Gaddafi calls UN resolution 'blatant colonialism'

[Turborama]

Source: Reuters

03/19/2011 03:23

CAIRO - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said there was no justification for a UN resolution aimed at ending violence in Libya and called it "blatant colonialism", al Jazeera reported on Saturday.

Al Jazeera said the remarks were made after Libya's response to the UN resolution was given by Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa on Friday but it was not immediately clear where he made the comments, which were aired by the television channel.

"This is blatant colonialism. It does not have any justification. This will have serious consequences on the Mediterranean and on Europe," he said.

"There must be safe air or sea navigation whatever the case. In 2011 they are colonizing us, massacring us, and imposing one no-fly zone after the other and one military attack after an other. What is this racism? What is this hatred?"

Read more: http://new.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=212816

---

The Al Jazeera English blog post...

3:05am
Speaking after the response by Moussa Koussa, Libya's foreign minister, on Friday, Gaddafi said there was no justification for the UN resolution aimed at ending violence in Libya.

"This is blatant colonialism. It does not have any justification. This will have serious consequences on the Mediterranean and on Europe.

In 2011 they are colonising us, massacring us, and imposing one no-fly zone after the other and one military attack after another. What is this racism? What is this hatred?"

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-19

[Buzz Clik]

1. With Gadaffi being an unrepentant murderer, it's hard to give a damn what he says.

[wavygravy]

2. IRAQ Redux..

This whole Libyan thing is beginning to look like a replay of Iraq, except it is Obama's war instead of Bush's.

No American blood for oil!!

[Purveyor]

3. This is indeed about one thing and one thing only...OIL! eom

[Matilda]

4. The big difference is that Saddam was not at war with his own people.

Had there ever been an open rebellion against him, he might ordered the military out against the people, but it never happened.

Here we have the Libyan people telling their leader they want him to go, and he's declared war on them. It's a different scenario, but I'm sure nonetheless that the western powers will be very careful to avoid any hint of a takeover of the country, no matter what it suits Gaddafi to say.

[wavygravy]

5. Um..the Kurds..

shiites, and any rivals? He was murderous, alright, but had a tighter control over the general population in the cities.

[Matilda]

7. Absolutely - his secret police were rightly feared,

and if people wanted to stay safe, they had to shut their mouths.

But even his persecution of minorities wasn't in the same league as what Gaddafi is currently doing to his people. I wouldn't doubt that Saddam would have been as capable as Gaddafi of mass killing of the people if he'd felt threatened, but I'm just saying, it didn't actually happen. Once he'd gained power, he held it with no major insurrections against him, if only because the time was never right for it to happen. The protests of the Kurds were confined to that minority, and never spread to the rest of the population in the way that we've seen in Libya.

[ButterflyBlood]

20. And why wasn't he slaughtering them anymore?

The UN-enforced no-fly zones over the north and south which allowed his hold to be broken on those areas. EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING DONE HERE.

[Rage for Order]

8. "Had there ever been an open rebellion against him..."

"...he might ordered the military out against the people, but it never happened."

Did you forget about what happened after the Persian Gulf War?

[Matilda]

18. But it didn't happen at the time the U.S. and its allies invaded.

If he'd been killing his own people then, they might have an excuse
to invade. But he wasn't, and they didn't.

[ButterflyBlood]

21. What happened? The UN imposed no-fly zones

They were set up to stop Saddam from slaughtering the Kurds and Shi'ites...and it worked.

Now Gadaffi is trying to slaughter his people and the same thing is being done. Makes sense to me.

[Posteritatis]

26. Christ on a crutch do some DUers ever need to pick up a history book. (nt)

[GliderGuider]

34. The casus belli against Saddam was manufactured. Against Gaddafi it was not.

Like you I doubt there will be any foreign takeover. There is no doubt whatsoever that Gadaffi was murdering unarmed civilians including women and children (not to mention his own officers who refused to do that), or that the protesters/rebels had asked for a no-fly zone to be imposed. This is a completely just intervention.

[Turborama]

6. Libya has had US and EU oil corporations freely operating there since at least 2004

As you can see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4768780&mesg_id=4770154

So, attempts to try and turn the motive for multiple countries trying to stop the massacre in Libya continuing/escalating into simply "oil" instantly fail.

Which Iraq war and which Bush are you talking about?

This is nothing like Iraq 2003. More like what we should have done in Iraq in 1991.

[RZM]

12. Thanks for pointing that out

Some people just don't want to believe anything that calls into question their perception of how the world works.

[daleo]

23. It's not just about being allowed to operate, for oil companies

It's about conditions of operation, royalty rates, having to partner with national oil firms, and matters like that. Oil companies always want the maximum return and different leaders can affect all of these issues.

[Turborama]

24. Fact: Those oil corporations are losing money now (& could completely lose their investments...

...f they haven't already).

Also, all their expat employees have left, which has cost/is costing them shitloads of money repatriating them/having to pay redundancies etc.

There's no guarantee that the revolutionaries will want transnational oil corporations setting up shop AGAIN in their country. They might actually even want to own their oil industry.

However, if you want to spend your life having a simplified world view that everything governments do anywhere is all because of oil and nothing is ever done for altruistic reasons, carry on.

[daleo]

29. And you carry on with your rose colored glasses. n/t

[Turborama]

33. Weak sauce retort which doesn't take into consideration the facts that have been presented

Never mind, carry on.

[ButterflyBlood]

19. Uh no. Iraq had two no-fly zones form 1991 to 2003

AKA before Bush's Iraq adventure. That's exactly what is being done here. Not even remotely comparable.

[micraphone]

9. And I call what you are doing "genocide" Colonel

"....In 2011 they are colonizing us, massacaring us, and imposing one no-fly zone after the other and one military attack after another. What is this racism? What is this hatred?"

Jeez what a fruitloop.

[Bo]

10. IRAQ 2

READY NEXT ST0P IRAN FUCKERS

[Turborama]

11. What?

You mean the stopping of the slaughter of Iraqi civilians in 1991 that never happened?

Are you agreeing with Gaddafi?

[RZM]

13. This 'next stop Iran' thing has been out there for a while

Perhaps you even have that bumper sticker with a 'q' shifting to an 'n'. How much longer until you give it up?

[freshwest]

14. Never any love lost for this no-gooder, but...

What is the sudden compelling national interest in our going there?

After he was allowed to get away with murder, what's different now?

Is BP or an American oil company in danger of losing something?

Moral outrage from decades later, but this isn't about that, is it?

I think the MIC is in overdrive, looking for a reason.

Crap, is that all that the USA is about now?

[Kurmudgeon]

15. The interest is stopping Qaddafi from slaughtering his own people, much like Milosevic.

[freshwest]

16. Like Iraq. Oil has nothing to do with it.

[Turborama]

17. See post #6

For your convenience: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4777781&mesg_id=4777851

[ButterflyBlood]

22. It's amazingly how ridiculous knee-jerk some people can get

Not that I haven't seen arguments against intervention with some validity, but at least 85% I've seen consist of:

-NO BLOOD FOR OIL! (completely ignoring all the facts)
-Libya is a sovereign country and Gadaffi is the ruler and thus he should be allowed to slaughter his people with no outside interference (that is the only logical conclusion from the way of thought being promoted.)
-The US and Europe have done bad things before and are still doing bad things today and thus everything they do must be assumed to be wrong and even if it isn't they have no moral legitimacy at all. (Don't know where to begin even with the logical fallacies on that)
-It costs too much (completely ignoring where the funding is coming from and sounding like a teabagger rant when all is said and done.)

[Posteritatis]

25. +1 (nt)

[Melinda]

28. 2!! n/t

[wavygravy]

30. Whether you approve of the operation or not,

the Constitution gives only the Congress the power to declare war. W. at least took the time to pull the wool over the eyes of Congress to get his war authorized. I don't see any Constitutional basis for what President Obama is doing.

[Turborama]

35. Has President Obama formally declared war against Libya?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

37. potentially the supermacy clause

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Turborama]

36. I think you've covered all of them

And they are on full display today. However, I would revise that estimate to 95%.

[faz]

27. Historically I agree with Gaddafi here

Imperialists just like stick their nose everywhere.

Solve your domestic problems first, Mr. Sarkozy.

[kwassa]

31. so, you agree with a psychopathic murderer?

Better than agreeing with an imperialist!

[christx30]

32. And while Sarkozy

is dealing with potholes immigration problems ect, Gaddafi is going to continue to slaughter 10's of thousands of people.