One hopes that Obama and Geddafi end up losing

[Guest Adnan Darwash]

One hopes that Obama and Geddafi end up losing

 

After staying silent about the on-going massacres of peaceful demonstrators in Yemen, Bahrain and Iraq, discredited Obama has made the best gift for Geddafi by announcing his support for the armed Libyan rebels. Most every Libyan is fed up with Geddafi, his green revolution, the green book, peoples committees and the third international theory, during the last 42 years, and went to carry arms to topple his regime. But the initial success of the revolution may be reversed; especially since the hated US started to deploy warships close to the Libyan shores while more intervention force is ordered for Malta. Those Libyans who were ready to die fighting Geddafi regime started to re-assess their poosition and get ready to defend Libya against a potential raqi-style American destruction of the country and the killing of its people in order to control the Libyan oil fields. The stupid Americans don’t seem to realise the extent of the Arab hatred for their massares in Iraq and Afghanistan and for their support for Israeli atrocities . If Geddafi ever to gain the upper hand after bloody massacres, the Americans have themselves to blame. The American foreign policy has no morals and no human face. As an example, the Americans didn’t send their war ships to stop the Israeli killing of Palsestinians in Gaza in 2008. To the contrary, they continued delivering all kinds of smart bombs and missiles that killed 1400 Palestinians including 300 children. Furthermore, instead of punishing Israeli war criminals, the Americans helped to undermine Goldstone‘s report detainilng the war crimes. The position of Obama, who has failed in his Middle East policy or in forcing Netanyahu to stop building illegal settlements for 90 days, reminds me of a dirty Iraqi proverb which I may quote oneday. If the Americans and Geddafi start fighting each other, one hopes that both will end up losing.

Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times

[Guest Jenu]

One hopes that Obama and Geddafi end up losing

 

After staying silent about the on-going massacres of peaceful demonstrators in Yemen, Bahrain and Iraq, discredited Obama has made the best gift for Geddafi by announcing his support for the armed Libyan rebels. Most every Libyan is fed up with Geddafi, his green revolution, the green book, peoples committees and the third international theory, during the last 42 years, and went to carry arms to topple his regime. But the initial success of the revolution may be reversed; especially since the hated US started to deploy warships close to the Libyan shores while more intervention force is ordered for Malta. Those Libyans who were ready to die fighting Geddafi regime started to re-assess their poosition and get ready to defend Libya against a potential raqi-style American destruction of the country and the killing of its people in order to control the Libyan oil fields. The stupid Americans don’t seem to realise the extent of the Arab hatred for their massares in Iraq and Afghanistan and for their support for Israeli atrocities . If Geddafi ever to gain the upper hand after bloody massacres, the Americans have themselves to blame. The American foreign policy has no morals and no human face. As an example, the Americans didn’t send their war ships to stop the Israeli killing of Palsestinians in Gaza in 2008. To the contrary, they continued delivering all kinds of smart bombs and missiles that killed 1400 Palestinians including 300 children. Furthermore, instead of punishing Israeli war criminals, the Americans helped to undermine Goldstone‘s report detainilng the war crimes. The position of Obama, who has failed in his Middle East policy or in forcing Netanyahu to stop building illegal settlements for 90 days, reminds me of a dirty Iraqi proverb which I may quote oneday. If the Americans and Geddafi start fighting each other, one hopes that both will end up losing.

Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times

 

I am sorry you feel that way Adnan.

 

Did you know that in 1873, Nasr al-Din Shah Qajar met with British Jewish leaders, including Sir Moses Montefiore. At that time the Persian leader suggested that the Jews buy land and establish a state for the Jewish people. This occurred some twenty years before Theodor Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat. Too bad they did not buy it back then directly from the Muslims instead they got it from the British.

 

http://www.jewishjournal.com/iranianamericanjews/2009/03/

[Guest Ryan]

Wikileaks started this democracy of the people not any Arab extremist.

 

VZCZCXRO4720OO RUEHTRODE RUEHTRO #0017 0121421ZNY CCCCC ZZHO P 121421Z JAN 09FM AMEMBASSY TRIPOLITO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4309INFO RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO PRIORITY 1374RUEHTU/AMEMBASSY TUNIS PRIORITY 0731RUEHAS/AMEMBASSY ALGIERS PRIORITY 0863RUEHRB/AMEMBASSY RABAT PRIORITY 0806RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 0667RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 0980RUEHTRO/AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI 4832

 

The Jamahiriya currently holds de facto elections to select members of the pyramid scheme of Popular Committees, Basic People's Committees, Basic People's Congresses and General People's Congresses. More transparent and direct elections for key government positions and international election monitors are issues Saif al-Islam has raised before in the context of his annual Youth Forum addresses and, more recently, during his visit to the U.S. in November-December. That said, elections are a sensitive issue in a regime in which "domestic issues" are broadly defined and in which opposition to perceived external interference in internal matters is intense. "Steadfastness" against foreign powers and their perceived machinations has been a source of legitimacy for al-Qadhafi's regime for decades; acceding to international monitoring of Libyan elections would likely be seen as a violation of revolutionary principles by at least some old guard elements. Al-Qadhafi's pre-emptive request to key regime figures likely represents a calculated gambit to temper opposition. If near-term elections are in fact being planned, it could help explain why the General People's Congress (GPC) session notionally scheduled for January 10-13 has been delayed. MFA and NSC contacts told us in late December that schedules of senior regime figures like National Security Adviser Muatassim al-Qadhafi were being built around the January 10-13 window. In typical Jamahiriya fashion, dates for the GPC were never publicly announced (despite the fact that it is ostensibly a public event that all citizens may attend) and no reasons have been given for its delay. There have been rumors that the inability of minister-equivalents to agree on plans to implement government restructuring and privatization in line with reforms Muammar al-Qadhafi called for in his March 2008 GPC address (reftel) are to blame for the postponement. The exercise would become exponentially more difficult if al-Qadhafi, whose predilection for grandiose political theater is well-known, intends to time elections to coincide with the upcoming session of the GPC. End comment.

[Guest Adnan Darwash]

I am sorry you feel that way Adnan.

 

Did you know that in 1873, Nasr al-Din Shah Qajar met with British Jewish leaders, including Sir Moses Montefiore. At that time the Persian leader suggested that the Jews buy land and establish a state for the Jewish people. This occurred some twenty years before Theodor Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat. Too bad they did not buy it back then directly from the Muslims instead they got it from the British.

 

http://www.jewishjournal.com/iranianamericanjews/2009/03/

 

Buying and selling homelands!

Would the Jews accept to sell Israel now? Kuwait alone can pay cash in Rubels or Sheckels, for any Jew who leaves to where he/she came from. Israel is costing America and its allies just tooooo much. It is about time for the Americans to ask the Jews to behave as a small memeber of the Middle East community of nations. As no Arab will accept a Jew holding an American sword over his head. Following the current uprising in the Arb world, this sword is about to be broken.

Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times

[Guest Adnan Darwash]

Wikileaks started this democracy of the people not any Arab extremist.

 

VZCZCXRO4720OO RUEHTRODE RUEHTRO #0017 0121421ZNY CCCCC ZZHO P 121421Z JAN 09FM AMEMBASSY TRIPOLITO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4309INFO RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO PRIORITY 1374RUEHTU/AMEMBASSY TUNIS PRIORITY 0731RUEHAS/AMEMBASSY ALGIERS PRIORITY 0863RUEHRB/AMEMBASSY RABAT PRIORITY 0806RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 0667RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 0980RUEHTRO/AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI 4832

 

The Jamahiriya currently holds de facto elections to select members of the pyramid scheme of Popular Committees, Basic People's Committees, Basic People's Congresses and General People's Congresses. More transparent and direct elections for key government positions and international election monitors are issues Saif al-Islam has raised before in the context of his annual Youth Forum addresses and, more recently, during his visit to the U.S. in November-December. That said, elections are a sensitive issue in a regime in which "domestic issues" are broadly defined and in which opposition to perceived external interference in internal matters is intense. "Steadfastness" against foreign powers and their perceived machinations has been a source of legitimacy for al-Qadhafi's regime for decades; acceding to international monitoring of Libyan elections would likely be seen as a violation of revolutionary principles by at least some old guard elements. Al-Qadhafi's pre-emptive request to key regime figures likely represents a calculated gambit to temper opposition. If near-term elections are in fact being planned, it could help explain why the General People's Congress (GPC) session notionally scheduled for January 10-13 has been delayed. MFA and NSC contacts told us in late December that schedules of senior regime figures like National Security Adviser Muatassim al-Qadhafi were being built around the January 10-13 window. In typical Jamahiriya fashion, dates for the GPC were never publicly announced (despite the fact that it is ostensibly a public event that all citizens may attend) and no reasons have been given for its delay. There have been rumors that the inability of minister-equivalents to agree on plans to implement government restructuring and privatization in line with reforms Muammar al-Qadhafi called for in his March 2008 GPC address (reftel) are to blame for the postponement. The exercise would become exponentially more difficult if al-Qadhafi, whose predilection for grandiose political theater is well-known, intends to time elections to coincide with the upcoming session of the GPC. End comment.

 

Elections without freedom or opposition

The communist regimes of the former USSR have failed because of lack of freedom or meaingful opposition. People went to elect those nominated by the party, similar to those held in Libya. No-one was able to criticise neither brother Geddafi nor commrade Brezhnev.

Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times

[Guest American4Progress]

On Saturday, the Arab League asked the United Nations Security Council to authorize and impose a no-fly zone over Libya in an effort to prevent forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi from continuing to attack and kill innocent people. Following France's lead, the League also formally recognized the rebel movement as the country's legitimate government. The move "represents an extraordinary step by the leading Arab organization, historically reluctant to sanction a member," and is "an extremely rare invitation for Western military forces on Arab territory." At the same time, Abdul Hafidh Ghoga, the vice chairman of the rebels' shadow government, urged the international community to intervene. "We feel we have the right to ask for help," he said. "If the international community chooses to play the role of bystander, we will have to defend ourselves." While France and Britain are actively seeking a Security Council resolution, the U.S. remains on the sidelines, urging the international community to form a consensus and obtain the necessary legal authorization to act. But Qaddafi's forces are slowly making their way eastward and taking over rebel-controlled areas. Reuters reports, "By the time the outside world agrees on a response to [Qaddafi's] bloody onslaught against a popular revolt, it could all be over."

 

THE U.S. POSITION?: While the Obama administration has been reluctant so far to fully endorse a no-fly zone, it has been very clear that any such action needs a broad international mandate. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- who will meet with rebel leaders today in Paris -- said recently that "it's very important that this not be a US-led effort because this comes from the people of Libya themselves," adding, "we are working really hard every day with the international community." Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged caution on the no-fly zone, saying it would be a "big operation in a big country." But he also said last week that "NATO will only act if there is demonstrable need, a sound legal basis, and strong regional support." And in Bahrain on Saturday, Gates appeared to go a bit further. "If we are directed to impose a no-fly zone, we have the resources to do it," Gates said. "The question is whether it's a wise thing to do. And that's the discussion that's going on at a political level. But I just want to make clear we have the capacity to do it."

 

WHAT TO DO?: Despite pleas for help from the Libyan rebels and the Arab League, some have questioned the utility of a no-fly zone in this particular situation because, as the New York Times notes, "planes alone have not defeated the rebels, but rather a relentless onslaught of tanks, artillery, helicopters and ships at sea" have driven anti-government forces back for the past several days. Former President Clinton recently offered his support for a no-fly zone, but retired Gen. Wes Clark, who commanded NATO's air war under Clinton in 1999 to prevent Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, wrote this weekend that the U.S. and the West has "no clear basis for action," arguing that national interests are few in Libya. "Protecting access to oil supplies has become a vital interest, but Libya doesn't sell much oil to the United States," said Clark. However, arguing in favor of a no-fly zone in the New York Times today, former State Department official Anne-Marie Slaughter countered Clark . "Framing this issue in terms of oil is exactly what Arab populations and indeed much of the world expect, which is why they are so cynical about our professions of support for democracy and human rights." Slaughter argues, "We have an opportunity to establish a new narrative of Western support for Arab democrats." However, others like the International Crisis Group have pointed out that advocating for a ceasefire followed by negotiations is the correct course, saying that "Western calls for military intervention of one kind or another are perilous and potentially counter-productive" because "there are no quick or easy fixes." In terms of cost, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments projects that a fully implemented no-fly zone could cost as much as $8.8 billion in 6 months, while more limited options would cost considerably less in the same time period.

 

ASK QUESTIONS LATER: Whatever debates are on-going within the Obama administration, or among allies in Brussels, Cairo, or New York, the American right wing appears to be taking the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach to the situation in Libya. Presumptive 2012 GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said last week that he wanted the U.S. to start bombing Libya "this evening." "We don't need to have NATO," he said, "who frankly, won't bring much to the fight. We don't need to have the United Nations." A few days later, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who is also said to be considering a 2012 presidential run for the GOP, went the same route, dismissing the need for an international coalition on Libya. "I'm not overly concerned about our popularity," Pawlenty said. And yesterday on Fox News Sunday, neoconservative leader Bill Kristol said he wants an all out war with Libya , not just a no-fly zone. "I think at this point you probably have to do more than a no-fly zone," he said, "You probably have to tell Qaddafi he has to stop his movement east and that we are going to use assets to stop him from slaughtering people as he moves east across the country. We might take out his ships in the Mediterranean. We might take out tanks and artillery."

[Guest Adnan Darwash]

On Saturday, the Arab League asked the United Nations Security Council to authorize and impose a no-fly zone over Libya in an effort to prevent forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi from continuing to attack and kill innocent people. Following France's lead, the League also formally recognized the rebel movement as the country's legitimate government. The move "represents an extraordinary step by the leading Arab organization, historically reluctant to sanction a member," and is "an extremely rare invitation for Western military forces on Arab territory." At the same time, Abdul Hafidh Ghoga, the vice chairman of the rebels' shadow government, urged the international community to intervene. "We feel we have the right to ask for help," he said. "If the international community chooses to play the role of bystander, we will have to defend ourselves." While France and Britain are actively seeking a Security Council resolution, the U.S. remains on the sidelines, urging the international community to form a consensus and obtain the necessary legal authorization to act. But Qaddafi's forces are slowly making their way eastward and taking over rebel-controlled areas. Reuters reports, "By the time the outside world agrees on a response to [Qaddafi's] bloody onslaught against a popular revolt, it could all be over."

 

THE U.S. POSITION?: While the Obama administration has been reluctant so far to fully endorse a no-fly zone, it has been very clear that any such action needs a broad international mandate. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- who will meet with rebel leaders today in Paris -- said recently that "it's very important that this not be a US-led effort because this comes from the people of Libya themselves," adding, "we are working really hard every day with the international community." Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged caution on the no-fly zone, saying it would be a "big operation in a big country." But he also said last week that "NATO will only act if there is demonstrable need, a sound legal basis, and strong regional support." And in Bahrain on Saturday, Gates appeared to go a bit further. "If we are directed to impose a no-fly zone, we have the resources to do it," Gates said. "The question is whether it's a wise thing to do. And that's the discussion that's going on at a political level. But I just want to make clear we have the capacity to do it."

 

WHAT TO DO?: Despite pleas for help from the Libyan rebels and the Arab League, some have questioned the utility of a no-fly zone in this particular situation because, as the New York Times notes, "planes alone have not defeated the rebels, but rather a relentless onslaught of tanks, artillery, helicopters and ships at sea" have driven anti-government forces back for the past several days. Former President Clinton recently offered his support for a no-fly zone, but retired Gen. Wes Clark, who commanded NATO's air war under Clinton in 1999 to prevent Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, wrote this weekend that the U.S. and the West has "no clear basis for action," arguing that national interests are few in Libya. "Protecting access to oil supplies has become a vital interest, but Libya doesn't sell much oil to the United States," said Clark. However, arguing in favor of a no-fly zone in the New York Times today, former State Department official Anne-Marie Slaughter countered Clark . "Framing this issue in terms of oil is exactly what Arab populations and indeed much of the world expect, which is why they are so cynical about our professions of support for democracy and human rights." Slaughter argues, "We have an opportunity to establish a new narrative of Western support for Arab democrats." However, others like the International Crisis Group have pointed out that advocating for a ceasefire followed by negotiations is the correct course, saying that "Western calls for military intervention of one kind or another are perilous and potentially counter-productive" because "there are no quick or easy fixes." In terms of cost, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments projects that a fully implemented no-fly zone could cost as much as $8.8 billion in 6 months, while more limited options would cost considerably less in the same time period.

 

ASK QUESTIONS LATER: Whatever debates are on-going within the Obama administration, or among allies in Brussels, Cairo, or New York, the American right wing appears to be taking the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach to the situation in Libya. Presumptive 2012 GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said last week that he wanted the U.S. to start bombing Libya "this evening." "We don't need to have NATO," he said, "who frankly, won't bring much to the fight. We don't need to have the United Nations." A few days later, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who is also said to be considering a 2012 presidential run for the GOP, went the same route, dismissing the need for an international coalition on Libya. "I'm not overly concerned about our popularity," Pawlenty said. And yesterday on Fox News Sunday, neoconservative leader Bill Kristol said he wants an all out war with Libya , not just a no-fly zone. "I think at this point you probably have to do more than a no-fly zone," he said, "You probably have to tell Qaddafi he has to stop his movement east and that we are going to use assets to stop him from slaughtering people as he moves east across the country. We might take out his ships in the Mediterranean. We might take out tanks and artillery."

Arab support for us military interventions!!!

The Arab governments have supported the American march on Baghdad to Israeli drums, the destruction of the country and the killing of between 500,000-1,000,000. For this reason, the Arab people want to topple these regimes. These Arab Sultans, Sheikhs, Emirs, kings and military dictators didn't ask the Americans to impose sanctions on Israel after committing war crimes in Gaza in 2008. The Americans may be able to salvage some of their image if they ask the International court of Justice to put Israeli war criminals on trials. These crimes have ben stipulated by Goldstone report. I feel really sorry for the position of Obama as he sounds like a preacher leading an international criminal outfit.

Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times