22 March 2011


With Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi in charge, I guess the Libyan boil was always going to burst. It was just a question of time.

Western forces claim that their actions are all about protecting the Libyan people. Well if that is really the case, how come they have collaterally murdered an unknown number of Libyan citizens with their adventurous attacks from the air? Where is the protection in that when mothers,sons and grandfathers have been blown to smithereens or else maimed for life? The mantra "No pain no gain" is insulting to innocent Libyan families who have been bereaved by their self-proclaimed saviours. How many more must die?

Al-Jazeera reports that:

"Only one in three Britons agree with the decision to take military action in Libya, according to a poll published on Monday. The ComRes/ITN survey found that 43 per cent disagreed with the action and 22 per cent were unsure. But in parliament, British legislators voted 557 to 13 in favour of military involvement."

Why is my country, the so-called "UK", always next in line behind the USA to flex military muscles around the globe? Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. With all three countries there is surely a linking theme and that's what the Clampetts used to call "black gold" - oil. It's key to the hidden agenda. Mobilisation of military forces because of internal governmental terrorism in Indonesia, Congo or Burma seemed out of the question. Reason - no oil. But Libya? Straight in there with the best airborne hardware available.

Anticipating political change in Libya, the west should have composed wiser, longer term diplomatic strategies instead of jollying Gaddafi along because he held the keys to the oil cupboard. As in all hastily devised military interventions, it is the innocent, ordinary folk who will suffer the most. There will be many more tears before the new Libya emerges.


  1. Surprisingly, the French seem to seem to one of the US main attack poodles this time round.

    What I want to know is what the other Arab countries doing with all the weapons we've sold them?

  2. Very good post. I heard on the radio yesterday (from Sean Hannity, one of our right-wing talk-show hosts) that the primary opposition to Gaddafi in Libya is the Muslim Brotherhood, who want to impose sharia law.

    Either way, we will be out of the frying pan and into the fire.

  3. Gadafi was right when he said it was the west from one side and fundamentalists from the other.

    All the moderate islamic states are now falling now the dangerous ones have fallen- Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan more or less doing what they're told now.

  4. PS: It's worth checking this brief post from Freelance Unbound.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Yes, it's amazingly altruistic of us to rush in to the rescue of those at Gadaffi's deranged mercy. I bet those being similarly terrorised by Mugabe are suitably impressed - whilst wondering when the cavalry is going to arrive to help them.
    Oh, of course, no oil there!

  7. I thought we were bombing Libya so the oil companies could immediately raise the price of fuel, which they have done.

    Our own legislators aren't paying attention to us, shouldn't we be out in the streets protesting? Will other countries bomb our leaders to protect us? Will our own militaries be on OUR side?

  8. SHOOTING P's Yeah we sold them tha weapons but neglected to give them instruction manuals...I did check the link thanks.
    MR PLAGUE Good point. What does lie beyond Gaddafi? And what of Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt? This is going to be an extremely long-running movie.
    MR JONATHAN As you know, I'm no expert in North African affairs but common sense tells me that the West has again gone in without too much of an eye on the future. It's like they have the war toys and they want to use them once in a while.
    JENNY We are singing from the same hymn sheet and it's definitely not "Land of my Fathers".
    JAN B Isn't Democracy great? Those in charge frequently ignore us.


Mr Pudding welcomes all genuine comments - even those with which he disagrees. However, puerile or abusive comments from anonymous contributors will continue to be given the short shrift they deserve. Any spam comments that get through Google/Blogger defences will also be quickly deleted.