Dammit! I Told You So!
Posted: 20 July 2011 Filed under: International Situations, News, Observations, War | Tags: Armed Conflict, Armed Response, Libya, NATO, North Africa, Postaday2011 4 Comments »Let me see Casey Anthony walks……Murdoch get grilled…….Harry Potter is over……..and a partridge in a pear tree…….and with all that Libya is still going on….go figure……you would not know it by the media….but trust me….people are still dying…….
Libya has been going strong for a couple of months….whether you call it…war, humanitarian crisis, no fly zone, defensive posturing, and the rest of the colorful words that some use to describe the conflict in Libya…..but there are several points that most people overlooked (I am NOT one of them)…….
When the conflict began and the world cheered for the democracy movement, I on the other hand, was a buzz kill….I told my readers that it was more a revenge thing than a democratic one….I told them that since Libya is a tribal society that no matter who won the conflict there would be blood in retaliation….and yet many still believe that the Libyan thing is about democracy and the people’s desire for it….it is to a small few, but basically, it is the revenge thing that is a driving force…the tribes in the East of the country want revenge on Qadahfi and his supporters…..
For those who still doubt my assertion…..BlackListedNews.com……
Confirming what geopolitical expert Dr. Webster Tarpley had for months been saying about the realities behind the Libyan unrest, often depicted as a “pro-democracy” rebellion by the corporate-owned media, reports are coming in that Libyan rebels are once again targeting rival ethnic tribes within captured towns with beatings, looting, vandalism, and much worse (though conveniently omitted in mainstream reports.) This indicates not “democratic” aspirations, but a conflict divided along ethnic lines, perpetuated by covert and now overt US/UK military support for the Western-favored and long cultivated tribes of Eastern Libyan centered around Benghazi.
CNN reported, “Libyan rebels looted and beat civilians, rights group says,” that Soros-funded Human Rights Watch received reports that, “rebel fighters and supporters have damaged property, burned some homes, looted from hospitals, homes, and shops, and beaten some individuals alleged to have supported government forces.” Mahmoud Jibril, the defacto rebel prime minister who recently pandered before the corporate-funded Brookings Institute claiming his movement was inspired by globalization, confirmed the allegations but suggested they represent only a “few incidents” and that those responsible would be “brought to justice.”
What we are confronted with in Libya is not an oppressed people aspiring for globalization and liberal democracy, but yet another political-ethnic division exploited by the global corportocracy to divide and destroy the sovereignty of an independent nation. If and when Tripoli falls to the hordes of globalists and their witless armies of dupes and mercenaries, unthinkable brutality, discrimination, and atrocities await their ethnic rivals. While NATO’s rhetorical justification for their criminal military intervention centers around protecting civilians, they are clearly and intentionally facilitating the targeting of civilians aligned to Qaddafi not politically, but ethnically.
I realize that the rest of the world wants it to be about democracy and freedoms and liberty….sometimes an uprising is just that……. an uprising……. and the one in Libya is one about revenge…..Period!
What Is The UK Doing?
Posted: 27 April 2011 Filed under: Foreign policy, International Situations, News, Observations, War | Tags: Armed Conflict, France, Libya, NATO, Postaday2011, United Kingdom 4 Comments »Inkwell Institute
Middles East Desk
NO! This is NOT a post about some royal wedding!
Once again, if I am mistaken I hope that my friend and reader Quin of Quintessential Havoc (my blogroll will take you to his site….visit often!) will help me and others understand the complexity of this situation…..
Has the world learned nothing from the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The battle for Libya is forming stupid responses around the world….and the UK and France are about to make one of their own…..I know….what am I going on about?
This from a report by Patrick O’Connor:
The British Conservative-Liberal government of Prime Minister David Cameron and the French administration of President Nicolas Sarkozy are moving closer to deploying ground forces in Libya, escalating the neocolonial war being waged against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi.
In a televised interview, Cameron repeatedly refused to rule out launching operations involving ground troops. “What we’ve said is there is no question of an invasion or an occupation, this is not about Britain putting boots on the ground, this is not what we are about here,” he declared.
The European Union has prepared a force of 1,000 troops and drawn up a “concept of operations” for deployment to Misrata, Libya’s third-largest city, located 200 kilometres from the capital Tripoli. The mission, named EUFOR Libya, has its operation headquarters in Italy, Libya’s former colonial ruler, and is under the command of an Italian rear admiral.
The EU’s 27 member-states decided to prepare the EUFOR Libya force at the beginning of the month—before the fighting in Misrata intensified—and they are now awaiting approval for deployment from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The Guardian has reported: “With the situation in Libya, particularly Misrata, getting more critical, diplomats in Brussels say the pressure is mounting on the UN to authorise the EU force.”
Fierce rivalries between the powers are emerging ever more openly. The French government has reportedly exerted “strong pressure” on the EU’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, to secure UN approval for EUFOR Libya. However, the EU force is largely comprised of German troops. The German government of Angela Merkel abstained on Security Council resolution 1973, but has since shifted its position—keen to secure its share of Libya’s lucrative oil reserves in the event Gaddafi is ousted—and has backed the possible deployment of ground forces. The Sarkozy government’s concern at being outmanoeuvred by Berlin no doubt prompted Poniatowski’s demand for more French special forces to be sent into Libya.
What are they doing? Are they going to take out a dictator that is dangerous to his people? Does that sound familiar? What is the EU doing?
Hey guys! Take a good close look at what has happened to the US in its rush to remove Saddam…look at the consequences….you are about to bite off more than you can digest!
Brothers With Arms
Posted: 13 April 2011 Filed under: Foreign policy, History, International Situations, Observations, Professor's Classroom | Tags: Armed Conflict, Armed Response, Europe, European Union, Libya, NATO, Postaday2011, Rebellion Leave a comment »College of Political Knowledge
Subject: Middle East
No, Irene…all is NOT well in the Middle East! And NO….it has not gone away!
There is a discussion or even a debate going on about the possibility of arming the Libyan rebels in their fight against the Qaddafi regime and all its military might……some are remembering our other “arming” of rebels fighting a militarily superior force……..We’ve been down this “old, dark path” before, and it rarely ends well, says Max Fisher in The Atlantic. From Afghanistan to Nicaragua, U.S.-armed insurgencies usually “create instability and violence” that add to a country’s problems. Britain and France may send weapons to Libya even without the U.S., but America, at least, shouldn’t add another chapter to our “sordid history” of arming insurgents.
No, we can’t risk arming jihadists: With the rebels apparently in a “disorganized, panicked retreat” once again, it’s tempting to want to do something, says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. But giving them weapons “poses at least two problems”: Key coalition allies would defect, and we’d be arming a rebel force that contains “flickers” of potential al Qaeda and Hezbollah fighters, according to NATO. It “seems rather inadvisable” to arm our enemies.
I am old enough to remember the disaster of arming the Contras and rebels in El Salvador…..there were many massacres done with American weapons and with American training….it was NOT a pretty policy and we should NOT allow this again….look at Afghanistan…..we armed and trained the rebels during the Russian invasion of the country…..and that turned out fairly crappy….AQ received a lot of assistance from the US and we had to pay for it later…..I do NOT want to relive that horrendous act! How about you?
We definitely do NOT need another Iran-Contra Affair…..But then when has the US ever butted out of another country’s internal situations?
What If There Is A Stalemate?
Posted: 1 April 2011 Filed under: Foreign policy, International Situations, Observations, War | Tags: Armed Conflict, Civil War, Libya, NATO, Postaday2011, Rebellion 3 Comments »Inkwell Institute
Middle East desk
We all have an opinion on the situation that has developed in Libya…..I have made my views known (go to search and type in Libya…if interested) and I have even asked a few questions that I would like to see answered….many readers have offered up their opinions and insights and we will just have to wait an see who may be right…..after writing my last post…I had another question that nudged into my bleeding brain……with all the fighting in the North of Libya….what if there is a stalemate….what then?
And a stalemate is in the making….loyal Qaddafi forces are using regular vehicles in attacks so that aircraft cannot discern who is who….a clever bit of strategy……
First of all I need to say a word or …well maybe a bunch….about what I see is going on in Europe (I would like for my friends, especially Quin to help me out since I am not there) with this military action…..
In the UK……will this action strengthen Cameron’s position? From what I see he is having a time with the public….could he gain from the participation of the UK in this conflict with Qadafi and his forces? Is there public support for the action?
France……Sarkozy has been a bitch when dealing with this thing…..his popularity is waning…nationalists and socialists have made in roads into local governments giving them an upper hand when the next election comes around….so Sarkozy is hoping that this action will improve his political capital….he wants to be in the lead for that will make him a DeGaulle-esque figure….if all goes well……
There was a recent meeting in London of the major players……….
As the Guardian noted, Cameron and Clinton were careful in their remarks at the conference to refrain from directly repeating their demand that Gaddafi step down, because among the governments represented at the conference there are differences over openly making regime-change an aim of the war.
“Cameron did not repeat his demand for Gaddafi to stand down immediately and to face justice at the International Criminal Court,” the Guardian noted. “The conference is attended by Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, who is hoping to broker a ceasefire between Gaddafi and the rebel forces. Franco Frattini, the foreign minister of Libya’s former imperial ruler, Italy, who has raised the prospect of spiriting Gaddafi to exile, is also attending.”
The bit about “Qadafi Must Go” is waning….as if they are setting up a scenario for him to stay…let surmise that that occurs…..what then….will Libya be partitioned? I am sorry….but Libya’s natural resources that are in abundance makes me think there is something afoot here………OK…that may be a bit of a conspiracy theory….but happenings from the past does not rule it out!
Why Afghanistan?
Posted: 24 November 2010 Filed under: International Situations, Observations, Society, War | Tags: Afghanistan, Armed Conflict, Foreign policy, NATO, Taliban, US Troops 3 Comments »Do I like being redundant? Nope….and eventually someone somewhere will have an answer…….after 10 years you would think that someone would have an answer…….
I have asked this question over and over….and so far there is NO good answer. There is plenty of spin from both parties and their lap dogs…but not one good answer…..funny how they try to sell the public on whatever plan they come up with…..first it was out in 2011….now it is out in 2014…..what will it be 2 years from now?
I was listening to an interview with Holbrook on MSNBC on the situation in Afghanistan and he said that any negative reports coming from the AfPak area is just counter-productive…why? Because the Afghans are very pleased with the fact that the US and NATO are present in their country…. interesting…..most unbiased reports, which Mr. Holbrook is not, say something a bit different…..
Raw Story has an interesting report……
A report (PDF) from the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) shows that 92 percent of those surveyed had never heard of the coordinated multiple attacks on US soil on September 11, 2001. It also shows that four in 10 Afghans believe the US is on their soil in order to “destroy Islam or occupy Afghanistan.”The survey also suggests that Afghans are skeptical of their own government’s ability to protect them, and have little regard for the fledgling democratic institutions the country is building. Fully 43 percent could not name one positive aspect of democracy, and nearly two-thirds — 61 percent — said they didn’t think Afghan forces would be able to keep up the fight against the Taliban if and when Western forces withdrew.
If one does not like the poll and think it is inaccurate, then find me another poll with different results and then we will talk….
I have been asking my question for several years…..why Afghanistan? In the beginning it was to get AQ…they be gotten…..what is the mission now? There are a lot of words out there about the conflict, but very few make any sense…..so once again ….since, obviously the Afghan people have NO idea why we are in their country or most likely do not want us there any longer…….WHY AFGHANISTAN? NO one has an answer!
New Road For Afghanistan
Posted: 25 March 2009 Filed under: International Situations, Military, News, War | Tags: Afghanistan, Armed Conflict, NATO, Taliban, US Troops Leave a comment »America has signalled a radical new initiative to bring the Taliban into the Afghan political process as part of growing efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the war in Afghanistan.
The US ambassador to Kabul told the Observer that America would be prepared to discuss the establishment of a political party, or even election candidates representing the Taliban, as part of a political strategy that would sit alongside reinforced military efforts to end the increasingly intractable conflict.
The move will cause concern among allies struggling to keep pace with rapidly evolving US policy.
Other ideas being discussed include changing the Afghan constitution as part of potential negotiations, taking senior Taliban figures off UN blacklists to establish dialogue and possible prisoner releases.
The Obama administration’s plan to overhaul the Afghanistan war will include a reinvigorated effort to sap the strength and influence of Taliban leaders by luring away their foot soldiers, according to advisors involved in a painstaking strategy review.
The plan is based on the assumption that top leaders of extremist groups are unlikely to switch sides wholesale and would be unreliable allies if they did. Instead, the revised military effort will focus on eroding the power of militant leaders by drawing away low-level fighters — most of whom signed up for financial reasons.
Key to the strategy, according to administration officials, will be strengthening village elders and other local leaders as part of an overall shift in emphasis away from the country’s central government.
Under the plan, the administration would offer local leaders a variety of tools, including small-scale economic projects and training for local security forces, that they can use to convince insurgent fighters to lay down their weapons.
But the emphasis on local reconciliation reflects a growing belief that a heavy reliance on the country’s central government, led by President Hamid Karzai, has hindered the U.S.-led war effort.
None of these proposals will thrill the now sitting president of Afghanistan, but if it would lead to the American presence being lessened then I say screw him…..let’s get it on.
NATO Squirms Over Pakistan
Posted: 20 February 2009 Filed under: International Situations, News, War | Tags: Islam, NATO, Pakistan, Taliban Leave a comment »NATO led a growing chorus of international concern Tuesday by warning that a truce between the government of Pakistan and Taliban militants in a restive region near the Afghan border risks giving the extremists a “safe haven.”
A hard-line cleric sent to the battle-scarred Swat Valley to negotiate with the Taliban received a hero’s welcome there by crowds shouting “Long live Islam! Long live peace!”
NATO has 55,000 troops in Afghanistan, and many face attacks by Taliban and al-Qaida fighters believed to find refuge in pockets of Pakistan’s northwest.
In the last few months, Swat has largely fallen to militants who have beheaded opponents, burned scores of girls’ schools and banned many forms of entertainment. Gunbattles between security forces and militants have killed hundreds, while up to a third of the valley’s 1.5 million people have fled.
The truce “is certainly reason for concern,” NATO spokesman James Appathurai said in Brussels. “We should all be concerned by a situation in which extremists would have a safe haven. Without doubting the good faith of the Pakistani government, it is clear that the region is suffering very badly from extremists and we would not want it to get worse.”
As part of the deal, the pro-Taliban cleric agreed to travel to Swat and discuss peace with Maulana Fazlullah, his son-in-law and the leader of the Swat Taliban. Muhammad and his convoy of 300 vehicles arrived in Swat’s main city of Mingora on Tuesday as hundreds of jubilant residents lined the roads and shouted slogans. Many of those in the convoy with him wore black turbans — a Taliban trademark.
Pakistan’s inability to regain Swat has embarrassed the shaky civilian government. However, Pakistani leaders insisted the deal was not a concession, but an attempt to fulfill demands by locals for a more efficient justice system.
Some 2,000 militants are believed to operate in the valley, and, in defiance of the presence of some 10,000 paramilitary and army troops, they have already set up their own courts, meting out punishments in line with an exceptionally harsh brand of Islamic law.
Officials said the main changes to the legal system will involve existing — but unenforced — laws that allow for Muslim clerics to advise judges when hearing cases and the setting up of an Islamic appeals court. The rules do not ban female education or contain other strict interpretations of Shariah often adhered to by many Taliban.
Taliban Urges Obama On Afghan Policies
Posted: 13 November 2008 Filed under: International Situations, Military, News, War | Tags: Afghanistan, Armed Conflict, NATO, Taliban, US Troops Leave a comment »Afghanistan’s Taliban called on US president-elect Barack Obama to repudiate the “war-mongering” policies of President George W. Bush to repair the country’s image abroad, a group that monitors Islamist websites said.
“The ground realities in Afghanistan and the expectations of the people of America expressed through their votes demand that Obama should shun all policies followed by Bush,” said a Taliban statement as quoted by the SITE Intelligence group.
The Taliban warned that if Obama should “follow into the steps of Bush … and nurture the ambitions of prolonging the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq … then it is clear that the fate of the Democrats will be even more shameful and despicable than the Republicans.”
By continuing war with its “sky-high expenditure,” the United States will face “penury” and will not be able to recover “its previous caliber in the world and its good name,” said a transcript of the statement provided by the US-based SITE.
“This war, which is the outcome of Bush belligerence and war-mongering mindset, has resulted in failure both in Afghanistan and Iraq,” the Taliban said.
Obama, they said, “should respect the rights of the people to independence and observe the norms of human rights.
“In short, he should set out on a policy that will have a message of peace for the war-stricken world which has been victimized by the arrogance and tyranny of USA.”
“The overwhelming victory of Barrack Obama … reveals the collective willingness of American people not to continue the current despicable and anti-human wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
These statements may ruffle feathers but the truth is that some contact and purpose of the Taliban is needed, if not the US could be just another major power that goes down in defeat in Afghanistan. The country has never been kind to outsiders and the NATO troops need all the help than can get.
Afghanistan Needs Acceptable “Dictator”
Posted: 4 October 2008 Filed under: Foreign policy, International Situations, Military, News, War | Tags: Afghanistan, Armed Conflict, NATO Leave a comment »Really? Seems that would have been a pretty good idea for Iraq also. Wait! They already had one and it was unacceptable.
Investigative French weekly magazine La Canard Enchaîné has obtained a leaked copy of a coded diplomatic message from French diplomat Jean-François Fitou. The message, sent on September 2nd, gives an account of a previous meeting with British Ambassador to Afghanistan Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles and comments made by the ambassador regarding the situation in the troubled nation.
Sir Cowper-Coles is reported as saying “the current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust.” He also cautioned that an increase in NATO forces would be counterproductive, as “the military presence is part of the problem, not the solution,” and the addition of more troops would “identify us even more clearly as an occupying force.”
In Sir Cowper-Coles’ opinion the only realistic way to maintain control over Afghanistan over the next decade would be for it to be turned over to an “acceptable dictator.” The ambassador also said NATO countries “should think of preparing our public opinion” for that outcome.
Give Peace A Chance?
Posted: 28 September 2008 Filed under: Foreign policy, International Situations, Military, News, War | Tags: Afghanistan, NATO, Peace Talks, Taliban, US Troops 4 Comments »The Taliban have been engaged in secret talks about ending the conflict in Afghanistan in a wide-ranging ‘peace process’ sponsored by Saudi Arabia and supported by Britain, The Observer can reveal.
The unprecedented negotiations involve a senior former member of the hardline Islamist movement travelling between Kabul, the bases of the Taliban senior leadership in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and European capitals. Britain has provided logistic and diplomatic support for the talks – despite official statements that negotiations can be held only with Taliban who are ready to renounce, or have renounced, violence.
Sources in Afghanistan confirmed the controversial talks, though they said that in recent weeks they had ‘lost momentum’. According to Afghan government officials in Kabul, the intensity of the fighting this summer has been one factor. Another is the inconsistency of the Taliban’s demands.
Although there have been low-level contacts with individual Taliban commanders at district level before, the Saudi initiative is the first attempt to talk to the Taliban leadership council based in or around the south-west Pakistan city of Quetta, known as the ‘Quetta Shura’.
The Taliban are understood to have submitted a list of 11 conditions for ending hostilities, which include demands to be allowed to run key ministries and a programmed withdrawal of western troops.
Recent Comments