Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Misshaping the Middle East

By       Message Dan Lieberman       (Page 1 of 3 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   No comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 6/22/11

Author 2352
Become a Fan
  (1 fan)


Libyan Transportation
(Image by Independent)
  Permission   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -
rance and Great Britain , the two principal European victors of World War I, shaped the Middle East to meet their political objectives and formed an area of despotic regimes and constant conflict. Now, joined by the United States , the same nations, by either aggression against established regimes (Libya and Iraq), neglect in assisting legitimate rebellions (Syria , Yemen and Bahrain), and support for despotic regimes (Saudi Arabia), are reshaping the Middle East; for sure into greater conflict. The allied powers of the western world have one common trait; they are rarely correct in their assumptions and usually damaging in their endeavors.

Operating from concepts that their economic systems solicit and have less significance to nations who lack industrialization, the western powers carelessly attempt to impose political arrangements and social values on contrary systems -- similar to bringing tomato plants to the Eskimo for planting. Industrialization seeks free labor and free labor requires political democracy. It does not work in reverse. Beneficial institutions for the highly industrialized western economies do not suffice for single resource (or resource limited), agriculture lacking and water scarce nations Democratic concepts, as defined by western nations, are sometimes redefined and overshadowed by the immediate need for jobs, dignity, education, organization, stability, more equal distribution of a sparse wealth, and less corruption in other nations.

- Advertisement -

According to United Nations statistics, the Libyans have advanced advantages in education and health care. The nation was relatively stable and, as it recovered from years of sanctions and Gadhafi's challenging misadventures, the country, slowly moved to resolve other problems. If history is a predictor of itself, the civil war and NATO attacks will only bring decades of struggle, death, and anguish to the Libyan people.

Since the year 2003, when the international community welcomed Colonel Gadhafi's nation into the world community, Libya has been received with the same courtesy as other oil producing nations -- its revenue invested in western enterprises, foreign corporations constructing Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya's infrastructure. In a few weeks of February and March 2011, everything changed. Why?

- Advertisement -

The excuse was that leader Gadhafi intended to liquidate at least 100,000 of his opponents, a 100 times exaggeration and an obvious impossibility.

According to President Barack Obama, "Gaddafi declared that he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment ."

Reuters reported large differences between Gadhafi's remarks and President Obama's rendition: Gaddafi Tells Rebel City, Benghazi, 'We Will Show No Mercy,' March 17, 2011.

"Muammar Gaddafi told Libyan rebels on Thursday his armed forces were coming to their capital Benghazi tonight and would not show any mercy to fighters who resisted them. In a radio address, he told Benghazi residents that soldiers would search every house in the city and people who had no arms had no reason to fear. He also told his troops not to pursue any rebels who drop their guns and flee when government forces reach the city."

- Advertisement -

Logic tells us that few Benghazi residents could even have guns to hide and Gadhafi's forces were too limited to carry out any large scale purge, Gadhafi's comment (much different than Obama's presentation) was only meant to create a fear. No leader would tell his people he intended to kill masses of them. If so, they had nothing to lose by fighting. Why encourage them? Nonsense!

The next morsel of food for thought relies on the fact that the civil war was no threat to any NATO nation. The clincher -- the western nations had not considered any changes in Libya's future. Suddenly, with no plan, no knowledge of the rebel forces constituency, and no idea as to where the interference would lead, NATO attacks Libya.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Dan Lieberman is the editor of Alternative Insight, a monthly web based newsletter. His website articles have been read in more than 150 nations, while articles written for other websites have appeared in online journals throughout the world(B 92, (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Muammar Al Gaddafi Meets his own Rebels

U.S. Middle East Policy - A Road to Disaster

Gadhafi faces the West - The other side of the coin

The New Sicarii

Why Jerusalem? Israel's Hidden Agenda

Stimulating the U.S. Government to Bankruptcy