19 MARCH 2011 - The start of an avoidable war. News hacks are suggesting that the intervention is too late. A reporter on CNN has suggested that when the rebels, or rather opposition to Gaddafi forces, had control of the oil fields and refineries, was the time to move. Gaddafi's forces soon moved the opposition out of the oil fields and it is only now that the, so called, no fly zone is being implemented. Therefore, he suggests, this aerial strike was too late in coming. He then went on about the coalition forces' "humanitarian efforts to prevent Gaddafi from brutalising the opposition". What garbage.
So of course it's all about the oil. The idea that this is a humanitarian exercise is clearly not the case. It never has been in that area. Why oh why is the pretence, that western governments are so concerned about humanity, still such a smoke screen. Gaddafi has been in power for 42 years. The Saudi Royal family has ruled as a absolute Islamic monarchy for the last 79 years. Egypt now has a military Government, which we are told will very soon transfer power to civilian authority. We wait and see. One could go on about the various draconian authorities that have ruled in the middle east for the last 40 years; yet western governments have gone on arming them with the latest weapons and doing business. For half a century the west has repeatedly left so called third world humanity (those foreign tinted people) to cope for itself; save now and again, when it seems that some worm has turned and threatens some western economic/business interest, the fate of the people ruled by that worm is all of a sudden of importance to western leaders.
Foreign ministers keep going on about ethical foreign policies, yet it never seem to take root. Sarkozy couldn't wait to get his fighters in the air, despite the ceasefire. The ceasefire never had a chance, it was never going to get in the way. Everybody wants their Tony Blair moment. Cameron is now coming out with the shit phrase "I believe this is the right thing to do". He believes. Of course, what a fool I am, he believes it, so it must be right. Killing people is right, what could I have been thinking. Sorry, I should have said, killing people who get in the way of killing someone who is killing people. They're killing people to stop others from killing people. Of course that's the humanitarian thing to do. So civilised.
Am I alone in thinking this way? Am I out of touch? Is politics about diplomacy or just who has the most fun weapons to play with? Why
"We've spent so much money on them and would never get to use them otherwise"
Is it essential for a president or prime minister to show he's tough and can take the 'hard decision'? The hard decisions should have been taken 50 years ago and not by privileged public school boys playing out their fantasy. As to Sarkozy, he apparently completed his military service as a part-time Air Force cleaner. I guess he was keen to fly, but couldn't make it past the clean up stage. Now he can fly them by proxy. It must be great being president. Why does anybody vote for these people?
Most of the peoples in the Middle East and North Africa haven't had a chance to vote. If they did, would their decisions be any better that the ones made in the UK, France, USA etc…I know they should be at least given the chance to get it wrong, but why do so many have to die for that to happen? And why do our governments have to be the ones who kill them?
No comments:
Post a Comment