Swedish Gripen fighters on Libya standby
Soon, however, problems cropped up with Col. Gaddafi as far as Uganda and Black Africa were concerned:
1. Idi Amin came to power with the support of Britain and Israel because they thought he was uneducated enough to be used by them. Amin, however, turned against his sponsors when they refused to sell him guns to fight Tanzania. Unfortunately, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, without getting enough information about Uganda, jumped in to support Idi Amin. This was because Amin was a ‘Moslem’ and Uganda was a ‘Moslem country’ where Moslems were being ‘oppressed’ by Christians. Amin killed a lot of people extra-judiciary and Gaddafi was identified with these mistakes. In 1972 and 1979, Gaddafi sent Libyan troops to defend Idi Amin when we attacked him. I remember a Libyan Tupolev 22 bomber trying to bomb us in Mbarara in 1979. The bomb ended up in Nyarubanga because the pilots were scared. They could not come close to bomb properly. We had already shot-down many Amin MIGs using surface-to-air missiles. The Tanzanian brothers and sisters were doing much of this fighting. Many Libyan militias were captured and repatriated to Libya by Tanzania. This was a big mistake by Gaddafi and a direct aggression against the people of Uganda and East Africa.
2. The second big mistake by Gaddafi was his position vis-à-vis the African Union (AU) Continental Government “now”. Since 1999, he has been pushing this position. Black people are always polite. They, normally, do not want to offend other people. This is called: ‘obufura’ in Runyankore, mwolo in Luo – handling, especially strangers, with care and respect. It seems some of the non-African cultures do not have ‘obufura’. You can witness a person talking to a mature person as if he/she is talking to a kindergarten child. “You should do this; you should do that; etc.” We tried to politely point out to Col. Gaddafi that this was difficult in the short and medium term. We should, instead, aim at the Economic Community of Africa and, where possible, also aim at Regional Federations. Col. Gaddafi would not relent. He would not respect the rules of the AU. Something that has been covered by previous meetings would be resurrected by Gaddafi. He would ‘overrule’ a decision taken by all other African Heads of State. Some of us were forced to come out and oppose his wrong position and, working with others, we repeatedly defeated his illogical position.
3. The third mistake has been the tendency by Col. Gaddafi to interfere in the internal affairs of many African countries using the little money Libya has compared to those countries. One blatant example was his involvement with cultural leaders of Black Africa – kings, chiefs, etc. Since the political leaders of Africa had refused to back his project of an African Government, Gaddafi, incredibly, thought that he could by-pass them and work with these kings to implement his wishes. I warned Gaddafi in Addis Ababa that action would be taken against any Ugandan king that involved himself in politics because it was against our Constitution. I moved a motion in Addis Ababa to expunge from the records of the AU all references to kings (cultural leaders) who had made speeches in our forum because they had been invited there illegally by Col. Gaddafi.
4. The fourth big mistake was by most of the Arab leaders, including Gaddafi to some extent. This was in connection with the long suffering people of Southern Sudan. Many of the Arab leaders either supported or ignored the suffering of the Black people in that country. This unfairness always created tension and friction between us and the Arabs, including Gaddafi to some extent. However, I must salute H.E. Gaddafi and H.E. Hosni Mubarak for travelling to Khartoum just before the Referendum in Sudan and advised H.E. Bashir to respect the results of that exercise.
5. Sometimes Gaddafi and other Middle Eastern radicals do not distance themselves sufficiently from terrorism even when they are fighting for a just cause. Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence – not distinguishing between military and non-military targets. The Middle Eastern radicals, quite different from the revolutionaries of Black Africa, seem to say that any means is acceptable as long as you are fighting the enemy. That is why they hijack planes, use assassinations, plant bombs in bars, etc. Why bomb bars? People who go to bars are normally merry-makers, not politically minded people. We were together with the Arabs in the anti-colonial struggle. The Black African liberation movements, however, developed differently from the Arab ones. Where we used arms, we fought soldiers or sabotaged infrastructure but never targeted non-combatants. These indiscriminate methods tend to isolate the struggles of the Middle East and the Arab world. It would be good if the radicals in these areas could streamline their work methods in this area of using violence indiscriminately.
These five points above are some of the negative points in connection to Col. Gaddafi as far as Uganda’s patriots have been concerned over the years. These positions of Col. Gaddafi have been unfortunate and unnecessary.
Nevertheless, Gaddafi has also had many positive points objectively speaking. These positive points have been in favour of Africa, Libya and the Third World. I will deal with them point by point:
1. Col. Gaddafi has been having an independent foreign policy and, of course, also independent internal policies. I am not able to understand the position of Western countries which appear to resent independent-minded leaders and seem to prefer puppets. Puppets are not good for any country. Most of the countries that have transitioned from Third World to First World status since 1945 have had independent-minded leaders: South Korea (Park Chung-hee), Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew), China People’s Republic (Mao Tse Tung, Chou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Marshal Yang Shangkun, Li Peng, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jing Tao, etc), Malaysia (Dr. Mahthir Mohamad), Brazil (Lula Da Silva), Iran (the Ayatollahs), etc. Between the First World War and the Second World War, the Soviet Union transitioned into an Industrial country propelled by the dictatorial but independent-minded Joseph Stalin. In Africa we have benefited from a number of independent-minded leaders: Col. Nasser of Egypt, Mwalimu Nyerere of Tanzania, Samora Machel of Mozambique, etc. That is how Southern Africa was liberated. That is how we got rid of Idi Amin. The stopping of genocide in Rwanda and the overthrow of Mobutu, etc., were as a result of efforts of independent-minded African leaders. Muammar Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests. Where have the puppets caused the transformation of countries? I need some assistance with information on this from those who are familiar with puppetry. Therefore, the independent-minded Gaddafi had some positive contribution to Libya, I believe, as well as Africa and the Third World. I will take one little example. At the time we were fighting the criminal dictatorships here in Uganda, we had a problem arising of a complication caused by our failure to capture enough guns at Kabamba on the 6th of February, 1981. Gaddafi gave us a small consignment of 96 rifles, 100 anti-tank mines, etc., that was very useful. He did not consult Washington or Moscow before he did this. This was good for Libya, for Africa and for the Middle East. We should also remember as part of that independent-mindedness he expelled British and American military bases from Libya, etc.
2. Before Gaddafi came to power in 1969, a barrel of oil was 40 American cents. He launched a campaign to withhold Arab oil unless the West paid more for it. I think the price went up to US$ 20 per barrel. When the Arab-Israel war of 1973 broke out, the barrel of oil went to US$ 40. I am, therefore, surprised to hear that many oil producers in the world, including the Gulf countries, do not appreciate the historical role played by Gaddafi on this issue. The huge wealth many of these oil producers are enjoying was, at least in part, due to Gaddafi’s efforts. The Western countries have continued to develop in spite of paying more for oil. It, therefore, means that the pre-Gaddafi oil situation was characterized by super exploitation in favour of the Western countries.
3. I have never taken time to investigate socio-economic conditions within Libya. When I was last there, I could see good roads even from the air. From the TV pictures, you can even see the rebels zooming up and down in pick-up vehicles on very good roads accompanied by Western journalists. Who built these good roads? Who built the oil refineries in Brega and those other places where the fighting has been taking place recently? Were these facilities built during the time of the king and his American as well as British allies or were they built by Gaddafi? In Tunisia and Egypt, some youths immolated (burnt) themselves because they had failed to get jobs. Are the Libyans without jobs also? If so, why, then, are there hundreds of thousands of foreign workers? Is Libya’s policy of providing so many jobs to Third World workers bad? Are all the children going to school in Libya? Was that the case in the past – before Gaddafi? Is the conflict in Libya economic or purely political? Possibly Libya could have transitioned more if they encouraged the private sector more. However, this is something the Libyans are better placed to judge. As it is, Libya is a middle income country with GDP standing at US$ 89.03 billion. This is about the same as the GDP of South Africa at the time Mandela took over leadership in 1994 and it about —————– the current size of GDP of Spain.
4. Gaddafi is one of the few secular leaders in the Arab world. He does not believe in Islamic fundamentalism that is why women have been able to go to school, to join the Army, etc. This is a positive point on Gaddafi’s side.
Coming to the present crisis, therefore, we need to point out some issues:
1. The first issue is to distinguish between demonstrations and insurrections. Peaceful demonstrations should not be fired on with live bullets. Of course, even peaceful demonstrations should coordinate with the Police to ensure that they do not interfere with the rights of other citizens. When rioters are, however, attacking Police stations and Army barracks with the aim of taking power, then, they are no longer demonstrators; they are insurrectionists. They will have to be treated as such. A responsible Government would have to use reasonable force to neutralize them. Of course, the ideal responsible Government should also be an elected one by the people at periodic intervals. If there is a doubt about the legitimacy of a Government and the people decide to launch an insurrection, that should be the decision of the internal forces. It should not be for external forces to arrogate themselves that role, often, they do not have enough knowledge to decide rightly. Excessive external involvement always brings terrible distortions. Why should external forces involve themselves? That is a vote of no confidence in the people themselves. A legitimate internal insurrection, if that is the strategy chosen by the leaders of that effort, can succeed. The Shah of Iran was defeated by an internal insurrection; the Russian Revolution in 1917 was an internal insurrection; the Revolution in Zanzibar in 1964 was an internal insurrection; the changes in Ukraine, Georgia, etc., all were internal insurrections. It should be for the leaders of the Resistance in that country to decide their strategy, not for foreigners to sponsor insurrection groups in sovereign countries. I am totally allergic to foreign, political and military involvement in sovereign countries, especially the African countries. If foreign intervention is good, then, African countries should be the most prosperous countries in the world because we have had the greatest dosages of that: slave trade, colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, etc. All those foreign imposed phenomena have, however, been disastrous. It is only recently that Africa is beginning to come up partly because of rejecting external meddling. External meddling and the acquiescence by Africans into that meddling have been responsible for the stagnation in Africa. The wrong definition of priorities in many of the African countries is, in many cases, imposed by external groups. Failure to prioritize infrastructure, for instance, especially energy, is, in part, due to some of these pressures. Instead, consumption is promoted. I have witnessed this wrong definition of priorities even here in Uganda. External interests linked up, for instance, with internal bogus groups to oppose energy projects for false reasons. How will an economy develop without energy? Quislings and their external backers do not care about all this.
2. If you promote foreign backed insurrections in small countries like Libya, what will you do with the big ones like China which has got a different system from the Western systems? Are you going to impose a no-fly-zone over China in case of some internal insurrections as happened in Tiananmen Square, in Tibet or in Urumuqi?
3. The Western countries always use double standards. In Libya, they are very eager to impose a no-fly-zone. In Bahrain and other areas where there are pro-Western regimes, they turn a blind eye to the very same conditions or even worse conditions. We have been appealing to the UN to impose a no-fly-zone over Somalia so as to impede the free movement of terrorists, linked to Al-Qaeda, that killed Americans on September 11th, killed Ugandans last July and have caused so much damage to the Somalis, without success. Why? Are there no human beings in Somalia similar to the ones in Benghazi? Or is it because Somalia does not have oil which is not fully controlled by the western oil companies on account of Gaddafi’s nationalist posture?
4. The Western countries are always very prompt in commenting on every problem in the Third World – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. Yet, some of these very countries were the ones impeding growth in those countries. There was a military coup d’état that slowly became a Revolution in backward Egypt in 1952. The new leader, Nasser, had ambition to cause transformation in Egypt. He wanted to build a dam not only to generate electricity but also to help with the ancient irrigation system of Egypt. He was denied money by the West because they did not believe that Egyptians needed electricity. Nasser decided to raise that money by nationalizing the Suez Canal. He was attacked by Israel, France and Britain. To be fair to the USA, President Eisenhower opposed that aggression that time. Of course, there was also the firm stand of the Soviet Union at that time. How much electricity was this dam supposed to produce? Just 2000 mgws for a country like Egypt!! What moral right, then, do such people have to comment on the affairs of these countries?
5. Another negative point is going to arise out of the by now habit of the Western countries over-using their superiority in technology to impose war on less developed societies without impeachable logic. This will be the igniting of an arms race in the world. The actions of the Western countries in Iraq and now Libya are emphasizing that might is “right.” I am quite sure that many countries that are able will scale up their military research and in a few decades we may have a more armed world. This weapons science is not magic. A small country like Israel is now a super power in terms of military technology. Yet 60 years ago, Israel had to buy second-hand fouga magister planes from France. There are many countries that can become small Israels if this trend of overusing military means by the Western countries continues.
6. All this notwithstanding, Col. Gaddafi should be ready to sit down with the opposition, through the mediation of the AU, with the opposition cluster of groups which now includes individuals well known to us – Ambassador Abdalla, Dr. Zubeda, etc. I know Gaddafi has his system of elected committees that end up in a National People’s Conference. Actually Gaddafi thinks this is superior to our multi-party systems. Of course, I have never had time to know how truly competitive this system is. Anyway, even if it is competitive, there is now, apparently, a significant number of Libyans that think that there is a problem in Libya in terms of governance. Since there has not been internationally observed elections in Libya, not even by the AU, we cannot know what is correct and what is wrong. Therefore, a dialogue is the correct way forward.
7. The AU mission could not get to Libya because the Western countries started bombing Libya the day before they were supposed to arrive. However, the mission will continue. My opinion is that, in addition, to what the AU mission is doing, it may be important to call an extra-ordinary Summit of the AU in Addis Ababa to discuss this grave situation.
8. Regarding the Libyan opposition, I would feel embarrassed to be backed by Western war planes because quislings of foreign interests have never helped Africa. We have had a copious supply of them in the last 50 years – Mobutu, Houphout Boigny, Kamuzu Banda, etc. The West made a lot of mistakes in Africa and in the Middle East in the past. Apart from the slave trade and colonialism, they participated in the killing of Lumumba, until recently, the only elected leader of Congo, the killing of Felix Moummie of Cameroon, Bartholomew Boganda of Central African Republic, the support for UNITA in Angola, the support for Idi Amin at the beginning of his regime, the counter-revolution in Iran in 1953, etc. Recently, there has been some improvement in the arrogant attitudes of some of these Western countries. Certainly, with Black Africa and, particularly, Uganda, the relations are good following their fair stand on the Black people of Southern Sudan. With the democratization of South Africa and the freedom of the Black people in Southern Sudan, the difference between the patriots of Uganda and the Western Governments had disappeared. Unfortunately, these rush actions on Libya are beginning to raise new problems. They should be resolved quickly.
Therefore, if the Libyan opposition groups are patriots, they should fight their war by themselves and conduct their affairs by themselves. After all, they easily captured so much equipment from the Libyan Army, why do they need foreign military support? I only had 27 rifles. To be puppets is not good.
9. The African members of the Security Council voted for this Resolution of the Security Council. This was contrary to what the Africa Peace and Security Council had decided in Addis Ababa recently. This is something that only the extra-ordinary summit can resolve.
10. It was good that certain big countries in the Security Council abstained on this Resolution. These were: Russia, China, Brazil, India, etc. This shows that there are balanced forces in the world that will, with more consultations, evolve more correct positions.
11. Being members of the UN, we are bound by the Resolution that was passed, however rush the process. Nevertheless, there is a mechanism for review. The Western countries, which are most active in these rush actions, should look at that route. It may be one way of extricating all of us from possible nasty complications. What if the Libyans loyal to Gaddafi decide to fight on? Using tanks and planes that are easily targeted by Mr. Sarkozy’s planes is not the only way of fighting. Who will be responsible for such a protracted war? It is high time we did more careful thinking.
Yoweri K. Museveni
PRESIDENT
20th March 2011
Ugandans-At-Heart 
Comments
Mr President, consistance in your speech is comendable, but remember u were voted in power by use of a ‘mere paper’, for revolutionarist there fate cant be decided on a mere piece of paper. What do u expect people to do in modern democracies if a person can make such utterencies. In luganda we say “bwo nyiggiriza nyo enyindo eletta musayi”. Let Gadaffi pay da price as an admant “revolutionarist” who tend 2 become ‘despots. Why alter constitutions at free will, see what happened in Niger. Think of da current NEW WORLD ORDER, forget those old times of 80% illiterate populations, who would be YE SSEBOs.
I this day and age, M7 has not learned how to structure an official communique. He used 3724 words just to to say that it was wrong to for UN to attack Libya militarily, to explain the double stands of the UN/US and to expose Gaddafi’s rights and wrongs.
The letter is not thematic. It flaws like rain water flawing in the valley. Worse still, M7 reasoning is extremely wacky not befitting a person of the president. For example;
Museveni argues that because Qaddafi built good roads in Libya, he should not have been attacked by NATO
Because US/NATO refused to impose a no fly zone on Somalia, they should not impose one on Libya. This tantamount to two wrongs don’t make it right fallacy. At the same time, what is the justification for a no fly zone on Somalia? Do rebels in Somalia use jets?
Because Qaddafi is independent minded, the UN/US should have left him to do the massacre.
Although Qaddafi has made mistakes before, this time round, he was doing the right thing and the West should not have interfered.
M7 argues that the solution for the war in Libya was negotiations between Qaddafi and the rebels and then holding the elections thereafter.
The above shows how simple-minded M7 is. He is totally oblivious of the urgency of the need for the military intervention by the foreign forces in Libya. He completely failed to understand that Qaddafi had killed people who were just peacefully demonstrating , demanding political reforms which is their human right.
M7 failed to realised that Qaddafi had promised a massacre which he had started actioning against his own people in Benghazi. M7 failed to understand that Qaddafi does not see his opponents as humans but as cockroaches, rats and Barbars. Failure to value human life and compare it to that of rats is a sign of disrespect thus undermining any prospect for peace talks.
M7’s calls other leaders western puppets but he fails reflect on himself and to understand that he is serving western interests in Somalia and that the west has been financing his wars.
There are so many errors in M7’s reasoning and one would wonder if he uses advisers or not. I’m sure that John Nagenda wouldn’t allow such a letter to be published if he had been contacted. These flaws and fallacies include;
Appealing to authority: That because Qaddafi is in position of authority and had used it to construct roads, rise oil prices etc, he should not have been attacked.
False analogies/ Comparisons: The comparisons between Somalia and Libya are false as the ingredients and circumstances are not similar.
Argumentum ad nauseam: M7 appears to think that the more he repeats his flawed argument of nationalism, the more people like it and he even appears to think that actually people believe it. He forgets the most important pillars of leadership which includes to duty of care. The duty of care which includes guarding and protecting people’s humans rights. These include the right to life, justice, freedom from torture and inhuman/ degrading treatment, Freedom of conscience etc. These are the things that leaders have to uphold. But M7 fronts his idea of nationalism, whatever that means to him, he has no idea that leadership means duty.
Theorising History: M7 uses history to justify his reasoning. He appears to lack the skill of identifying people’s needs in their current situation and then draw a plan of care to help them to achieve their self actualisation. For example, the people of Libya were being massacred, they called for external help in order for them to be able live for another day. Then, M7 the son of Kaguta offered them the history about independent minded people like those who stopped the genocide in Rwanda etc. M7 offered no sensible solution the people of Agdabiya, Benghazi etc who Qaddafi was massacring. The people whom Gadaffi had promised no mercy.
Lastly, M7 has exposed his lack of respect for human life. M7 , in his letter, failed to send any condolence message to the people who have died in the conflict in Libya. Instead, M7 prophesied an arms race to confront the Western Power. What a leader?
It is so interesting to read Museveni’s article on the Libya crisis. Iam so worried that Museveni looks at the globe in A Ugandan style. He behaves so much like the pigs in the animal farm who would always add a thread to the rule to suit them selves. I will quote for you the following.
“Unfortunately, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, without getting enough information about Uganda, jumped in to support Idi Amin. This was because Amin was a ‘Moslem’ and Uganda was a ‘Moslem country’ where Moslems were being ‘oppressed’ by Christians.”
Here Museveni looks at Quaddafi as bad but then later he writes.
“At the time we were fighting the criminal dictatorships here in Uganda, we had a problem arising of a complication caused by our failure to capture enough guns at Kabamba on the 6th of February, 1981. Gaddafi gave us a small consignment of 96 rifles, 100 anti-tank mines, etc., that was very useful. He did not consult Washington or Moscow before he did this. This was good for Libya, for Africa and for the Middle East.”
On demonstrations, he writes
“The first issue is to distinguish between demonstrations and insurrections. Peaceful demonstrations should not be fired on with live bullets. Of course, even peaceful demonstrations should coordinate with the Police to ensure that they do not interfere with the rights of other citizens.”
Here he mentions coordination with police but tomorrow he will use police to beat up demonstrators! Then who killed people in the September 2009 demonstrations?
“A responsible Government would have to use reasonable force to neutralize them. Of course, the ideal responsible Government should also be an elected one by the people at periodic intervals. If there is a doubt about the legitimacy of a Government and the people decide to launch an insurrection, that should be the decision of the internal forces.”
He does not mention that the periodic elections should be free and fair but only tells you elections to suit himself.
“It should not be for external forces to arrogate themselves that role, often, they do not have enough knowledge to decide rightly. Excessive external involvement always brings terrible distortions. Why should external forces involve themselves? That is a vote of no confidence in the people themselves. A legitimate internal insurrection, if that is the strategy chosen by the leaders of that effort, can succeed.”
What is Uganda doing in Somalia, why did we go to Congo? why did we involve ourselves in Southern Sudan? why does he want AU to interfere in Libya? According to Museveni, locals can solve their problems with out the intervention of foreigners.
Mr Museveni, we have had an election in Uganda which was very peaceful and calm but was it free and fair?. What do you expect us to do?
Jude m
Without too much speculation, there might be two or more hidden things in M7’s letters. These may include;
* M7 might have got an indirect message from the bombings in Libya. And this message might be that he has to think twice before killing Ugandans like he did on Kabaka/ Kayunga demonstrations.
* M7 had promised to eat Besigye like Samosa. Right now, he has to trade carefully as any act which may provoke demonstrations can be a call for severed consequences.
* At the same time, the phenomenon in Libya might have taught a lesson to M7 that at a certain point, one has to account for his actions. And after reflecting on his own crimes against the people of Uganda, M7 reacted by making threats in the letter that he wrote.
The letter goes on to expose how simple-minded M7 is. M7 gives no explanations as on how mere talks could have stopped the massacre in Benghazi and other parts of Libya. This is the same simplicity approach which made him to think that NRM/A can sell sugar, salt, soap and paraffin in 1986. The same simplicity approach that made him trade policies like Berta trade, kulembeka, etc. All these policies were childish, unreasonable and outright nonsense.
I would like to teach M7 that policies are like objectives. They have to be SMAT (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound). So who writes policies for M7? No wonder, he is the only man with the vision to rule Uganda.
M7 deluded himself about independent mindedness without actually informing us what it means in terms of phylosophy , organisation behaviour, public administration etc. For example, M7 praised people like Nyerere for independent mindedness but he fails to mention any successful development that Nyerere registered in Tanzania despite the many years of peace and harmony which TZ enjoyed during his regim.
M7, made a big error of naming South Korea, China etc as countries which have developed as a result of independent mindedness, whatever that means. South Korea uses the US’s model of democracy and economy. China has always adopted western models of society. These included communism, socialism and social capitalism. Where is the independent mindedness philosophy here?
M7 also failed to realise that Gadhaffi had no mandate to act or speak on behalf of the Libyan people. Techinically, power belongs to the people of Libya and they have never delegated any powers to Gadhaffi and his children to act or speak on their behalf. This implies that Gadaffi’s leadership has no legal basis at all , not even any ligitimacy whatsoever. The same applies to M7. M7 came to power after winning a civil war. He undermined the 1962 constitution. This is the legal and rightful constitution of Uganda. Instead, he made his own and he uses it the way he wants. Why didn’t he uphold the National Constitution which was used to form Uganda and on whose basis Uganda was created?
M7’s myopic approach to social reality is one of his weaknesses. He cannot see yonder than power and oppression. And this is evident in his letter. A letter that never mentioned the Libyan people in all the 3724 words. M7 only and only focussed on reasons as to why Gadaffi should continue to be the president of Libya. He forgot that Libya has humans/people who live in it. M7 forgot that the Libyan people have the same rights as Gaddafi and his children.
Dear friends,
This letter by M7 is a shame to all Ugandans. It is all full of flaws; written by flawed mind. He is only trying to justify what he is doing. He is trying to make something very bad appear good. He pretends not to know why western countries had to act swiftly. Simple Gaddafi was finishing people.
Below, I put a quotation from UK Foreign Secretary William Hague; “Governments that block the aspirations of their people, that steal or are corrupt, that oppress and torture or that deny freedom of expression and human rights should bear in mind that they will find it increasingly hard to escape the judgement of their own people, or where warranted, the reach of international law.”
Gaddafi has to face the bitter end which I foresee M7 himself and other tyrants around the world will face.
Museveni’s ” I warned him”, reminds me exactly Museveni’s words on 07th April 1994 to journalists when he was asked to comment on late President Habyarimana’s assassination by Paul Kagame’s men (Museveni’s boys).
In the same posture, Museveni said, “It’s unfortunate, but I warned him!”
May the good Lord bless his excellency Museveni.
Farasisiko
Mw. Farasisiko,
I’ve never thought of president Museveni as somebody who has sincere love to reciprocate towards Gaddafi, NEVER!! He has always been opportunistic, using Gaddafi to get what he wants, in exchange for fake loyalty. You see of the two, Museveni is up there….the smarter one. Once upon a time, Gaddafi had become a regular in Uganda, and whenever he showed up, Musevni was happy to lick the boot, and massage his guest’s feet to keep him under check. But Gaddafi being the shallow arab that he is, he always misinterpreted this treatment to mean “Oh! another inferior black African singing Kumbaya”.
President Museveni knows too well that if angered, Gaddafi will switch sides and talk to your enemies. That simply means, as he went there to get support during the liberation struggle, Besigye too could be assisted militarilly and then you have a big problem to deal with. When they crossed each other at the AU meeting last year, it was merely a climax of their love-hate affair. That Gaddafi is falling from grace now, happy days for Museveni. Do not be confused by his sort of diplomatic language approach to this crisis that kind of suggests sympathy. Far from that, he is quietly celebrating and asking, “what took these Americans so long”.?? You know president Museveni doesn’t drink alcohol, but he drinks “bongooooo” (sour milk) he is a Muhima so he can not lie he doesn’t. I’m telling you he is getting drunk on it every day.
That explains the adaptation of that posture you’ve pointed out. I’ve studied president Museveni’s body language, and when he positions him self like that, you know he is celebrating, glorifying him self, scorning, despising etc..etc. It is never something good for those at the receiving end. He knows Gaddafi’s departure is not questionable, not a matter of when, but how.
Richard Mukasa,
You used over one thousands ones to reply to Museveni, when all you wanted to say was that Museveni’s views on West’s military intervention in Libya were wrong in your view.
I think you need to read and re-read Museveni’s article. It seems you did not understand it properly. Museveni was not writing to the people of Benghazi as you purport. Rather he was writing to the world – discussing the issue of military humanitarian intervention which is being used by the west as an excuse to violate the soverignity of weak states and to serve their selfish interests. In the case of Libya – oil!
The example Museveni used where intended to help illustrate his point i.e. the West’s double standards. That is why he gave the example of Somalia. The call for a NFZ in Somalia was intended to stop the Al Shabaab from receiving arms by air since they controlled a lot of airstrips in Somalia. It was not becuase Somalia has aircrafts as you wrongly wonder!!
Lastly, are the demonstrators who captured Benghazi and other towns civilians? Don’t you see them on TV riding captured Gaddafi tanks? Do African governments have the right to fight rebels?
Please re-read the Museveni article slowly and then ponder afresh. Incidentally, Museveni has a right to put his views forward just like you have a right to object to his views. So do not feel insulted becuase Museveni has given his views to the public for debate.
Please forgive the Ugandan President; he thinks everyone does not valaue human life like he does. When Ugandans were killed by a Cult in Kanungu, western Uganda, he didn’t bother to know how many were killed. Even now he doesn’t know how many lives were lost. When his solders were killed in Congo trying to overthrow the Late Kabila’s Government, he doesnt have a record of how many were killed and where are their bodies. Therefore when he sees Western Democracies rushing in a hurry to save Libyans who were to be killed within a few days, it doesnt make alot of sense to him. They shouls have allowed AU to drag its feet as thousands are killed as long as Gadafi is not humiliated.
Thanks Museveni for blasting the invaders. I think most of these people talking ill of M7 are Bagandas who support their usless kabaka. M7 is a nationalist, but not a kabaka who is seggregative and selfish.
Q-Lady este un salon masaj erotic Bucduresti unic, nu doar
datorita divelor care sunht pregatite sa va ofere placeri de neimaginat, ci si datorita decorului si ambientului
deosebit. Aici va puteti relaxa oricand iin compania celor mai frumoase si mai experimentate
femei, puteti savura cele mai fine bauturi, ascultand
acordurile muzicale preferate si iin acelasi timp va delectati cu un masaj erotic
de neegalat. Nu oice saalon masaj erotic Bucurersti va ofefa sansa saa va
bucurati de tehnici de masaj erotic practicate cu tandrete,daruire, sa profitati la maxim de
placerile senzuale ale vietii. Q-Lady este locatia ideala pentru a petrece clipe de neimaginat,
alaturi de zeite care stapanesc aceasta arta a erotismului si care se daruiesc celor
dispusi sa savureeze momemte memorabile dee relaxare, incantare ssi rasfat trupesc si sufletesc.
Pentru ca frumoasele fete de la Q-Lady, salpon masaj erotic Bucuresti, sunt
capabile sa vindece atat trupul, cat si sufletul celor
care sunt in cautarea placerii si relaxarii totale.
hey there and thank you for your information – I have definitely picked up anything new from right here.
I did however expertise several technical issues using this web site,
as I experienced to reload the web site a lot of times previous
to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your web hosting is OK?
Not that I’m complaining, but slow loading instances times will sometimes affect
your placement in google and can damage your high-quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords.
Anyway I’m adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for much
more of your respective intriguing content. Make sure you update this again very soon.
Salonul nostru de masaj erotic iti ofera sansa si satisfactia de a intra in atmosfera erotica, intr-un mod minunat alaturi de fete frumoase si de a plonja intr-o lume a senzualitatii, placerii si armoniei. In atmosfera de poveste te asteapta o umbra mladioasa, vei observa conturul unui trup nud, body massage. Prin masajul erotic vei descoperi ca te vei relaxa si ti se vor trezi toate simturile.
Trackbacks
One Trackback