Supporting Libyan Revolution, Opposing Foreign Intervention

Hamid Dabashi: If US intervenes in Libya, will be act of imperialism; Gaddafi defies democratic will of his people

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

There were reports yesterday that the Venezuelan government was looking to see if Lula would be the one negotiating. I don't know what Lula would make of that.

[ashbrauw]

egypt and tunis should take the matter by them self to bring down gaddafi and not western powers

[jiji]

it is muammar qaddafi not mohamed qaddafi

[marpoq]

if there was outside influence, it would be so they can see how the people revolt, so that they will be more prepared when it comes to them

[slobot]

Dabashi implies the U.S. and U.K. have intervened by arming Gaddafi. This is a ridiculously loose definition of intervention. Also, it actually turns out that Italy and Malta have sold more arms and munitions to Gaddafi than any other European nation and the U.K. has sold very little (I'm not sure what the U.S. figures are). I think Dabahsi is still hung up on the last war. A NATO or UN or AU no fly zone on the side of the protesters (if requested) is not the same as foreign domination.

[TakumProti]

@NicosNicosNicosNicos What I meant when I said why wouldn't they is that they're trying to maintain their power structure. And regardless of the USA's political schemes in Latin America, for the two Cold War powers, the USSR's "elsewhere" just happened to be in our back yard.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

@TakumProti Walter Lafeber's excellent"Inevitable Revolutions"contains this relevant quote:"What we see in Central America today would not be much different if Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union did not exist"[Ambler Moss, US Ambassador to Panama, 1980].Certainly, the USSR had its sphere of influence elsewhere.And "why wouldn't" US politicians want to maintain US global influence?There are plenty of moral reasons not to exert undue power over others, but politicians don't tend to run on morals.

[RedGaribaldi]

I'd like to hear that conversation about Chavez.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

@TakumProti Well, it began with a distinction between empire and hegemony. Are not either a matter of unwarranted interference in the destinies of other peoples (from the point of view of the latter)? If so, does it matter much whether the US behaviour in the Middle East is pursuit of empire or hegemony if the idea for everyone else is to be independent and free to decide their own destinies?

[TakumProti]

@NicosNicosNicosNicos And here's a little bit of American history. We had our own form of Imperialism, it was called Manifest Destiny, the ambition of territorial expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It led us to annex the western States and Texas from Mexico, buy Alaska from Russia, and annex Hawai'i. The concept is now out of date, our Destiny has Manifested. There's a difference between Empire and Hegemony. Instead of pointing me towards a wikipedia article, make the case yourself.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

@TakumProti The thing about the "Cold War" discourse is that "containing" the USSR's 'influence' was a catch-all rationale for expanding US 'influence', for want of a better word. Latin America is a good example since US policy there was to dominate, before, during and after the Soviet Empire. It's not just force of habit, but concrete economic interests that mean a degree of US control of the world's markets and raw materials is dear to US policymakers.

[TakumProti]

@NicosNicosNicosNicos I use "we" on a more general basis, nothing more. And I simply wished to clear up the difference between Empire and Hegemony, that's all.

[TakumProti]

@NicosNicosNicosNicos I'm not actually defending the government, I'm only pointing out what they haven't even done yet (And probably won't do at all), and what they've actually done right, they did place sanctions against Qaddhafi. And I make this generalisation because as far many middle easterners go, the distinction between the American government and the American people is not there.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

@TakumProti Try the British empire at its later stages. Seeking to open and control new markets for its industrial products without necessarily trying to openly conquer their territories through direct rule. That is pretty close to the model the US picked up and has since been perfecting. (aside from earlier US territorial colonisation in Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, Mexico, etc.)

[patriot]

@herbertwarmstrong that's a scary possibility, particularly with Tunisia, many of the people who overthrew the Shah of Iran did not hate Israel and the West and are very disappointed with the outcome of their revolution, it's less likely to happen in Egypt and if it did it would be bad for many of the people who participated in the revolution there, also when i said i think we should arm the Libyan revolution i specifically meant "small arms" and i don't like the fact that Egypt has M1 tanks

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

@TakumProti You're right about the punctuation if nothing else.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

@TakumProti There are differences but I think both terms can be used. If imperialism can evolve and there are more subtle ways of making conquered countries submit to the will of the metropolis than sending in troops and openly declaring said countries a part of the empire, then it has to be possible to see imperialism even when it is not self-declared.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

@TakumProti There is a useful outline for beginners in Wikipedia entitled "American imperialism"[(sic): United States imperialism], with quotes from samples of the abundant academic work that has been produced on this crucial area of modern history.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

@patriot1775 Why not except US military commanders' interests would have to tie in with Libyan popular interests and that appears to be a very unlikely coincidence.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

@TakumProti I agree that in propaganda terms, the "war on terror" is a poor substitute for the "Soviet Threat", though using that as an excuse to repress social and independence movements in Latin America had no basis in reality whatsoever, albeit that there was a very real indeed and dangerous moment of Soviet presence in the events surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis. "Communist" was just a meaningless and dishonest a way of dehumanising an enemy as "terrorist" is today.