NATO SAVED A MASSACRE!!!!

       So the West's white knight in shining armour that goes by the name of NATO rushed in to save the Libyan people from a massacre. Six months later the Libyan people are looking at 50,000 dead and 200,000 wounded, the destruction of their water supply, electricity and their hospitals. Meanwhile friends of the white knight are queueing up to get the contracts to rebuild the destruction, of course the Libyan people will have the privilege of paying the bill. Considering that the Libyan people had the best education system and health service in the area and free clean water to everybody, some of them will be asking, could we have done a better job ourselves? Also would the white knight have rushed in to their rescue had their main export been turnips? Don't turnip growers deserve protection as much as oil producers??



     It is sad, for at this moment in time so many Libyans will be filled with hope for the future of their country, only later will they find out that they have lost their country's assets to the Western corporate world, who are not a benevolent bunch. If and when the reconstruction of their country starts, they will see their debt pile up but their assets will not be theirs to pay the bills. They will become just another nation in debt to the corporate world. How much of the oil money will now go towards giving them some of the basics they had before the white knight rushed in to save them, free education, free health care, free clean water and cheap fuel?

ann arky's home.

AFTER GADDAFFI????

STOP THE WAR COALITION22 August 2011
Email office@stopwar.org.uk
Tel: 020 7801 2768
Web: http://stopwar.org.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/STWuk
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/stopthewarcoalition

LIBYA AFTER GADAFFI: STATEMENT BY STOP THE WAR COALITION
The fall of the Gadaffi regime in Libya marks yet another turning point in what has been a truly remarkable year in the Middle East. The victory of the rebels, backed by Nato bombing in a six month campaign initiated by the British and French governments, also heralds the rehabilitation of a discredited doctrine -- that of 'humanitarian intervention' -- after the debacle of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The defeat of Gadaffi is now being used to justify military action on the grounds that it has helped the Arab revolutions. David Cameron declared outside Downing Street 22 August 2011, 'This has not been our revolution, but we can be proud that we have played our part.'

The hypocrisy of Cameron is staggering, given the role of British and other western governments in backing up dictators and despots in the region -- only halted in some places by the actions of the Arab people themselves.

The Nato intervention has not been for idealistic values. It has been about regime change, so that a leader more acceptable to western governments and business could replace Gadaffi.

Right to the end, NATO was bent on a military victory and bringing the Transitional National Council (TNC) -- the Benghazi administration -- to power in Libya by force of arms. All proposals for talks to achieve a political solution – whether from within Libya or outside - have been brushed aside.

While many Libyans may welcome the outcome, and will be glad to see the back of Gadaffi, it has a number of negative aspects.

From the international point of view, the most significant thing is that the government of another Arab state has been changed by external force applied by the big imperial powers. There is no real suggestion that the TNC could have come to power unaided. The NATO military intervention, stretching beyond breaking point the mandate given by the United Nations, has been decisive.

This will not be the end of the story. The experience of Iraq teaches that the overthrow of a regime under such circumstances by no means signifies the end of the war. Whether those who have supported Gadaffi will meekly accept the authority of a new government imposed under such circumstances is open to question.

Whatever happens, the deep divisions within Libyan society remain. Likewise, given that the TNC is an amalgam of forces, ranging from the democratic to the Islamist to leaders who are the direct employees of western interests, it may have neither the capacity to resolve existing differences nor the ability to prevent the emergence of new ones, within its own ranks.

David Cameron spelt out the close role Britain and the other western powers will expect to have in running Libya, and in how much detail they have been planned, including ‘stabilisation experts who have been planning for this moment…for months.’

Under these circumstances, the main demand must be an end to all forms of NATO interference in Libya – not just the end of the bombing, but the withdrawal of special forces and a halt to all forms of political interference. The only solution to the crisis in Libya will have to be a Libyan solution. Recent history, from Iraq to Afghanistan, teaches that too.

But beyond that, we must recognise the danger that even a passing 'success' in Libya may embolden the US, British and French governments to believe that the idea of 'liberal interventionism', discredited after Iraq, can be revived on a broader scale. Of course, however it ends the Libyan conflict has not gone as expected and none of the leaders of the aggression have dared introduce ground troops into the war. Nevertheless, the danger of extending the intervention to Syria as part of a programme to control and suppress the 'Arab Spring' is not inconceivable and must be mobilised against.

The old rulers will not be missed if and when they depart. The decisive issues – genuinely democratic and popular regimes across the Arab world, the exclusion of great power interference in the region and justice for the Palestinian people – remain in the balance and require our solidarity.

LINDSEY GERMAN, National Convenor, Stop the War Coalition
ANDREW MURRAY, National Chair, Stop the War Coalition--

ann arky's home.