As the missiles fall on Libya, under the orders of those ‘peace seeking’ champions Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy, we can all rest easy in our beds knowing that the action being taken against Libya is “necessary, legal and right”, according to David Cameron.
Is it right that we should stop the slaughter of innocent people? Yes, provided this is done within the law, but the decision to interfere with the running of another country must be a last resort and only taken if the situation is extreme.
We are told that Gaddafi is slaughtering his people in an attempt to regain control of the country and there is no reason to disbelieve this, but is this so very different to the way he has been treating his people since he took power? Maybe you can remember how Saddam Hussein did the same, but this was ignored until it became more convenient to mention (for the invasion of Iraq).
Why has it taken so long for countries like the United States, Britain and France to become angry enough to do something about it?
The answer is quite simple. OIL! These ‘peace seekers’ have absolutely no interest in the future of the Libyan people and the protestors were encouraged to demonstrate against the Libyan leader to create this current situation (just pawns in the oil chess game).
In the past Gaddafi was seen as an uncontrollable tyrant (bordering on insanity), but more recently a deal was struck to allow the west to get their hands on the oil there. Everything seemed to be going as planned, even though the Lockerbie bomber had to be released as part of the deal. But Gaddafi is not the sort of person you can trust in a deal and he started to demand changes.
This too is similar to the situation with Saddam Hussein, who was supported by the United States (and others) while he was giving them what they wanted, but as soon as he got ‘greedy’ (in their eyes), all that changed, and the rest is history.
You may ask why it took so long for the United States, Britain and France to get ‘permission’ to drop missiles on Libya, as a lot of lives could have been saved if a “no-fly zone” had been introduced much earlier.
I suspect the delay had more to do with the selection of a “new” leader for Libya, and intensive negotiations were being carried out to the very last minute. Whoever takes over the driving seat in Libya must effectively be a puppet for western governments (as we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Palestine) and the process would be much like an auction, with support going to the person who is prepared to give the most.
We have seen governments in other countries (especially in Africa) treating their people much worse, but did anyone send in the ‘cavalry’ for them? No, because they didn’t have any natural resources to make such an action profitable.
It would be interesting to see how the authorities in the United States, Britain and France would react if their citizens started a revolution (and it could happen one day), to protest against public spending cuts, outsourcing, unemployment, immigration, excessive surveillance and bankers getting away with murder. Would we see people like Obama and Cameron crushing the protestors in much the same way as Gaddafi?
