> Julio, that [Fidel's reflection] doesn't look like a coherent argument.
> NATO is not going to occupy Libya.
As I understand it, Fidel's position is to oppose NATO and leave the removal (or endorsement) of Ghadaffi to the Libyans.
The Libyans and -- with perhaps much less consequence, although not necessarily -- those of us far removed from the events there face a tough dilemma. Clearly said, by action or omission, we are choosing between two mutually exclusive compromises both of which have downsides: We either ally with Ghadaffi and oppose the NATO attack on Libya or we ally with NATO and try and get Ghadaffi removed from power.
Again, the two options have grave *objective* consequences -- life and death stuff. I know some people don't like to think in terms of the *objective* consequences of their choices, but they follow from the law of cause and effect.
Obviously, choices are contextual. People in different places are under a different set of imperatives. To paraphrase Peter Parker's uncle: the greater the power, the greater the responsibility. In our case, as I see it, our main responsibility is to shape up U.S. policies, not to overthrow sucky governments abroad. People in what used to be called the Third World are not all minors.
With the information that I have -- including my personal understanding of history -- I feel very strongly that we should oppose the NATO war on Libya, which *objectively* turns us into Ghadaffi's allies. The alternative, an alliance with NATO to overthrow Ghadaffi is wrongheaded, in my view. Just a snippet of history: The 20th century began with the U.S. waging a war against Spain in the name of helping people from Spain's remaining colonies to gain independence. That's how Cuba wound up with an amendment imposed on its constitution with tragic consequences. It took 59 years for the Cubans to conquer their political independence.
Of course, we may also feel solidarity obligations towards the people of Libya who are rebelling against their government for good reasons. But these obligations do not have to include support for the NATO war.
If I were a worker in Libya opposing the government, I'd entirely understand that people abroad may not (in fact, should not) support NATO's actions, allegedly intended to "help" me overthrow my government. People here -- as individuals -- can try and help those in Libya struggling for democracy, socialism, etc. But to the extent our public pronouncements against Ghadaffi help NATO's designs (and who knows really what that extent is precisely), I don't think it's a good idea to make them.
My 2 cents.