let me be upfront here i have no love, respect or regard for colonel muammar gaddafi.
the cynic in me can't help but feel the current conflict in libya has been brought on by the oppurtunism of several leaders who have low ratings at home and the need for oil, both easily hidden behind the 'concern' for the welfare of the libyan people.
recently a bomb strike has supposedly killed one of gaddafi's sons. the news of this death has caused crowds of libyans to target various foreign missions in the country.
now this could be read as support for gaddafi - in which case our support for the rebels/ insrugents/ provisional government (call them what you will) is a little bit misplaced.
or it could be read that our interference in an internal matter is creating support for gaddafi when there was none.
now slice and dice it any which way you want to but united nations resolution 1973 and the mission creep that has gone along with it is war by a different name.
we are bombing libya, we are talking about arming the rebels/insurgents/ provisional government we are telling colonel gaddafi to take a hike and don't look back.
yet for all of that the moment we decide to expel the libyan ambassador comes when our foreign mission there is ranshacked by crowds of angry libyans (ok they may have been 'encouraged'). why? simply because william hague, the foreign secretary, has said that the gaddafi regime had failed in its duty to protect it.
this would be the regime we are currently bombing.
this would be the regime we are saying does not have the legitimate will of its people.
this would be the regime that we are saying has no future.
only in the world of politics could someone say that and keep a straight face.
who would have thought that william hague would have be cast in the role of the straight man... (no i didn't mean it like that).
the cynic in me can't help but feel the current conflict in libya has been brought on by the oppurtunism of several leaders who have low ratings at home and the need for oil, both easily hidden behind the 'concern' for the welfare of the libyan people.
recently a bomb strike has supposedly killed one of gaddafi's sons. the news of this death has caused crowds of libyans to target various foreign missions in the country.
now this could be read as support for gaddafi - in which case our support for the rebels/ insrugents/ provisional government (call them what you will) is a little bit misplaced.
or it could be read that our interference in an internal matter is creating support for gaddafi when there was none.
now slice and dice it any which way you want to but united nations resolution 1973 and the mission creep that has gone along with it is war by a different name.
we are bombing libya, we are talking about arming the rebels/insurgents/ provisional government we are telling colonel gaddafi to take a hike and don't look back.
yet for all of that the moment we decide to expel the libyan ambassador comes when our foreign mission there is ranshacked by crowds of angry libyans (ok they may have been 'encouraged'). why? simply because william hague, the foreign secretary, has said that the gaddafi regime had failed in its duty to protect it.
this would be the regime we are currently bombing.
this would be the regime we are saying does not have the legitimate will of its people.
this would be the regime that we are saying has no future.
only in the world of politics could someone say that and keep a straight face.
who would have thought that william hague would have be cast in the role of the straight man... (no i didn't mean it like that).
No comments:
Post a Comment