Five Comments on the Intervention against Libya
1. Humanitarian, my a**!
2. Who has the right to "regime change"?
3. The hidden agenda.
4. The "international community", does it exist?
5. Learning from previous media lies.
1. Humanitarian, my a**!
Do you believe in "humanitarian reasons"? Obama ,Sarkozy & Cameron as saviors of the Libyans while they send Saudi troops to massacre the Bahrain Democrats? The West is concerned about "democracy" while protecting the dictator's crackdown in Yemen?
Do you believe that Bernard-Henri Levy really cares about "saving the Arabs" - the man who applauded the bombing of civilians in Gaza? "The most remarkable in that case, the true subject of amazement, according to him, was not the brutality of Israel. But that Israel was "so patient", he said.
2. Who has the right to "regime change"?
The Libyan people certainly deserve a better leader than a dictator who has Swiss bank accounts for his family. Gaddafi has also supported some rightly hated African dictators.
On the other hand, he firmly supported Palestinians and nationalized the oil in order to provide social services to Libyan population. The opposite of Ben Ali and Mubarak. And that's why the Empire would like to replace it with a perfect puppet.
If tomorrow, the Libyans were led by a Chavez or Evo Morales, for a true democracy with social justice, who wouldn't applaud this? But if the goal is to replace Gaddafi with the U.S. agents like Karzai or Al-Maliki and to plunge the country into chaos for decades, like Iraq and Afghanistan ... How can anyone call this "progress"?
Every nation has the right to get rid of leaders who do not suit it, but that right does not belong to the great imperial powers: USA, France and Great Britain. They are pursuing their own interests. In fact, the interests of their corporations.
3. The hidden agenda.
If there was no oil in Libya, the West would not intervene. You still have to remember that most African dictators were put in place and are protected by United States or France, or both.
The real purpose of this war, like Iraq, is to retain control of oil. At the same time a source of enormous profits and an instrument of blackmail to control all economies. In fact, the U.S. do not themselves use oil from the Middle East, but they want to control all the black gold in the world. As an instrument of hegemony.
To maintain this control, they absolutely must save Israel. And for that, give it a protective cordon of corrupt Arab regimes, all with the following three qualities:
Obedient to Washington
Conciliatory to Tel Aviv
Refusing to enforce the will of their peoples to respect the rights of Palestinians.
4. The "international community", does it exist?
Manipulated by money and blackmail of the U.S., the UN is not democratic and does not represent the people.
The great powers (neo) colonial - USA, France and Britain - claim to speak out of name of the "international community".
But their aggression is supported by neither Germany nor Russia nor by China. In addition, the Council of Europe demanded that the African Union gives its accord for intervention in Libya, yet it rejected the intervention.
And throughout Latin America the idea of mediation launched by Hugo Chavez is widely supported. Why Westerners have rejected it? Because what they cared about was not to save people, but to seize the oil.
In fact, the perpetrators are a minority. Coincidentally, these are the richest and the most colonialist states, and the term "international community" is just a marketing term. Because the policy of multinationals (theft of raw materials, exploitation of labor, destruction of local agriculture and natural resources, maintenance of dictatorships, provoking civil wars) holds in poverty a large part of humanity . Their interests are entirely opposed. Speaking of "international community" is a political fraud. When the media picks up this phrase, they are complicit.
If a nation is united and determined against a dictator, it will find the strength to overthrow him. But if a civil war is threatening (and nobody denies that Gadhafi also enjoys wide support), the solution of this conflict is not in aggression by big powers. Wherever they occurred other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia), the situation only worsened. They pursue their own interests that are unworthy, and if they win, the Libyan people will be impoverished and exploited.
In the third world, people understand all of this much easier. But in rich countries they do not. Why?
5. Every war is preceded by a big media lie.
Even among the European left, there is some confusion: to intervene or not? The argument of "Gaddafi bombed civilians" has been denied by Western sources and sources of the Libyan opposition. But it was repeated hundreds of times, and it finally prevailed.
Are you sure you know what's really going on in Libya?
When the empire decides to begin a war, can the news that comes from its media be neutral? Isn't it useful to remember that every great war was preceded by a big media lie, to tilt public opinion?
When the U.S. attacked Vietnam, they argued that it had attacked two U.S. ships. False, they recognized years later. When they attacked Iraq, they invoked the theft of incubators, the presence of Al Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction. All lies. When they bombed Yugoslavia, they spoke of genocide. Also false. When they invaded Afghanistan, it was claimed it was responsible for the attacks of 11 September. Bogus too.
To be informed is the key
It's time to learn the major media lies that made possible the previous wars.
Investig'Action - michelcollon.info needs your support. Check the info, looking the other point of view, talk about it and if you can, support us to increase our capacity for independent news!
Source: www.michelcollon.info
Michel Collon
Received from Irina Malenko
|
