It is not certain that Italy's Berlusconi may be a lesson in politically correct way to behave against Gaddafi. We also recently received the Libyan dictator with honors that have appeared since then embarrassing, even in a country accustomed to the follies of Berlusconi (who went so far as to kiss his ring).
While even after the bloody massacres of the early days of the uprising, the government always hides under his nostalgia for the benefits of Gaddafi: Oil, ruthless repression of illegal immigration, business of all kinds for the Italian companies. But what about the special relationship that Gaddafi seems to have with the government "left" in Latin America? The question that immediately comes to mind in this regard is: where are the weapons with which Gaddafi and his mercenaries are killing today's opponents of the Libyan regime in the streets of the city? I'm not sure Venezuelan weapons.
They come from England, France, Italy, which have f Ornito in abundance in recent years. Normal business relations, as we are told that European governments seem to only now discover the nature of the dictatorial regime in Libya. Reports that the United States, often tacitly, approved: a recent interview by Cesare Romiti, the former chief executive of Fiat, said that the CIA had been asked at the entrance of the property in the Libyan capital of Turin.
We should be ashamed, that we continue to look with sympathy and hope to the leftist governments in Latin America, for what seems like a "friendship" between Chavez and Gaddafi? A little 'paradoxically but not too much, we could answer that if there is such a friendship, is inspired by reasons far more "noble" than those which led to far tolerance Gaddafi pro-American governments like the Italian one.
In the sense that what they have had and still have in common Qaddafi and Chavez is anti-Americanism, that is a primarily political and ideological position that seems most defensible business reason for that move people like Berlusconi. Business reasons that have nothing to do with the good of their peoples, but only with the enrichment of the various economic oligarchies.
Therefore if there are excessive tolerance of Chavez, or even of Cristina Kirchner, to Gaddafi, they are widely understood in the context of errors global struggle between U.S. imperialism and anti-capitalist forces that oppose him. It holds true also in respect of governments like Iran: we really condemn Lula because he recognizes the good reasons for Ahmadinejad? We can certainly lament many behaviors of the regime in Tehran (capital punishment, persecution of homosexuals and other minorities, little or no freedom for opposition voices, the Status of Women), but not forget that we are faced with the problem of a choice between two field blocks.
With the addition, from the very field that have long raged (with the tolerance of the U.S.) dictators like Gaddafi, Mubarak, Ben Ali, are now signs of revolt that should not be used for purposes of restoration, for example by playing " friendship "to Gaddafi as a tool for Chavez's efforts to discredit the Venezuelan government that real progress is doing to create a society closer to the ideals of socialism.
So, if we were to stop the slaughter of Gaddafi today hope a U.S. intervention in North Africa, really betray the sacrifice of many young Libyans and Tunisians and Egyptians, who gave their lives for their new hope for freedom. 
While even after the bloody massacres of the early days of the uprising, the government always hides under his nostalgia for the benefits of Gaddafi: Oil, ruthless repression of illegal immigration, business of all kinds for the Italian companies. But what about the special relationship that Gaddafi seems to have with the government "left" in Latin America? The question that immediately comes to mind in this regard is: where are the weapons with which Gaddafi and his mercenaries are killing today's opponents of the Libyan regime in the streets of the city? I'm not sure Venezuelan weapons.
They come from England, France, Italy, which have f Ornito in abundance in recent years. Normal business relations, as we are told that European governments seem to only now discover the nature of the dictatorial regime in Libya. Reports that the United States, often tacitly, approved: a recent interview by Cesare Romiti, the former chief executive of Fiat, said that the CIA had been asked at the entrance of the property in the Libyan capital of Turin.
We should be ashamed, that we continue to look with sympathy and hope to the leftist governments in Latin America, for what seems like a "friendship" between Chavez and Gaddafi? A little 'paradoxically but not too much, we could answer that if there is such a friendship, is inspired by reasons far more "noble" than those which led to far tolerance Gaddafi pro-American governments like the Italian one.
In the sense that what they have had and still have in common Qaddafi and Chavez is anti-Americanism, that is a primarily political and ideological position that seems most defensible business reason for that move people like Berlusconi. Business reasons that have nothing to do with the good of their peoples, but only with the enrichment of the various economic oligarchies.
Therefore if there are excessive tolerance of Chavez, or even of Cristina Kirchner, to Gaddafi, they are widely understood in the context of errors global struggle between U.S. imperialism and anti-capitalist forces that oppose him. It holds true also in respect of governments like Iran: we really condemn Lula because he recognizes the good reasons for Ahmadinejad? We can certainly lament many behaviors of the regime in Tehran (capital punishment, persecution of homosexuals and other minorities, little or no freedom for opposition voices, the Status of Women), but not forget that we are faced with the problem of a choice between two field blocks.
With the addition, from the very field that have long raged (with the tolerance of the U.S.) dictators like Gaddafi, Mubarak, Ben Ali, are now signs of revolt that should not be used for purposes of restoration, for example by playing " friendship "to Gaddafi as a tool for Chavez's efforts to discredit the Venezuelan government that real progress is doing to create a society closer to the ideals of socialism.
So, if we were to stop the slaughter of Gaddafi today hope a U.S. intervention in North Africa, really betray the sacrifice of many young Libyans and Tunisians and Egyptians, who gave their lives for their new hope for freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment