Add new comment

Submitted by Clive on Sun, 20/03/2011 - 18:54

Yes, Jason, not actually addressing the point, though. And I do not suggest that the West wouldn't turn on the rebels if the rebels opposed the interests of Western capital. Again, like, duh. I think, sadly, that's a bit of a way off at the moment though anyway.

The demand for arming the rebels does make sense to me (with all qualifications raised in an earlier discussion - ie, that it will still be the West arming them, for their own interests ultimately). It makes sense to keep that argument in the general public mix, as part of the pressure on Western governments. It doesn't make sense as an alternative to what is happening now.

Guenter - are you saying you know enough about the political composition of the rebels to be sure we should declare ourselves neutral between them and Gaddafi? 'THe biggest part of the rebels seem to be Islamist'? I have seen no evidence of this; please provide a link. It seems to be simply a ground-level mass popular revolt, whose leadership has fallen (in so far as leadership has really fallen to anyone) to those people most able to put themselves in that position (former politicians in the regime, etc). But a mass uprising by the people of Libya hardly equals just 'any type of rebels against their local dictator.'

By the way. Glad you find it funny.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.