Sunday, February 27, 2011
The Neocon's 'Crude Urges' - The UN's Libya Sanctions Are A Declaration Of War On Libya's Civilians Who Have Already All But Removed Their 'Dictator'
The appeal, which came in the form of a letter signed by 40 policy analysts, including more than a dozen former senior officials who served under President George W. Bush, was organised and released by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a two-year-old neo-conservative group that is widely seen as the successor to the more-famous – or infamous – Project for the New American Century (PNAC). [More @ al-Jazeera]In the REALPOLITIK world, Gadaffi is done... why wait for those "Sanctions" to have the effect they had on Iraq with an estimated half million children alone dead from causes including starvation, unsanitary water, and lack of medicine, when the citizens of the country have already isolated, disenfranchised, and cornered him in the only remaining 'un-liberated' city in Libya, Tripoli?
The Western industrial nations fronted by NATO and blessed by their Security Council cronies at the UN will simply use Muammar al-Gadaffi as the excuse for military intervention and an 'oil grab'. All they REALLY want al-Gadaffi to do is hide. But he probably won't because he considers himself Libya's 'leader of destiny' (for want of a better nomenclature).
Perhaps there's a JSOC team with al-Gadaffi visage, daily movements and habits already burned into their memories ready to 'snatch' him in the same manner they illegally kidnapped Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide? (Just a conjecture... al-Gadffi would be a much 'harder' target for such an operation.)
But the BIG QUESTION here is... If the Libyans are capable of deposing their own leader (and currently the 'Libyan government' probably controls less that 10% of what was 'Libyan' territory), with the oil the West so badly needs soon under the control of tribal groups more than willing to deal for their fair share of what they've been deprived of for all these years... It begs the question: "Why Sanctions? Why Intervention?
It will not stop the bloodshed the sanctions have been claimed to prevent.
If Iraq is used as a notable example of "intervention" in recent history, those now-in-place sanctions will only magnify the mayhem by un-countable multiples in an economic and militarized war-without-a-thought for the civilian population of Libya.
Because it WILL BE a war on the civilian population of Libya who almost completely OPPOSE the regime we have sanctioned, after turning a blind eye to the alleged atrocities al-Gadaffi's administration has committed for all these years.
The West and America were such good friends with Libya that our EX-Vice President's company sold Libya (Iraq too!) dual-use oil drilling equipment (The other use would be drilling test holes for nuclear weapons experiments) and, through its subsidiary, Halliburton Logging Services, sent six pulsed neutron generators to Libya.
Pulsed neutron generators are used to break down Uranium into isotopes, and could easily be used to create fissionable material for a nuclear 'dirty bomb' or, with more time and materials, a complete nuclear weapon.
[More about Halliburton @ Wikipedia] (including information on the long-standing relationship between the Bush family and Halliburton-related corporations)
The State Department prosecution and fining of Halliburton that followed was a joke, "After having pleaded guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another $2.61 million in penalties.". Halliburton's revenue statement for the year of the prosecution, 1995, is Here.
But about those sanctions...
When the West committed to sanctions on Iraq's Hussein regime it caused mass suffering among a population which was already under authoritarian rule.
UNICEF has stood by it's figures of ONE HALF MILLION CHILDREN DEAD (including sanctions, collateral effects of war) by those measures, which deprived the civilian population of Iraq such things a Chlorine ('Dual-use', natch!) to purify their water (after we bombed their infrastructure thereby CREATING a contaminated water supply).
Do you really suppose that Saddam Hussein (by US media parlance 'so-damn insane') went even one day of the sanctions drinking unclean water, without food or medicine?
Sanctions on a country like Libya, where the leader is already 'on the way out' is a murderous joke (if they are ever truly useful at all for reining in a 'loose cannon' in the geopolitical 'deck'), and NOT to the benefit of ANYONE but the invested(sic) financial and industrial interests in the West.
They will certainly be of no benefit to the Libyan people, and may very well PREVENT Muammar al-Gadaffi's removal from power by his own people. The ONLY people who have a right to judge him for his actions, and allow him to cobble his regime back together in the guise of a 'Jihad' against foreign intervention.
...and I AM NOT alone in that train-of-thought...
Libya: Is Washington Pushing for Civil War to Justify a US-NATO Military Intervention?
Is Tripoli being set up for a civil war to justify U.S. and NATO military intervention in oil-rich Libya?
Are the talks about sanctions a prelude to an Iraq-like intervention?
Something is Rotten in the so-called “Jamahiriya” of Libya
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Canadian Multidisciplinary sociologist and scholar. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) specializing in geopolitics and strategic issues. He is also a lecturer and author about the topics of the Middle East, Central Asia and the former USSR.
There is no question that Colonel Muammar Al-Gaddafi (Al-Qaddafi) is a dictator. He has been the dictator and so-called “qaid” of Libya for about 42 years. Yet, it appears that tensions are being ratcheted up and the flames of revolt are being fanned inside Libya. This includes earlier statements by the British Foreign Secretary William Hague that Colonel Qaddafi had fled Libya to Venezuela.  This statement served to electrify the revolt against Qaddafi and his regime in Libya.
Although all three have dictatorship in common, Qaddafi’s Libya is quite different from Ben Ali’s Tunisia or Mubarak’s Egypt. The Libyan leadership is not outright subservient to the United States and the European Union. Unlike the cases of Tunisia and Egypt, the relationship that exists between Qaddafi and both the U.S. and E.U. is a modus vivendi. Simply put, Qaddafi is an independent Arab dictator and not a “managed dictator” like Ben Ali and Mubarak.
In Tunisia and Egypt the status quo prevails, the military machine and neo-liberalism remain intact; this works for the interests of the United States and the European Union. In Libya, however, upsetting the established order is a U.S. and E.U. objective.
The U.S. and the E.U. now seek to capitalize on the revolt against Qaddafi and his dictatorship with the hopes of building a far stronger position in Libya than ever before. Weapons are also being brought into Libya from its southern borders to promote revolt. The destabilization of Libya would also have significant implications for North Africa, West Africa, and global energy reserves...
[More @ GlobalResearch.ca]
Visitors To Auntie Imperial's News & Blog Review
Thanks For Stopping By