What's new

Libya And Bahrain: A Tale Of Western Hypocrisy

Are you talking about the Indians here, who are trying to take a moral high ground, despite the fact that the Indian government took the same position as China? :P

Am talking about everyone who posted in this thread supporting the op's view. Although India doesn't have a veto power unlike China.
 
Am talking about everyone who posted in this thread supporting the op's view. Although India doesn't have a veto power unlike China.

India could still have supported it or opposed it, if they felt that it was the right thing to do.
 
India could still have supported it or opposed it, if they felt that it was the right thing to do.


Yup India should have definitely supported it, not that it would change anything. But if China had vetoed the resolution, the benign Colonel Qaddafi could have continued his 40 years rule over the Libyans and then passed the throne to his son, who is obviously the only capable leader in the Libyan land.
 
Do you guys think that Qaddafi was not killing civilians and rebels in Libya and it was all western propaganda? If you think along those lines then I have nothing to say to you.

Otherwise what do you expect from people? What kind of logic is this? Firstly the situation in Libya was much worse than Bahrain. Secondly what would rather have, for killings to stop in at least one country i.e. Libya or neither of the two countries? If China thought it was hypocrisy why didn't it veto the resolution? Doesn't China try not to meddle in the affairs of its "allies"? Why doesn't China try and push for a resolution in UN for intervention in Bahrain and could perhaps spearhead the attack in Bahrain?

Look at your hypocrisy first. At least America and NATO are saving some peoples life, even if they are being hypocrites. Unlike you lots here who are hypocrites and annoying whiners.

So many misinformed Indians are trying to goad China into ATTACKING Libya or Bahrain. Unlike the interventionist-minded Indians on this forum, China actually respects the sovereignty of other nations and trusts that they can sort out their own problems, without western countries butting in and making the problem worse. The French has already reached beyond the mandate of the no-fly zone and begun bombing tanks and infrastructure. The Americans have launched cruise missiles.
This is clearly not a humanitarian mission--it is a war of regime change.
And like past wars, there is the risk of long-term civil war and poverty. Good going Indians. If the world was under your control we'd be living in hell.
 
The United States has shown real hypocrisy in its treatment of two Arab revolutions - Libya and Bahrain.

In Libya, the U.S. and its European allies have decided to go in with all guns blazing. With Bahrain it's a different story as the Americans refuse to lift a finger to evict Saudi Arabia after their invasion of that country.

Why this two faced strategy? Both countries (Bahrain and Libya) are repressive dictatorships. The peoples of both nations have risen up against their long time rulers and are fighting for their freedom on the streets. The rulers of these two nations have opted to take a repressive line in dealing with their respective peoples.

Yet, more pressure is being applied to Libya's Colonel Gaddafi than to the Bahraini Al Khalifa ruling family. There's a simple explanation for this - Gaddafi (despite his post-9/11 cuddling up to the West) has long been seen as an enemy of Western (read U.S. and Israeli interests) in the Middle East. Meanwhile the Al Khalifa clan have permitted the Americans to base their Central Command and Fifth Fleet headquarters inside the country, thus making the country strategically vital to U.S. imperialist interests.

Therefore, Gaddafi's loss wouldn't mean anything to the U.S. and its NATO allies. They would be able (through the use of airstrikes) to rid themselves of a foe who has now (conveniently) for them decided to take on his own people in a particularly vicious manner. The Americans, British and French, in opting to take the UN path, have decided to cloak their intervention in the veneer of international law. Through doing so, the West will effectively seek to take over the popular revolution that has swept Libya and, in the process, ensure that any new post-Gaddafi regime is fully compliant with Western interests.

Conversely, the loss of the Al-Khalifa clan in Bahrain would alarm the U.S. and its close ally Saudi Arabia. That's why the U.S. has not ordered its Fifth Fleet to fire on the Bahraini royal palace in support of the protesters on the streets who, as in Libya, are being fired at by government snipers. They haven't decided to turn their guns on the largely Saudi invasion force either. The U.S. needs both Bahrain and Saudi Arabia on its side in order to enjoy continued access to oil. And if that means continuing to back repressive monarchist regimes in both Gulf countries, then so be it. Another irony is that 21 years ago, the U.S. decided (under the cloak of UN authority also) to take on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. So why are the Americans not being as outspoken about Saudi Arabia's invasion of Bahrain? I remember that the Iraqis used the excuse in Kuwait that they were intervening at the 'invitation' of local revolutionaries who had overthrown the ruling family. This story was fictional as is the one about the Saudis intervening at the 'invitation' of their Bahraini royal brethren. Furthermore, I seek to question whether the Libyan opposition hasn't been infiltrated by Western intelligence agencies given that some opposition groups have called for NATO air strikes which is effectively another 'invitation' to the West to intervene in another Arab nation's internal affairs.

If the US, British and French wanted to be consistent, they should unhesitatingly support all the Arab peoples in their struggle for freedom but not directly intervene. By all means, if the people are being attacked by their national military forces, then they should be externally armed and trained to fight back. But that's as far as it should go. Instead, neo-imperialist strategic interests have driven the U.S. and their allies to treat the cases of Libya and Bahrain differently. And that is a real tragedy for both the Bahraini and Libyan peoples in the midst of their respective struggles.

Hypocrisy is the principle of american foreign policy, if it wasn't it could not sustain its support for despots and of course the mother and father of the pandora's box, israel.
 
Yup India should have definitely supported it, not that it would change anything. But if China had vetoed the resolution, the benign Colonel Qaddafi could have continued his 40 years rule over the Libyans and then passed the throne to his son, who is obviously the only capable leader in the Libyan land.

Well we didn't veto it, so what is the issue here...
 
The Chinese want Gaddafi in power, even if it means killing his own people with tanks. They do not care, a Gaddafi regime would ensure they can go back and claim their operations at their projects and pump oil wealth of libyan people.

None of the Chinese poster do not even show some sympathy for the millions of Libyans who are fighting for their lives, unlike Pakistanis who seem to have equally divided.

Just as the americans want the sheikhs in power in Bahrain, I suppose. Does your post you show any sympathy for those who are dying in Bahrain?
 
So many misinformed Indians are trying to goad China into ATTACKING Libya or Bahrain. Unlike the interventionist-minded Indians on this forum, China actually respects the sovereignty of other nations and trust that they can sort out their own problems, without western countries butting in and making the problem worse.

No I don't want China to attack anyone. But it could certainly stand up against this tyrannical western hegemony. It has veto power, If China wanted they could have vetoed this resolution. Qaddafi was bombing his own citizens, doesn't really classify as "sorting their internal problems out". If the NATO isn't forcing China to follow their lead, why should China expect the Western powers to follow its way of "dealing with situations" whatever it is. If tomorrow India starts bombing the protesters in Kashmir, I would like to see how people react on this forum.

The French has already reached beyond the mandate of the no-fly zone and begun bombing tanks and infrastructure. The Americans have launched cruise missiles.

Qaddafi was violating the ceasefire too was he not, which he declared himself?
 
roy_gourav must enjoy watching American cruise missiles land on Libyan houses. That's what's going to happen. Civilian casualties is guaranteed in a war.

Thats the most skewed logic ever, Qaddaffi bombing his own "subjects" with Migs and Mirage obviously doesn't classify as civilian casualty. Why couldn't he step down from the leadership? He has been at the helm of things for 40 years. If he had accepted the demands of his disgruntled countrymen this wouldn't be necessary would it?
 
If tomorrow India starts bombing the protesters in Kashmir, I would like to see how people react on this forum.

This forums would erupt into a furor but the west would ignore Kashmir because India is a US and NATO ally. In comparison, the Dalai Lama could sneeze and the the western media would condemn China for infecting the DL with viral cold.
 
I don't know, least we can do is not call the others hypocrites for taking a firm stance, unlike ourselves?

Leveling a country with bombs and cruise missiles because a few dozen to a hundred died in minor rebellion? That's hardly a principled reaction. What it is is warmongering.
 
Back
Top Bottom