The fifth US -controlled failed state

[Guest Adnan Darwash]

The fifth US-controlled failed state!

The common denominator between Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen is that they are controlled by the respective US embassy, infested heavily with US-hired mercenaries; supported by CIA death squads and dirty work specialists. Furthermore, these countries share an acute lack of security, ruled by corrupt ‘democratically-elected’ US-approved agents with stone-age industries, health and educational systems. With oil and small population, Libya which has been making huge forward steps on every level except the political one where Gaddafi, his sons and inner cliques control everything. The people of Libya, like those of Tunisia and Egypt, wanted freedom and democracy. The Western powers want to ensure that an obedient puppet follows Gaddafi and went to intervene in a hurry* in support of the non-peaceful armed rebellion. Like in Iraq, the Americans and their ‘coalition of the willing’, have the habit of killing the people in order to free them and in destroying the country in order to ‘liberate’ it. Judging on the experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, the elected puppet that follows Gaddafi, will be isolated inside a US-established green zone and worse than the autocratic half-mad Mummar Al-Gaddafi.

Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times

 

* No Western power imposed an air exclusion Zone over Israel when they went to massacres the Palestinians in Gaza in 2008. To the contrary they went to suplly Israel with arms and financial credits and dragged their feet when the UN SCO called for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

[Guest HUMAN]

Take a good look Democrats; Adnan is one of your creations "Take a look at the talking points".

 

Your foolish little talking points have come back to haunt you as well as the rest of us, which is contrary to U.S. interests.

 

Adnan it's nothing against you. It's just that the democrats think that they are intellectually superior to everyone else "That is there game".

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fifth US-controlled failed state!

The common denominator between Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen is that they are controlled by the respective US embassy, infested heavily with US-hired mercenaries; supported by CIA death squads and dirty work specialists. Furthermore, these countries share an acute lack of security, ruled by corrupt ‘democratically-elected’ US-approved agents with stone-age industries, health and educational systems. With oil and small population, Libya which has been making huge forward steps on every level except the political one where Gaddafi, his sons and inner cliques control everything. The people of Libya, like those of Tunisia and Egypt, wanted freedom and democracy. The Western powers want to ensure that an obedient puppet follows Gaddafi and went to intervene in a hurry* in support of the non-peaceful armed rebellion. Like in Iraq, the Americans and their ‘coalition of the willing’, have the habit of killing the people in order to free them and in destroying the country in order to ‘liberate’ it. Judging on the experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, the elected puppet that follows Gaddafi, will be isolated inside a US-established green zone and worse than the autocratic half-mad Mummar Al-Gaddafi.

Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times

 

* No Western power imposed an air exclusion Zone over Israel when they went to massacres the Palestinians in Gaza in 2008. To the contrary they went to suplly Israel with arms and financial credits and dragged their feet when the UN SCO called for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

[Guest LAW]

Human Rights is not just a Democrat ideal. Liberty is not just an American ideal. President Obama reiterated the commitment of the United States to protecting Libya's Freedom fighters.

 

Excerpt by the President to the People of Brazil in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

 

There’s certain aspirations shared by every human being: We all seek to be free. We all seek to be heard. We all yearn to live without fear or discrimination. We all yearn to choose how we are governed. And we all want to shape our own destiny. These are not American ideals or Brazilian ideals. These are not Western ideals. These are universal rights, and we must support them everywhere. (Applause.)

 

Today, we are seeing the struggle for these rights unfold across the Middle East and North Africa. We’ve seen a revolution born out of a yearning for basic human dignity in Tunisia. We’ve seen peaceful protestors pour into Tahrir Square -– men and women, young and old, Christian and Muslim. We’ve seen the people of Libya take a courageous stand against a regime determined to brutalize its own citizens. Across the region, we’ve seen young people rise up -– a new generation demanding the right to determine their own future.

 

From the beginning, we have made clear that the change they seek must be driven by their own people. But for our two nations, for the United States and Brazil, two nations who have struggled over many generations to perfect our own democracies, the United States and Brazil know that the future of the Arab World will be determined by its people.

 

No one can say for certain how this change will end, but I do know that change is not something that we should fear. When young people insist that the currents of history are on the move, the burdens of the past can be washed away. When men and women peacefully claim their human rights, our own common humanity is enhanced. Wherever the light of freedom is lit, the world becomes a brighter place.

 

That is the example of Brazil. That is the example of Brazil. (Applause.) Brazil -– a country that shows that a dictatorship can become a thriving democracy. Brazil -– a country that shows democracy delivers both freedom and opportunity to its people. Brazil -- a country that shows how a call for change that starts in the streets can transform a city, transform a country, transform a world.

[Guest Desert Rat]

In this instance we are doing what is right for the people of Libya. The rebels do not have the military hardware to defend themselves. Muammar Gaddafi is a tyrant. I am glad for once that some other country is leading the coalition. Military ordinance cost way to much and our allies should be sharing the burden. I stand behind our Commander in Chief on this issue.

[Guest Manny]

FYI... It was French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who led the diplomatic drive for the Security Council resolution to bomb Libya. Companies are hovering in the background just waiting to get oil contracts.

[Guest American4Progress]

Over the weekend, U.S. and allied air and naval forces launched strikes on the military assets of the regime of Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qaddafi. Last night marked the third night of air strikes and the New York Times is reporting "the military campaign to destroy air defenses and establish a no-fly zone over Libya has nearly accomplished its initial objectives, and the United States is moving swiftly to hand command to allies in Europe, American officials said on Monday." The intervention came following a UN Security Council resolution on Friday that endorsed the creation of a no-fly zone and authorized "all necessary measures" to protect civilians. The UN resolution came as Qaddafi forces were threatening to rout -- and some fear massacre -- anti-government forces that had retreated to the eastern city of Benghazi. President Obama also explained the decision to authorize force: "The core point that has to be upheld here , is that the entire international community, almost unanimously, says that when there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, when a leader that has lost legitimacy and decides to turn his military on his own people, we simply can't stand by with empty words, we have to take some sort of action." The sudden US intervention has proved controversial and spawned a serious debate over the nature of the mission's objectives and the extent of US involvement that has divided foreign policy thinkers and political leaders on both sides of the aisle. While there is legitimate debate over the merits of intervention, many Republican 2012 candidates and conservative talking heads, ever desperate to attack the President and score cheap political points, are launching absurd attacks and even critiquing him for taking action they days before supported. As Politico noted, this is a "reminder of the dearth of foreign policy experience among the main GOP contenders."

 

CONTEXT: What began as a popular uprising, similar to Egypt and Tunisia, quickly spiraled into an armed revolt following Qaddafi's use of mercenary forces to brutally and indiscriminately suppress the protests. Just a few weeks ago, rebel forces controlled much of the country and appeared on the cusp of toppling Qaddafi. But Qaddafi rallied and launched a furious counter-attack, which forced a rebel retreat across the country. As Qaddafi's forces approached the eastern city of Benghazi, there were growing fears of a massacre and humanitarian and refugee crisis. This prompted the Arab League to call for Western intervention. On Friday, the United Nations Security Council authorized international action in Libya by a vote of 10-0 with five countries (Brazil, Germany, Russia, China, India) choosing to abstain. Over the past three days, the U.S. fired more than 130 Tomahawk cruise missiles and launched numerous air strikes, which have prevented the fall of Benghazi and a humanitarian crisis. President Obama said yesterday that "after the initial thrust has disabled Gaddafi's air defences... there will be a transition in which we have a range of coalition partners, who will then be participating in establishing a no-fly zone." Yet there is some confusion and disagreement within NATO over who will take charge of the operations from the US. The sudden nature of the intervention has also led to complaints from congress that the President did not properly consult with congress. The New York Times noted that "lawmakers from both parties argued that Mr. Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the military’s participation without Congressional approval. The president said in a letter to Congress that he had the power to authorize the strikes, which would be limited in duration and scope, and that preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya was in the national interest."

 

END GAME?: Intervention has led to a serious debate that has cross-cut party lines over the merits and objectives of the operation. Many fear the administration has not defined clear objectives or laid out an end game for its intervention. Republican Sen. Richard Lugar said, "I do not understand the mission because as far as I can tell in the United States there is no mission and there are no guidelines for success." One cause for confusion is that in the first few weeks of the uprising in Libya the Obama administration called for Qaddafi to go, but it is unclear whether rebel forces have the capability to oust Qaddafi. Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress warns, "you could have this very awkward phase emerging where Gaddafi is entrenched while there's a rump state in eastern Libya and some but not all states in the Arab world work to isolate the regime." This has led to fears of mission creep, where U.S. forces would escalate their intervention to ensure Qaddafi's ouster. James Fallows of the Atlantic writes, "the most predictable failure in modern American military policy has been the reluctance to ask, And what happens then? ... After this spectacular first stage of air war, what happens then? If the airstrikes persuade Qaddafi and his forces just to quit, great! But what if they don't?" Conservative Wall Street Journal columnist noted that "the biggest takeaway, the biggest foreign-policy fact, of the past decade is this: America has to be very careful where it goes in the world, because the minute it's there -- the minute there are boots on the ground, the minute we leave a footprint -- there will spring up, immediately, 15 reasons America cannot leave." However, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said on Meet the Press that the President "has a military operation with very clear mission, and that's what the president should do is have a clear mission and to avoid mission creep...this mission has been very carefully limited." The Obama administration has insisted that the military intervention will be limited and has rejected sending in U.S. ground troops. President Obama said yesterday in Chile, "First of all, I think it's very easy to square our military actions and our stated policies. Our military action is in support of a international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Colonel Qaddafi to his people. ... As part of that international coalition, I authorized the United States military to work with our international partners to fulfill that mandate. Now, I also have stated that it is U.S. policy that Qaddafi needs to go. And we got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy... But when it comes to our military action, we are doing so in support of U.N. Security Resolution 1973, that specifically talks about humanitarian efforts. And we are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate."

 

RIGHT WING NOISE: For days, many conservative presidential hopefuls and political pundits had called for U.S. intervention in Libya, but following the international community's action, few took to the airwaves to back the President. Politico reported, "After demanding for weeks that he be more decisive on Libya, not one candidate in the field of 2012 GOP hopefuls has expressed support for President Barack Obama since he began bombing the North African nation. The GOP’s presidential prospects either sharply criticized the commander-in-chief this weekend or avoided weighing in." For those GOP hopefuls and pundits that attacked the President, the critique centered on the premise that he waited too long and shouldn't have sought international support -- apparently it is preferable to go to war without international support. Sarah Palin said she wouldn't criticize the President while she was abroad in India, but then went on to criticize the President saying if she were there would have been "less dithering." John Bolton said on Fox News that the Obama administration was "wrong to base its decision to use force" due to the support of the Arab League or the United Nations. HBO’s Bill Maher noted on Friday, "Republicans don’t know what to do with this because they wanted this to happen, the no fly zone, so that's good, but now Obama wants it so it's bad. ... Fox News today just put up a test pattern that said, 'Please be patient while we figure out how this makes Obama the worst president ever.'"

[Guest Adnan Darwash]

Take a good look Democrats; Adnan is one of your creations "Take a look at the talking points".

 

Your foolish little talking points have come back to haunt you as well as the rest of us, which is contrary to U.S. interests.

 

Adnan it's nothing against you. It's just that the democrats think that they are intellectually superior to everyone else "That is there game".

 

I fully agree with you that the Arab people should struggle and make sacrifices in order to obtaining their freedon and to esatablishing democratic systems. Unfortunately, the natural pace of attaining such goals was impeded by foreign interference mainly because the Arab countries have an abundant raw materials that the West wanted to be in the hands of friendly autocrats, kings, sheikhs and emirs. Have you noticed the Western rush to intrevene in the Libyan internal affairs in order to ensure the installation of a friendly puppet to succeed Gaddafi. In Tunisia and Egypt, people made sacrifices until the Army and police stopped firing at demonstrators before joining them. The same would have happened in Libya. Gaddafi can't continue firing at his own people. Now, Obama and his Western stooges have added another dimension to the rebellion and gave Gaddafi an excuse that he is fighting crusaders who want Libyan oil.

Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest HUMAN]

I'm not in this at all. Between Iran and the U.S. Democrats? The United States has enough problems of it's own.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is all that I said;

 

[Take a good look Democrats; Adnan is one of your creations "Take a look at the talking points".

 

Your foolish little talking points have come back to haunt you as well as the rest of us, which is contrary to U.S. interests.

 

Adnan it's nothing against you. It's just that the democrats think that they are intellectually superior to everyone else "That is there game".]

[Guest American4Progress]

EPIC FLIP ON LIBYA: Speaking about the Libya situation on February 22, Gingrich argued there was "an opportunity to replace [Qaddafi's] dictatorship," and said, "I think the United States ought to be firmly on the side of the Libyan people in replacing this administration." On March 3, President Obama voiced the same opinion, saying "Colonel Qaddafi needs to step down from power. You've seen with great clarity that he has lost legitimacy with his people." On March 7, Gingrich pressed Obama to act. When asked by Fox News' Greta van Susteren what he would do about Libya, Newt said "[e]xercise a no-fly zone this evening." Gingrich said that humanitarian reasons demanded intervention, which should be done through the air: "All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes." Once again, Obama undertook action that Gingrich would have presumably favored: On March 18, Obama told the nation that the U.S. had joined an international effort to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, because "Qaddafi chose to ignore the will of his people and the international community" and "launched a military campaign against his own people." So did Newt support the president's efforts? Well, no. Less than 24 hours after the military campaign began, he inexplicably blasted the move and told Politico "it is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity." Three days later on the Today Show, he said plainly that "I would not have intervened." He blasted the humanitarian justification for invading, saying "the standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain." He also said he would have liked to have seen Obama utilize "a lot of other allies" and that "I would not have used American and European forces." Last night, in a return appearance on van Susteren's show, he also said the U.S. shouldn't use air power: "If they're serious about protecting civilians, you can’t do that from the air." So how did Newt go from being pro-intervention, pro-removing Qaddafi, pro-using air power -- to suddenly being against intervention, angry that U.S. forces were used, and blasting air power as a mechanism? In a convoluted note on his Facebook page, and again on van Susteren last night, Newt basically made the case that he was against intervention all along, but made his comments urging Obama to act on March 7 because Obama had already called for Qaddafi to leave power, so he was giving a piece of advice that he didn't agree with but thought was necessary. If that doesn't make sense to you, you're not alone. Politifact has rated Newt's changing positions a "full flop."

[Guest 3rd Eye]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFGQN2-oS3Q

Some man-made crises are created with the intention of being able to push through deregulated capitalism.

[Guest sunshine]

168 cruise missiles at $1.4 mill each. 449 sorties at $10,000/hr. Yet we have no money for America's teachers, poor, sick, elderly.

[Guest x]

http://vimeo.com/use...4293/adel-adris

 

Adel Adris describes how the revolution in libya began