Libya: From Berlin Conference To London Partition...
The hypocrisy is sickening; but it also tells you much about what type of government we have. France, England and America want to instal pliant Libyan government
As Western forces, now through NATO, continue bombing Libya the question is: isn’t this just another war over oil?
At the same time, the "powers" have gathered in London to divvy up post-Quathafi Libya. Reminds one of the great Berlin conference of 1885 when the same "powers" carved up the African continent.
Since March 19, European and American warplanes and ships have attacked Colonel Muammar al-Quathafi's armed forces. The military intervention started after the U.N. voted on March 17 to impose a no-fly zone, allegedly, to stop al-Quathafi from attacking civilians. Ten countries—France, the United Kingdom, United States, Portugal, Nigeria, South Africa, Gabon, Lebanon, Columbia and Bosnia and
Herzegovina—voted in favor of United Nations Security Resolution 1973. Five Security Council members, Germany, India, Brazil, and permanent members, China and Russia, abstained from voting.
China and Russia condemned the decision to intervene in Libya after the coalition immediately launched attacks, supposedly to enforce a no-fly zone.
France, the United Kingdom and the United States, supposedly, sought the approval of the Arab League. Reportedly, only about half of the 22 member states were present to vote on the decision to impose a no-fly zone. Moreover, Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League wavered after the French, English and Americans started bombing Libya. He said "What happened in Libya is different from the intended aim of imposing the no-fly zone. We want to protect civilians, not the bombing of more civilians."
Although, Libya is an African country the opinion of the African Union (AU) was completely ignored. Some claim the African Union is in al-Quathafi’s back-pocket; yet, they tout the Arab League’s opinion as somehow representative of the sentiment of their repressed citizenry. We’ve been told Washington and Europe intervened in Libya to stop the, alleged, attacks on innocent civilians.
Isn’t this really about oil? Does the United States engage in military action because of concern for innocent civilians? The truth is: America gets involved when the vested “interests” of big business is at stake, or, they see the potential for profit.
The White House and many in the establishment media tell us Colonel al-Quathafi has perpetrated grave crimes against the Libyan people. Where’s the conclusive evidence? Weren’t we told, by Washington and the corporate media, that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction?”
Why can’t they tell us, definitively, how many Iraqis were killed by American bombs?
If Libya was a puppet state of the West, Washington and Europe would be telling us we need to hear both sides of the story. But, because Europeans dislike al-Quathafi they’ve no problem speaking in absolutes, although, the evidence is far from being absolutely conclusive. While it’s true there’s been unrest in Libya, the armed insurrection, by the Benghazi clans, which poisoned the original protests, is being ignored and condoned by France, England and Washington.
Ironically, according to American diplomatic cable leaked to Wikileaks, fighters from Benghazi received "religious and ideological training" in Afghanistan, among other places. The cables also state "By contrast with mosques in Tripoli and elsewhere in the country, where references to jihad are extremely rare, in Benghazi and Derna they are fairly frequent subjects." Are these the Libyan liberators the West is supporting? Are we working to impose religious extremists in power?
Another question: why aren’t these people who deem themselves the “international community” intervening against despots in the Ivory Coast, Yemen and Bahrain? Why didn’t Europe and the U.S. intercede during “Operation Cast Lead,” when nearly 1,500 Palestinian were killed by the Israeli government? How is it that Saudi Arabia, arguably, the most backward and repressive anti-women regime in the Muslim world, was asked to send troops to help neutralize protesters in Bahrain?
What about Syria? In recent days the authorities there have reportedly been shooting civilians? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who pushed President Obama to join in the Libyan war claimed action against Syria was “not going to happen,” because, “there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities.”
Does she really have proof of this, or, is she just passing gas? Is she saying there will be no intervention in Syria because civilians there are getting killed by a different method? That argument is malarkey. Syria’s help in the “Extraordinary Rendition” torture program is, probably, part of the reason intervention is “not going to happen” there.
The hypocrisy is sickening; but it also tells you much about what type of government we have. The truth is France, England and America see a golden opportunity to liquidate Colonel al-Quathafi and, they hope, help the ascendancy of a leadership more pliable to Western “interests.” Does anyone believe that a post-Quathafi government installed by U.S. Tomahawk missiles will be independent?
If this is about shielding protesters why are they now calling for “regime change?” And, why is this “international” coalition helping the rebels with air fire protection, permitting them to retake oil production cities like Ras Lanuf, while telling us "Libyans should decide their country’s destiny"?
Why does our own government insult our collective intelligence?
Now, the truth is Colonel al-Quathafi is by no means a blameless leader. Al-Quathafi suffers from what most leaders suffer from: the inability to relinquish power. This leads to problems.
However, Colonel al-Quathafi's leadership is far superior and progressive compared to the regressive Arab rulers in the Middle East now supported by Europe and the United States. Readers that are unfamiliar should Google search Yemen, Saudi Arabi, Bahrain, and other countries. Unlike most of these other leaders al-Quathafi promoted programs and a higher level of equality for groups like women and has fostered positive relationships with African leaders. As a prominent Pan-African, he has lobbied forcefully for the concept of a United States of Africa to promote unity and uplift the continent.
Some say history is now against Colonel al-Quathafi. In the end, will history exonerate Europe's and the U.S.'s warmongering Libyan intervention?
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
Ann GarrisonNovember 30,2013 @ 12:14 PM
It was sexy to be against the war back then. He was probably in it to get laid.
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 09:29 PM
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 08:34 PM
amslctciikJuly 13,2013 @ 01:47 AM
http://youngsgear.us - louis vuitton bags cheap on the inside...
No Record Exist!!