Posts Tagged ‘war crimes’

And why is it highly likely that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is US ruse? This article outlines a few very clear and obvious reasons citing western mainstream media.

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.

 

London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.

But who would attack their own people? Al-Qaida would. Now they are America’s allies again. Dejavu Osama bin Laden.

The US accused Syrian government of using chemical weapons. The source of the accusation was … the rebels! Now that is a very independent and disinterested source that should be trusted with accusations that their opponent, Syrian government did what Obama said would start US aggression against Syria.

But what if Assad used the chemical weapons? Is killing with conventional weapons OK but with chemical weapons not?

The US has the biggest world arsenal of WMDs: nuclear, chemical, and biological. It is also the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against a civilian population or against any country for that matter. Why does US have those weapons? To use them. Why other countries cannot use them in their own self-preservation? If Soviet Union had attacked, would not US have used them, too? Would that “crossed somebody’s line”?

debka files

A few observations:

US invasion will happen without Egypt that is now against Islamic Caliphate and Otoman Empire that the US is so desperatel trying to recreate in the Middle East.

US invasion will be limited as long as Syria surenders. If not, the US will be forced to increase its involvement, in self defense of course.

US may try to set up a Druze bantustan on Israeli and Jordanian border to prevent Al-Qaida reaching those countries. The experience with South Lebanon border zone that was manned by Lebanese Christians and run by Israel and then abandoned suggests that it will not work long term.

Turkey will start re-establishing Otoman empire, starting with Syria. That will help Turkish government to refocus citizens from worsening economy and unemployment at home. But they will only import more chaos home.

Nobel Peace Laureate’s adventure will make Americans to forget not only the bad economy that is not improving 5 years after the crash but also that the whole country is under the watchful eye of Big Brother.

If successful, the US will cause removal the ancient Christian population from Syria and help masacre Alawites. Of course, because of no boots on the ground, Barak will be innocent of war crimes committed by Al-Qaida against minorities in Syria.

Syrian moslems will long after the times when Asad family ruled, so good the new rulers will be.

Israel will long after the times when Asad family ruled, so good the Al-Qaida on its border will be.

by Rep. Ron Paul, December 10, 2011
The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets. The unwritten agreement by the two superpowers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests.

I well remember the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time. Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period. This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon.

It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the weapons of war.

Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend. Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted. There was to be no “beating their swords into plowshares,” even though history shows that without weapons and war there’s more food and prosperity for the people. Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources.

Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole superpower. It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goal of “making the world safe for democracy” by pursuing a war to end all wars.

The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy. There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent.

In many ways America had been “exceptional” but in an opposite manner from the neocon driven foreign policy of the last 20 years. If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes, and war.

Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation, and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis.

Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture, and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.

To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us — that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home.

Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks. We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we’re spreading freedom and America’s goodness around the world. We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution. That is not believable. This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts.

The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good.

The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned — if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.

My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.

This requires simply tolerance of others’ cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources. Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world’s great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.

A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:

Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.

Offering friendship with all who seek it.

Participating in trade with all who are willing.

Refusing to threaten, bribe, or occupy any other nation.

Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.

Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade, and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions, and occupations.

This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony, and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.

Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.

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?