Gadhafi is able to supress the 'rebels' in Libya becasue he has funds to employ mercenaries and superior weapons.
How come?
Where did he get the money?
Oil?
Who paid him lots of money for it?
If we bought an expensive car from a poor but dodgy neighbour and he used the money to send his kids to starve in another third world country.
How would we feel?
Would we want to intervene -- alert the authorities - or would we say - "the kids can sort it out for themselves?"
11 comments:
Sorry, I can't go along with your reasoning. The so-called 'rebels' decided on their action themselves swearing to die for the cause (noble indeed) and saying they did not want help from outsiders. Certainly others have been filmed asking for help. We were led to believe the citizens of Iraq wished to be liberated — what joy when the statue was pulled down! Then what happened? Many people were killed, the infrastructure destroyed and resentment grew stronger day by day. World terrorism against the West was fuelled even more. To arm the rebels (freedom fighters?) could lead anywhere in a volatile situation. To go straight in and bomb airforce and army bases risks much bloodshed and requires considerable planning. It could be that external pressures will ultimately win the day. Yes, lives will go on being lost while decisions are being made but dropping bombs and shooting down planes will do the same thing.
Gandhi beat the british
I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and Non-violence are as old as the hills. All I have done is to try experiments in both on as vast a scale as I could.
Gandhi didn't even come close to beating the British. The good ol' US of A forced us to divest ourselves of our colonies in return for war aid, munitions etc. What might reasonably be asked is what the hell did he ever do for India, given that today it has millions still in poverty whilst strutting about as a nuclear power. Shows where their (his?) priorities lay.
the myth of Gandhi ranks along side that of St. Mandela. A nice man to be sure but what has he done for S. Africa. Still a poor, crime ridden failing African state. Still, I guess the residents are at least free to be shot by their own people, rather than the evil whites.
Dear Billy your knowledge is sadly lacking.
The yanks had nothing to do with it.
It was after the war the dominions of India and Pakistan were formed in 1947. India remained a dominion of The Crown until 26 January 1950, when it adopted its Constitution and proclaimed itself a republic and Pakistan proclaimed itself a Republic in 1956
Gandhi was wonderfull and beat the British empire.
PAX VOBISCUM
Pax, it seems you get your "knowledge" straight off Wikipedia. WW2 drained the UK of men, resources and cash, we ended up with massive debts thus making it impossible to administer a vast country like India. Various Indians cottoned on to this during the war, with one nutcase even advocating an Indian alliance with Japan!
"Gandhi" beat the British Empire" sounds like Idi Amin "conqueror of the British Empire"!!
I've been to India, through work, several times. Despite fabulous wealth in some areas, most of the population are in extreme poverty. Many of the older generation look back with fondness to the Raj and look upon gandhi as a deluded idealist.
I say again, Gandhi, Mandela, both have left extremely flawed legacies, both promised what has not been delivered and i do feel very sorry for the people who believed in them, only to be let down.
Billy, you want to talk about India; how about Libya and the other arab countries with which we've built relationships with dodgy leaders in order to buy their oil?
Now Gadhafi for example is using his wealth accrued from us ( the West etc) to subdue his own people?
Flawed legacy?
Are we surprised that we are targetted by terrorists?
Geoff, where else were we to buy oil from? I agree, many of the Arab states are dodgy. Maybe there's a case for deposing their leaderships, colonising them and running them in a civilised manner (cf India??!!!).
Dear Billy
My experience of India is not closeted.
I did two years running an OXFAM project, village existance's.
I am sure like me you would meet the old servants who worshiped the british .
We were in India only for what we could rob them of.
The poverty and tradgey cannot be described.
This was not Gandhi message it was
"An eye for an eye and we both end up blind"
And that should be the approach in Libya.
What is wrong with idealist's instead of the greedy power freaks
Pax
Idealism rarely delivers Pax. Pragmatism and a degree of ruthlessness usually does. I recall reading that during WW 1 the yanks were loathe to help us out. They felt that as we ran most of Africa and india then we must have huge armed forces. Well, we didn't, because the Empire, India included, was run so effectively and peacefully that we had no need of massive military capabilities. Says something about the better side of the Indian Empire.
Libya is a different matter. Clearly gadaffi is hated and the people want him out. Good for them. He's putting up a fight and he'd just love it if the "rebels" dropped their guns, donned sandals and a dhoti and started spouting "ideals" at him. Libya and India? No comparison.
After sanctioning military action against Colonel Gaddafi, British and US sources admitted they should probably have checked to make sure the anti-Gaddafi forces were in possession of at least a modicum of sanity.
A senior Foreign Office official said: "Everyone was speaking very quickly and we forgot to ask about their general mental health, what sort of things they believe in and whether they simply want to take over Libya so that they can fulfil their spiritual destiny of killing everyone in Europe with a sword.
The problem I have is not being really well informed but you statement seems over the top.
There is a group at the moment meeting in Ulverston to learn more about the history of Islam. The lttle I know suggests that at the time of the Crusades it has been the Christians who wanted to dominate the world with the sword.
There are many complex motivations for the actions of the extremists who become terrorists in this country. Some of which are not religious but national and a resentment of the oppression/influence (oil) of Britain and America in the past and present.
There are whole countires that have a very different attitude to the West eg Turkey.
It's worth becoming better informed before generalising too much.
Anyone want to inform us?
Post a Comment