[Marxism] Questions for Vijay Prashad

Clay Claiborne clayclai at gmail.com
Thu Aug 28 11:42:53 MDT 2014

On 08/27/2014 01:23 PM, Jon Flanders via Marxism wrote:
> You know, they essentially ceded that part of the country. Libya was 
> going—Gaddafi’s rule was going to fall. There was no need 
> forNATOintervention. 
Tell that to the people of Homs. When French jets swooped in to destroy 
Qaddafi tanks on ~19 March, they were starting to enter Benghanzi, to 
carry out the "cleansing" operation Qaddafi had been promising for days, 
>From your comfortable position I'm sure you valued "political purity" 
over stopping Qaddafi from doing to Benghazi and Misrata what Assad has 
done to Homs and Aleppo. I disagree and so do my Libyan followers.
> So, the second reason I opposed intervention in Libya was it was 
> inevitable that Gaddafi was going to lose power. Let the process take 
> its own way. 
Like Syria?
> Let them fight a little bit. Let there be a political dialogue within 
> the rebellion. Let them create alternative structures of power. 
And. as a Marxist, [ and an internationalist? ] what did you do to help 
with that? My record is clear. 
> If you just give the Libyan people a destroyed country, how are they 
> going to build a future? And that was the real danger of aerial 
> bombardment of the style the Americans conduct.
Syria is a destroyed country [infrastructure wise] because there has 
been no UN intervention, no no-fly zone, and Assad has been allowed to 
use his air force, artillery and chemical weapons to destroy whatever 
the chooses in Syria for more than 3 years now. Libya suffered very 
little infrastructure damage because NATO stopped Qaddafi from doing the 
same to Libya. The chaos [not destruction] is the result of 42 years of 
Qaddafi rule not NATO destruction.

And its a slight against the Brits, French, Italians and Dutch to call 
it an American aerial bombardment. The US conducted only about 17% of 
the strike missions.

More information about the Marxism mailing list