Skip to main content

Here we go again. Libya madness

I can't believe it. Why do we never learn? Our own planes, funded by our own taxes, are killing people in Libya. Why? What will be gained? How will Libya and the world be safer as a result?

We don't have a clue. We know nothing about the 'rebels' in Benghazi and elsewhere, except that they apparently shot down their own plane yesterday. In fact we don't even know it was shot down. The video I watched showed no missile trail or tracers. It just exploded. I can't imagine this was the best serviced aircraft in the world.

So ignoring for the moment whether the majority of Libyans want change (all the interviews with ordinary Libyans I've heard have said they want to keep Gaddafi), all we've done is increase chaos. Brilliant. That's what we've done everywhere else where we've interfered. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. Name 1 country where our brilliant leaders have created order and peace. Even Kosovo, often touted as a shining example of intervention that works, is today a mad town controlled by military and Albanian mafia. Maybe Serbians would have been a better solution for the people there, although I would not have liked to have been an Albanian living there... and I suppose that's the issue. How do we stop tribes killing each other - long term. Vietnam is now one of the most peaceful and economically successful nations on Earth - AFTER the Americans stopped killing them and let the North win. Were we wrong to abandon South Vietnam after we'd killed millions? Helping rebels would not be tolerated in our own countries, why assume it's got to be better than what they've already got?

And who are we to say that Gaddafi is not doing a reasonably good job. Everyone I've heard being interviewed from Libya, including many western journalists out there working for the BBC or CNN, is that generally most people support him. It seems the more we hear what we don't want to hear, the more we suggest that the reason Libyans are saying this is out of fear. They're somehow being brainwashed. How presumptive and arrogant can we be? If your opinion about something, about which you know more than me, is at odds with what I would expect you to believe, my defence seems to be that you can't possibly believe what you believe because you must be too scared or brainwashed not to take my view. Pure arrogance.

So where is all this going to end? Why do our idiot politicians (who can't sort out their own messes) have to force democracy upon poor old Libya (and anywhere else for that matter)? How's it going to work, and where's the evidence anyone in Libya, except of course the mullahs, want it. I mention them, not because I see them as a force to be feared (which they probably are), but because an ignorant population has no other moral position or ready-made set of leaders to follows. Here in the West we proudly proclaim ourselves to be Liberals, or Republicans or Conservatives. Over there, there is nothing other than Sunni, Shia or whatever cult flavour their parents tell their children to adopt. Politics there is about which mullah is right, not which political party to vote for.

And our genius politicians and soldiers think killing a bunch of conscripted troops surrounded by women and children will force a better life onto the people of Libya. Such stupidity - evidenced by centuries of proof this approach never works - ends up creating generations of economic chaos and poverty. Not forgetting tribal factioning and civil war.

Madness. Stop our political leaders from killing people in the name of stopping people from killing people. We know facts in support of military action are often made up or at least exaggerated to justify the protection of oil interests. Maybe a few sincere people honestly believe they know what's going on out there. Surely Iraq proves that we did not and do not.

How quickly we forget and ignore the lessons of our recent past. Mark my words, Libya will become a bloodbath and end up poorer than ever (no hope of US billions to bail that patch of desert out). With no infra-structure left after we've bombed their electricity infrastructure, water supplies, telecoms etc (because Gaddafi's troops could use them), we're about to create a hell on Earth. For what, and to achieve what?



Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite