A response to Senator Kerry: Intervention in Libya is a War of Aggression by an Imperial Power

A response to Senator Kerry: Intervention in Libya is a War of Aggression by an Imperial Power

By Paul Meuse 16 March 2011

In an Opinion piece in Al Jazeera 'We must not wait for a massacre' ( 14 March 2011) Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) called for a no fly zone to be imposed over Libya by the U.S. and its allies; the so-called 'free world' countries before Gaddafi starts massacring his people.

"I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government." Martin Luther King- in his speech on April 4, 1967.

Senator Kerry, any intervention by the Unites States, or NATO powers is a war of aggression under the guise if humanitarianism! The United States and its allies have no right to intervene in Libya, nor anywhere else; the United States is at this very moment, and has since October 2001 been waging multiple wars of aggression.

Intervention violates the sovereignty of Libya, and robs the Libyan people of their Right of Self-Determination. Once the US is involved the Libyan people will have a new enemy: the United States.

Senator Kerry your main argument is that ‘We must not wait for a massacre’ before taking action. And, you say the U. S. and its allies ‘will lead the free world to avoid the senseless slaughter of any more Libyan citizens by a madman bent on maintaining power’ if necessary.

Who is the so-called free world?

Before this revolt broke out the U.S. was prepared to provide Gadhafi with almost 50 ‘armoured troop carriers’ to the tune of $77 million.

And, European Union countries provided Gadhafi’s regime with $470 million in weaponry, such as Italian military jets, British ammunition, and small arms from Malta? Is this the ‘free world’ you speak of?
Senator Kerry Still, you mention ‘the spectre that haunts’ you is - ordinary people facing off against an autocrat's airpower and well-armed soldiers.’ That happened in Vietnam. Now it is in Bahrain home to the U.S. fleet? Is it okay for friendly dictators to gun people down in the streets?

As for your worry about Gadhafi ‘killing civilians in large numbers’ the United States has killed over 1.5 million Iraqi’s; dumped depleted uranium in its cities, farms, fields and water supplies. The U.S. has no moral authority; its leaders are war criminals today as they were during the Vietnam War!
Back then you recognized that!

I was a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran; a ‘grunt’, and volunteered twice. The U.S. leaders care not about the Libyan people, but about losing control of the region, and to that end the U.S. has backed the most corrupt regimes as long as they did the bidding of the U.S. What about the killing in Saudi Arabia, or BAHRAIN or other ‘good’ U.S. allies?

You mention the need ‘to avoid the perception of NATO or the US attacking another Muslim country,’ and that ‘six Arab countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) support a no fly zone. Are these countries democratic or autocratic regimes?

You profess concern about bloodshed in Libya. What about the war in Democratic Republic of Congo? Over 5 million people have died since 1998.

If it is true as you say that ‘a no-fly zone would eliminate airstrikes and save civilian lives.’ Then please explain why this does not apply to Israeli whose jet fighters bomb the living sh*t out of unarmed and innocent Palestinian people who were ‘ethnically cleansed’ from their homes?

The U.S. provides the planes and bombs which kill Palestinian people, and especially children in highly disproportionate numbers. They have been bombed since 1948; there’s no attempt to stop this awful slaughter.

And, as for the ‘US…taking a united stand against a thug who is killing Muslims.’ The U. S. is the biggest thug and threat to Muslims on this planet.

The word oil is always left out, but it’s THE reason why the U.S. is in the Middle East, and now Africa. the U.S. does not want democracy it has always preferred despots; they are more reliable.