For several months NATO has been bombing Libya in an attempt to eradicate the regime of Muammar Khadafy and install a new government, just as it has tried to do also in Afghanistan. If I understand rightly, the revolt began in Libya among 30% of the population that was cruelly treated by Khadafy. The other 70% had found a way to accommodate itself with the regime. That Khadafy was a dictator, I have no doubt; that he treated the rebellion cruelly is clear. However, since when does NATO—I speak here of those nations engaged in that military alliance—have the right to go in to “protect the population” against 70% who supported the regime? Whatever…. The effort was successful and now the victors can enjoy the spoils of a country rather rich in oil.
NATO may then be wondering where to go next. I have a suggestion: Canada. Here we have more than 60% of the population strongly opposed to the current regime. If NATO should decide to send in its forces to bomb Parliament Hill and oust the current regime, it would be doing the majority of the population a great favour. It would also be nice if the Canadian forces could contribute to this humanitarian effort by deploying they excellent bombing capability they showed in Libya (and Afghanistan).
If you need a pretext of abuse of human rights, then there are always those immigrants we keep in prison for years on end without any accusation other than they are a danger to national security, or, even better, those we send to the Afghan or Syrian government or to Guantanamo for torture.
You are, no doubt aware that Canada has excellent oil, gas and water reserves that could well serve members of NATO—just a little cherry on the sundae for their effort. Well, for the most part, I guess, we just give them all that already.
In any case, I invite the commander of NATO to consider this option, which fits in well with the general pattern of NATO adventures—oops, I mean missions. Also, while you are up there flying around, perhaps you could make a little detour and drop a couple of bombs on the Assemblée nationale in Quebec. That way we could all start over fresh: Just a suggestion.
If you need a pretext of abuse of human rights, then there are always those immigrants we keep in prison for years on end without any accusation other than they are a danger to national security, or, even better, those we send to the Afghan or Syrian government or to Guantanamo for torture.
You are, no doubt aware that Canada has excellent oil, gas and water reserves that could well serve members of NATO—just a little cherry on the sundae for their effort. Well, for the most part, I guess, we just give them all that already.
In any case, I invite the commander of NATO to consider this option, which fits in well with the general pattern of NATO adventures—oops, I mean missions. Also, while you are up there flying around, perhaps you could make a little detour and drop a couple of bombs on the Assemblée nationale in Quebec. That way we could all start over fresh: Just a suggestion.
But, to be serious, if we were to take seriously--which I don't--the arguments given for NATO's incursion in Libya and all scales taken into account, I think Canada could be presented as a case requiring an intervention. Of course, that would never fly, for reasons we all know well. Even if we were to consider the real reasons for NATO's incursion--oil, strategic military importance, etc.--Canada could still be a plausible target. It won't happen because we are all to ready to give the Empire all it wants without a murmur. The day we don't, we could well become a red zone and we all know that too. We are a major world democracy totally dependent on a huge military empire. Go figure!
If you read French, I strongly recomment Arabesque américaine: Le rôle des États-Unis dans les révoltes de la rue arabe written by Ahmed Bensaada and published by Michel Brulé Press, Montréal, 2011. Without minimizing the courage and importance of the Middle-East Springtime, it is a very different view that helps put a number of things in perspective. I will, no doubt ,have more to say about this later. In English, a similar thesis is put forward by K.R. Bolton at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23282 With all deference to the courage and success of popular movements in the Middle East, what seems to be significant is that an important amount of money and investment in formation was set aside by US interests to prepare leaders for these movements. While the movements may have retained their autonomy, and certainly could not have gone forward without the massive support of the population, the serious question to be raised is to what extent there has been an infiltration of the non-violence movement by official (and "officious") sectors in the United States in a geopolitical move to harness these movements to further US geo-political interests that, ultimately, are not the interest of the populations in the Middle East -- somewhat has happened earlier in Eastern Europe.
If you read French, I strongly recomment Arabesque américaine: Le rôle des États-Unis dans les révoltes de la rue arabe written by Ahmed Bensaada and published by Michel Brulé Press, Montréal, 2011. Without minimizing the courage and importance of the Middle-East Springtime, it is a very different view that helps put a number of things in perspective. I will, no doubt ,have more to say about this later. In English, a similar thesis is put forward by K.R. Bolton at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23282 With all deference to the courage and success of popular movements in the Middle East, what seems to be significant is that an important amount of money and investment in formation was set aside by US interests to prepare leaders for these movements. While the movements may have retained their autonomy, and certainly could not have gone forward without the massive support of the population, the serious question to be raised is to what extent there has been an infiltration of the non-violence movement by official (and "officious") sectors in the United States in a geopolitical move to harness these movements to further US geo-political interests that, ultimately, are not the interest of the populations in the Middle East -- somewhat has happened earlier in Eastern Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment