Posts Tagged ‘France’

These articles by debkafile are interesting. According to them, Assad said he would consider the attack on Syria by the US as originating from Israel and will respond accordingly. Is Israel confident that it can prevent Syrian rocket attack? Or is the government of Israel ready to sacrifice its own people?

The highest commanders of the US, UK, French, German, and Italian militaries along with totalitarian Arab Suni states of Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and Jordan are meeting in Jordan for the last meeting before the attack on Syria. If Syria waits until the bombs start raining it may not have a chance and from its view, it should start the conflict that is unavoidable at its own timing and terms. Or Assad will end up like Sadam and Gadhafi that too waiting until the US invaded.

The US and world economy will tank and Obama and Democrats and Western governments should be removed from power. Bankrupt governments ready to borrow more to start new wars until their houses explode. The problem is that there is no real opposition anywhere in the “democratic” world. The only response the people have is a revolution.

 

Advertisements

It seems that Syrian Free Army is not only not free but even not Syrian. Out of some 20,000 SFA members mentioned by the West, at least 15,000 are from other countries and mostly associated with Al-Qaida, says Russian UN deputy ambasador with the goal to kill “heretics” (others than Sunny). That includes Alawite and Christians.

Finally we know why it was so important to stop Assad’s troops liberation of Homs from Al-Qaida and other “volunteers” from Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other “peaceful” nations: Because it was a command post by French and maybe others but only French were clumsy enough to get caught.

All told, 13 French officers were caught by Syrians in Homs fomenting civil war in Syria. Sounds like a cassus beli, for Syria. Consider that the Syrian rebels are all Sunnys, killing and terrorizing Christians.

Much of the world hails Moammar Gadhafi’s death as a triumph for the West. But the war that toppled him remains misguided and illegal.

Seven months after NATO’s misguided war in Libya began, Moammar Gadhafi has been killed. While there has not been as much celebration of this in the West as there might have been before the Iraq war, the conventional wisdom seems to be that this outcome has proved the intervention to be right because it “worked.” However, far from vindicating the decision to attack Libya, Gadhafi’s bloody end represents much of what was wrong with the intervention from the start.

Instead of protecting the population of Libya — which is what the U.N. authorized — the West’s intervention allowed the conflict to continue and consume perhaps as many as 30,000 Libyan lives, including many thousands of civilians, in addition to tens of thousands wounded and hundreds of thousands displaced. Rather than the “limited” war presented by the intervention’s defenders, it immediately expanded into a policy of regime change. The official goal of protecting civilians was subordinated very early on to the real purpose of the war — namely, the destruction of the existing government and the elimination of its leaders.

Contrary to the hope that Libya would provide a deterrent to regime violence elsewhere, the political fallout from the war has stalled any international response to Syria’s crackdown. By exceeding the U.N. mandate they received in March, the U.S. and its allies have poisoned emerging democratic powers such as India and Brazil against taking any action in other countries. Libya has confirmed every skeptic’s worst fears that in practice, the “responsibility to protect” is little more than a pretext for toppling vulnerable governments.

Equally troubling from an American perspective is the ease with which the current administration launched a war against a government that had abandoned its former hostility, renounced unconventional weapons and terrorism, and provided some degree of security cooperation to the U.S. Pariah states now have no incentive to negotiate similar deals with the U.S. and its allies, and they have clear incentives to acquire the means of deterring a future intervention. This reduces diplomatic and political options in coping with these states in the future and makes conflicts with some of them more likely.

U.S. foreign policy has already become very militarized in the last decade, and the quick resort to the use of force in this instance significantly lowers the bar to justify future military action. The sidelining of Congress and the American public on the Libya war continues an increasing and unhealthy tendency of the executive to use military force without authorization or respect for constitutional requirements. The executive now appears to be free of all constraints as to when and how to use force abroad, so long as the action can be deemed a success. And there are evidently no consequences for openly waging an illegal war.

The U.S. and our allies attacked a government that had done nothing to endanger international peace and security. It posed no threat at all to any NATO nation. No Western security interests were served by this war, and some may have been harmed as a result. Successfully deposing Gadhafi is bound to encourage future administrations to take similar risks. The U.S. and our allies may not always be so lucky in targeting such an unusually weak, isolated state.

While Gadhafi’s death will mark the end of Western military involvement in Libya, we should not assume that it means that Libya will not be wracked by violence for months or years to come. We should not forget that the worst of the post-invasion violence in Iraq came well after Saddam Hussein’s capture and execution. Just as it was Iraqi civilians who bore the brunt of the war over the last eight years, it has been and continues to be Libyan civilians who are suffering the most from prolonged conflict.

When dictatorships are violently overthrown, their successor regimes tend to devolve into some form of authoritarian government. Political culture, weak institutions, and post-conflict disorder all make it unlikely that Libya will be that much freer in the years to come than it was under Gadhafi. As in Iraq, it is questionable whether the possible gains will be worth the real losses that have already been and will continue to be suffered. As in Kosovo, which is often wrongly held up as a model of “successful” intervention, the post-war regime is liable to be criminal and corrupt. Twenty years ago, the liberation of Eritrea and Ethiopia from the brutal dictatorship of Mengistu was an inspiring story that very soon degenerated into authoritarianism and war. There is no reason to think that Libya’s story will be all that different.

Yesterday, Gadhafi was killed by joint US (Predator) and French aerial attacks. Libyan “heroes” who then found gravely injured Gadhafi beat him and kicked him until one of them shot him to the death.

Killing a POW is a war crime and those who help it are equally reponsible just as a lookout is responsible for a murder commited by those he helped. Howver, it was obvious that Western “leaders” and especially French Sarkozi did not want a trial that would have brought to light their past dealings with Gadhafi.

Gadhafi was a tyrant but he kept a peace among the so called Libyans: Hundreds of Arab, Berber, Tuareg and other tribes of a color scale from brown to black. That peace may now be over and Libya may be entering a period of terrorist attacks and interna strife.

Compared to Saddam, Gadhafi died fighting foreigners (NATO) and their local collaborators (islamic “rebels”). The images of him dying along his people will likely motivate others to avenge his death.

But it may be less about Gadhafi and more about the instability brought by the US which brought to the power small, fundamentalist tribes and helped them defeat large and less fanatical tribes. As the history teaches, majority eventually wins, but not before a sea of blood is shed.

The defense of Sirte and Bani Walid cannot be called anything else but heroic. Against relentless NATO bombing and katyusa/grad widespread destruction they continue resist the invaders.

On the other side, NATO wards from Misrata are plundering Sirte, taking full trucks of anything that is not tied to the ground.

In the meantime, the emergency relief fund in Libya will not help refugees from former Gadhafi bastions Sirte and Bani Walid. The head of the fund said let others help them, we have to spend the money to create a civil society in Libya. That civil society in Libya means not helping people who lost everything is obvious.

Is this the way the US wants to create a unified, harmonious, and liberal society in Libya?

Libya is now set to be a scene of multiple battles. Opportunistic and corrupt pro-western former Gadhafi’s henchmen versus Al-Qaida -alied fundamentalists.

The same fundamentalists that US (Obama), France (Sarkozi) and UK (Cameron) armed, trained, and assisted with air support and on-the-ground special forces to win the civil war. Does it sound like Afghanistan and mujahedeens in 1980s?

Ron Paul calls is a “blowback” – when US does “something” (because “something has to be done”) and the result is much worse than if nothing were done.

Guardian is now catching up to what many people have said in the past few months. A growing rift between the National Transitional Council and local leaders exposes conflicting visions for Libya’s future.

And it is not going to be just 2 groups as they both consist of multiple fractions. In adition to that, the foreign powers are not unified either: France, Italy, UK, US will not necessarily have the same policy towards various groups in Libya. Add to it other Saharan countries and China and it may feel like Somalia was just a kiddie play.

As the kids are told: “Don’t play with a knife, you can cut yourself.”

What kind of democracy is in the West that this kind of ruthless and yet totally incompetent dictators (called presidents or prime ministers) get elected?! Roman Empire again, in its last phase…

The best at the end: “liberated” Libyans are quietly waiting for a moment to rise up against their “liberators”.

“In [‘liberated’] Ajaylat, several people said they were still hoping that Gaddafi could make a comeback and were prepared to fight on his behalf.”

“People want Gaddafi. I can’t deny this,” said a resident named Khaled, 40. “We can’t live under the invasion. Even though they are afraid, in a few days people can fight again — men, women and children.”

UN says, we f-up in Ivory Coast by supporting the rebels: “The top U.N. human rights official expressed concern on Wednesday over acts of violence allegedly carried out by members of Ivory Coast’s new army, including reports of summary executions, rape and torture.”
There is no need for “alleging” – there are significant French forces on the ground that can confirm it if they just wanted to.

Another member of the U.N. commission, Suliman Baldo, said concern about “one-sided victory justice” was well-founded. “Those who are under investigation currently, either by the military prosecutor or by the civilian prosecutor, are all from the former officials of the government of Laurent Gbagbo,” Baldo told a news conference.

They are just following US example after wars in Balkans (Bosnia and Serbia / Kosovo) by enforcing victor’s justice. Why should it be different in Ivory Coast?

As a reminder, UN troops actively helped these nice “rebels” to defeat the Ivory Coast government of Gbagbo.

Good job, UN. You can be proud of your achievements.