The left alienated from the "yes to war"
Monday, March 21, 2011
What Is Central Maxima
I apologize to anyone who is offended, but I wanted to be provocative, so I do not retract and I argue, the military intervention by the coalition (West) NATO is, Logically obvious imperialist action.
For some reason, they support the intervention from the margins of the left, this is not necessary to explain, because as I have read and discussed, I understand and share. And this is really funny in itself. What, then, the reasoning continues to support an intervention in Libya? Without getting into comparative controversial (it is not hiding, I share) is the same argument that used the U.S. Republican government to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Although Saddam had a lot less tiresome forms Gaddafi, the situation seems very different.
by some other strange reason, you feel obliged also to point out what seems Gadhafi. For me a unpresentable, a tiresome caricature of a repressor, a dictator, a lackey of the West, a criminal. So what? If something that surprises me is because I do not think an argument in this discussion. I would have been perhaps a few months ago if someone would have thought that that would be tried, but was a friend of our part of the world (for those who do not live here or here is the part that controls, or wants, the world's resources and what is right and what is wrong, that there is nothing), so there were no problems whatsoever and I could be whatever it was it was fine. As this is shared by all, the argument-excuse of humanitarian war is a priori thrown to bass. Also, what is or seems I do not think you can in any way justify, even implicitly, as shown in the arguments of many, a military intervention.
This point is not unimportant, since international law is based on no little about it, but consider other options here are not implemented by the particular case, on the one hand, and how this world for another. Why have not applied economic sanctions-political, international isolation if this criminal (I do not doubt it is) was? I will not repeat what many already know, and I've also stopped briefly reflected above. For the same, why are not applied such sanctions in all parts of the world where Gadafis, Mubaraks, Saudi dynasties, puppets of the West several war criminals at the forefront of countries or individual (has anyone said Javier Solana, Tony Blair, J. María Aznar, GW Bush ...?), etc.?
do not know if someone who is currently supporting armed intervention would ever ask for intervention on Morocco, in addition to being a dictatorship to the people concerned bloody past several decades a territory that does not belong but I challenge you to position itself Does anyone have so many balls? (Sorry to be vulgar). We speak then of Bahrain, which has apparently done while curiously the same as Gaddafi on its population, but the case has not had much media attention and, well, it's so tiny emirate that it does not matter. Nobody asked and no intervention on it, would also be very easy to settle, but not even sanctions of some kind.
and arguments have been heard so opportunistic about a potential parallel between the English Civil War and the Libyan case. Anyway, whoever wants to answer him with great pleasure (not want to spend more lines than necessary), but I think that a very deluded imperialist coalition and NATO to intervene in any way 'humanitarianism'. And here is another meeting point: it seems, assumed that if there were no energy interests in Libya not intervene. Curious. So why defend the operation navy?
means that it is necessary to oust Qaddafi, however illegitimate it may be, but that's how it is justified. So NATO is releasing the Libyan people entente? Yo, I'm a dreamer, who do not believe in 'give away' the freedom, much less in the form and substance to those people. In Chile, the U.S. did not express support for the coup, but also aim to put control of Chilean resources, I am convinced that the coup designed to liberate the country from communism, as instructed by radio to announce Augusto Pinochet.
If the tactic is to change a Gaddafi a Mubarak that the Libyans will save the war. However, there may be (no doubt) who believe that we will see, but it would in its funny. If we agree that the mission is not "humanitarian" NATO, that is, the West, will ask the party belongs, as it has done it very close in time to this time, cases of Afghanistan and Iraq. Both certainly have been elections, each more pristine, and several times that the franchise has won, but it seems that resources do not stay in the country for the benefit of the population. I would be delighted to see how someone explains to an Afghan or an Iraqi's greatness finally be 'free' as I would love someone to a Libyan contacts now to tell the plot. And it is doubly sad, because it seemed that after such unfortunate episodes in recent history, the left had reached a consensus that democracy is not exported, or that there is 'just' wars and 'unfair', but wars.
I'm not saying that is necessarily right, but we can discuss, among both declared: that is in favor of this war is an alien.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment