China, Russia and Germany abstained from resolution 1973 ...of the U.N.Security Council.
Now, that the Rebels seem to have won the struggle, everybody seems to be concerned about their "goodies"...
China let it be known that it expects that its investments in Libya will be safe guarded.
Russia issued similar statements.
Austria's Business Delegate to Libya suggested that China and Russia may well suffer some consequences for their position in the Resolution 1973 vote, but he is certain that German Chancellor Angela Merkel "has ironed out" the situation quite well and that therefore he does not expect any negative consequences for Germany's position.
Austria itself is right in line with (for its) major investments: Oil, Medical Products, Road Construction,
Austria's leadership, in particular that of the Province of Carinthia, were on good terms with Gaddafi
and the then Provincial Premier of Carinthia, the right wing Joerg Haider, called Mr. Gaddafi "his good friend" at a time when Ronald Regan, the President of the USA referred to Gadaffi as " the mad dog of the Near East". May we assume that Mr. Regan knew something Austria's Leadership was unaware of?
It is also interesting to note that European voices are always very quick in their condemnation of "Amerika"
(by which they mean the US of A.) suggesting that Amerika gets involved only when oil interests are at stake, thereby conveniently forgetting that three countries claimed oil-exploration rights from the post-Saddam Hussein Irak: China, Russia and France. The USA, for whatever reason, filed not a single claim for such activity. These things are, however, quickly forgotten, if ever they were known by the European accusers.
Whatever the outcome of the current struggle in Libya, whatever other dictatorship will replace that of Muammar Gaddafi, (to expect a Democracy in Libya would be hoping for too much), one thing is for certain:
Political Doublespeech will bloom and prosper.
quick! somebody hand me a dictionary
Bertstravels.
Good grief Bert - the U.S. had no business in Iraq and entered the country by means of a gross and brutal lie, to wit, the claim that Iraq had amassed enormous stockpiles of WMD. The U.S. has raped Iraq just as surely as Saddam's prisons killed his political and social enemies and just as surely as Saddam's sons abused their privileged status in unspeakable ways. So the end result of all this is that the U.S. broke Saddam's control over tribalism and upended centuries old power balances and the Iraq is now little more than a smoking pit. The U.S. itself verges on bankruptcy for its profligacy, greed and heartless waste of resources. Ronald Reagan sold the birthright of common Americans down the river when he and his henchmen deregulated the financial industry and allowed all of his friends to profit monstrously and without responsibility for any of the consquences. Bush I and Bush II spent the U.S. economy into a tailspin from which it may never fully recover, making all of their corporate cronies stupidly wealthy beyond description while the nations middle class and working class struggle to keep their jobs. Ghaddafi was a minor player co-opted by a long list of nations into being an international scapegoat to distract the attention of common citizens away from domestic issues at home.
ReplyDeleteHi Howard
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to read in your comments the usual arguments used by the Anti-American left wing.
If Saddam reallly had no wmd what did he use to poison gas the Kurish rebels in the North of his Country? What exactly did he use for his poison gas attacks on Iran in his lengthy battle with this neibouring country? Why, pray tell, did Iraq refuse access to 3 of the first 5 sites the inspection team wished to visit until 6 months later? And so on and so forth. The arguments could be endless.
Hi Bert - My arguments have little or nothing to do with your so-called anti-American left. Whatever Saddam may have had and used, there was nothing left by the time the UN (led by the U.S.) invaded the country and systematically smashed it to pieces. The people toting up the deaths of Iraqi civilians since the beginning of the occupation of the country stopped counting a long time ago. And to this day, WMD has never been found in or around Iraq. The Americans should be ashamed of themselves, not in the least for meddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation and for the lies they told in order to do so. Defend them if you like, but their touted fear of Al-Queda never materialized in Iraq either. The cemeteries of Iraq are filled with mute testimony to the American's brutal ruination of the country. "Collateral Damage" I believe they call it. American forces in Iraq have killed far more civilians than ever were attributed to Saddam's brutality in Iran or in the Kurdish areas. So Saddam is a monster for killing defenceless Kurds in norther Iraq because he used gas, but the Americans are not monsters for killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians because they only used conventional weapons? I think you defend the Americans even at the expense of your great good sense. The Americans have done great wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to serve a variety of ends, none of them honourable. Shame on them until they correct those wrongs. The Americans put military boot to butt in Afghanistan ostensibly to root out and kill Al-Queda and bin Laden. They finally got him in Pakistan, in a place he'd apparently been in for more than a year. So the point of Afghanistan occupation was what? Oh yeah - to wrest control from the radical leaders of the former Mujahideen whom the Americans had armed in the first place during the Afghan's previous fight with the invading Russians. Can any powerful country possibly make as many brutal mistakes as the Americans without actually going out there and planning to do it deliberately?
ReplyDeleteAn even perfunctory study of the UN's resolutions will show most of your arguments to be empty.
ReplyDeleteThe number of people killed by suicide attackers of one Moslem faction against the other by far exceeds the number of Collateral- damage-casualties ( I hate this expression) caused by America's intervention in Iraq.
The US has hardly led the UN, with Russia and China along with America having the Veto in the Security Council.
Facts, however clearly demonstrated, have, unfortunately, never convinced an ardent Left Winger, but his choice of terminology quite often betrays him.
As I said before: The arguments can be endless.
Bertstravels
"The number of people killed by suicide attackers of one Moslem faction against the other by far exceeds the number of Collateral- damage-casualties ( I hate this expression) caused by America's intervention in Iraq."
ReplyDeleteWho knows. Both casualty counts are enormous. But your argument is a logical fallacy. Surely you're not implying that violence between Iraqi Muslims somehow offsets the American's slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians.
"The US has hardly led the UN, with Russia and China along with America having the Veto in the Security Council."
I never stated that the U.S. led the UN. I stated that UN forces in Iraq were led by the U.S. - and so it has been since the invasion.
You put up straw man arguments to avoid responding to the tragic horror perpetrated by the U.S. in Iraq. There is no excuse or reason for the destruction of Iraq by the U.S.-led forces. Your arguments blithely ignore civilians deaths only because you brook no criticism whatsoever of your precious America. You would not let me or anyone else you know ignore any such similar human tragedy should it take place anywhere world as long as the Americans were not involved.
But as long as the Americans are involved you put up arguments rife with misdirection and irrelevancies, ignoring the utterly unnecessary horrors of the shattered lives and the shattered nation left in the wake of the hideous U.S. temper tantrum that has cost so much in death, money and respect.
And what, pray tell, have the Americans accomplished in all the years they've been in Iraq? Nothing. American servicemen are still being killed by Iraqi insurgents, IEDs are still being set off in great numbers, and Iraq is largely ungovernable. Infrastructure is crumbling. All the money poured into the country, ostensibly for rebuilding, has gone where? Into which projects? Into whose pockets? I suppose you'll blame that all on the Iraqis too.
I only blame the people who shouldn't even be there in the first place. The Americans.