Fidel Castro says US ready to order NATO invasion of Libya

[News_Editor]

Fidel Castro says US ready to order NATO invasion of Libya

2011-02-23 01:13:57 GMT+7 (ICT)

HAVANA (BNO NEWS) -- Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro on Tuesday said the US will not hesitate to order NATO to invade Libya in order to control the country's oil reserves.

"For me, what is absolutely clear is that the government of the United States is not in the least worried about peace in Libya and it will not hesitate in giving NATO the order to invade that rich country, perhaps in a matter of hours or a few short days," Castro said in a column published by Cuban state news media.

According to the most recent estimates by Human Rights Watch, at least 233 people have died in four days of protests in cities across Libya. But the actual figures are believed to be much higher.

Castro said is too early to know what is precisely happening in Libya, evading to comment on news reports about civilians being killed by troops loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, a long time Cuban ally. 


"One can agree with Gaddafi or not," Castro said. "One has to wait the necessary length of time in order to learn precisely what is the truth and what are lies, or a mixture of events of every kind that, in the midst of chaos, were produced in Libya."

He added that "an honest person shall always be against any injustice being committed against any people in the world" and to remain silent about NATO's plan would be the worst.

On Tuesday, Gaddafi said on Libyan State TV in his first major speech since unrest began that he will not resign and would remain the head of the revolution.



"As for me, I cannot imagine that the Libyan leader would abandon his country; escaping the responsibilities he is charged with, whether or not they are partially or totally false," Castro wrote.



Fidel Castro led Cuba for almost 50 years after the 1959 communist revolution. In 2008, his brother Raúl became president after Castro announced his intention not to run for president again.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-02-23

[ParadiseLost]

Not sure how many people will read this, but here's my two baht worth:

It will be a huge mistake for any western country to interfere in the north African/middle east unrest - it will ultimately lead to resent and (justified) suspicion of motives.

This is an opportunity for the Egyptian people to show their support for their Libyan neighbours and send their army in to liberate Tripoli. I am pretty sure the Libyan army will shrink away from a real threat and Gadaffi will be vanquished. Once order has been restored, the Egyptians pull out and suddenly there is a clear message to all these despots - listen to your people; use force on them and we will intervene (and by the way, our Libyan, Tunisian allies will join us)...

Gadaffi has already given the go-ahead for foreign soldiers to fight on Libyan soil, so I see no need for six months deliberation by UN, EU, USA, NATO before a resolution is passed. Invade now Egypt!

Edited February 23, 2011 by ParadiseLost

[bkkjames]

I think Fidel fell asleep listening to Fawlty Towers last night...

Season 1 / Episode 2: - The Builders

Manuel: Hello, men!

O'Reilly Workman # 1: Good day.

Manuel: You are men.

O'Reilly Workman # 1: What?

Manuel: You are the men!

O'Reilly Workman # 1: You tryin' to be funny?

Manuel: Que?

O'Reilly Workman # 1: I said, are you tryin' to be funny?

Manuel: You are men with Orelly! You Orelly men!

O'Reilly Workman # 1: What does that mean?

Manuel: You Orelly!

O'Reilly Workman # 1: [angry] You watch it!

Manuel: Where Orelly?

O'Reilly Workman # 2: He means O'Reilly.

O'Reilly Workman # 1: Oh yes! Yes, we are Orelly men. [to other workmen under his breath] Thick as a plank.

[Steely Dan]

Not sure how many people will read this, but here's my two baht worth:

It will be a huge mistake for any western country to interfere in the north African/middle east unrest - it will ultimately lead to resent and (justified) suspicion of motives.

This is an opportunity for the Egyptian people to show their support for their Libyan neighbours and send their army in to liberate Tripoli. I am pretty sure the Libyan army will shrink away from a real threat and Gadaffi will be vanquished. Once order has been restored, the Egyptians pull out and suddenly there is a clear message to all these despots - listen to your people; use force on them and we will intervene (and by the way, our Libyan, Tunisian allies will join us)...

Gadaffi has already given the go-ahead for foreign soldiers to fight on Libyan soil, so I see no need for six months deliberation by UN, EU, USA, NATO before a resolution is passed. Invade now Egypt!

Western powers are already complicit in the length of tenure enjoyed by various middle eastern despots, and history does tend to show that every time we intervene it's for an alterior motive, namely oil. A shocking example of how little the west really cares is demonstrated by the Hama massacre; In 1982 president Assad of Syria violently put down a rebellion in the city of Hama, the death toll was estimated between 17,000 and 40,000. Syria has no oil. I'm not sure how many hundreds have already died in Libya but I think outside intervention would be forthcoming before we get anywhere near the Hama level.

Incidentally I would love nothing better than for Gaddafi to stand trial for his crimes though preferably in Libya rather than the Hague.

[mark45y]

Castro, Gaddafi and Nero, brothers under the skin.

[mark45y]

Not sure how many people will read this, but here's my two baht worth:

It will be a huge mistake for any western country to interfere in the north African/middle east unrest - it will ultimately lead to resent and (justified) suspicion of motives.

This is an opportunity for the Egyptian people to show their support for their Libyan neighbours and send their army in to liberate Tripoli. I am pretty sure the Libyan army will shrink away from a real threat and Gadaffi will be vanquished. Once order has been restored, the Egyptians pull out and suddenly there is a clear message to all these despots - listen to your people; use force on them and we will intervene (and by the way, our Libyan, Tunisian allies will join us)...

Gadaffi has already given the go-ahead for foreign soldiers to fight on Libyan soil, so I see no need for six months deliberation by UN, EU, USA, NATO before a resolution is passed. Invade now Egypt!

Western powers are already complicit in the length of tenure enjoyed by various middle eastern despots, and history does tend to show that every time we intervene it's for an alterior motive, namely oil. A shocking example of how little the west really cares is demonstrated by the Hama massacre; In 1982 president Assad of Syria violently put down a rebellion in the city of Hama, the death toll was estimated between 17,000 and 40,000. Syria has no oil. I'm not sure how many hundreds have already died in Libya but I think outside intervention would be forthcoming before we get anywhere near the Hama level.

Incidentally I would love nothing better than for Gaddafi to stand trial for his crimes though preferably in Libya rather than the Hague.

I am sure the Western powers were also responsible for the tenure of Deng Xiaoping. Darn those Western people.

[powderpuff]

Is that old mass murderer still alive?

Fidel you have done great things for the people of Cuba, Libs everywhere love you.

[geriatrickid]

I love the term "westerners" are used when it comes to non-USA involved nations. Why not just state the names of the nations with dirty hands; Italy, Germany, UK, France and Spain. 90% of Libya's oil exports go to Europe.These countries live in fear of Libya opening the floodgates of African refugees. Canada has 500 workers in the lucrative oil industry, The aforementioned European countries have thousands of highly paid workers in Libya. Even Thailand has about 25,000 workers there. China had purchased major oil producing assets in Iraq shoving the USA and EU to the side. The Europeans need Libya for their oil security and also loved the profitable arms sales. The Italians sold their posteriors to the Libyans and the UK threw its integrity in the trash when it sold arms to Libya. The USA doesn't need Libyan oil, but western Europe does. Without Libya, Italy, and its neighbours are going to feel the pinch on oil supplies.

The other culprit? Russia which has come out in full support of Ghaddaffi. The Russians are at least honest in their support of a brutal despot.

[mark45y]

Libya, Russia, China and Cuba all have something in common. Totalitarian dictatorships. When one falls it makes them all weaker. Information gets out and the people holding power feel less secure.

Everyone should take a trip to Cuba. It is only 80 miles away from Florida. A days sail on a slow sailboat. See for themselves what a totalitarian dictatorship can do for a country. They let Americans in and out without stamping your passport unless they are upset with you.

North Korea has the right idea, limit the peoples access to technology and communication. It is the only way to keep everyone in the dark.

In the 50's and 60's America was worried about the domino theory. Vietnam fell to communism, and then Laos and Cambodia. Thailand might have joined them except for a heavy presence of US troops. Now it is the totalitarian dictatorships that have to contend with the democratic domino theory. Communism in SEA was a reaction to colonialism aided by China. It looks like the current democratic revolution is not aided by anyone in particular.

[Jingthing]

I hope Obama can help the people of Libya liberate themselves from their madman. I read one idea is a US enforced (even without Nato) no fly zone over Libya so that he can't bomb his own people. I just wish we could do something about the equally insane regime in Iran.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Jingthing

[mark45y]

I hope Obama can help the people of Libya liberate themselves from their madman. I read one idea is a US enforced (even without Nato) no fly zone over Libya so that he can't bomb his own people. I just wish we could do something about the equally insane regime in Iran.

Before I joined Thai Visa I would have agreed with you. But since reading the forums day after day and seeing the appreciation that America gets for trying to help in a world gone mad I have changed my mind.

Let them fend for themselves. Everyone thinks America has self serving motives and is trying to rule the world.

F em. I for one am tired of being ridiculed for being a good samaritan.

[chuckd]

I hope Obama can help the people of Libya liberate themselves from their madman. I read one idea is a US enforced (even without Nato) no fly zone over Libya so that he can't bomb his own people. I just wish we could do something about the equally insane regime in Iran.

Before I joined Thai Visa I would have agreed with you. But since reading the forums day after day and seeing the appreciation that America gets for trying to help in a world gone mad I have changed my mind.

Let them fend for themselves. Everyone thinks America has self serving motives and is trying to rule the world.

F em. I for one am tired of being ridiculed for being a good samaritan.

I couldn't agree more. Let the Europeans handle Libya.

We would just be accused of invading another Muslim country.

[Jingthing]

It's amusing for me to be to the right of the right wing guys on the board for a change. I will savor the moment.

[chuckd]

It's amusing for me to be to the right of the right wing guys on the board for a change. I will savor the moment.

When people come to their senses, they often start enjoying it.

[geriatrickid]

The USA should under no circumstances involve itself in Libya. It has nothing to gain and so much to lose. The Americans by adopting a measured, yet firm position have regained some respect from the arab communityThe Obama haters of TVF may be shocked to know that President Obama sought out and received advice from experienced old hands in previous administrations. Credit goes to Senator McCain for not trying to make political points but instead choosing to work with the President and give him counsel. Unlike that buffoon, Palin, McCain took the high road.

There are two countries that have managed their public statements well;

1. Israel, by keeping its mouth shut and expressing appreciation for Mubarek without insulting the Egyptian people. The arab nations did notice that Israeli politicans stayed quiet, and that's quite something for a country with a very expressive democracy. They also noticed that the Israelis stayed loyal even if it was to an unpopular leader. Most Egyptians did not want to see Mubarek publicly humiliated and unlike other eaders that are deposed, he did not flee.

2. Despite a shakey few days, the Americans were able to show support for the protesting arabs, yet still maintain a hands off position, favouring statements and actions consistent with previous public positions on democratic rule, even though regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt were not in the U.S. interest.

The big losers? Russia for giving absolute support to the regimes, especially Gadaffi; The Europeans for their duplicitous conduct selling arms, offering comfort and financial support only to then reverse their positions as soon as it became obvious the despots were in trouble. The biggest losers though are in Africa. The presence of African mercenaries in Libya killing arabs is not going over well in the arab world. I would anticipate that there will be a serious reconfiguration of aid and political relations for Chad and Sudan once the troubles subside.

[powderpuff]

I have always wondered why Gadaffi only made it to the rank of Colonel?

I mean he could have named himself Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff.

Dictator for Life. Many higher titles. 6 Star General.

Man you need to be aspirinational.

The UK took a lot of flack for letting us use our UK based bombers. Maggie was an amazing leader. Ditto Reagan.

Edited February 26, 2011 by metisdead
Derogatory comment removed.

[chuckd]

I have always wondered why Gadaffi only made it to the rank of Colonel?

I mean he could have named himself Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff.

Dictator for Life. Many higher titles. 6 Star General.

Man you need to be aspirinational.

The UK took a lot of flack for letting us use our UK based bombers. Maggie was an amazing leader. Ditto Reagan.

I also recall Spain, and maybe France, refused to allow their air space to be used for the bombings in Tripoli.

I guess they were getting their oil from Ghadafi then as well.

[Steely Dan]

I love the term "westerners" are used when it comes to non-USA involved nations. Why not just state the names of the nations with dirty hands; Italy, Germany, UK, France and Spain. 90% of Libya's oil exports go to Europe.These countries live in fear of Libya opening the floodgates of African refugees. Canada has 500 workers in the lucrative oil industry, The aforementioned European countries have thousands of highly paid workers in Libya. Even Thailand has about 25,000 workers there. China had purchased major oil producing assets in Iraq shoving the USA and EU to the side. The Europeans need Libya for their oil security and also loved the profitable arms sales. The Italians sold their posteriors to the Libyans and the UK threw its integrity in the trash when it sold arms to Libya. The USA doesn't need Libyan oil, but western Europe does. Without Libya, Italy, and its neighbours are going to feel the pinch on oil supplies.

The other culprit? Russia which has come out in full support of Ghaddaffi. The Russians are at least honest in their support of a brutal despot.

And there was I trying to be diplomatic. As a British citizen I do view with shame the moral cowardice and greed of successive British governments when dealing with despots. The last UK government released one of the Locherbie bombers from jail obstensively on humanitarian grounds but really down to commerical interests, the 'camel corp' foreign office are also noteable in their reluctance to overlook the countless human rights abuses commited by despotic oil states and their readiness to condemn Israel at every opportunity.

There I said it now, but I think you are right about who this impacts most judging by the price differential that has opened up with Brent Crude some 12% above U.S crude when historically they have traded at parity.

[LaoPo]

The USA should under no circumstances involve itself in Libya. It has nothing to gain and so much to lose. The Americans by adopting a measured, yet firm position have regained some respect from the arab communityThe Obama haters of TVF may be shocked to know that President Obama sought out and received advice from experienced old hands in previous administrations. Credit goes to Senator McCain for not trying to make political points but instead choosing to work with the President and give him counsel. Unlike that buffoon, Palin, McCain took the high road.

There are two countries that have managed their public statements well;

1. Israel, by keeping its mouth shut and expressing appreciation for Mubarek without insulting the Egyptian people. The arab nations did notice that Israeli politicans stayed quiet, and that's quite something for a country with a very expressive democracy. They also noticed that the Israelis stayed loyal even if it was to an unpopular leader. Most Egyptians did not want to see Mubarek publicly humiliated and unlike other eaders that are deposed, he did not flee.

2. Despite a shakey few days, the Americans were able to show support for the protesting arabs, yet still maintain a hands off position, favouring statements and actions consistent with previous public positions on democratic rule, even though regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt were not in the U.S. interest.

The big losers? Russia for giving absolute support to the regimes, especially Gadaffi; The Europeans for their duplicitous conduct selling arms, offering comfort and financial support only to then reverse their positions as soon as it became obvious the despots were in trouble. The biggest losers though are in Africa. The presence of African mercenaries in Libya killing arabs is not going over well in the arab world. I would anticipate that there will be a serious reconfiguration of aid and political relations for Chad and Sudan once the troubles subside.

We dot not often agree but I agree with your observations here as well as in post #8. Good posts!

What Israel is concerned; they couldn't and can't do very much but stay put and calm since it must be frightening what's happening now in such a short period, feeling surrounded by so many countries in trouble.

Although there seem to be some 5.000 Americans in Lybia also, America should not involve in the country and/or invade; that's the task of the EU but they won't -yet- because of the many thousands of foreigners, both EU citizens, Africans, Egyptians, Turks, Asians etc.

This lunatic Ghadaffi is desperate and will do anything to try and keep control of (parts of the) country, he seems to have special bunkers built, many stories deep in de desert with all sophisticated equipment, enabling him to control many important infrastructures, airport, media, internet etc. and could stay in hiding for a long time.

Many fear that if he is losing further control that he will take many westerners (including the Americans) as hostages and will not hesitate to kill them also.

This makes it extremely difficult for any forces to step in to protect the Lybian people but westerners also. Many EU countries are sending planes and ships to evacuate their citizens now but if it will be enough remains to be seen.

For the EU or NATO the extra problem is that it is not one entity which can make quick decisions but that so many larger and smaller countries have a voice.

But I expect that during the next few days France, Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey, being the larger Mediteranean countries, together with Germany and the UK will step in if western hostages are taken.

The first 5 countries are afraid for a tsunami of refugees fleeing the african countries, heading for Europe; many thousand already fled Tunisia for the small island of Lampedusa off the coast of Tunisia but Italian territory; there is a EU law that says that anyone, stepping ashore in the EU has a right to start a refugee application...

But, it's an explosive and dangerous situation.

LaoPo

[Lancelot]

The USA doesn't need Libyan oil, but western Europe does. Without Libya, Italy, and its neighbours are going to feel the pinch on oil supplies.

Oh pooh! We don't want reasonable discussions; give us great stories and the facts be damned!

[Lancelot]

I have always wondered why Gadaffi only made it to the rank of Colonel?

I mean he could have named himself Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff.

Dictator for Life. Many higher titles. 6 Star General.

G is actually very modest. Until the people told him to go...

A Revolutionary Command Council was formed to rule the country, with Gaddafi as chairman. He added the title of prime minister in 1970, but gave up this title in 1972. Unlike some other military revolutionaries, Gaddafi did not promote himself to the rank of general upon seizing power, but rather accepted a ceremonial promotion from captain to colonel and has remained at this rank since then. While at odds with Western military ranking for a colonel to rule a country and serve as Commander-in-Chief of its military, in Gaddafi's own words Libya's society is "ruled by the people", so he needs no more grandiose title or supreme military rank.

[Jingthing]

I'd like to clarify my position a little bit. I think Ghadafi is insane, like Hitler was insane. He has probably already murdered thousands already in his last stand to hang on to power, so the world is on notice. Will he need to murder a million before the world takes any effective action? Maybe he won't go that far, but he certainly shows signs that he might. I see each of these situations differently, and Libya is a specific case with an especially insane leader. I don't see the rationality of a blanket policy for all countries and all situations.

[craigt3365]

Two posts have been deleted and a warning given for discussion of moderation.

[chuckd]

I'd like to clarify my position a little bit. I think Ghadafi is insane, like Hitler was insane. He has probably already murdered thousands already in his last stand to hang on to power, so the world is on notice. Will he need to murder a million before the world takes any effective action? Maybe he won't go that far, but he certainly shows signs that he might. I see each of these situations differently, and Libya is a specific case with an especially insane leader. I don't see the rationality of a blanket policy for all countries and all situations.

Do you mean Ghadafi is sort of like Saddam Hussein was?

[Ulysses G.]

Did Ghaddafi throw his enemies off buildings and video it for his own pleasure.

[johnh101]

Not sure how many people will read this, but here's my two baht worth:

It will be a huge mistake for any western country to interfere in the north African/middle east unrest - it will ultimately lead to resent and (justified) suspicion of motives.

This is an opportunity for the Egyptian people to show their support for their Libyan neighbours and send their army in to liberate Tripoli. I am pretty sure the Libyan army will shrink away from a real threat and Gadaffi will be vanquished. Once order has been restored, the Egyptians pull out and suddenly there is a clear message to all these despots - listen to your people; use force on them and we will intervene (and by the way, our Libyan, Tunisian allies will join us)...

Gadaffi has already given the go-ahead for foreign soldiers to fight on Libyan soil, so I see no need for six months deliberation by UN, EU, USA, NATO before a resolution is passed. Invade now Egypt!

Western powers are already complicit in the length of tenure enjoyed by various middle eastern despots, and history does tend to show that every time we intervene it's for an alterior motive, namely oil. A shocking example of how little the west really cares is demonstrated by the Hama massacre; In 1982 president Assad of Syria violently put down a rebellion in the city of Hama, the death toll was estimated between 17,000 and 40,000. Syria has no oil. I'm not sure how many hundreds have already died in Libya but I think outside intervention would be forthcoming before we get anywhere near the Hama level.

Incidentally I would love nothing better than for Gaddafi to stand trial for his crimes though preferably in Libya rather than the Hague.

I am very sorry to intrude, but you are so wrong on this one.

Syria does have Oil, quite a lot of it actually, why else would the likes of Shell and countless other OC's be imbedded in Damascus.

There has been much more exploration in Iraq, hence more proven reserves. But look at Iraqi Kurdistan.....loads of oil right on the border with Syria.

[geriatrickid]

The USA doesn't need Libyan oil, but western Europe does. Without Libya, Italy, and its neighbours are going to feel the pinch on oil supplies.

Oh pooh! We don't want reasonable discussions; give us great stories and the facts be damned!

How is it a story? Here are the facts;

- 85% of Libya's exports of crude oil go to Europe

- Libya supplies 22% of Italy's crude oil

- 8.5% of UK's crude oil supplies come from Libya

- China gets 3% of its crude oil from Libya

Source: International Energy Agency

10% of Italy's natural gas supplies come from just the one underwater pipeline from Libya.

The USA's energy imports from Libya are negligible. I've said it before and I'll repeat it: as long as the USA has Canada and Mexico as its two major energy suppliers, it can withstand upheaval in the energy markets. It will be painful, but unlike other countries, the USA has guaranteed energy supplies that can keep the country's key sectors functioning. Russia can do the same. Unfortunately, Asia and especially economies like China, South Korea and Japan along with the EU need middle eastern energy supplies to survive.

America should however send it Navy to shell the living hell out of Somalia. Pirates have recently killed 4 missionaries who were handing out free Bibles. Teddy Roosevelt (Marxist that he was) would have known how to handle that outrage. Those battleships fire rounds the size of oil drums. Obama - do we have a foreign policy?

Ouch. Teddy wasn't a Marxist. He was an independent thinker. If anything one could argue he epitomized the can do free spiritedness that made the USA the powerhouse it once was. I never cared much for Teddy's political views but he gave the USA a national park system that was a brilliant in its concept. He wouldn't have invaded Libya, and that most likely would have been due to the racist views common to the era. I believe President Obama is handling this the right way by sticking to long established principles and by not physically interfering.A US intervention would destroy the good will the USA has rebuilt. Libya is not attacking the USA is it? At this time it is Libyans being murdered by African mercenaries. The USA has no legal basis to attack Libya. Give Obama credit, or rather some of George Bush's former advisers and Hilary Clinton credit for advising that the USA not make the same mistake it did in Iraq.The US cannot afford any more theatres of operations.It is over stretched and bleeding money and lives.

[softgeorge]

Is there any oil or gas there? If not then they won't invade nothing to be gained.

[Ulysses G.]

Is there any oil or gas there?

[softgeorge]

Is there any oil or gas there?