First of all, thank Berta for taking a controversial issue, I know that Jesus and James are willing to give their opinions too, which I have been helpful in seeing the conflict. Let
critical. Let us at first.
I
In countries such as Tunisia and Egypt had 4 years of workers' strikes in the conventional sense, so no revolution "Twitter" or crap like that.
The Commune of Paris were organized in cafes and debates and speeches were mounted every two corners, perched in a box. In the Second Republic had greater plurality of the press and pamphlets that today, thousands of newspapers from the most diverse political tendencies running hand in hand.
came the radio, instrument underground resistance the Nazis in countries like France or in Spain against Franco (who has not heard of the danger of tune Radio Independent Spain, better known as "The Pyrenees", the radio of the underground resistance mounted by the Passion and emitting from Moscow?).
TV character always had a way, more focused on commercial advertising, but it was fundamental to the American people will stand against the Vietnam War.
Conclusion: Technological advances give us new instruments, but they do not make a revolution. The revolution made all Tunisians and Egyptians took to the streets with two balls despite the repression, seeking a breath of freedom. Twitter, only accessible to cultural and economic elites, is a medium of communication, organization and information, nothing more and nothing less.
II
in Tunisia started it all and think so, remains to be seen how it ends because we must not forget, the pilot of the transition is Ganuchi Mohamed, former prime minister Ben Ali regime. You really can have real democratic change if the right hand directs the former dictator? I think not.
Next domino Africa: Egypt. There is a fundamental fact: The choice of successor by Mubarak. Traditionally, the Heads of State of Egypt out of the Army, including his own Mubarak. But a few months before the "revolution", Mubarak decided to appoint his son as his successor, and of course the military is pissed. What happened? That when the revolution came to Egypt, the Army allowed to grow exponentially without intervening to terms, and did not surprise me anything to encourage it. What about today? Egypt ruling Military Junta, yeah yeah, MILITARY, and that the referendum has taken a slight makeup of the previous Constitution, make the opposing all leftist parties and labor movements and popular. The problem is that they were poorly organized movements, while the minority Muslim Brotherhood and the Army were well organized and supported the other, each one by his side.
Until then we can talk about getting spontaneous revolution to overthrow the despot but fail to change the system because of lack of organization and the strength of the military and economic powers.
"If there is no organization, ideas, after the first moment of momentum, they lose effectiveness" Che Guevara
continues spreading, but the protesters are now dead. There are large demonstrations in Bahrain and it seems that Sunni dictator is about to fall. In Libya, in contrast to earlier, no mass demonstrations (or photos), and if my memory serves me correctly, it was suicidal to bonzo (following the example of Mohammed Bouazizi) in many countries but not in Libya. There were no armed groups directly went for Qaddafi, and in the early days, it seemed that he would be readily available.
This is because the tribe had the power Gaddafa and favored his own, while the tribe of East Zuwaya provided has been very independent (the previous monarch, overthrown by Gadhafi, was there) and is not willing to lose power. Libya is one of the richest African countries with greater equality, and is the first in the continent in the Human Development Index. That is, people live well, even if a madman as Head of State.
No democratic revolt from below. There is a revolt from above, a tribal conflict, should be wondering where they got the weapons the rebels, we will clarify many things. Sarkozy
Zp and support the rebels to clean its image, since they were very little friends of Gadhafi. Why
support others to the rebels?
Libya gives U.S. not a single barrel of oil. NATO defend Western interests in Europe and the U.S.. And the Arab League, as well as being pro-US countries like Saudi Arabia and many others who are pro-Western dictatorships, so they are uncomfortable Gaddafi (a dictator but anti-imperialist).
Those are the reasons to go to Libya. There are 35 conflicts in Africa, but only go there.
Why not go to Israel to assist the Palestinians? No matter, are U.S. allies and have no oil. Why not Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc? Bahrain receives weapons from Saudi Arabia to massacre the demonstrators and nobody does anything. Because Saudi Arabia has oil and dictatorial ally of the West, is what they have always had in the region, "a bastard, but he's our son of a bitch" is what Americans said the Foreign Ministers of the Latin American dictatorships. Bahrain does not have to touch it, because it has the largest U.S. base in the region. Other, Yemen and Syria, do not touch because they have no oil, no matter to them.
Ultimately, what we have in Libya is interested vision, and plans for Libya are as interested as they were with Iraq, but has more appearance international support. It should be clear that Russia, China, Latin America, and many others do not support the intervention. The UN resolution should be seen as the diplomatic efforts of France and the USA who won the Russia and China abstaining.
actually only has the support of U.S. allies and much of Europe (Germany rejects).
Many questions and few answers, however, without knowing more, does not make sense to intervene in Libya and not do it before in Bahrain, for example. There are other ways to protect civilians, as escorts for UN peacekeepers to civilians, and many others. However, choose to bomb (a curious way to protect throwing explosives). Not only that, but B-2 missiles launched by U.S. in the first 24 hours had tips of depleted uranium, which is used specifically to kill the most people possible.
In conclusion: NO TO WAR and no more manipulation of information.
0 comments:
Post a Comment