Another Obama War
Following the US-lobbied UN authorization of military murder in Libya, the death-dealing regime of Colonel Gaddafi said immediately that it would stop all killing. That put Obama's war on hold, for a little while. The crazy Colonel has learned a thing or two about American foreign policy. If you pretend to favor the stated goals of the empire and comply with its stated dictates, you can otherwise do what every government in the world is structured to do: stay in power at all costs.
Gaddafi learned this lesson about a decade ago, when, with much fanfare, he announced that he would stop his nuclear weapons program and join the war on terror. The US then decided to rank him and his regime among the world's good guys, and proceeded to hold him up as an example of wise statesmanship. Then he proceeded to dig in more deeply and tighten his despotic control over his citizens, all with the implied blessing of the US.
But this time it may not work. For weeks, American officials have been decrying Gaddafi's bloody attacks on his people, but does the US really have a problem with dictatorship of his sort? This fact is unknown to Americans, but in the Middle East, and in Arab nations in particular, American commercial interests are regarded as a force for liberation but not the US government. The US has been the key to the power of Middle East dictatorships for decades, among which are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen. I leave aside the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians to liberate them.
So it is something of a joke that the US would push a war against Libya in order to save that country from dictatorship. More likely, the real issue here is the same one that inspired the wars against Iraq: the ownership and control of the oil. And even if freedom were the driving motivation, when in modern history has war ever actually brought that to people? All war by nation states today ends in massive civilian deaths, destruction of infrastructure, political upheaval without end (see Afghanistan and Iraq), vast expense, and bitterness all around.
War will not achieve its claimed objective. It might even end up entrenching Gaddafi's power. But let's say that he ends up dead, like Saddam Hussein. What then? The new government will be handpicked by the victor, and never gain any credibility, just as in Iraq. People resent foreign conquerors even more than local despots, and this resentment is not a good foundation for a future of liberty.
President Obama probably looks at the prospect of war rather lustily, just as Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, et al. did before him. But this time, there is a problem. The US simply cannot afford to be seen as attacking yet another Muslim country, though that is what it is doing, at a time when all the world knows that US foreign policy is primarily based on whipping up anti-Islamic feelings the world over, and taking over the oil.
For this reason, the Obama administration must seek the cover of the UN and the cooperation of other Arab states. England and France have been reliable, but not Germany and not other Arab states, so the operation could end up more tricky than he initially supposed.
Let's just pretend for a moment that the US government really does want to free the people of Libya from a wicked man. What is the right way to go about it? There is the assassination option, which I oppose but which would nonetheless be a much better choice than war. What of the US's legendary CIA hitmen that can take down anyone on the planet following a few orders from on high? Where are they now?
Recall that in the last days before the last war on Iraq, a spokesman for Saddam actually did propose a duel between Bush or Cheney and Saddam or his vice president. It was not an unserious suggestion. This would have been a much better option for both Iraq and America, but then the government doesn't really get what it wants out of war, which is a chance to blow things up, spend gobs of money, whip up the population in war frenzy, and inspire another bout of nationalistic hysteria that helps consolidate power for the war-making regime.
Is it possible to both oppose Gaddafi and oppose a war on Gaddafi? Absolutely. This is a position that all Americans should adopt. In the same way, it is possible to oppose the Obama administration but also oppose having a foreign army oust him in order to liberate us.
In the early days of the protests in Libya against Gaddafi, the protesters held up signs opposing any foreign intervention. This is still the right approach. There should be no war, no blockades, no impositions of a "no-fly zone," or anything else. The US has been a supporter and backer of Gaddafi for a decade. That damage is already done. Going to war would only compound it.
For the sake of freedom and human rights, we must say no to war. We must also say no to all forms of foreign intervention that support dictatorships until they become too politically embarrassing to Washington, D.C.
This editorial was provided courtesy of LewRockwell.com.
Posted by Huh on 03/23/11 12:24 AM
Before bombing Libya, Obama approached the UN Security Council, but not the Congress, in order to seek "permission" to go to war against Libya. Ron Paul commented that this move was deliberate and intended to minimize the Congress, because Obama appears to strongly believe in a One World Govt.
Click to view link
In other words, Obama may be working overtime to "bow down" before foreign powers while ignoring domestic laws, because he wants to project the idea that power ultimately comes from higher up outside the US. Gaining wide acceptance of this idea is ultimately a stepping stone towards achieving global governance.
How much credibility would DB give to this view?
Reply from The Daily Bell
We made the point in our initial coverage, perhaps a week ago ...
Posted by Bob on 03/21/11 12:02 PM
Sorry to say this but both RandRocks and Ayn Rand imbeciles.
Dear "geniuses", may I ask you a very simple question:
How come the West, specifically the USA and Britain, did not ever entertain an idea of invading such sadistic & barbaric dictatorships like the Shah's Iran or the Mobutu's Kongo?
Sorry me, I almost forgot, the both sadistic dictatorships were installed by the "peace & democracy loving" West after overthrowing democratically elected governments of Iran and Kongo.
As for invading Russia, Hitler did try to invade Russia but we know the consequences for Germany. Note that the NAZI Germany was much more democratic than the Stalin's Russia. No wonder that so many Ukrainians and Russians met the Hitler's army with flowers. This is the fact!
I just wonder whether people like RandRocks and Ayn Rand are that stupid or they think we are idiots?
By the way, I know why the West is in no hurry to invade North Korea. These bastards have nukes the definitely will use.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Please do not insult people to make a point.
Posted by RandRocks on 03/21/11 10:52 AM
Gaddafi is a supporter of international terrorism:
The groups Ghaddafi supports can attack us if they haven't done so already:
Click to view link
"Speaking on Thursday on the holy occasion of the birth of Prophet Mohammad, the Leader of the Revolution condemned continuous attempts to equate Islam with terrorism saying that Jihad or armed struggle is a duty and part of the Muslim faith."
Furthermore, I would remind Mr. Rockwell of what Ayn Rand said regarding despotic regimes like Ghaddafi and Saddam Hussein's. Though I also think assassination is a good idea, as Ms. Rand eloquently points out, invading and bombing dictatorships is not only legitimate it is also moral:
"Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses."
So your premise is that because the people who were in power before, did something bad, that, out of shame and guilt for the (albeit stupid) actions of these no longer in power, we who are here now and innocent of those acts should not defend ourselves or help the rebels defend themselves from the current murderous dictatorship?
Reply from The Daily Bell
Rand also had qualms about giving indigent people a handout. Your points may be well-taken but using Rand as an example of libertarian logic is questionable in our view. She was a better fiction writer than philosopher. We do not pretend to speak for Mr. Rockwell of course.
Posted by Bob on 03/21/11 09:16 AM
Giving some thought to the West aggression against Libya, there are some political loser and winners.
Big, big losers:
- Pro-West puppets Arab regimes (like Saudi, Algiers, Yemen, etc.,) having Arab blood all over their faces
- Putin's Russia assumed that that they can successfully deal with outlaws like the USA, England, and France. Putin has learned nothing from Iraq and/or Saddam. He is really looking stupid. His surrounding is really nervous. Putin has lost all his friends and got many powerful enemies.
- Germany. It looks like an old prostitute not knowing whom to sell itself.
- The USA. Its foreign policy is a complete joke guided by Zionist Wall-Street masters, the president from a Chicago gutter, and the Secretary of State who long-time ago slept with a president.
- China's communist leaders. Now, they can remind their "dissidents" about China's history of the West interventions and tell their people that the West, once again, wants to enslave them and responsible for their misery. Consequently, Chinese leadership will consolidate their power blaming any Chinese problems on the West. Chinese citizens are not very sophisticated to blame their country UN Libyan vote on their leaders.
- Turkey's voice will be heard all over Europe and the Muslim world
Posted by 10hawks on 03/21/11 01:42 AM
With all due respect to the brilliant and erudite Lew Rockwell, he is eventually only an academic, and his lofty ideals and stirring rhetoric are thus also just academic, in this post really amounting to a lot of retrospective wishful thinking.
In this regard his outlook is typical of Libertarian pundits, with the notable exceptions of Ron Paul, who is actually in the trenches, with concrete proposals and real solutions-- and also Anthony Wile, who in his new role as public speaker on Russia Today, is making a significant impact on world opinion and the course of real events.
Posted by Dean on 03/20/11 08:39 PM
Is the US Goverment funding both sides of the war in Libya. I heard that the Libyan Government has been given billions of US dollars of foreign aid over the years (decades?). Now he's public enemy no.1. Maybe another possible solution would be to stop selling him arms which is a measure Russia has claimed to have taken. Then of course the world could always place sanctions on Libya (bar oil of course) and we could have another South Africa, only this time further north...
Posted by Strobdoc on 03/20/11 07:43 PM
my suggestion for an answer to 'should we or should we not, [bomb], is "what would Switzerland do?"
Posted by Bob on 03/20/11 07:29 PM
Let us cut BS about omnipower of the AA PE.
Just look at America. Very soon white people will be a minority. These new majorities will NOT be as stupid as whites buying all these Jewish lies and propaganda regardles of Zionists controling Hollywood and the mass media.
Just a simple story. Living in the Bay area, south from San Francisco, I had a good friend who was a district manager for a major insurance company. He told me that he was teaching his people not to waste their time trying to sell insurance policies to Asians if you were a white. They ALWAYS would buy from their own people.
Consequently, as some point, regardless of how much money and efforts Jewish-controlled AA PE will spend, they will fail to control the majority minds and, then, the retributions will come the big time. Like in the former Soviet Union, after executing the communist coup and controlling all aspects of the Soviet State, in 1953, Soviet Jews came very close to a complete annihilation. Stalin was not Hitler. He knew how to make things happen.
Posted by David Robertson on 03/20/11 06:14 PM
@ Bionic Mosquito
Rather like heads I win, tails you lose. Yes, that is true, and they hate to lose. Such cold, calculating, implacable evil is difficult for most to contemplate but I know it does exist in the heart of men. It is even greater when it pretends to be good. It is comforting to know that it shall come to an end when ultimate Good overcomes ultimate Evil.
Posted by SP on 03/20/11 03:35 PM
Lew makes a great point when he says how easily the US is appeased with a few simple requests and than conniving nut bars can still be allowed to live as kings.
The US's influence in the region is everywhere they are embedded forever, sure there is a bigger plan in place but its still about the control of the worlds oil, and feeding the insatiable hunger of the military industrial complex.
The supposedly flip flopping is just a search for the right presentation so not to upset the fundamentalist with the appearance of a another Christian invasion.
However you look at it, it about control by the US empire and it pawns, The US still is calling the shots everywhere.
These so called spontaneous revolutions are organized by the PE for the reasons of globalization why else would they be supported with such incredible force.
Bonnor and Rockwell make for a great morning of reading. Their opinions need to weighted along with The Bells and you will find yourself closer to the truth.
Posted by Bob on 03/20/11 03:14 PM
This war is good. Now, all Arabs will see with their own eyes that their own corrupt, pro-Zionist puppet leaders actively cooperated with the colonial West in killing & enslaving their Muslim brothers and sisters.
As for this schizophrenic Jewish French dwarf, he is enjoying his Mussolini image. Where were all these freedom & democracy loving French people when their countrymen committed despicable atrocities in Vietnam and Algeria, to mention a few?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, the world has made a giant step to a WWIII.
Posted by Bluebird on 03/20/11 03:13 PM
Re: Depleted uranium
I for one believe this horror is even much worse. I hear all the so called scientist (you know, those experts who also declare carbon dioxide is frying the planet) tell us how radiation is diluted and not harmful. We have heard the assurances from them that the nuclear plant disasters are nothing to worry about. I don't believe it for one minute.
Anything that pollutes the ground and water can be picked up and deposited anywhere around the world. It behooves them to convince us we are perfectly safe because it is such tiny amounts. So is a grain of sand. But enough of them becomes a beach.
When we know that their goal is to reduce the population of the planet (see Georgia guidestones), why do we believe they don't mean us? I think the people of the world should be very concerned. It might be easy to develop something that would exempt the select few from contamination. Oh, I know, I am the extreme conspiracy theorist. But I do NOT trust what they say. It always proves wrong. Oops, we erred.
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 03/20/11 03:10 PM
Another take on Obama's war, from a rather polarizing figure....
Click to view link
Posted by Bill Ross on 03/20/11 02:59 PM
LW: "until they become too politically embarrassing to Washington, D.C."
Surely you jest? Crime is paying, largely. The "choosers" are psychopaths. Embarrassing them will not solve the problem, they have guns and zero qualms about who they point them at, even their own people. THEY need to be informed, in no uncertain terms, by word and deed that they have lost "consent of the governed" and, nothing short of complete and utter restoration of the "rule of law" (as opposed to rule of those who corrupt the law) and bringing the perps to account will do:
Click to view link
Posted by Alexsemen on 03/20/11 02:55 PM
The war against Gaddafi is just the new application of Nazi and Fascists dreams. The actual Power that be and the Elite it is just to implement the fascist politics of the Big Corporation and Multinationals.
So simple is that !
EU is a allay of the fascist corporatist establishment of USA, under wich supervision it is build the Nazi state of Europe.
The Nazi of jews of USA togheter with those of Europe are now in the winning way !
Don't be naive about Russia and China , thay are following the same ways !
The circle is almost closed ! Almost!
There can not be surprises as we see the results of so called "revolutions " in the arab world. The fantesy and Fata Morgana of the west as we call it the Democracy is doing the best job for the Anglo Saxone Power that be
Look at Egypt and Tunisia , it is what Tel-Aviv wants and wanted !
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 03/20/11 02:25 PM
"The other point made in these articles I posted was that the West had underestimated Gaddafi's staying power and this attack appears to have strengthened rather than weakened his position."
My guess is this would almost always be the case, in any attack by an outside agent. I think those in power in the west win either way: whether Gaddafi stays or goes, the war spreads throughout the region, and a larger enemy is created.
Posted by Alan G on 03/20/11 01:40 PM
"...the long term goal of the elites may well be the islamisation of the Middle East and North Africa in order to create an identifiable enemy for the West."
It was reported that for over 10 years (until 1992) an arm of the State Department sponsored textbooks for madrasas with violent content and imagery . The Taliban even began to utilize these same books " the resulting radicalization may have been intentional .
Posted by David Robertson on 03/20/11 01:40 PM
Thank you for that description of the use of depleted uranium munitions. I was not aware of how deadly they are in the detail you have given here. Words fail me to describe the horror I feel.
Posted by James Downey on 03/20/11 01:06 PM
Thanks Lew " please further quantify the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths. These undounded statistics dilute your arguments, many of which I agree with.
Suggest you take a look at the whole world. Freedom is nowhere except for certain aspects of the United States and those are going by the wayside quickly.
Regardless, there is a significant moral area where we are all in the grey. Should we have intervened in Nazi Germany? How many would have been saved? What about the African States? Cambodia and the killing fields?
Please stop clouding good arguments with baseless statistics. Credibility would greatly increase.
Reply from The Daily Bell
His statistics are not baseless.
"End of the American Dream"
Click to view link
Depleted Uranium " One Of The Greatest Environmental Horrors In The History Of The World
Most Americans have no idea that depleted uranium munitions used by the U.S. military are causing one of the greatest environmental nightmares in the history of the world. In fact, most Americans have no idea what depleted uranium even is. But even as many Americans gobble down their burgers and french fries and pizza and enjoy the "good life" watching their big screen televisions, an entirely different story is being written on the other side of the world. In Iraq and Afghanistan today, there are some areas that have been so polluted by depleted uranium that they have literally become uninhabitable hellholes. Americans like to think of themselves as so "environmentally conscious", but the truth is that one of the greatest environmental tragedies of all time is being caused by the U.S. military and yet nobody seems to care.
But now some of the victims are starting to fight back - at least in court. According to one Iraqi minister, Iraq's Ministry for Human Rights will file a lawsuit against the United States and the United Kingdom over their use of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq.
Iraq's Minister of Human Rights, Wijdan Mikhail Salim, reportedly told the Assabah newspaper that the lawsuit will be based on reports from the Iraqi ministries of science and the environment. These reports allege that the U.S. and the U.K. used nearly 2,000 tons of depleted uranium bombs during the early years of the the Iraq war.
In fact, one official Iraqi study has found that more than 40 sites across Iraq are currently contaminated with high levels of radiation and dioxins.
So who is responsible for that?
In areas where depleted uranium use was the highest, Iraqi doctors have reported a massive rise in the number of babies born with birth defects and they have seen the number of cancer cases among Iraqi citizens absolutely skyrocket.
In fact, what is happening to babies in the city of Fallujah is beyond horrifying. Back in November, one major U.K. newspaper described the situation this way....
In September this year, say campaigners, 170 children were born at Fallujah General Hospital, 24 per cent of whom died within seven days. Three-quarters of these exhibited deformities, including "children born with two heads, no heads, a single eye in their foreheads, or missing limbs". The comparable data for August 2002 " before the invasion " records 530 births, of whom six died and only one of whom was deformed.
The top brass in the U.S. and the U.K. militaries know full well the impact that depleted uranium munitions have had on many areas of Iraq, but they simply do not care.
So what exactly are depleted uranium munitions?
They are essentially "dirty bombs" made from nuclear waste.
Depleted Uranium is a waste product of the nuclear enrichment process. Despite claims that depleted uranium is much less radioactive than natural uranium, the truth is that it actually emits about 75% as much radioactivity as natural uranium.
This makes it highly toxic to humans.
When depleted uranium munitions impact a target, the uranium coating of these weapons becomes a powder which easily contaminates the surrounding air, soil and water.
Depleted uranium is both chemically toxic and highly radioactive. In laboratory tests it severely damages human cells, causes DNA mutations and has other carcinogenic effects.
Depleted uranium poisoning has been linked to a vast array of illnesses and diseases including severe skin rashes, intense muscle and joint pain, major birth defects, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, brain tumors and just about every type of cancer. Depleted uranium also replaces calcium in the body, thus destroying both teeth and bones.
As a result of the massive depleted uranium contamination in Iraq and Afghanistan, severe birth defects and cancer have dramatically increased not only among civilians living in the affected areas, but also among U.S. troops who served in areas where depleted uranium munitions were used.
Depleted uranium munitions are classified by the United Nations as illegal weapons of mass destruction, and yet the U.S. and the U.K. continue to use them.
The uranium used in depleted uranium munitions has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, so the environmental hell that the invading armies have caused in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a gift that keep on giving.
It has been said that when a woman delivers a baby in Iraq now, the first question she asks is typically not if it is a boy or a girl.
Instead the most typical first question now is this: "Is it normal?"
But it is not just those in other nations who are suffering from the effects of depleted uranium.
Most Americans have no idea that thousands upon thousands of our own troops are getting sick and dying from depleted uranium exposure.
According to official (but unpublicized) U.S. government data, there have been over 70,000 deaths and over 1 million disabilities among U.S. troops as a result of America's wars in the Middle East.
Posted by Huh on 03/20/11 01:04 PM
I heard that cutting the "defense" budget is out of bounds. Maybe those so-called fiscal conservatives should get their heads examined and work towards really balancing the budget.