Moderate means does as they're told. Radical means they don't. Communism "extreme left" is more like extreme right, or fascism. Peace process usually means invasion of some sort. Containment, again interchangeable with invasion. Praise for Samoza the pro American psycho... God forbid the Sandinistas start social reforms under the banner of marxism. It makes you wonder about the step-daughter rape scandal connected to Daniel Ortega. Nicaragua "was never a democracy" in the 80's even though they had a free election much better than anything in El Salvador, or Guatemala - who were murdering political opposition and blowing up independent press offices. Countries are praised based on their obedience, their servility, their capitulations - no matter how democratic or undemocratic they are. That's where the cynicism comes from - how can we trust anything, the mainstream media is a joke. We see it time and time again. Why support the leader of the Da'wa party in a country torn apart by sectarianism? Why support a man whose brother is a known drug-lord? Because America likes greedy obedient thugs who will do as they're told (moderate) and crush forms of dissent or nationalist movements. Because God forbid democracy really takes hold... or even worse the country starts to gain a strong sense of national identity (Iran). You watch, I hope America doesn't do it again but it's on the table, if they attack Iran, some puppet idiot will show up to take over the show and probably start allowing America to get its hands on Iranian oil. Though there is a paradox in Iraq and Libya... I still don't know where I stand on those.
There is for me, Libya is different because of the Arab spring, I know there is ulterior motives as to why the West intervened (as always) but the rebels were genuine rebels, and the frustrations were genuine, and the elation was genuine. I'm not convinced I could have watched Gaddafi's regime crush the people without regret. Iraq, again, there is imperialism afoot, criminal activity in the execution, outrageous scare-mongering on the part of Bush and Blair and so on and so forth. America acts in its own self interest again, and we know this. The bases are built, the puppet government established, the radicalisation of the region has increased exponentially. So we have Saddam, and the fight in solidarity with the Kurds... therein lies the paradox. Sorry off-topic (I'll wait for the other thread) P.S can't watch the vid at the mo, internet filter at work!
Enforcing the no fly zone to protect civilians would've been justified but directly participating in the civil war was not because the population by and large wanted NATO to stay out of it. NATO's excessive bombing killed thousands of civilians, and probobly extended the war by ignoring U.N. Resolution 1973 which was backed by most of the world. Shortly before the bombing, the A.U. called for diplomacy and negotiations to try to prevent a likely humanitarian disaster. The A.U. was joined by Brazil, Turkey, Russia, India, China and South Africa and others. On June 15, the African Union informed the Security Council that: The goal is to establish a regime more amendable to Western demands for control of the energy resources so I hope the Libyan people get the democracy they want. Before the Civil War in Libya, David Crane, the chief prosecutor of Liberian president Charles Taylor, informed The Times of London that they intended to charge Moammar Gadhafi for being instrumental in Sierra Leone conflict. Crane said: But the US, UK, Canada and others intervened to block it, he said: Asked why, Crane said:
By saying Nato strikes "probably" extended the war, based on what? What makes you think the rebels would have been able to defeat Gaddafi without them? Or that they would have surrendered? How was the civil war to end without Nato? I'm sorry I don't see anything that affirms this, maybe I'm missing something. I know there were many rebels who did not want intervention, undoubtedly because of Western track record, but the idea that the conflict would have been shorter, or even that victory was sure, without Western aid, including the no-fly zone, food and water and air strike etc, doesn't wash with me. I assume the AU supported Gaddafi, who was a murderous swine I don't care what anyone says - but this is where the paradox lies as I've said. Why is it that the Arab leagues and the AU's of this world are not willing to bear the brunt of these humanitarian issues but rather turn a blind eye. We know how America does business (and yes there will be civilian casualties), everyone does... so maybe contiguous countries should do more to help their neighbours. This is not the same as the Reagan administration supporting tyrants and crushing nationalist movements, the tyrant in this case is toppled, so it cannot be viewed in the same light. We shall see what happens in Syria.
The Libyan people did not want NATO to intervene because they dont trust their intentions with good reason. If UN Resolution 1973 failed and they defeated the tyrant without NATO involvement they would've had the freedom to design the democracy that they want. You know, like we did? It's called national self determination. Now they got the empire lingering around trying to preserve the existing system and to secure control of the energy resources - resources that could have been used for social and economic development. This thread is about Chile btw.
Chile is different, as are all the activities in Latin America, there are similarities but I don't think (aside from possibly Israel) that America has sunk as low since the turn of the millennium as it did in the 60's, 70's and 80's in the shadows of the Nixon's and the Kissinger's. Batista, Samoza, Pinochet, ironically Saddam and Gaddafi, Suharto and the list goes on, all supported by the west at some point. All I wanted to do was make a distinction between supporting a civilian revolution and supporting a fascist dictatorship. Anyway good posts...
