 PM.
LaFuria is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 06:47 PM   #229
country flag GlennMirnyi
Banned!
 
GlennMirnyi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: I'm in Porto Alegre, bitch!
Posts: 42,099
GlennMirnyi has a reputation beyond reputeGlennMirnyi has a reputation beyond reputeGlennMirnyi has a reputation beyond reputeGlennMirnyi has a reputation beyond reputeGlennMirnyi has a reputation beyond reputeGlennMirnyi has a reputation beyond reputeGlennMirnyi has a reputation beyond reputeGlennMirnyi has a reputation beyond reputeGlennMirnyi has a reputation beyond reputeGlennMirnyi has a reputation beyond reputeGlennMirnyi has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Libya/Egypt/Syria/bahrain/Jordan - middle east Mayham

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allez View Post
Nope. Exactly Gadaffi and every other dictator's sort of thing. Fascism and democracy/personal liberty don't go together
Your concept of freedom is bending over for the powerful and the rich. Not my thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Data View Post
But the West is involved anyway. It made big business with Gaddafi and sold him all the weapons, he now uses against his People.

I think it would even be more hypocrite to first sell the weapons that provide him all the power he now has, and then let him slaughter the people like he pleases. Basically I like to simplify it as follows: one big Clan (Gaddafis) took the power and got rich by taking the countries oil. then they bought weapons and mercenaries from other countries to keep the power, and now it should be the right thing to just watch and say, let the Libyans take care of their own things we have nothing to do with it?

Gaddafi would already be gone if there was no West.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peribsen View Post
I think you've both misread what I meant about the desire for freedom, or rather that I expressed myself poorly. I don't deny that freedom is valued highly by all human beings, what I meant is that it is a sign of arrogance on the part of the West to think that all peoples understand freedom exactly like we do, or that they all place freedom at the very top of their wish list. Fidel Castro does have a strong point when he argues that there are many forms of freedom, and that the freedom to avoid starvation comes before the personal freedom to vote. My argument is that many people outside the West do want personal freedoms, but prefer to obtain them from within an evolution of their own societies, even if it takes longer, than through a mere artificial imposition of a version of freedom that is alien to their culture. That's what makes the neocon's idea of 'exporting' democracy to places like Iraq such a fiasco. In Libya, to the contrary, the West is responding to a homegrown popular uprising that has actually asked for our help.

Libyans are no different from Tunisians, Egyptians, etc, and what Gaddafi was doing is no different from what would have happened in Egypt if Mubarak had sent in his tanks 'a la Tianamen'. Wonder what we would all be saying about Western hypocresy if the popular movement had been crushed in Tunisia and/or Egypt with say 50,000 people dead and we had stood by only to keep on carrying out business as usual with the dictators.


What bugs me is that attitudes like yours and Glenn Mirnyi's, though no doubt well intentioned, want to be taken as representative of progressive, anti-imperialist, leftist thought, when in fact I wonder if they are not simply further symptoms of a weakened left that feels defeated and incapable of anything but taking a defensive stance and assuming an automatic, acritical, opposition to whatever happens. This bugs me because I have always voted to leftist parties and feel that the world needs -at this moment maybe more than ever- a strong progressive movement that tries to actually influence policies in a meaningful way, and doesn't only limit itself to passively, defensively, whine about what goes on from the safety -and increasing irrelevance- of its ivory tower.

I don't know if the above paragraph sounds arrogant, I don't really mean it in an arrogant way. I for one don't have any claim to being in possesion of the truth, this issue is very difficult and I guess nobody can be totally sure about what the best line of action may be. But there is something about which I am completely sure: the left needs to try its very best to find a line that will make it actually meaningful in today's world, or face the complete victory of the neo-reactionaries.

I suggest you read the following article, published in an outlet (ZNet) whose progressive credentials would seem out of the question, written by a man who has coauthored books with Chomsky, just to get a glimpse of the possibility of seeing things in a light that is both different yet just as progressive as yours pretends to be. No doubt, in the same webpage you'll find other articles defending other views, more akin to the ones you hold, but i would argue the debate is badly needed.

http://www.zcommunications.org/libya...gilbert-achcar

To reject compromises 'on principle', to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness, which it is difficult even to consider seriously ... (Lenin)

(..)The debate on the Libyan case is a legitimate and necessary one for those who share an anti-imperialist position, lest one believes that holding a principle spares us the need to analyze concretely each specific situation and determine our position in light of our factual assessment. Every general rule admits of exceptions. This includes the general rule that UN-authorized military interventions by imperialist powers are purely reactionary ones, and can never achieve a humanitarian or positive purpose.(..) the belief that any such attitudes should be automatically rejected as a "breach of principles," without taking the trouble of assessing the concrete circumstances, is just unsustainable. Otherwise, the anti-imperialist movement in Western countries would appear as only concerned with opposing their own governments without giving a damn about the fate of other populations. This is no longer anti-imperialism, but right-wing isolationism (..)
(..)The left should learn how to expose imperialist hypocrisy by using against it the very same moral weapons that it cynically exploits, instead of rendering this hypocrisy more effective by appearing as not caring about moral considerations. They are the ones with double standards, not us.
(G Achcar)

Surely food for thought?
About your first point: no, the revolt in Libya has nothing to do with the two other revolutions, the one that ended up deposing Mubarak and Ben Ali. It's clearly a western-backed plot. Don't be fooled.

I like your point. I do agree this is an important subject to be discussed by the left. However, the left is weakened in many parts of the world, especially the developed world, exactly because it has subjected to too many compromises. If you ask my opinion, the left has not only distanced itself from its base but it has also tried too hard to reach for centrist/rightist voters. Nowadays the left not only can't act independently, but it's playing the game as it's dictated by the right, a fatal mistake. I feel the left doesn't discuss economy enough and it doesn't foster independent thinking on the subject. Right now there's this neoliberal economic establishment dictating austerity for everybody when it's clear it's not the way to go. Keynesianism should be stronger than ever and yet you don't hear a single voice defending it. There's where the left plays the right's game. They let the economic discussion be done entirely on the right's terms and the media obviously bombards everybody with the rightist about austerity and free market 24-7. When you talk about defending principles and standing obdurately by them even when the situation presents itself otherwise, all this comes to my mind. The left has, lately, given too much of its principles in the name of conciliation. So when you ask if our way of thinking isn't a demonstration of the left's weakness, I give you another take on it. It's a dividing line. Too much has been conceded. Libya is a clear western Iraq-styled western intervention to take Libya's oil and remove a government which, for years, played a completely different role than the usual third-world role of absolute subjugation to the first world's interests. Gaddafi is just a pretext, like the WMD were for Iraq. We can't be fooled once again.

There's been a renaissance of the left here in South America, even though the neoreactionarism à la US contaminates the right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilovetheblues_86 View Post
Guga, Lybia was also divided between rival tribes.
But there never was a central Africa-style genocide there.
GlennMirnyi is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 07:20 PM   #230
country flag EKSTREMISTA
Registered User
 
EKSTREMISTA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 304
EKSTREMISTA has a reputation beyond reputeEKSTREMISTA has a reputation beyond reputeEKSTREMISTA has a reputation beyond reputeEKSTREMISTA has a reputation beyond reputeEKSTREMISTA has a reputation beyond reputeEKSTREMISTA has a reputation beyond reputeEKSTREMISTA has a reputation beyond reputeEKSTREMISTA has a reputation beyond reputeEKSTREMISTA has a reputation beyond reputeEKSTREMISTA has a reputation beyond reputeEKSTREMISTA has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Libya/Egypt/Syria/bahrain/Jordan - middle east Mayham

Why are we making war against Libya - Real and False Reasons
Diana Johnstone


Counterpunch, March 23, 2011.




Reason Number One: Regime change

This was announced as the real objective the moment French president Nicolas Sarkozy took the extraordinary step of recognizing the rebels in Benghazi as "the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people". This recognition was an extraordinary violation of all diplomatic practice and principles. It meant non-recognition of the existing Libyan government and its institutions, which, contrary to the magical notions surrounding the word "dictator", cannot be reduced to the personality of one strongman. A major European nation, France, swept aside all those institutions to proclaim that an obscure group of rebels in a traditionally rebellious part of Libya constituted the North African nation’s legitimate government.

Since factually this was clearly not true, it could only be the proclamation of an objective to be reached by war. The French announcement was equivalent to a declaration of war against Libya, a war to defeat Kadhafi and put the mysterious rebels in power in his place.

False Pretext Number One: "to protect civilians"

The falsity of this pretext is obvious, first of all, because the UN Resolution authorizing military action "to protect civilians" was drawn up by France – whose objective was clearly regime change – and its Western allies. Had the real concern of the UN Security Council been to "protect innocent lives", it would have, could have, should have sent a strong neutral observer mission to find out what was really happening in Libya. There was no proof of rebel claims that the Kadhafi regime was slaughtering civilians. Had there been visible proof of such atrocities, we can be sure that they would have been shown regularly on prime time television. We have seen no such proof. A UN fact-finding mission could have very rapidly set the record straight, and the Security Council could then have acted on the basis of factual information rather than of claims by rebels seeking international aid for their cause. Instead, the Security Council, now little more than an instrument of Western powers, rushed ahead with sanctions, referral of alleged present or expected "crimes against humanity" to the International Criminal Court, and finally an authorization of a "no-fly zone" which Western powers were certain to interpret as a license to wage all-out war against Libya.

Once the United States and its leading NATO allies are authorized to "protect civilians", they do so with the instruments they have: air strikes; bombing and cruise missiles. Air strikes, bombing and cruise missiles are not designed to "protect civilians" but rather to destroy military targets, which inevitably leads to killing civilians. Aside from such "collateral damage", what right do we have to kill Libyan military personnel manning airports and other Libyan defense facilities? What have they done to us?

Reason Number Two: Because it’s easy

With NATO forces bogged down in Afghanistan, certain alliance leaders (but not all of them) could think it would be a neat idea to grab a quick and easy victory in a nice little "humanitarian war". This, they can hope, could revive enthusiasm for military operations and increase the flagging popularity of politicians able to strut around as champions of "democracy" and destroyers of "dictators". Libya looks like an easy target. There you have a huge country, mostly desert, with only about six million inhabitants. The country’s defense installations are all located along the Mediterranean coast, within easy reach of NATO country fighter jets and US cruise missiles. Libyan armed forces are small, weak and untested. It looks like a pushover, not quite as easy as Grenada but no harder than Serbia. Sarkozy and company can hope to strut their victory strut in short order.

False Pretext Number Two: Arabs asked for this war

On March 12, the Arab League meeting in Cairo announced that it backed a no-fly zone in Libya. This provided cover for the French-led semi-NATO operation. "We are responding to the demands of the Arab world", they could claim. But which Arab world? On the one hand, Sarkozy brazenly presented his crusade against Kadhafi as a continuation of the democratic uprisings in the Arab world against their autocratic leaders, while at the same time pretending to respond to the demand of… the most autocratic of those leaders, namely the Gulf State princes, themselves busily suppressing their own democratic uprisings. (It is not known exactly how the Arab League reached that decision, but Syria and Algeria voiced strong objections.)

The Western public was expected not to realize that those Arab leaders have their own reasons for hating Kadhafi, which have nothing to do with the reasons for hating him voiced in the West. Kadhafi has openly told them off to their faces, pointing to their betrayal of Palestine, their treachery, their hypocrisy. Last year, incidentally, former British MP George Galloway recounted how, in contrast to the Egyptian government’s obstruction of aid to Gaza, his aid caravan had had its humanitarian cargo doubled during a stopover in Libya. Kadhafi long ago turned his back on the Arab world, considering its leaders hopeless, and turned to Africa.

While the Arab League’s self-serving stance against Kadhafi was hailed in the West, little attention was paid to the African Union’s unanimous opposition to war against the Libyan leader. Kadhafi has invested huge amounts of oil revenues in sub-Saharan Africa, building infrastructure and investing in development. The Western powers that overthrow him will continue to buy Libyan oil as before. The major difference could be that the new rulers, put in place by Europe, will follow the example of the Arab League sheikhs and shift their oil revenues from Africa to the London stock exchange and Western arms merchants.

Real Reason Number Three: Because Sarkozy followed BHL’s advice



On March 4, the French literary dandy Bernard-Henri Lévy held a private meeting in Benghazi with Moustapha Abdeljalil, a former justice minister who has turned coats to become leader of the rebel "National Transition Council". That very evening, BHL called Sarkozy on his portable telephone and got his agreement to receive the NTC leaders. The meeting took place on March 10 in the Elysée palace in Paris. As reported in Le Figaro by veteran international reporter Renaud Girard, Sarkozy thereupon announced to the delighted Libyans the plan that he had concocted with BHL: recognition of the NTC as sole legitimate representative of Libya, the naming of a French ambassador to Benghazi, precision strikes on Libyan military airports, with the blessings of the Arab League (which he had already obtained). The French foreign minister, Alain Juppé, was startled to learn of this dramatic turn in French diplomacy after the media.

Kadhafi explained at length after the uprising began that he could not be called upon to resign, because he held no official office. He was, he insisted, only a "guide", to whom the Libyan people could turn for advice on controversial questions.



It turns out the French also have an unofficial spiritual guide: Bernard-Henri Lévy. While Kadhafi wears colorful costumes and dwells in a tent, BHL wears impeccable white shirts open down his manly chest and hangs out in the Saint Germain des Près section of Paris. Neither was elected. Both exercise their power in mysterious ways.

In the Anglo-American world, Bernard-Henri Lévy is regarded as a comic figure, much like Kadhafi. His "philosophy" has about as many followers as the Little Green Book of the Libyan guide. But BHL also has money, lots of it, and is the friend of lots more. He exercises enormous influence in the world of French media, inviting journalists, writers, show business figures to his vacation paradise in Marrakech, serving on the board of directors of the two major "center-left" daily newspaper, Libération and Le Monde. He writes regularly in whatever mainstream publication he wants, appears on whatever television channel he chooses. By ordinary people in France, he is widely detested. But they cannot hope for a UN Security Council resolution to get rid of him.

EKSTREMISTA is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 08:42 PM   #231
country flag abraxas21
Registered User
 
abraxas21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Age: 28
Posts: 12,552
abraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Question - what should the world do about the situation in Libya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Data View Post
But the West is involved anyway. It made big business with Gaddafi and sold him all the weapons, he now uses against his People.

I think it would even be more hypocrite to first sell the weapons that provide him all the power he now has, and then let him slaughter the people like he pleases. Basically I like to simplify it as follows: one big Clan (Gaddafis) took the power and got rich by taking the countries oil. then they bought weapons and mercenaries from other countries to keep the power, and now it should be the right thing to just watch and say, let the Libyans take care of their own things we have nothing to do with it?

Gaddafi would already be gone if there was no West.
then in order to fix things, why not impose an arms embargo and not sell some key technology to the gvt? this was a crucial cause of the end of apartheid in south africa.

that's as far as I'd recommend the west to go on in this case. Everything else would be going too far. I even fear that what I proposed here would be too much.
__________________

Last edited by abraxas21 : 03-27-2011 at 09:00 PM.
abraxas21 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 08:53 PM   #232
country flag abraxas21
Registered User
 
abraxas21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Age: 28
Posts: 12,552
abraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Libya/Egypt/Syria/bahrain/Jordan - middle east Mayham

Quote:
Originally Posted by peribsen View Post
What bugs me is that attitudes like yours and Glenn Mirnyi's, though no doubt well intentioned, want to be taken as representative of progressive, anti-imperialist, leftist thought, when in fact I wonder if they are not simply further symptoms of a weakened left that feels defeated and incapable of anything but taking a defensive stance and assuming an automatic, acritical, opposition to whatever happens. This bugs me because I have always voted to leftist parties and feel that the world needs -at this moment maybe more than ever- a strong progressive movement that tries to actually influence policies in a meaningful way, and doesn't only limit itself to passively, defensively, whine about what goes on from the safety -and increasing irrelevance- of its ivory tower.

I don't know if the above paragraph sounds arrogant, I don't really mean it in an arrogant way. I for one don't have any claim to being in possesion of the truth, this issue is very difficult and I guess nobody can be totally sure about what the best line of action may be. But there is something about which I am completely sure: the left needs to try its very best to find a line that will make it actually meaningful in today's world, or face the complete victory of the neo-reactionaries.

I suggest you read the following article, published in an outlet (ZNet) whose progressive credentials would seem out of the question, written by a man who has coauthored books with Chomsky, just to get a glimpse of the possibility of seeing things in a light that is both different yet just as progressive as yours pretends to be. No doubt, in the same webpage you'll find other articles defending other views, more akin to the ones you hold, but i would argue the debate is badly needed.

http://www.zcommunications.org/libya...gilbert-achcar

To reject compromises 'on principle', to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness, which it is difficult even to consider seriously ... (Lenin)

(..)The debate on the Libyan case is a legitimate and necessary one for those who share an anti-imperialist position, lest one believes that holding a principle spares us the need to analyze concretely each specific situation and determine our position in light of our factual assessment. Every general rule admits of exceptions. This includes the general rule that UN-authorized military interventions by imperialist powers are purely reactionary ones, and can never achieve a humanitarian or positive purpose.(..) the belief that any such attitudes should be automatically rejected as a "breach of principles," without taking the trouble of assessing the concrete circumstances, is just unsustainable. Otherwise, the anti-imperialist movement in Western countries would appear as only concerned with opposing their own governments without giving a damn about the fate of other populations. This is no longer anti-imperialism, but right-wing isolationism (..)
(..)The left should learn how to expose imperialist hypocrisy by using against it the very same moral weapons that it cynically exploits, instead of rendering this hypocrisy more effective by appearing as not caring about moral considerations. They are the ones with double standards, not us.
(G Achcar)

Surely food for thought?
Well, I guess i should say I'm not truly a leftist at all. It's funny but many times i get accussed either of being a leftist or a right winger when in point of fact i always try to set myself away from any defined ideology. Yet, I've found that an usual 'tactic' used by the ones who try to delegitimize the argument i'm trying to put accross.

But to be totally fair, I'm just calling things as I personally see them. And the events are simple: The West is once again invading a nation under the pretext of 'humanitarian reasons'. Doesn't matter that the virtually the same establishment made deals with Gaddafi in the past years and gave it its support. Doesn't matter the fact that there are other countries facing other serious issues with their gvts and for some reason all the 'free' Western media and the 'free' governments of the West can talk about is the case of Libya. Doesn't matter that Libya has vast oil reserves and that the West has been known for its oil thirst. Strange isn't it? Somehow I can't understand how you can disregard all this and pretend for a second that the West is actually trying to help the Libyan people.

So you see, for me it's not a matter of right wing vs left wing or any of that sort. It's simply a matter of seeing things with some common sense and critical thinking. Like I said in a previous post, my stance would be different if I knew the West could be trusted upon but -considering the past- that's certainly not the case here.
__________________
abraxas21 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 08:55 PM   #233
country flag munZe konZa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 35
Posts: 1,233
munZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Question - what should the world do about the situation in Libya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Data View Post
But the West is involved anyway. It made big business with Gaddafi and sold him all the weapons, he now uses against his People.

I think it would even be more hypocrite to first sell the weapons that provide him all the power he now has, and then let him slaughter the people like he pleases. Basically I like to simplify it as follows: one big Clan (Gaddafis) took the power and got rich by taking the countries oil. then they bought weapons and mercenaries from other countries to keep the power, and now it should be the right thing to just watch and say, let the Libyans take care of their own things we have nothing to do with it?

Gaddafi would already be gone if there was no West.
blah, blah , if you want to change the situation then bomb Israel since they are definitelly armed with all kinds of weapons by American regime and compliant european regimes. That would be definitelly something new and interesting and would be somewhat equal considering that they armed Israeli army with all of their top weapons. They could also dispel the myth that these wars are pushed by oil companies since Israel has none.
This thing of bombing big enemies of Israel while arming Israel to invade their neighbours is getting really old. US/NATO are just trying to take advantage of the situation and take over Libya ,something they couldn't do in Iraq or even Afghanistan. They are very eager to turn those defeats around and claim "victory" wherever they can and right where the jews want them to.
munZe konZa is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 09:12 PM   #234
country flag munZe konZa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 35
Posts: 1,233
munZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Question - what should the world do about the situation in Libya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxas21 View Post
then in order to fix things, why not impose an arms embargo and not sell some key technology to the gvt? this was a crucial cause of the end of apartheid in south africa.

that's as far as I'd recommend the west to go on in this case. Everything else would be going too far. I even fear that what I proposed here would be too much.
You don't get it , sanctions are just a prelude to war , that's what they did to us in Serbia and that's what they did in Iraq but in Libya there is no time for that pretense so they went in full force. South Africa is really different story since they wanted to side track media attention and there was no immediate jewish interests involved . They also wanted to charm black Africans to turn them to their cause.
munZe konZa is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 09:17 PM   #235
country flag abraxas21
Registered User
 
abraxas21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Age: 28
Posts: 12,552
abraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond reputeabraxas21 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Question - what should the world do about the situation in Libya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by munZe konZa View Post
You don't get it , sanctions are just a prelude to war , that's what they did to us in Serbia and that's what they did in Iraq but in Libya there is no time for that pretense so they went in full force.
i think you might be right -like i said in that post, i'm not truly sure with what i proposed. in particular, i am not sure if sanctions are the way to go given that sometimes they harm the population more than the government itself. still, i figure that an emberago or arms can never be a bad thing when it comes to target an oppressive gvt.
__________________
abraxas21 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 09:27 PM   #236
country flag Or Levy
Registered User
 
Or Levy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,071
Or Levy has a reputation beyond reputeOr Levy has a reputation beyond reputeOr Levy has a reputation beyond reputeOr Levy has a reputation beyond reputeOr Levy has a reputation beyond reputeOr Levy has a reputation beyond reputeOr Levy has a reputation beyond reputeOr Levy has a reputation beyond reputeOr Levy has a reputation beyond reputeOr Levy has a reputation beyond reputeOr Levy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Question - what should the world do about the situation in Libya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by munZe konZa View Post
blah, blah , if you want to change the situation then bomb Israel since they are definitelly armed with all kinds of weapons by American regime and compliant european regimes. That would be definitelly something new and interesting and would be somewhat equal considering that they armed Israeli army with all of their top weapons. They could also dispel the myth that these wars are pushed by oil companies since Israel has none.
This thing of bombing big enemies of Israel while arming Israel to invade their neighbours is getting really old. US/NATO are just trying to take advantage of the situation and take over Libya ,something they couldn't do in Iraq or even Afghanistan. They are very eager to turn those defeats around and claim "victory" wherever they can and right where the jews want them to.
So, Israel is to blame for the attack on Libya now, too?

Gawds, is there no limits to the antisemitism? And my dear, make no mistake, that's what it is.

Kadaffi did a lot to hold Al Quada at bay, in that respect, he was good to Israel, to the west, as well.

What issues does Israel have with Libya at present? Do educate me.
Or Levy is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 09:52 PM   #237
country flag Commander Data
Registered User
 
Commander Data's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: XR-17
Posts: 10,053
Commander Data has a reputation beyond reputeCommander Data has a reputation beyond reputeCommander Data has a reputation beyond reputeCommander Data has a reputation beyond reputeCommander Data has a reputation beyond reputeCommander Data has a reputation beyond reputeCommander Data has a reputation beyond reputeCommander Data has a reputation beyond reputeCommander Data has a reputation beyond reputeCommander Data has a reputation beyond reputeCommander Data has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Question - what should the world do about the situation in Libya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by munZe konZa View Post
blah, blah , if you want to change the situation then bomb Israel since they are definitelly armed with all kinds of weapons by American regime and compliant european regimes. That would be definitelly something new and interesting and would be somewhat equal considering that they armed Israeli army with all of their top weapons. They could also dispel the myth that these wars are pushed by oil companies since Israel has none.
Israel has nuclear weapons, bombing it is not an option as it would trigger the 3rd world war.

Plus, Israel controls have the USA so the West is not gonna attack them anyway.

Anyway, I agree that what Israel is doing should not be tolerated but I see no way to stop it. However, Gaddafi can be stopped and therefore, I'm for it. I don't see any contradiction here.
__________________
"You cannot be a number one in the world and be a good loser"

- Magnus Carlsen
Commander Data is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 11:05 AM   #238
country flag munZe konZa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 35
Posts: 1,233
munZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Question - what should the world do about the situation in Libya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Or Levy View Post
So, Israel is to blame for the attack on Libya now, too?

Gawds, is there no limits to the antisemitism? And my dear, make no mistake, that's what it is.

Kadaffi did a lot to hold Al Quada at bay, in that respect, he was good to Israel, to the west, as well.

What issues does Israel have with Libya at present? Do educate me.
Is there anyone on this planet or in any time in history that is not "anti semitic"?

I fail to see anyone who is immune from being "anti semitic" or any other artificial labels that are always brought it to protect jews from criticism. No one gets called "anti oil companies" even though they are supposedly blamed for all the mayhem in the middle east. That's because there is no one to defend oil companies but there are plenty of trained people to defend and promote jews and Israel.

Do you and your fellow people turn into crying babies anytime someone speaks critically? I am not interesting in babysitting but the honesty.

Obviously jews calling labels on someone is nothing new and doesn't say anything about such a person , in this case me.

It seems to me a big part of being a jew is to never admit anything , even the most obvious facts and to never say sorry, hence always throwing labels at critics.

Well in my case , I can deduce from the facts on the ground and from the past experience and from the defensiveness of the subjects as to who is behind it all.

Actually when I look around , I can see that Libya had sanctions from long time ago, along with Iran. Both are cosidered mortal enemies of Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_an..._Sanctions_Act
Sanctions are a decidedly jewish way of waging war, in order to weaken their target and make it defenseless

For all the know it alls who talk about mysterious "oil companies" as reasons behind american involvement in the middle east , just consider that Canada has the 2nd most reserves of oil and Venezuela is close by, so will American army be invading those states as well? Well according to the blame "oil companies" people it should have already happened long time ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_oil_reserves

Well you know as well as me it's always easy to blame oil companies or ghosts, devils, witches and so on, because there is no one to speak for them but it's not easy to take criticism where it belongs. In this case, jews will come out to defend themselves blindly always playing a victim or a baby as it were in order to bury legitimate criticism.
munZe konZa is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 11:20 AM   #239
country flag munZe konZa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 35
Posts: 1,233
munZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond reputemunZe konZa has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Question - what should the world do about the situation in Libya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Data View Post
Israel has nuclear weapons, bombing it is not an option as it would trigger the 3rd world war.

Plus, Israel controls have the USA so the West is not gonna attack them anyway.

Anyway, I agree that what Israel is doing should not be tolerated but I see no way to stop it. However, Gaddafi can be stopped and therefore, I'm for it. I don't see any contradiction here.
According to the "western media" all the enemies of Israel have nuclear bombs while Israel is poor and defenseless. And what do you mean , they can't stop Israel? They should stop sending them unlimited money and weapons and that will stop them for once which will even the force , the only way to have peace . Even their nuclear weapons were supplied by US and France. You can't go in arming Israel and attacking cowardly and deceptively their enemies and pretend it's for the peace because it will destroy any sort of balance , lead to further American/Israeli attacks and spill over the region just like Iraq and Afghanistan were.
munZe konZa is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 11:50 AM   #240
country flag habibko
Registered User
 
habibko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 19,872
habibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Libya/Egypt/Syria/bahrain/Jordan - middle east Mayham

not only is it pathetic how they quickly cry "anti-semitism" in the face of any criticism of Israel and its government policies, but the fact that they call it that, as if Jews were the only semites out there, Arabs are also semitic people you know.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Federer View Post
If I can help the game of tennis with the image or with making it more popular, that’s enough for me really. I want to leave the game better off than when I came into this great game
habibko is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios