by Colin Hyde

I don’t think it helps any to bring up any US aggression stories when the topic of the Russian invasion of Ukraine comes up. We’ll have our discussion of US evil by itself, thank you.

Okay, that said, a prime example forwarded of US wikidnis in the last two decades is their invasion and destruction of Iraq. Looking at facts, it is a fact that Iraq was acting like it was a world power, like it had the bomb. We will ignore any question of proxy here, the possibility that Iraq acted on the instigation of one of the big boys. The fact is that in 1980 Iraq invaded Iran, and in 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait because, Iraq claimed, Kuwait was stealing its oil.

Before the invasion called “The Iraq War”, Iraq was under surveillance by the big boy US because Saddam acted like his country had big-time firepower. Earlier on, Saddam had been accused of having biological weapons in his arsenal. Because of Iraq’s posturing, it was an easy sell to the American people and the Western world that Saddam was a very dangerous man who needed to be reined in.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) said Saddam “played a curious double game”, that for years after the 1990-91 war, arms inspectors had been allowed into the country to verify that the country didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but at the same time Saddam “obstructed their work until — in frustration — the arms inspectors left in protest in 1998.” This is what led the Americans and the world to believe that he was hiding dangerous stuff.

RFE/RL said that when the inspectors returned to Iraq in 2002 to investigate his war programs, it was too late. And why did Saddam persevere in the charade? RFE/RL said the story there is about Iran. RFE/RL said Mike McConnell, the outgoing U.S. director of national intelligence, said that after Saddam was captured, his interrogators asked him, “Why did you cause your own people to believe you had weapons of mass destruction?” And he replied: “You don’t understand. I have Iran on my border. I had to convince the Iranians that I had that capability. And the way to do that is to make my own generals believe.”

Here we’ll segue to a story about Libya, and what they say the Americans did to it. About Libya, Roxana Baspineiro, in the 2020 teleSUR story “Libya: Before and After Muammar Gaddafi”, says there is much to the glowing reports we got about that country before the US ousted Gadaffi. The teleSUR piece says Gaddafi led Libya for 42 years, and under his leadership there was “significant advance in social, political and economic matters”, and during his time Libya was admired “by many African and Arab nations.”

The story says that before Gaddafi “the nation was mired in backwardness in education, health, housing, social security, among others”, and that “one of Gaddafi’s immediate policies was to share the benefits and wealth to all Libyans” when he took charge. Under Gaddafi, Libya began using “its oil income to boost redistributive measures among the population, generating a new model of economic and social development for the country.” The standard of living improved tremendously. He launched ambitious social programs in “education, health, housing, public works and subsidies for electricity and basic foodstuffs.” Libya achieved “a literacy rate of 88.4 percent, a life expectancy of 74.5 years, gender equality, among several other positive indicators.” Wow, all those wonderful things we have heard are true.

So, why did the US take Gaddafi down? The teleSUR story says Libya reached out for closer ties with “other Arab countries to carry out common policies of rejection of Washington’s policies on the Middle East and Africa”, that he strengthened ties “with neighboring countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Chad, among others”, that he maintained close ties with France and Russia, and “connected with Latin American countries such as Venezuela and Cuba.”

Doug Bandow, in the 2020 story “The Obama Administration Wrecked Libya for a Generation” published by the CATO Institute, said the destruction really belongs to Hillary Clinton. Bandow said that, to maintain power, Gaddafi “carefully balanced interests in Libya’s complex tribal society and kept the military weak”, and that in earlier times he was a “geopolitical troublemaker.” But after the US invaded Iraq, he “repudiated terrorism and ended his missile and nuclear programs in a deal with the U.S. and Europe”, actions for which “he was feted in European capitals.”

Some say Gaddafi was brought down by the European world because of his plans for Africa. AA News Broadcasting System says that “in speeches, Gaddafi often outlined his plan to create a new united Africa with its own currency, an army to defend the continent, and a single passport.” I think we must also keep at the fore the Europeans’ lust for revenge for the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988. Two Libyans were convicted for planting a bomb on the plane that led to the death of 270 people. Gaddafi, while compensating the families of the victims, vehemently denied ordering the bombing. But the West believed it was his hand.

Bandow said that “in 2011, the Arab Spring engulfed Libya, as people rose against Gaddafi’s rule” and “he responded with force to reestablish control.” The Western world, and Russia and China, joined a resolution that authorized “all necessary measures to prevent the killing of civilians.” But Bandow says Gaddafi wasn’t attacking civilians, and he “promised amnesty to those who abandoned their weapons.” Still, Libyan government forces and installations were bombed. The siege didn’t end until Gaddafi was killed.

And since, Libya has been torn apart. Bandow says “the Obama administration did not plan to ruin Libya for a generation. But its decision to take on another people’s fight has resulted in catastrophe. Hillary Clinton’s malignant gift keeps on giving. Such is the cost of America’s promiscuous war making.”

They shouldn’t persecute Whoopi

American actress, Whoopi Goldberg (birth name Caryn Elaine Johnson) apologized last week for a statement she made about the Jewish people and race. In a nutshell, Ms. Goldberg had said on her show, The View, that she didn’t believe the Holocaust was about race, since, because Jews are white, they can ‘pass’ in a white society. Ms. Goldberg later said that she believed the Holocaust was about race, and apologized to those she had hurt.

Well, I understand perfectly what Ms. Goldberg was saying. The lady wasn’t about downplaying anti-Semitism; she was stating the obvious, and you’d have to have on a blindfold to not see it. Black people are far more open to persecution in a white society than Jews are. I’ll have more on this race thing later.

Bye to “Black Stalin”

Black Stalin’s passing was overshadowed by the death of the great Pelé, but we people with African ancestry in this part of the world should make sure he (Leroy Calliste) gets his proper respect. Black Stalin died last week at the age of 81, after a lengthy illness.

I think I’ve borrowed from his lyrics more than I have from any other musical artist in the Caribbean. About these politicians who keep letting us down, keep confusing us for their personal agenda, he sang: “it’s di same oal ting, di same oal ting dehn pushing”. About our oneness he sang: “One race (de Caribbean man), From de same place (de Caribbean man), Dat make de same trip (de Caribbean man), On de same ship (de Caribbean man). And when the party organizers called on him to produce some spicy lyrics for the party, he sang, “Wait, Dorothy, wait” — until he had dealt with the serious issues affecting his Caribbean people.

Caribbean Beat Magazine said that five times Black Stalin was crowned Trinidad’s Calypso Monarch. The Loop News said, “If there was ever a calypsonian who made it his life’s mission to empower ‘de black man’ and reject the stain of colonialism on the Caribbean – it was Black Stalin.”