Jump to content


Spartacus

Africa Unite


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#1 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,313 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 30 May 2011 - 07:20 PM

Haile Selassie's Address To The United Nations
Oct, 1963

Mr. President, Distinguished Delegates:

Posted Image
Twenty-seven years ago, as Emperor of Ethiopia, I mounted the rostrum in Geneva, Switzerland, to address the League of Nations and to appeal for relief from the destruction which had been unleashed against my defenseless nation, by the Fascist invader. I spoke then both to and for the conscience of the world. My words went unheeded, but history testifies to the accuracy of the warning that I gave in 1936.

Today, I stand before the world organization which has succeeded to the mantle discarded by its discredited predecessor. In this body is enshrined the principle of collective security which I unsuccessfully invoked at Geneva. Here, in this Assembly, reposes the best - perhaps the last - hope for the peaceful survival of mankind.

In 1936, I declared that it was not the Covenant of the League that was at stake, but international morality. Undertakings, I said then, are of little worth if the will to keep them is lacking. The Charter of the United Nations expresses the noblest aspirations of man: abjuration of force in the settlement of disputes between states; the assurance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion; the safeguarding of international peace and security.

But these, too, as were the phrases of the Covenant, are only words; their value depends wholly on our will to observe and honor them and give them content and meaning. The preservation of peace and the guaranteeing of man's basic freedoms and rights require courage and eternal vigilance: courage to speak and act - and if necessary, to suffer and die - for truth and justice; eternal vigilance, that the least transgression of international morality shall not go undetected and unremedied. These lessons must be learned anew by each succeeding generation, and that generation is fortunate indeed which learns from other than its own bitter experience. This Organization and each of its members bear a crushing and awesome responsibility: to absorb the wisdom of history and to apply it to the problems of the present, in order that future generations may be born, and live, and die, in peace.

The record of the United Nations during the few short years of its life affords mankind a solid basis for encouragement and hope for the future. The United Nations has dared to act, when the League dared not in Palestine, in Korea, in Suez, in the Congo. There is not one among us today who does not conjecture upon the reaction of this body when motives and actions are called into question. The opinion of this Organization today acts as a powerful influence upon the decisions of its members. The spotlight of world opinion, focused by the United Nations upon the transgressions of the renegades of human society, has thus far proved an effective safeguard against unchecked aggression and unrestricted violation of human rights.

The United Nations continues to sense as the forum where nations whose interests clash may lay their cases before world opinion. It still provides the essential escape valve without which the slow build-up of pressures would have long since resulted in catastrophic explosion. Its actions and decisions have speeded the achievement of freedom by many peoples on the continents of Africa and Asia. Its efforts have contributed to the advancement of the standard of living of peoples in all corners of the world.

For this, all men must give thanks. As I stand here today, how faint, how remote are the memories of 1936.How different in 1963 are the attitudes of men. We then existed in an atmosphere of suffocating pessimism. Today, cautious yet buoyant optimism is the prevailing spirit. But each one of us here knows that what has been accomplished is not enough.

The United Nations judgments have been and continue to be subject to frustration, as individual member-states have ignored its pronouncements and disregarded its recommendations. The Organization's sinews have been weakened, as member-states have shirked their obligations to it. The authority of the Organization has been mocked, as individual member-states have proceeded, in violation of its commands, to pursue their own aims and ends. The troubles which continue to plague us virtually all arise among member states of the Organization, but the Organization remains impotent to enforce acceptable solutions. As the maker and enforcer of the international law, what the United Nations has achieved still falls regrettably short of our goal of an international community of nations.

This does not mean that the United Nations has failed. I have lived too long to cherish many illusions about the essential highmindedness of men when brought into stark confrontation with the issue of control over their security, and their property interests. Not even now, when so much is at hazard would many nations willingly entrust their destinies to other hands.

Yet, this is the ultimatum presented to us: secure the conditions whereby men will entrust their security to a larger entity, or risk annihilation; persuade men that their salvation rests in the subordination of national and local interests to the interests of humanity, or endanger man's future. These are the objectives, yesterday unobtainable, today essential, which we must labor to achieve.

Until this is accomplished, mankind's future remains hazardous and permanent peace a matter for speculation. There is no single magic formula, no one simple step, no words, whether written into the Organization's Charter or into a treaty between states, which can automatically guarantee to us what we seek. Peace is a day-to-day problem, the product of a multitude of events and judgments. Peace is not an "is", it is a "becoming." We cannot escape the dreadful possibility of catastrophe by miscalculation. But we can reach the right decisions on the myriad subordinate problems which each new day poses, and we can thereby make our contribution and perhaps the most that can be reasonably expected of us in 1963 to the preservation of peace. It is here that the United Nations has served us - not perfectly, but well. And in enhancing the possibilities that the Organization may serve us better, we serve and bring closer our most cherished goals.

I would mention briefly today two particular issues which are of deep concern to all men: disarmament and the establishment of true equality among men. Disarmament has become the urgent imperative of our time. I do not say this because I equate the absence of arms to peace, or because I believe that bringing an end to the nuclear arms race automatically guarantees the peace, or because the elimination of nuclear warheads from the arsenals of the world will bring in its wake that change in attitude requisite to the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. Disarmament is vital today, quite simply, because of the immense destructive capacity of which men dispose.

Ethiopia supports the atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty as a step towards this goal, even though only a partial step. Nations can still perfect weapons of mass destruction by underground testing. There is no guarantee against the sudden, unannounced resumption of testing in the atmosphere.

The real significance of the treaty is that it admits of a tacit stalemate between the nations which negotiated it, a stalemate which recognizes the blunt, unavoidable fact that none would emerge from the total destruction which would be the lot of all in a nuclear war, a stalemate which affords us and the United Nations a breathing space in which to act.

Here is our opportunity and our challenge. If the nuclear powers are prepared to declare a truce, let us seize the moment to strengthen the institutions and procedures which will serve as the means for the pacific settlement of disputes among men. Conflicts between nations will continue to arise. The real issue is whether they are to be resolved by force, or by resort to peaceful methods and procedures, administered by impartial institutions. This very Organization itself is the greatest such institution, and it is in a more powerful United Nations that we seek, and it is here that we shall find, the assurance of a peaceful future.

Were a real and effective disarmament achieved and the funds now spent in the arms race devoted to the amelioration of man's state; were we to concentrate only on the peaceful uses of nuclear knowledge, how vastly and in how short a time might we change the conditions of mankind. This should be our goal.

When we talk of the equality of man, we find, also, a challenge and an opportunity; a challenge to breathe new life into the ideals enshrined in the Charter, an opportunity to bring men closer to freedom and true equality. and thus, closer to a love of peace.

The goal of the equality of man which we seek is the antithesis of the exploitation of one people by another with which the pages of history and in particular those written of the African and Asian continents, speak at such length. Exploitation, thus viewed, has many faces. But whatever guise it assumes, this evil is to be shunned where it does not exist and crushed where it does. It is the sacred duty of this Organization to ensure that the dream of equality is finally realized for all men to whom it is still denied, to guarantee that exploitation is not reincarnated in other forms in places whence it has already been banished.

As a free Africa has emerged during the past decade, a fresh attack has been launched against exploitation, wherever it still exists. And in that interaction so common to history, this in turn, has stimulated and encouraged the remaining dependent peoples to renewed efforts to throw off the yoke which has oppressed them and its claim as their birthright the twin ideals of liberty and equality. This very struggle is a struggle to establish peace, and until victory is assured, that brotherhood and understanding which nourish and give life to peace can be but partial and incomplete.

In the United States of America, the administration of President Kennedy is leading a vigorous attack to eradicate the remaining vestige of racial discrimination from this country. We know that this conflict will be won and that right will triumph. In this time of trial, these efforts should be encouraged and assisted, and we should lend our sympathy and support to the American Government today.

Last May, in Addis Ababa, I convened a meeting of Heads of African States and Governments. In three days, the thirty-two nations represented at that Conference demonstrated to the world that when the will and the determination exist, nations and peoples of diverse backgrounds can and will work together. in unity, to the achievement of common goals and the assurance of that equality and brotherhood which we desire.

On the question of racial discrimination, the Addis Ababa Conference taught, to those who will learn, this further lesson: That until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned: That until there are no longer first-class and second class citizens of any nation; That until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race; That until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained; And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed; Until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will; Until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven; Until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil.

The United Nations has done much, both directly and indirectly to speed the disappearance of discrimination and oppression from the earth. Without the opportunity to focus world opinion on Africa and Asia which this Organization provides, the goal, for many, might still lie ahead, and the struggle would have taken far longer. For this, we are truly grateful.

But more can be done. The basis of racial discrimination and colonialism has been economic, and it is with economic weapons that these evils have been and can be overcome. In pursuance of resolutions adopted at the Addis Ababa Summit Conference, African States have undertaken certain measures in the economic field which, if adopted by all member states of the United Nations, would soon reduce intransigence to reason. I ask, today, for adherence to these measures by every nation represented here which is truly devoted to the principles enunciated in the Charter.

I do not believe that Portugal and South Africa are prepared to commit economic or physical suicide if honorable and reasonable alternatives exist. I believe that such alternatives can be found. But I also know that unless peaceful solutions are devised, counsels of moderation and temperance will avail for naught; and another blow will have been dealt to this Organization which will hamper and weaken still further its usefulness in the struggle to ensure the victory of peace and liberty over the forces of strife and oppression. Here, then, is the opportunity presented to us. We must act while we can, while the occasion exists to exert those legitimate pressures available to us, lest time run out and resort be had to less happy means.

Does this Organization today possess the authority and the will to act? And if it does not, are we prepared to clothe it with the power to create and enforce the rule of law? Or is the Charter a mere collection of words, without content and substance, because the essential spirit is lacking? The time in which to ponder these questions is all too short. The pages of history are full of instances in which the unwanted and the shunned nonetheless occurred because men waited to act until too late. We can brook no such delay.

If we are to survive, this Organization must survive. To survive, it must be strengthened. Its executive must be vested with great authority. The means for the enforcement of its decisions must be fortified, and, if they do not exist, they must be devised. Procedures must be established to protect the small and the weak when threatened by the strong and the mighty. All nations which fulfill the conditions of membership must be admitted and allowed to sit in this assemblage.

Equality of representation must be assured in each of its organs. The possibilities which exist in the United Nations to provide the medium whereby the hungry may be fed, the naked clothed, the ignorant instructed, must be seized on and exploited for the flower of peace is not sustained by poverty and want. To achieve this requires courage and confidence. The courage, I believe, we possess. The confidence must be created, and to create confidence we must act courageously.

The great nations of the world would do well to remember that in the modern age even their own fates are not wholly in their hands. Peace demands the united efforts of us all. Who can foresee what spark might ignite the fuse? It is not only the small and the weak who must scrupulously observe their obligations to the United Nations and to each other. Unless the smaller nations are accorded their proper voice in the settlement of the world's problems, unless the equality which Africa and Asia have struggled to attain is reflected in expanded membership in the institutions which make up the United Nations, confidence will come just that much harder. Unless the rights of the least of men are as assiduously protected as those of the greatest, the seeds of confidence will fall on barren soil.

The stake of each one of us is identical - life or death. We all wish to live. We all seek a world in which men are freed of the burdens of ignorance, poverty, hunger and disease. And we shall all be hard-pressed to escape the deadly rain of nuclear fall-out should catastrophe overtake us.

When I spoke at Geneva in 1936, there was no precedent for a head of state addressing the League of Nations. I am neither the first, nor will I be the last head of state to address the United Nations, but only I have addressed both the League and this Organization in this capacity. The problems which confront us today are, equally, unprecedented. They have no counterparts in human experience. Men search the pages of history for solutions, for precedents, but there are none. This, then, is the ultimate challenge. Where are we to look for our survival, for the answers to the questions which have never before been posed? We must look, first, to Almighty God, Who has raised man above the animals and endowed him with intelligence and reason. We must put our faith in Him, that He will not desert us or permit us to destroy humanity which He created in His image. And we must look into ourselves, into the depth of our souls. We must become something we have never been and for which our education and experience and environment have ill-prepared us. We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community."


Lyrics from the song War, adapted from an excerpt of Ethiopian Emperor H.I.M. Haile Selassie's address to the United Nations on October 1963 by Bob Marley.
Posted Image
What life has taught me
I would like to share with
Those who want to learn...

Until the philosophy which hold one race
Superior and another inferior
Is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned
Everywhere is war, me say war

That until there are no longer first class
And second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes
Me say war

That until the basic human rights are equally
Guaranteed to all, without regard to race
Dis a war

That until that day
The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion
To be persued, but never attained
Now everywhere is war, war

And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes
that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique,
South Africa sub-human bondage
Have been toppled, utterly destroyed
Well, everywhere is war, me say war

War in the east, war in the west
War up north, war down south
War, war, rumours of war

And until that day, the African continent
Will not know peace, we Africans will fight
We find it necessary and we know we shall win
As we are confident in the victory

Of good over evil, good over evil, good over evil
Good over evil, good over evil, good over evil

Africa Unite

Africa is on the move
• Interview with Pascal Onguemby, dean of the
African diplomatic corps in Cuba

Aida Calviac Mora

FOR the recently liberated African nations, unity was a priority objective. The inheritors of Pan-Africanism, the dream of a United States of Africa and other attempts at supranational integration, they brought to life in Addis Abba, Ethiopia, a common voice to reaffirm independence.

The Organization of African Unity, which became the African Union (AU) in 2002, was founded on May 25, 1963, since then celebrated as Africa Day. Given the occasion, Pascal Onguemby, dean of the African diplomatic corps in Cuba and ambassador from the Republic of Congo in Cuba, spoke with Granma.

"Africa has been subjected to aggression throughout its history: the slave trade period which emptied the continent of millions, the long night of colonialism with its systematic plunder of our resources and finally, the neocolonial relations imposed on our countries after independence.

"Despite economic difficulties, the repeated crises, Africa is present, fomenting development, taking to heart the United Nations Millennium Development Objectives. Africa today has a voice and a vote and is making a contribution to universal civilization," Onguemby said.

What new challenges is the African Union facing on its 48th anniversary?

All of Africa is on the move, looking to complete integration of the continent. The African Union’s working bodies are persevering in fighting the lack of respect shown our culture by governments which impose their conceptions of development, lifestyle, production and consumption, contrary to the traditions and autonomy of our nations. The AU has emerged as the strongest representative body confronting the continuing presence of multinational corporations in Africa which seek to maintain their domination and exploitation of our natural and energy resources.

Given the current conditions of world crisis, what significance does the organization have?

The AU has allowed the many governments to address the crises as a group, in an atmosphere of solidarity, before international institutions. Although they are not adequately funded, AU programs serve to show the international community that the acute problems, which make life precarious in Africa, have global effects.

How much has the AU contributed to projecting this continental identity in various multilateral forums?

Given our past, our continent is very diverse, but the AU has united our forces: English, French and Portuguese-speaking, Arab and Hispanic to be able to all speak the language of African unity.

The firm principles upon which the organization was founded remain unscathed and this is projected abroad. Africa is in the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77 plus China and there are meetings with Latin America. We don’t go as individual countries, but rather as a continent. Today all, regardless of the previous colonial power, are African first, in opposition to that which was imposed upon us by those who now criticize us, but who are responsible for the current situation on the continent.

How would you describe Cuban collaboration with African countries? What are the prospects for further development?

The relationship of collaboration and solidarity between Cuba and Africa has been very strong and insoluble since the first days of the triumph of the Revolution. Comandante en Jefe Fidel Castro Ruz said that the world was in debt to Africa… Cuba has shown its solidarity with Africa in the struggle for independence and liberation from colonialism. Cuban blood has watered African soil.

Cooperation with Africa is an essential component of the Cuba Revolution’s foreign policy. Over the last five decades, more than 32,000 African young people have been educated in Cuba. Today Cuba’s army of white coats can be found in the most remote corners of Africa, bearing a single word: Health.

It’s Africa now, in reality, which is indebted to Cuba and we can repay this debt with our solidarity and our support in its struggle against the U.S. blockade and for the freedom of the Five.

In conclusion?

Africans don’t need any more promises, or paternalistic recipes. What the peoples of Africa are demanding is respect for their rights, a fair and equitable international order in which solidarity and cooperation are the guiding principles.

The African Union understands our situation and is convinced that only a united Africa can allow us to live free, without war, or fear or poverty and need, that is to say, in a victorious Africa.

http://www.granma.cu...frica%20is.html

Edited by John Dolva, 30 May 2011 - 07:28 PM.


#2 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,313 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 03 June 2011 - 04:34 AM

http://www.granma.cu...nio-Angola.html

Operation Carlota

C U B A

Havana. June 2, 2011


Angola, the epic lives on at home

Pastor Batista Valdés

THERE are chapters that stand the test of time for centuries in the memories of peoples. Among these are those written by the more than 370,000 Cubans in Angola, 14,000 kilometers away from home, from the latter part of 1975 until May of 1991, shoulder to shoulder with Angolans, with whom they shared a deeply felt, common ancestry.

There are thousands of names and faces of men and women in all of Cuba, anonymous contributors to the victory which preserved Angola’s sovereignty with the definitive expulsion of those who presumed to appropriate the country and which led to the application of United Nations Resolution 435/78 (recognizing the independence of Namibia) and contributing to the end of the racist, segregationist regime in South Africa.

It was no accident that, while visiting Cuba in the summer of 1991, the South African leader Nelson Mandela asserted, "Cuito Cuanavale marked the turning point in the struggle to liberate the continent and our country from the scourge of apartheid."

More than 35 years have passed since, at the request of the Angolan people and their leader Dr. Agostinho Neto, the first Cuban internationalists arrived. And two decades since the victorious return of the last combatants in a battle which proved to be decisive in the future of the African continent. With the return of this last group of internationalists, Operation Carlota came to an end.

Sometimes I have the feeling that, within families and social circles, not much is said about this gesture of solidarity, the human importance of which reached unprecedented heights, well beyond the military terrain.

Perhaps this is due to the natural deep-seated modesty of the thousands of fathers and grandfathers, uncles and neighbors of today’s young people who would likewise extend their hands.

Nevertheless, along with the medal, the photo and perhaps even the camouflage uniform carefully stored with justifiable pride, memories of those days reappear: those of the Cuban doctor urgently treating a child with malaria or a sick old man; our soldiers constructing a playground or a small school, a monument erected on the mountainside commemorating an everyday victory, the power of a letter from the family, the lessons of Cuito Carnavale, the unstoppable advance, the final blow at Calueque, the peace accords, the first triumphant return, the tear-stained faces of many Angolans during the farewells…

Amidst the great popular joy of the successful return and the pain felt missing those who shed their blood there, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz spoke for all of Cuba when on May 27, 1991 he said that history would vindicate the transcendental importance of the gesture undertaken by Cuba’s people.



#3 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,313 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 14 June 2011 - 07:22 AM

more from granma...


NATO: Free Africa from the Africans!

By Glen Ford

AS far as the United States and Europe are concerned, Africans have nothing to say about what happens in Africa. South African President Jacob Zuma made a second trip to Libya this week, on behalf of the African Union, seeking a diplomatic end to NATO’s war against Mouammar Gaddafi’s government. Just as with a previous African Union peace keeping mission, back in early April, Colonel Gaddafi agreed to the peace plan. And just as before, the so-called rebels and their American and European bosses refused even to consider a cease fire.

As has been obvious from the beginning of this “humanitarian” farce, the Great White Fathers of Europe and the “Wall Street mascot” from the United States, as Obama has been called, will be satisfied with nothing less than regime change in Libya – and to hell with what Africans think!

The Euro-Americans will soon prove just as contemptuous of their erstwhile North African Arab allies, based in Benghazi, who claim to be leading a “revolution” against Gaddafi. But these rebels lost their legitimacy the second they decided to become the ground troops for a neocolonial invasion of North Africa. Revolutionaries fight the Power. The gang from Benghazi are mere pawns of imperialism and have no credibility whatsoever as revolutionaries. This is an imperialist war, fought for imperial objectives.

The rebels have chosen to become imperialism’s mascots, waiting like pitiful little Gunga Dins for the British and French to arrive with attack helicopters to burn and kill their countrymen.

NATO orders their Libyan minions around like children. NATO recently “issued instructions” that the rebels not move beyond certain points in the desert, so as not to enter the killing fields that the rich white fathers – plus Obama – are preparing to incinerate Libyan government soldiers. Naturally, the rebels will do exactly as they are told, since this is not their revolution. Rather, Libya is the front line of the European and American counter-revolution. The chain of command reaches to Paris, London and Washington. Benghazi has reverted to the colonial outpost that it was when the Italians ruled – only now, in the 21st century, all of the Europeans plus the Americans get to lord over the Libyans, who grin and skin while thanking the colonizers for coming back to save Africa from the Africans.

And so it makes perfect sense that a peace proposal from the president of South Africa, Black Africa's most powerful and wealthy country, acting on behalf of the organization that includes every nation on the continent, counts for less than nothing in the imperial scheme of things. The West encourages South African President Jacob Zuma to help bring chaotic Black countries into line, but Zuma and the African Union are not authorized to interfere with imperial wars on the continent. That's “white folks’ business.”

When the Western attack helicopters arrive, the Benghazi-based rebels will cheer, as if they won something. The Gunga Dins should carefully study those helicopters and their awesome firepower, because those guns will one day likely be turned against them. The U.S. and Europe have no intention of allowing Libyans to rule Libya. And after all, why should the imperialists hand over all that oil to a bunch of local flunkies who couldn't even fight their own war? (Taken from Black Agenda Report)



#4 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2011 - 07:53 AM

Glen Ford doesn't know what he is talking about.

NATO told rebel forces to retreat so they could attack the Gadhafi mercenaries without injuring them.

And the idea that they would use the attack helicopters anytime against the Libyan rebels is absurd.

The only imperialist mascots are those who cling to power they kept for so long by hustling Western money and arms to fight the mythical Boogyman - Al Qaeda.

Those who try to portray the young Arab revolutionaries as western pawns fail to consider that they took up arms only after their peaceful demonstrations were violently attacked, and were instigated to oppose the dictators, not by the CIA or al-Qaeda, but by Mohamid Bouazizi, who set himself on fire in an attempt to call attention to the injustice of the Yemen government, which has since been overthrown.

You can believe anything you want about the Arab revolutions currently sweeping across the entire North African and Middle East region, but you can't deny that it is a self-proclaimed Democratic Revolution that was sparked by the act of a persecuted young man, and is secular - non-religious - as the Islamic Brotherhood declined to take part when they had the opportunity, and it seeks liberty, economic freedom, justice and democracy.

If you prefer to take the view of most conservative (Rogers), liberals (Kucinich) or even radicals (McKinney, Madisen), then you will be on the wrong side of history after this revolution plays out.

The article you posted fails to mention that the revolution was started by Africans and is being resolved by Africans on the ground, and supported by NATO air forces against a solid military that was supported, until the revolt, by the United States, UK, France, Italy and other imperialists.

So which way is it? Was Gadhafi in league with the imperialists until the revolt, or are the imperialists taking over?

You can't have it both ways.

You are either with the revolution or for the tyrants and dictators, and it appears to me that John Dolva, if he supports the Granma-Castro friendly dictators club line, is backing not only the wrong side, but clearly the bad side of this fight.

Bill Kelly
remembertheintrepid.blogspot.com
revolutionaryprogram.blogspot.com

Edited by William Kelly, 14 June 2011 - 07:56 AM.


#5 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2011 - 09:03 AM

Glen Ford doesn't know what he is talking about.

NATO told rebel forces to retreat so they could attack the Gadhafi mercenaries without injuring them.

And the idea that they would use the attack helicopters anytime against the Libyan rebels is absurd.

The only imperialist mascots are those who cling to power they kept for so long by hustling Western money and arms to fight the mythical Boogyman - Al Qaeda.

Those who try to portray the young Arab revolutionaries as western pawns fail to consider that they took up arms only after their peaceful demonstrations were violently attacked, and were instigated to oppose the dictators, not by the CIA or al-Qaeda, but by Mohamid Bouazizi, who set himself on fire in an attempt to call attention to the injustice of the Yemen government, which has since been overthrown.

You can believe anything you want about the Arab revolutions currently sweeping across the entire North African and Middle East region, but you can't deny that it is a self-proclaimed Democratic Revolution that was sparked by the act of a persecuted young man, and is secular - non-religious - as the Islamic Brotherhood declined to take part when they had the opportunity, and it seeks liberty, economic freedom, justice and democracy.

If you prefer to take the view of most conservative (Rogers), liberals (Kucinich) or even radicals (McKinney, Madisen), then you will be on the wrong side of history after this revolution plays out.

The article you posted fails to mention that the revolution was started by Africans and is being resolved by Africans on the ground, and supported by NATO air forces against a solid military that was supported, until the revolt, by the United States, UK, France, Italy and other imperialists.

So which way is it? Was Gadhafi in league with the imperialists until the revolt, or are the imperialists taking over?

You can't have it both ways.

You are either with the revolution or for the tyrants and dictators, and it appears to me that John Dolva, if he supports the Granma-Castro friendly dictators club line, is backing not only the wrong side, but clearly the bad side of this fight.

Bill Kelly
remembertheintrepid.blogspot.com
revolutionaryprogram.blogspot.com


Nothing breeds good music like a little revolution.


YouTube - Alpha Blondy - We want peace in Libya

Revolutionary Program: Libyan National Anthems


Revolutionary Program: Revolutionary Rap




#6 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2011 - 09:03 AM

Glen Ford doesn't know what he is talking about.

NATO told rebel forces to retreat so they could attack the Gadhafi mercenaries without injuring them.

And the idea that they would use the attack helicopters anytime against the Libyan rebels is absurd.

The only imperialist mascots are those who cling to power they kept for so long by hustling Western money and arms to fight the mythical Boogyman - Al Qaeda.

Those who try to portray the young Arab revolutionaries as western pawns fail to consider that they took up arms only after their peaceful demonstrations were violently attacked, and were instigated to oppose the dictators, not by the CIA or al-Qaeda, but by Mohamid Bouazizi, who set himself on fire in an attempt to call attention to the injustice of the Yemen government, which has since been overthrown.

You can believe anything you want about the Arab revolutions currently sweeping across the entire North African and Middle East region, but you can't deny that it is a self-proclaimed Democratic Revolution that was sparked by the act of a persecuted young man, and is secular - non-religious - as the Islamic Brotherhood declined to take part when they had the opportunity, and it seeks liberty, economic freedom, justice and democracy.

If you prefer to take the view of most conservative (Rogers), liberals (Kucinich) or even radicals (McKinney, Madisen), then you will be on the wrong side of history after this revolution plays out.

The article you posted fails to mention that the revolution was started by Africans and is being resolved by Africans on the ground, and supported by NATO air forces against a solid military that was supported, until the revolt, by the United States, UK, France, Italy and other imperialists.

So which way is it? Was Gadhafi in league with the imperialists until the revolt, or are the imperialists taking over?

You can't have it both ways.

You are either with the revolution or for the tyrants and dictators, and it appears to me that John Dolva, if he supports the Granma-Castro friendly dictators club line, is backing not only the wrong side, but clearly the bad side of this fight.

Bill Kelly
remembertheintrepid.blogspot.com
revolutionaryprogram.blogspot.com


Nothing breeds good music like a little revolution.


YouTube - Alpha Blondy - We want peace in Libya

Revolutionary Program: Libyan National Anthems


Revolutionary Program: Revolutionary Rap




#7 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2011 - 09:03 AM

Glen Ford doesn't know what he is talking about.

NATO told rebel forces to retreat so they could attack the Gadhafi mercenaries without injuring them.

And the idea that they would use the attack helicopters anytime against the Libyan rebels is absurd.

The only imperialist mascots are those who cling to power they kept for so long by hustling Western money and arms to fight the mythical Boogyman - Al Qaeda.

Those who try to portray the young Arab revolutionaries as western pawns fail to consider that they took up arms only after their peaceful demonstrations were violently attacked, and were instigated to oppose the dictators, not by the CIA or al-Qaeda, but by Mohamid Bouazizi, who set himself on fire in an attempt to call attention to the injustice of the Yemen government, which has since been overthrown.

You can believe anything you want about the Arab revolutions currently sweeping across the entire North African and Middle East region, but you can't deny that it is a self-proclaimed Democratic Revolution that was sparked by the act of a persecuted young man, and is secular - non-religious - as the Islamic Brotherhood declined to take part when they had the opportunity, and it seeks liberty, economic freedom, justice and democracy.

If you prefer to take the view of most conservative (Rogers), liberals (Kucinich) or even radicals (McKinney, Madisen), then you will be on the wrong side of history after this revolution plays out.

The article you posted fails to mention that the revolution was started by Africans and is being resolved by Africans on the ground, and supported by NATO air forces against a solid military that was supported, until the revolt, by the United States, UK, France, Italy and other imperialists.

So which way is it? Was Gadhafi in league with the imperialists until the revolt, or are the imperialists taking over?

You can't have it both ways.

You are either with the revolution or for the tyrants and dictators, and it appears to me that John Dolva, if he supports the Granma-Castro friendly dictators club line, is backing not only the wrong side, but clearly the bad side of this fight.

Bill Kelly
remembertheintrepid.blogspot.com
revolutionaryprogram.blogspot.com


Nothing breeds good music like a little revolution.


YouTube - Alpha Blondy - We want peace in Libya

Revolutionary Program: Libyan National Anthems


Revolutionary Program: Revolutionary Rap




#8 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2011 - 09:03 AM

Glen Ford doesn't know what he is talking about.

NATO told rebel forces to retreat so they could attack the Gadhafi mercenaries without injuring them.

And the idea that they would use the attack helicopters anytime against the Libyan rebels is absurd.

The only imperialist mascots are those who cling to power they kept for so long by hustling Western money and arms to fight the mythical Boogyman - Al Qaeda.

Those who try to portray the young Arab revolutionaries as western pawns fail to consider that they took up arms only after their peaceful demonstrations were violently attacked, and were instigated to oppose the dictators, not by the CIA or al-Qaeda, but by Mohamid Bouazizi, who set himself on fire in an attempt to call attention to the injustice of the Yemen government, which has since been overthrown.

You can believe anything you want about the Arab revolutions currently sweeping across the entire North African and Middle East region, but you can't deny that it is a self-proclaimed Democratic Revolution that was sparked by the act of a persecuted young man, and is secular - non-religious - as the Islamic Brotherhood declined to take part when they had the opportunity, and it seeks liberty, economic freedom, justice and democracy.

If you prefer to take the view of most conservative (Rogers), liberals (Kucinich) or even radicals (McKinney, Madisen), then you will be on the wrong side of history after this revolution plays out.

The article you posted fails to mention that the revolution was started by Africans and is being resolved by Africans on the ground, and supported by NATO air forces against a solid military that was supported, until the revolt, by the United States, UK, France, Italy and other imperialists.

So which way is it? Was Gadhafi in league with the imperialists until the revolt, or are the imperialists taking over?

You can't have it both ways.

You are either with the revolution or for the tyrants and dictators, and it appears to me that John Dolva, if he supports the Granma-Castro friendly dictators club line, is backing not only the wrong side, but clearly the bad side of this fight.

Bill Kelly
remembertheintrepid.blogspot.com
revolutionaryprogram.blogspot.com


Nothing breeds good music like a little revolution.


YouTube - Alpha Blondy - We want peace in Libya

Revolutionary Program: Libyan National Anthems


Revolutionary Program: Revolutionary Rap




#9 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,313 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 14 June 2011 - 03:53 PM

Gosh, William. That must be a record. I suppose you are trying to make a point?

another perspective. There is a disussion going on in the left re libya. What's note worthy about the article is the south africans presidents efforts. Another one is the strength of the cuban posted article. I don''t think I've seen that for a while (I check the left news organs fairly regularly). It leads to ponderings on shame as mind-control. (I see it as an exploitation of an innate reaction to shame as a driving force in commerce and alienation). It leads to a pondering of motive. (for me anyway.)

#10 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,313 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 21 June 2011 - 06:10 AM

[attachment=22607:back_130_current.jpg]




Free Libya: End imperialist intervention

By Kathy Newnam

The so-called humanitarian intervention in Libya is nothing of the kind. It is a war in which the US-led imperialist forces have used the widespread sympathy for the Libyan people's uprising to justify the latest chapter in their war for empire.

For every aspect of the misery of the people, the blame lies squarely on imperialism. Gaddafi and his regime's hold on power are products of imperialist intervention. His social base is no longer the reforms that were made in the 1960s and 1970s under the pressure of a rising anti-imperialist movement. These gains were actively opposed by imperialism, and when it was in his interests to do so, Gaddafi conceded to imperialism, cutting deals and getting political, economic and military support in return.

Today the people of Libya are being attacked by two brutal armed forces, both using US-supplied weapons and ammunition.

The world knows of Gaddafi's brutality. But the corporate media have sanitised the US-led bombing campaign. As the war on Libya began (eight years to the day since the beginning of the war on Iraq), the corporate media waxed lyrical about "surgical" bombing and "precision" bombs, just as they did during the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad.


Not a 'good' war
The attack began with the launching of 112 Tomahawk missiles against two cities. These weapons make a crater 10 metres wide and demolish houses within 30 metres. Bomb fragments will kill well past 800 metres. There is no "surgical" bombing. No wonder that even the support of the corrupt Arab League weakened after the first few days of bombing.

Despite the overwhelming weight of the history of US imperialism, the people of Libya and the world are being asked to trust its intentions. Internationally, many sections of the liberal left, including the Greens in Australia, have rallied around the intervention, cowed by the rhetoric of humanitarianism. This war is different, they say: this really is the "good" war. It might be more popular than the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean it is right. This time the US rulers had a more believable sales pitch - and, unfortunately, some people who should know better have been fooled.

Without a consistent and vocal challenge and exposure of the manipulation by US imperialism, public support is bound initially to go the way of the war makers, who have the corporate media peddling their lies. A Reuters poll taken three days after the bombing began found that 60% of people in the US supported the attack.


Unlimited hypocrisy
This reflects the popular support for the Libyan uprising and the horror at the brutality of Gaddafi's forces. In this case, the corporate media reported the atrocities. Meanwhile, just days after the beginning of the bombing raids on Libya, Israel renewed its attack on Gaza with another bombing campaign. Of course, this didn't make the news. There were no pictures of dead and dying Palestinian children beamed into the lounge rooms of the West. This highlights that the hypocrisy of the US rulers knows no bounds. A US national security official was quoted on Al Jazeera after the attack on Libya had begun saying: "Gaddafi is one of the most unpredictable dictators on the planet and some of his loyalists can only be described as fanatical"; this dictator until very recently had the backing of the same imperialist forces now leading the attack. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton continues to warn Iran to "stop meddling" in the region!

US imperialism is the self-appointed global cop, and like all cops, it is there only to protect the interests of the rich. The intervention is not about supporting the popular uprising. The US has no interest in supporting genuine democracy in Libya or anywhere else. It fears that the rebellion will succeed and create a revolutionary government, which could threaten imperialist control over Libyan oil.

Political control

But this intervention is about more than oil. It is a war for political control of the Arab world. They rarely show their panic in public, but the US rulers are scrambling to ensure that they don't lose control of the region. In Libya, they have seen an opportunity to step in to stop the events set in train by the revolutionary overthrow of the Ben-Ali regime in Tunisia on January 14. Through the war on Libya, they are seeking to re-assert their dominance.

This is the aim of the "no-fly zone", and it will be the aim of any intervention in any of the other Arab countries where uprisings are taking place. This is why it is also naive and dangerous to demand the arming of the resistance by imperialism, as some on the left have done.

In the absence of a political leadership able and willing to provide an alternative course for the uprising, the call for the no-fly zone received support from Libyans who are facing the barbarity of Gaddafi's forces. It is no surprise that the leadership of the uprising, organised through the new Transitional Council based in Benghazi, has supported the imperialist intervention: it is currently dominated by ex-regime figures who supported the uprising only as it became clear that the regime was out of favour with imperialism. They include Mahmoud Jibril, who was key in the opening up of the Libyan economy to imperialism through his role as head of the National Economic Development Board since 2007, and Mustafa Abdul Jalil, former minister for justice.

These reactionaries moved rapidly to usurp the leadership of the popular uprising, just as ex-regime and reactionary figures are attempting to do in other Arab countries. It is these forces that the US will turn to in order to regain control, as it is doing in Egypt and Tunisia now. Imperialism has decades of experience in usurping control and putting down popular uprisings. But the wave of uprisings taking place throughout the Arab world creates a very new situation. The balance of forces in the region rapidly shifted with the mass popular overthrow of Mubarak, the US's main ally in the Arab world. It is desperate to regain lost ground and will be willing to resort to whatever force is necessary in order to do so.

The only thing that stays imperialism's hand is the resistance of the people. Opposition to imperialism runs high in the Arab world, where the impact of US support for dictatorship and Israeli apartheid is a lived reality for millions of people. The US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan face a growing resistance. At home, these wars are as unpopular as ever. The US administration hopes that presenting its war on Libya as "humanitarianism" can gain some of the lost ground and weaken anti-war sentiment in the US. This sentiment has the potential to deepen in step with the economic crisis, as more people realise the contradiction of increasing war spending while cutting back already devastated social services. Those who profit from war also seek to distract from this contradiction by propagating the racist myth that US wars are about "bringing democracy" to the world.

While this is a contradiction for working people in the US, it is no contradiction for the rich. The US economy and capitalist profit making need war. The US$100 million spent on the Tomahawk missiles fired at Libya was pocketed by the war industry.

The dominance of the US is not without challenge. Within the imperialist camp, there were divisions over the war, with Germany opposing the intervention. As well, Russia, China and India also opposed the intervention in words though not in the Security Council.

Anti-imperialist opposition was expressed by the alliance of Latin American countries organised in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA). Fidel Castro was among the first to warn of the dangers of imperialist intervention. But Castro and the ALBA countries' opposition and authority were unfortunately weakened by their failure to support the uprising against Gaddafi (which at best expressed itself as equivocation about the brutality of the regime). This sowed significant confusion and seriously weakened the anti-imperialist camp at a time when a strong and consistent anti-imperialist voice is needed.

The war on Libya is the latest in a long line of wars for empire, which have gone under many guises, as world capitalism battles a catastrophic economic crisis. It seeks an escape from its crisis by forcing the cost onto the people of the world - through economic exploitation backed up by brutal force. When it can't rely on puppet dictators to repress the people's desire for freedom, it uses its own military force.

The devastation facing the Libyan people is a product of imperialism. The US is the single most brutal regime on the face of the planet. It is foolish to believe that the wolf can turn into a shepherd. Anything that strengthens the hand of imperialism will be to the detriment of the people of Libya and the other peoples of the region.

edit format

Edited by John Dolva, 21 June 2011 - 06:11 AM.


#11 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 June 2011 - 09:22 AM

Of course many of my friends take this American military imperialism perspective too - including Cynthia McKinney, Wayne Madisen, Doug Valentine, etc., and they all want to discuss the NATO bombing of Libya out of the context of the Arab revolutions that are sweeping the entire region, attempting to rid themselves of tyrants and dictators who have been in power for decades by creating a National Security State.

The USA does not get one drop of oil from Libya. The United States does have a two hundred year history with Libya, one that has been characterized by the first Barbary Wars when the Libyans captured American ships and enslaved their crews until the US Navy went over and put a stop to it.

Those who oppose US involvement in Libya and support for the rebels against a murderous tyrant, throw out the imperialist card all the time, and say it is comparable to Iraq, but not only is the USA military not actually involved in the NATO bombing anymore, the US military will not permit the president to engage in any war that will result in the military having to occupy a foreign country for ten years - one of the lessons of Iraq and one that the military will adhere to.

The only imperialist in Libya is Gadhafi, who said he wants to be the King of all Africa.

The only way to end imperialist intervention is to join the revolution and get the dictators out of power - in Libya, in Syria, in Bahrain, in Yemen and where ever they enslave their own people.

God bless the citizens of Misrata and Tripoli for their perseverance and may they live long enough to experience a free Libya, and celebrate that freedom at Martyr's Square, and God bless all those who die in that quest.

Bill Kelly
Remembertheintrepid.blogspot.com
Revolutionaryprogram.blogspot.com

[attachment=22607:back_130_current.jpg]

Free Libya: End imperialist intervention

By Kathy Newnam

The so-called humanitarian intervention in Libya is nothing of the kind. It is a war in which the US-led imperialist forces have used the widespread sympathy for the Libyan people's uprising to justify the latest chapter in their war for empire.

For every aspect of the misery of the people, the blame lies squarely on imperialism. Gaddafi and his regime's hold on power are products of imperialist intervention. His social base is no longer the reforms that were made in the 1960s and 1970s under the pressure of a rising anti-imperialist movement. These gains were actively opposed by imperialism, and when it was in his interests to do so, Gaddafi conceded to imperialism, cutting deals and getting political, economic and military support in return.

Today the people of Libya are being attacked by two brutal armed forces, both using US-supplied weapons and ammunition.

The world knows of Gaddafi's brutality. But the corporate media have sanitised the US-led bombing campaign. As the war on Libya began (eight years to the day since the beginning of the war on Iraq), the corporate media waxed lyrical about "surgical" bombing and "precision" bombs, just as they did during the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad.


Not a 'good' war
The attack began with the launching of 112 Tomahawk missiles against two cities. These weapons make a crater 10 metres wide and demolish houses within 30 metres. Bomb fragments will kill well past 800 metres. There is no "surgical" bombing. No wonder that even the support of the corrupt Arab League weakened after the first few days of bombing.

Despite the overwhelming weight of the history of US imperialism, the people of Libya and the world are being asked to trust its intentions. Internationally, many sections of the liberal left, including the Greens in Australia, have rallied around the intervention, cowed by the rhetoric of humanitarianism. This war is different, they say: this really is the "good" war. It might be more popular than the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean it is right. This time the US rulers had a more believable sales pitch - and, unfortunately, some people who should know better have been fooled.

Without a consistent and vocal challenge and exposure of the manipulation by US imperialism, public support is bound initially to go the way of the war makers, who have the corporate media peddling their lies. A Reuters poll taken three days after the bombing began found that 60% of people in the US supported the attack.


Unlimited hypocrisy
This reflects the popular support for the Libyan uprising and the horror at the brutality of Gaddafi's forces. In this case, the corporate media reported the atrocities. Meanwhile, just days after the beginning of the bombing raids on Libya, Israel renewed its attack on Gaza with another bombing campaign. Of course, this didn't make the news. There were no pictures of dead and dying Palestinian children beamed into the lounge rooms of the West. This highlights that the hypocrisy of the US rulers knows no bounds. A US national security official was quoted on Al Jazeera after the attack on Libya had begun saying: "Gaddafi is one of the most unpredictable dictators on the planet and some of his loyalists can only be described as fanatical"; this dictator until very recently had the backing of the same imperialist forces now leading the attack. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton continues to warn Iran to "stop meddling" in the region!

US imperialism is the self-appointed global cop, and like all cops, it is there only to protect the interests of the rich. The intervention is not about supporting the popular uprising. The US has no interest in supporting genuine democracy in Libya or anywhere else. It fears that the rebellion will succeed and create a revolutionary government, which could threaten imperialist control over Libyan oil.

Political control

But this intervention is about more than oil. It is a war for political control of the Arab world. They rarely show their panic in public, but the US rulers are scrambling to ensure that they don't lose control of the region. In Libya, they have seen an opportunity to step in to stop the events set in train by the revolutionary overthrow of the Ben-Ali regime in Tunisia on January 14. Through the war on Libya, they are seeking to re-assert their dominance.

This is the aim of the "no-fly zone", and it will be the aim of any intervention in any of the other Arab countries where uprisings are taking place. This is why it is also naive and dangerous to demand the arming of the resistance by imperialism, as some on the left have done.

In the absence of a political leadership able and willing to provide an alternative course for the uprising, the call for the no-fly zone received support from Libyans who are facing the barbarity of Gaddafi's forces. It is no surprise that the leadership of the uprising, organised through the new Transitional Council based in Benghazi, has supported the imperialist intervention: it is currently dominated by ex-regime figures who supported the uprising only as it became clear that the regime was out of favour with imperialism. They include Mahmoud Jibril, who was key in the opening up of the Libyan economy to imperialism through his role as head of the National Economic Development Board since 2007, and Mustafa Abdul Jalil, former minister for justice.

These reactionaries moved rapidly to usurp the leadership of the popular uprising, just as ex-regime and reactionary figures are attempting to do in other Arab countries. It is these forces that the US will turn to in order to regain control, as it is doing in Egypt and Tunisia now. Imperialism has decades of experience in usurping control and putting down popular uprisings. But the wave of uprisings taking place throughout the Arab world creates a very new situation. The balance of forces in the region rapidly shifted with the mass popular overthrow of Mubarak, the US's main ally in the Arab world. It is desperate to regain lost ground and will be willing to resort to whatever force is necessary in order to do so.

The only thing that stays imperialism's hand is the resistance of the people. Opposition to imperialism runs high in the Arab world, where the impact of US support for dictatorship and Israeli apartheid is a lived reality for millions of people. The US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan face a growing resistance. At home, these wars are as unpopular as ever. The US administration hopes that presenting its war on Libya as "humanitarianism" can gain some of the lost ground and weaken anti-war sentiment in the US. This sentiment has the potential to deepen in step with the economic crisis, as more people realise the contradiction of increasing war spending while cutting back already devastated social services. Those who profit from war also seek to distract from this contradiction by propagating the racist myth that US wars are about "bringing democracy" to the world.

While this is a contradiction for working people in the US, it is no contradiction for the rich. The US economy and capitalist profit making need war. The US$100 million spent on the Tomahawk missiles fired at Libya was pocketed by the war industry.

The dominance of the US is not without challenge. Within the imperialist camp, there were divisions over the war, with Germany opposing the intervention. As well, Russia, China and India also opposed the intervention in words though not in the Security Council.

Anti-imperialist opposition was expressed by the alliance of Latin American countries organised in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA). Fidel Castro was among the first to warn of the dangers of imperialist intervention. But Castro and the ALBA countries' opposition and authority were unfortunately weakened by their failure to support the uprising against Gaddafi (which at best expressed itself as equivocation about the brutality of the regime). This sowed significant confusion and seriously weakened the anti-imperialist camp at a time when a strong and consistent anti-imperialist voice is needed.

The war on Libya is the latest in a long line of wars for empire, which have gone under many guises, as world capitalism battles a catastrophic economic crisis. It seeks an escape from its crisis by forcing the cost onto the people of the world - through economic exploitation backed up by brutal force. When it can't rely on puppet dictators to repress the people's desire for freedom, it uses its own military force.

The devastation facing the Libyan people is a product of imperialism. The US is the single most brutal regime on the face of the planet. It is foolish to believe that the wolf can turn into a shepherd. Anything that strengthens the hand of imperialism will be to the detriment of the people of Libya and the other peoples of the region.

edit format


Edited by William Kelly, 21 June 2011 - 09:25 AM.


#12 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,313 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 22 June 2011 - 02:58 AM

Thank you, William.

The war on piracy is an interesting matter. Perhaps one for another topic. Many pirates found refuge in the new world.
There's always the matter of what goes around comes around.

I think the core issue here is economics and there the concern for the plight of human beings is merely an appeal to the sentimental.

With the US in a state of constant war any quibbling about wars no more than ten years is ridiculous. With economic leverage such as that which the US can assert and looking at the USofA's track record in supporting dictatorships around the world and overthrowing popularly elected governments I find it hard to believe there is no percieved gain to be made.


Re African Unity, which inevitably touches on sovereignty and self determination, which leads to matters of imperialism, it seems to me that the more moderate efforts, such as that by South Africa goes by the wayside in these times.

#13 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 June 2011 - 03:20 AM

Thank you, William.

The war on piracy is an interesting matter. Perhaps one for another topic. Many pirates found refuge in the new world.
There's always the matter of what goes around comes around.

I think the core issue here is economics and there the concern for the plight of human beings is merely an appeal to the sentimental.

With the US in a state of constant war any quibbling about wars no more than ten years is ridiculous. With economic leverage such as that which the US can assert and looking at the USofA's track record in supporting dictatorships around the world and overthrowing popularly elected governments I find it hard to believe there is no percieved gain to be made.


Re African Unity, which inevitably touches on sovereignty and self determination, which leads to matters of imperialism, it seems to me that the more moderate efforts, such as that by South Africa goes by the wayside in these times.


Yes, and the war on piracy is not another matter - it happens today, every day off Africa, and is the reason the USA went to war with Tripoli in the first place.

And there is no quibling over ten year long wars - as the war in Iraq has become, since the USA, at direction of its military brass, will not engage in a war that will include the occupation of a country, so there is no imperialism by the USA, at least in Libya.


You and everyone else who sides with the Tyrant of Tripoli and against the rebels tries to take the revolt out of the revolution and make it appear that the USA decided to just bomb and kill children because it likes to do so.

It's a shame that the more moderate efforts that you say you support didn't take affect before the revolution. Now it is too late.

The real and perceived gain is very clear - a Libya ruled by a democratically elected government that enjoys and open economy that everyone can participate in and prosper makes for a country that will not be a serious problem and espouse terrorism and piracy in the future.

BK

#14 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 June 2011 - 03:20 AM

Thank you, William.

The war on piracy is an interesting matter. Perhaps one for another topic. Many pirates found refuge in the new world.
There's always the matter of what goes around comes around.

I think the core issue here is economics and there the concern for the plight of human beings is merely an appeal to the sentimental.

With the US in a state of constant war any quibbling about wars no more than ten years is ridiculous. With economic leverage such as that which the US can assert and looking at the USofA's track record in supporting dictatorships around the world and overthrowing popularly elected governments I find it hard to believe there is no percieved gain to be made.


Re African Unity, which inevitably touches on sovereignty and self determination, which leads to matters of imperialism, it seems to me that the more moderate efforts, such as that by South Africa goes by the wayside in these times.


Yes, and the war on piracy is not another matter - it happens today, every day off Africa, and is the reason the USA went to war with Tripoli in the first place.

And there is no quibling over ten year long wars - as the war in Iraq has become, since the USA, at direction of its military brass, will not engage in a war that will include the occupation of a country, so there is no imperialism by the USA, at least in Libya.


You and everyone else who sides with the Tyrant of Tripoli and against the rebels tries to take the revolt out of the revolution and make it appear that the USA decided to just bomb and kill children because it likes to do so.

It's a shame that the more moderate efforts that you say you support didn't take affect before the revolution. Now it is too late.

The real and perceived gain is very clear - a Libya ruled by a democratically elected government that enjoys and open economy that everyone can participate in and prosper makes for a country that will not be a serious problem and espouse terrorism and piracy in the future.

BK

#15 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,313 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 22 June 2011 - 06:31 AM

Interesting, William.
I'm not sure what you are expecting here. Do you wish me to cast aspersions on you personally too? If so, you are wasting your time.

I really don't know why the US of A is so hell bent on self destruction. I do suspect it's for short term economic reasons to the detriment not only of the world ''outside'' but also ultimately to decent folk in the US itself. I think that should be of concern to you as it is to much of the world that does NOT regard the US as a credible power.

Your contributions to this topic about African Unity are contradictory in parts. Overall, the tone is not contributory to a decent discussion on these matters.

I'm sure you can do better. (I have seen it happen before).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users