Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
On 08/27/2014 01:23 PM, Jon Flanders via Marxism wrote:
You know, they essentially ceded that part of the country. Libya was
going—Gaddafi’s rule was going to fall. There was no need
Tell that to the people of Homs. When French jets swooped in to destroy
Qaddafi tanks on ~19 March, they were starting to enter Benghanzi, to
carry out the "cleansing" operation Qaddafi had been promising for days,
From your comfortable position I'm sure you valued "political purity"
over stopping Qaddafi from doing to Benghazi and Misrata what Assad has
done to Homs and Aleppo. I disagree and so do my Libyan followers.
So, the second reason I opposed intervention in Libya was it was
inevitable that Gaddafi was going to lose power. Let the process take
its own way.
Let them fight a little bit. Let there be a political dialogue within
the rebellion. Let them create alternative structures of power.
And. as a Marxist, [ and an internationalist? ] what did you do to help
with that? My record is clear.
If you just give the Libyan people a destroyed country, how are they
going to build a future? And that was the real danger of aerial
bombardment of the style the Americans conduct.
Syria is a destroyed country [infrastructure wise] because there has
been no UN intervention, no no-fly zone, and Assad has been allowed to
use his air force, artillery and chemical weapons to destroy whatever
the chooses in Syria for more than 3 years now. Libya suffered very
little infrastructure damage because NATO stopped Qaddafi from doing the
same to Libya. The chaos [not destruction] is the result of 42 years of
Qaddafi rule not NATO destruction.
And its a slight against the Brits, French, Italians and Dutch to call
it an American aerial bombardment. The US conducted only about 17% of
the strike missions.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: