Charlie Rose

worldwatcher  03/23/2011 03:15 PM Report

I think that what should be pointed out the most and *EXPOSED* is the *usual* U.S. _*HYPOCRISY*_: which claims to stand for democracy (as always the U.S. cover story) while constantly installing and/or propping up dictators in the Arab and non-Western world -- and then claiming that *Arab societies/cultures* are *"opposed"* to democracy. So, obviously, by any comparisons, the U.S. doesn't care about democracy -- just as it doesn't care about Islamic fundamentalism, as long as they are the *U.S. government's* Islamic fundamentalists -- like in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, or when the Taliban was virtually created by and on the *U.S.'s* side (as even popularized by the Hollywood movie "Rambo III").

The U.S.-UK-French coalition claims to be protecting civilian life and peaceful protesters in Libya, but they don't protect it in Gaza or Lebanon when Israel massacres thousands (either killed, maimed or wounded); the coalition doesn't protect civilian life and peaceful protesters in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia (in fact, the U.S. *supports* brutality there); the U.S. doesn't demand democracy by its *allied* dictatorial, Arab, Islamic *fundamentalist* regimes, most prominently in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, both where women have far less rights than under Saddam! The U.S. doesn't care about "terrorism", as long as the people (like the anti-Iranian terrorists or, before, the Contras) are the *U.S.'s* terrorists. The U.S., it has been shown, doesn't even care about torture, as long as the *U.S.* or *Israel* are doing/supporting torture.

Qaddafi was not an anti-imperialist (at least not any longer, altho now he's posing as one): he *worked* with the imperialists -- he kissed and made up with them: he was their boy in Libya. While I am still forming my opinions and conclusions, I mostly see this as A(nother) international _'FALLING OUT AMONG CROOKS AND THUGS'_ (the US/UK and their 3rd world dictators, like, before with Saddam) -- there are no good guys between them all. Qaddafi, like Saddam, put *himself* in that situation -- otherwise he would have the support of most of his people when it came to outside military attacks. Qaddafi was the *first* to bring in foreign military support.

So, for the moment, I am provisionally and tactically open to whomever prevents the most civilians/protesters from being massacred, while waiting to listen and re-listen to Davey's shows again on this topic. Qaddafi did and said he was going to *massacre* his own people/protesters, even when they were *peaceful* protesters -- the same people who don't even want to see US/UK (/French/Italian) boots on the ground: they saw what happened in Iraq. But, if the U.S. carelessly starts massacring civilians in Libya (as the U.S. has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or before that in Panama, Vietnam, during the Korean war, and in so many other countries) we should be equally condemning of that also.

So, Qaddafi left *himself* politically open to -- eventually -- whatever excuses the US/UK/French/etc. coalition (THE *OTHER* CROOKS) want to use to militarily attack and turn on him -- when he was no longer useful to them (just like Noreiga, in Panama, and Saddam, who got *set-up* in Kuwait and the Gulf-Iraq War). FIRST, Qaddafi needs to *go* -- and, SECOND, the pro-democracy forces need to make sure that the U.S. doesn't install, impose, help in, or prop up *another* dictator -- because we all know that the last thing the U.S./Europe/Israel want in the Arab/Muslim world is a true democracy. (The U.S. govt barely "wants/supports" a true democracy here at home!: it seems like *corporatism*, a form of oligarchy, dominates U.S. domestic policy and even our elections.)

sonia  03/21/2011 05:48 PM Report

Great reporting and interviews from both Cairo and Tripoli..Thanks.