http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/03/02/the-definition-of-hypocrisy/
The definition of hypocrisy
By Jody McIntyre
The Independent/UK: 2 March, 2011
Arming both sides of a conflict must be a tactic David Cameron learnt from
Gaddafi himself; we have been quite happily selling weapons to the Gaddafi
regime until now, but now Cameron wants to "arm Libyan rebels".
The issue here is not the morality or legitimacy of the Gaddafi regime; we
have seen Libyan people demonstrating in their thousands, and being murdered
for doing so, but the issue is the complete and utter hypocrisy of western
intervention in the region. From country to country, the pattern is the
same; support the dictators, as long as they support our interests, and arm
them with any weapons they like, but if the people of that country rise up
effectively, deny any contact or prior relationship and condemn the use of
those weapons you sold them.
David Cameron recently travelled to Egypt to meet with leading members of
the Egyptian army, accompanied by BAE Systems, a British arms manufacturer.
So the message is clear:
"Hello, possible new leaders of Egypt, can we sell you some weapons?"
And the pattern continues.
In the case of Libya, the drums of war are being beaten at an alarming rate.
They were the first state ever to be suspended from the United Nations Human
Rights Council, for committing "gross and systematic violations of human
rights". Of course, this doesn't mean Libya is the first state to violate
human rights, it just means they are a convenient villain at the current
moment in time. The UK and US governments ponder over the establishment of
a "no-fly zone" across the country, and US navy ships close in on Libyan
shores, in case "military intervention" is necessary.
Can they not see the posters the demonstrators are hanging from building
tops in Benghazi, saying "We do not want foreign intervention"? Or the
Libyan air pilots flying to Malta, refusing to attack their own people?
If there is one thing the recent uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia have shown,
it is that people in the Arab world are capable of dealing with their own
affairs. They do not want regime-change "Iraq-style", where it is
accompanied by death, destruction and misery, and followed by a fake,
US-imposed "democracy". We do not need another war in the Arab world,
another extension of neo-colonialism; we need to let the Libyan people
determine their own future.
When the Venezuelan representative stood up at the UN and suggested that
mediation would be a better solution than war, he was later described by the
United States representative as "delusional". As usual, the tables of
reality are reversed; the voice of reason is portrayed as the crazed
lunatic, and the call for war is presented as a move for peace.
The Libyan authorities have committed some reprehensible acts, but it is not
Gaddafi who dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Gaddafi is
responsible for the deaths of thousands of his own people, but the United
States are responsible for the deaths of many more in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps they should keep their mouths quiet, instead of making frantic
efforts to dip their blood-stained hands into Libyan oil barrels.
One thing must be made clear, David Cameron's threats of interference are
not being made in the interests of the Libyan people. If we had any
interest in the welfare of the Libyan people, we would not have sold Gaddafi
weapons, and trained his police force. The Libyan people would never opt
for the invasion and occupation of their own country by foreign forces, and
the untold misery and suffering that would inevitably result in, so this is
purely for the sake of protecting our own interests. The interests of Shell
and BP, lying in the black gold beneath Libya's soil.
Western governments do not fear a Libya run by Gaddafi, they fear a Libya
without him.
The definition of hypocrisy
By Jody McIntyre
The Independent/UK: 2 March, 2011
Arming both sides of a conflict must be a tactic David Cameron learnt from
Gaddafi himself; we have been quite happily selling weapons to the Gaddafi
regime until now, but now Cameron wants to "arm Libyan rebels".
The issue here is not the morality or legitimacy of the Gaddafi regime; we
have seen Libyan people demonstrating in their thousands, and being murdered
for doing so, but the issue is the complete and utter hypocrisy of western
intervention in the region. From country to country, the pattern is the
same; support the dictators, as long as they support our interests, and arm
them with any weapons they like, but if the people of that country rise up
effectively, deny any contact or prior relationship and condemn the use of
those weapons you sold them.
David Cameron recently travelled to Egypt to meet with leading members of
the Egyptian army, accompanied by BAE Systems, a British arms manufacturer.
So the message is clear:
"Hello, possible new leaders of Egypt, can we sell you some weapons?"
And the pattern continues.
In the case of Libya, the drums of war are being beaten at an alarming rate.
They were the first state ever to be suspended from the United Nations Human
Rights Council, for committing "gross and systematic violations of human
rights". Of course, this doesn't mean Libya is the first state to violate
human rights, it just means they are a convenient villain at the current
moment in time. The UK and US governments ponder over the establishment of
a "no-fly zone" across the country, and US navy ships close in on Libyan
shores, in case "military intervention" is necessary.
Can they not see the posters the demonstrators are hanging from building
tops in Benghazi, saying "We do not want foreign intervention"? Or the
Libyan air pilots flying to Malta, refusing to attack their own people?
If there is one thing the recent uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia have shown,
it is that people in the Arab world are capable of dealing with their own
affairs. They do not want regime-change "Iraq-style", where it is
accompanied by death, destruction and misery, and followed by a fake,
US-imposed "democracy". We do not need another war in the Arab world,
another extension of neo-colonialism; we need to let the Libyan people
determine their own future.
When the Venezuelan representative stood up at the UN and suggested that
mediation would be a better solution than war, he was later described by the
United States representative as "delusional". As usual, the tables of
reality are reversed; the voice of reason is portrayed as the crazed
lunatic, and the call for war is presented as a move for peace.
The Libyan authorities have committed some reprehensible acts, but it is not
Gaddafi who dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Gaddafi is
responsible for the deaths of thousands of his own people, but the United
States are responsible for the deaths of many more in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps they should keep their mouths quiet, instead of making frantic
efforts to dip their blood-stained hands into Libyan oil barrels.
One thing must be made clear, David Cameron's threats of interference are
not being made in the interests of the Libyan people. If we had any
interest in the welfare of the Libyan people, we would not have sold Gaddafi
weapons, and trained his police force. The Libyan people would never opt
for the invasion and occupation of their own country by foreign forces, and
the untold misery and suffering that would inevitably result in, so this is
purely for the sake of protecting our own interests. The interests of Shell
and BP, lying in the black gold beneath Libya's soil.
Western governments do not fear a Libya run by Gaddafi, they fear a Libya
without him.
***
Marty Hittleman is President of the California Federation of Teachers,
a unit of the nation-wide American Federation of Teachers. Most of
California's Commuinity and State College faculty are in this union.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: MartyHitt@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Political Endorsement for March 8
Election on March 8
Here are my recommendations:
These are progressive and union friendly candidates.
City of Los Angeles
Council District #2 – Paul Krekorian
Council District #4 – Tom LaBonge
Council District #6 – Tony Cardenas
Council District #8 – Forescee Hogan-Rowles
Council District #10 – Herb Wesson
Council District #12 – Mitch Englander
Council District #14 – Jose Huizar
Here are my recommendations:
These are progressive and union friendly candidates.
City of Los Angeles
Council District #2 – Paul Krekorian
Council District #4 – Tom LaBonge
Council District #6 – Tony Cardenas
Council District #8 – Forescee Hogan-Rowles
Council District #10 – Herb Wesson
Council District #12 – Mitch Englander
Council District #14 – Jose Huizar
Measures –
G: Measure G has been agreed to by labor and elected officials. It is a new lower tier for police and firefighters for their pensions. I disagree with reducing pensions and two tier systems of benefits for workers and will be voting NOH: Measure H restricts campaign contributions from city contract bidders. I support this effort and will be voting YES.I: Measure I was put on the ballot by the City Council to create an independent analysis of the Department of Water and Power (DWP) power and water rates. I support this effort and will be voting YES.J: Measure J requires the DWP to submit a preliminary budget by March 31 for the next fiscal year and sets up a procedure to transfer "surplus funds" from DWP to the City's reserve fund. This is a wise move and I will be voting YES.L: Measure L increases the City's property tax that go to public libraries to .03% of assessed value. I support libraries and will be voting YES.M: Measure M would impose a %50 tax for every $1,000 of gross receipts at medical marijuana dispensaries. It may actually raise little money since most dispensaries are non-profit and the sale of marijuana is a federal crime. I will vote YES in order to start the ball rolling on taxing the sale of marijuana.N: Measure N revokes the campaign finance regulations in the City Charter that have recently been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. I will vote YES to bring the City into compliance with the federal ruling.O; Measure O is an oil severance tax. It would raise about $4 million in California. I am voting YES to tax oil as it comes out of the ground. I find it ridiculous that a corporation can own oil that has been produced over millions of years. Not taxing it makes the situation even worse. It belongs to all of us and all of us should benefit.P: Measure P creates a mandatory Emergency Reserve Account that equals at least 2.5% of the general fund receipts predicted for the upcoming fiscal year. It would take a 2/3rd vote of the Council and the mayors agreement or 3/4 of Council to approve using any of the reserve. I find putting aside money that you can't use by majority vote of the Council and the signature of the Mayor to be a major error. We need services in Los Angeles and should us our resources when we need them. I believe in majority rule and will be voting NO on Measure P.Q: Measure Q would expand civil service exemptions for some management positions and several other technical changes. There are no arguments against this change in the ballot brochure. I will vote YES on Q.Los Angeles Unified School District
Board District #1 – Marguerite Lamotte
Board District #5 - Bennett KayserLos Angeles Community College District
Trustee Seat #1 – Mona Field
Trustee Seat #3 – Steve Veres
Trustee Seat #5 – Scott Svonkin
Trustee Seat #7 – Miguel SantiagoI hope you find this helpful.Marty Hittelman
No comments:
Post a Comment