::::::::
Libya's Muammar Gaddafi is a savage and brutal despot, the sooner he is removed from power the better. But he must be removed by the Libyan people, not America, or NATO. It won't take a couple of weeks before Gaddafi is done, which means there will be bloodshed. But that's the way it has to be. Revolutions and civil wars usually take a long time to resolve, a fact that we foolishly overlook in our instant gratification culture. We all like to see Gaddafi removed from power today, but history is a little messier. It is irrational and naive to believe that American and NATO power will achieve good change in Libya. Putting blind faith in the power of America, NATO, and the West is a big error. Foreign intervention will only increase the troubles in Libya, and probably re-energize Gaddafi and his mindless followers.The U.S. government and NATO don't have the moral authority to intervene anywhere in the world. Backing the U.S. and NATO against Gaddafi is like backing big Satan against small Satan. It is sad that the world is still operating on the law of the jungle, but that is the truth. Western powers are not a just force in the world, and the U.N. is not a serious organization. And it should be kept in mind that the traitorous war criminals who control America's shadow government are not concerned about human welfare or freedom. Remember when Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, and neocons said that the Iraq war would be over in six months? Look at how wrong they were in their calculations. Look at how many innocent people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan because of U.S. action. The same mistake could be repeated in Libya. We are hearing the same arguments again, often made by the same shameless people who brush off criticism of the Iraq war debacle.
If U.S., EU, and NATO cared about human life then they would've taken measures to stop their own atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the fact is that they are not interested in stopping the bloodshed in Libya. Other agendas are at work in the push for intervention. Military generals are just not the sentimental types, and they're certainly not the revolutionary types, either.
Those interested in freedom and revolution in the Middle East should remember that revolutions are not won without blood or turmoil. Nations are not freed and saved from poisonous and corrupt leaders without brutal conflict. The people of Libya decided to rise up with arms knowing that the price of freedom in their country would be costly. But they did it anyway because freedom is worth the price, and they are not afraid of blood.
The idea that revolutions can be won by foreign military force is the craziest idea in the world. The price of freedom must be paid by the Libyan people for it to be truly their freedom, which means that the international community must not intervene. The day will eventually come when enough military leaders in Libya come to their senses and take out Gaddafi with a bullet to the head, or the rebel forces become so strong that Gaddafi becomes nothing more than a frail, old gang leader waiting to be killed the day he lets his guard down.
Gaddafi will be better removed by the angels from below in Libya than the devils from above who control the U.S. military and NATO. So let's not be fooled by the warhawks and "humanitarian" interventionists who are calling for U.S. military force in Libya. It is not a coincidence that the most vocal supporters of humanitarian intervention in the U.S. government like Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton tend to be the most hypocritical, deceptive, immoral, and treacherous human beings on the planet. One day these benevolent warhawks support air strikes on villages in Afghanistan and Iraq and other acts of gross brutality that needlessly kill innocent people, and the next day they get on their high horse and criticize other governments for doing the same thing. Where do they get the right to blow their moral horn? Clinton and Gingrich are asses, not statesmen. Nobody should listen to them.
Lost in the debate over intervention in Libya is the issue of public opinion in the West. Arrogant politicians in America never ask what the American people think about whether to use U.S. military force in countries that do not pose any threat to America. They want to selectively use America's military power in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Iran, but not in Bahrain or Israel/Palestine. If America is supposed to be the world's policeman then it is the most crooked policeman in the world.
Read the articles below which criticize plans for intervention in Libya.
Maximilian Forte: Globalization, Compression, and the Desire for Intervention
Pat Buchanan: It's Their War, Not Ours
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett: Libya, The United States, And Iran: Just Who Is "Meddling"?
Gen. Wesley Clark: Gen. Wesley Clark says Libya doesn't meet the test for U.S. military action
Richard Falk: Kicking the intervention habit
Marko Markanovic: Seeing Through the "Humanitarians'
Simon Jenkins: 'No-fly zone' is a euphemism for war. We'd be mad to try it
