The war has already broken out, pace of the President denies that, and will be a war again founding: a new balance and new policy direction. Despite the attack on Libya is cloaked in humanitarian and progressive - the protection of civilians - you can not leave out important questions and considerations.
The "international community" has only now realized that Gaddafi is a danger? that the Libyan civilian population is humiliated, and now the massacre? Why did they race to contract, to sell arms to support a regime unpresentable? Gaddafi went well until the oil contracts guaranteed and blocked the flow of immigrants from south to north and becomes an enemy to be deleted when the Libyan population - and more! - Put it in crisis and narrow? And why so late and did not intervene when Gaddafi was crushed in the corner and closed some bunker? Answering that behind all this there is a geopolitical reasons and the profit motive is all too easy.
Just as it is easy to see how the Western powers have started their "little risiko" North African with a game of alliances and cross competitions in this time, the sacrificial victim is Italy. The diplomatic row that has opened up between the Ministry and the Quai d'Orsa is shown with fanfare.
The U.S. has acted in the same way Italy was found to tow a situation that did not want and that, indeed, tried to avoid for a long time. And while the pro-US La Russa tries to look like the model student in the eyes of Washington, Berlusconi chew bitter because war is also against its foreign policy and procurement of energy sources.
The U.S. had warned him several times and dispatches published by Wikileaks had confirmed: a friendship with Libya did not like the U.S. administration and now got the opportunity to adjust a bit 'accounts. As you can see, the fate of the Libyan people has little to do. You go to war but then there is someone who has taken a serious balance of other humanitarian wars? I really do not see that Afghanistan is no man's land, that Iraq remained a battlefield and that, after ten years, Kosovo is going to explode again? Analysts are more serious can really argue that the policy was inaugurated in the early 90 by Bush Senjora and then revived by Bush Jr.
has helped humanity, the people, improving the quality of international relations? O is not served, however, to improve the U.S. oil supply, and balance for the economic decline by military means? Not only that, but nobody feels the need to justify the hypocrisy with which help the Libyans and the reigning indifference to other peoples and repression: in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen or in Palestine itself.
And what about the massacres in Africa and Sri Lanka. What about the disgraceful situation that has reigned for years in Myanmar? And then, one could argue that you suggest? We must equip themselves to bomb half the world, to an absurd level playing field, or retire and do nothing? At this point are the first words used by Gino Strada, in his interview with the daily show: "At this point it is very difficult to understand what can be done.
At issue are when they become insoluble. At this point you can do? Nothing, be under the bombs. It is possible that you always reasons in terms of 'how many planes, how many troops, how many bombs'. Instead, maybe we could stop doing business with Qaddafi. " The tactic of letting the situation fester to solve only with the acceptance of the bombs is as old as military diplomacy.
If the world were governed better we would see insulation made of Gaddafi's unexpected times, we would see the parliaments and governments refuse to enter into treaties of friendship with the sole purpose to stop the African migration (with the consequence of her death from hunger and thirst the Sahara desert), we would see a foreign and economic policy can achieve a real development of the poorest countries without robbing their resources, we would see cooperation and development go hand in hand, we would see governments and parliaments to immediately get off the side of the people rebels.
Those riots have given way and the sign of a new course, today, military intervention is likely to slow down. We saw an attempt at intervention based sull'interposizione protection, even if the same idea of UN troops deployed to defend the civilian population has been sabotaged by Western policies over the years.
But no war can not be separated from the support to Arab riots, the only way to secure the expulsion of the tyrants and design a new democracy in the whole area. And this certainly does not help the attitude of a left split between two wrong positions to defend the military attack, even be a champion dell'oltranzismo Atlantic asking the Italian government to be more faithful to what the rebelliousness of the League can provide, defend Gaddafi in the name of "anti-imperialism" abstract for the enemies of my enemies are still my friends.
But reflected a minority that has made extensive and that is affecting the reaction of those who repudiates war. Two reflections and two policies that have prevented it from being on the side of Arab riots with the necessary will. Yet, just as you begin to remember the ten years after the G8 summit in Genoa, what was then called the "second superpower" would have new reasons to be presented and new topics to be heard. 
The "international community" has only now realized that Gaddafi is a danger? that the Libyan civilian population is humiliated, and now the massacre? Why did they race to contract, to sell arms to support a regime unpresentable? Gaddafi went well until the oil contracts guaranteed and blocked the flow of immigrants from south to north and becomes an enemy to be deleted when the Libyan population - and more! - Put it in crisis and narrow? And why so late and did not intervene when Gaddafi was crushed in the corner and closed some bunker? Answering that behind all this there is a geopolitical reasons and the profit motive is all too easy.
Just as it is easy to see how the Western powers have started their "little risiko" North African with a game of alliances and cross competitions in this time, the sacrificial victim is Italy. The diplomatic row that has opened up between the Ministry and the Quai d'Orsa is shown with fanfare.
The U.S. has acted in the same way Italy was found to tow a situation that did not want and that, indeed, tried to avoid for a long time. And while the pro-US La Russa tries to look like the model student in the eyes of Washington, Berlusconi chew bitter because war is also against its foreign policy and procurement of energy sources.
The U.S. had warned him several times and dispatches published by Wikileaks had confirmed: a friendship with Libya did not like the U.S. administration and now got the opportunity to adjust a bit 'accounts. As you can see, the fate of the Libyan people has little to do. You go to war but then there is someone who has taken a serious balance of other humanitarian wars? I really do not see that Afghanistan is no man's land, that Iraq remained a battlefield and that, after ten years, Kosovo is going to explode again? Analysts are more serious can really argue that the policy was inaugurated in the early 90 by Bush Senjora and then revived by Bush Jr.
has helped humanity, the people, improving the quality of international relations? O is not served, however, to improve the U.S. oil supply, and balance for the economic decline by military means? Not only that, but nobody feels the need to justify the hypocrisy with which help the Libyans and the reigning indifference to other peoples and repression: in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen or in Palestine itself.
And what about the massacres in Africa and Sri Lanka. What about the disgraceful situation that has reigned for years in Myanmar? And then, one could argue that you suggest? We must equip themselves to bomb half the world, to an absurd level playing field, or retire and do nothing? At this point are the first words used by Gino Strada, in his interview with the daily show: "At this point it is very difficult to understand what can be done.
At issue are when they become insoluble. At this point you can do? Nothing, be under the bombs. It is possible that you always reasons in terms of 'how many planes, how many troops, how many bombs'. Instead, maybe we could stop doing business with Qaddafi. " The tactic of letting the situation fester to solve only with the acceptance of the bombs is as old as military diplomacy.
If the world were governed better we would see insulation made of Gaddafi's unexpected times, we would see the parliaments and governments refuse to enter into treaties of friendship with the sole purpose to stop the African migration (with the consequence of her death from hunger and thirst the Sahara desert), we would see a foreign and economic policy can achieve a real development of the poorest countries without robbing their resources, we would see cooperation and development go hand in hand, we would see governments and parliaments to immediately get off the side of the people rebels.
Those riots have given way and the sign of a new course, today, military intervention is likely to slow down. We saw an attempt at intervention based sull'interposizione protection, even if the same idea of UN troops deployed to defend the civilian population has been sabotaged by Western policies over the years.
But no war can not be separated from the support to Arab riots, the only way to secure the expulsion of the tyrants and design a new democracy in the whole area. And this certainly does not help the attitude of a left split between two wrong positions to defend the military attack, even be a champion dell'oltranzismo Atlantic asking the Italian government to be more faithful to what the rebelliousness of the League can provide, defend Gaddafi in the name of "anti-imperialism" abstract for the enemies of my enemies are still my friends.
But reflected a minority that has made extensive and that is affecting the reaction of those who repudiates war. Two reflections and two policies that have prevented it from being on the side of Arab riots with the necessary will. Yet, just as you begin to remember the ten years after the G8 summit in Genoa, what was then called the "second superpower" would have new reasons to be presented and new topics to be heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment