garard, - “See my comment 3/24 8:55 for starters”

-

I saw the March 24 post. It was the impetus to my request for specifics.

Blackspeare,

The attack on Libya was a US contingency plan since Reagan was in office and is hardly new.

As war plans go it was as shit simple as it gets.

Bs: The US military has planned this operation thoroughly.

The DoD perhaps have “planned” this on a conceptual level but in no detail. Because Obama was lukewarm to the idea from the start according to reports here in France.

He finally came around when the French put into the UN Resolution 1973, that was adopted, that no ground-troops would be allowed to enter Libya. Sarkozy had to do some major lobbying to convince him ... both are lawyers by profession.

The French shepherded UN Resolution 1973 vote through the UN Security Council, not the US.

Since then the US has taken a back-seat in this affair.  With one important difference, intelligence photos from satellites the DoD is sharing with the coalition partners.

Obama is VERY HAPPY to give the lead over to NATO, run by a Dane. We’ve already got OUR war on in Afghanistan and Obama does not AT ALL want another engagement in a major conflict in the Middle East. And he is absolutely right in this sentiment.

This air-warfare is not about the DoD. It is about a UN effort to get rid of a murderous middle-east despot.

Who’s naive?

POST SCRIPTUM

Besides, Gates will be gone by the end of the year ... and he would not want to leave the DoD with yet another war on its hands. It would not look good for his upcoming political career.

grym:  See my comment 3/24 8:55 for starters.

The US and European interest in Libya is not hard to find. Bloomberg.com wrote on Feb. 22 that while Libya is Africa’s third-largest producer of oil, it has the continent’s largest proven reserves - 44.3 billion barrels. It is a country with a relatively small population but the potential to produce huge profits for the giant oil companies. That’s how the super-rich look at it, and that’s what underlies their professed concern for the people’s democratic rights in Libya. If the US…Hillary and Obama were really supportive of the invasion of Libya for humanitarian reasons…. (once again using the avoiding a possible genocide lie which was used to justify the invasion of Kosovo), they would not have voted over and over to fund the war in Iraq which caused the deaths of over a million Iraqi civilians.  I don’t recall Hillary Clinton speaking out against the sanctions imposed by the US before the invasion of Iraq, which caused the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo&feature=player_embedded

Yeah, right. You should be writing scenarios for
Hollywood studios.Everybody is flying by wire on this
one   Lafayette March 24,20:18

For me, “flying by wire” is an aviation term - concept.
It seems to me that you dont quite understand it.

Lafayette…

You have to stop being so naive.  The US military has planned this operation thoroughly.  Even though NATO allegedly is taking command everyone knows that like shifting the bat from your right to left hand——the USA is still in charge.  Of course in the fog of war the best plans go awry, but nonetheless there is a strategy.  And there are US boots on the ground in Libya in the form of CIA operatives who act as spotters for the the aerial attacks against Qaddafi forces.  The plan is to support and arm the freedom fighters and with air power force Qaddafi from power unless he wants to die a martyr which I strongly doubt.  Like they say when the going gets tough the tough get going!  He and his family will be leaving Libya in the not so distant future.

garard,

I am sincere when I write that your high ideals and platitudes sound great.  Truly they do.  Can you simply attempt some specifics regarding what and how we should be addressing these issues? Libya, Pakistan, India and China, for example?

Lend us some specifics and let us see how they may be employed.

GRYM:  Please stop the silly teasing.  It is not up to me or any other one person to set up the specifics for action that everybody knows is needed but nobody yet believes is possible.  I am holding up the possibility because I believe in that possibility.  Anyone who wants to develop specifics can refer to any one of a number of nonviolent action sights, understand the philosophy and history of it (better than I could explain) and think about strategies and tactics (some more adaptable to present circumstances than others) and help decide what efforts might be most successful. 
  As yet, we are only at the question-asking stage.  I am asking people to join in asking the questions, (How about this?  How about that? Do you think this might be the way to start? What would be the best way to ....”)  I am not telling them what to ask.  Thinking, but not telling them what to think.  To have any validity, whatever is done will NOT come about because somebody tells them what to do.  They (we) will figure it out for ourselves, day by day. 
  Your problem (in addition to trying to “trap” ir “nail” somebody) is that you want to defeat the entire idea before it has a chance to be born. You are primarily into destruction of ideas you consider
“liberal,” “socialist”, “pacifist”, “idealistic”,
“leftish”—whatever.  You are a hindrance to question-asking and would prefer to follow some reaction set up for you ahead of time and proven to
be “kosher” by some authoritarian source. 
  Sorry.  That’s not where we’re at.  We are starting from scratch here. The “man on the white horse” ain’t gonna appear. At least I hope not!

garard, - “The initiatives of which I speak (joint study of specific situations in detail with recommendations for change plus cooperative aid in instituting recommentations after adoption, etc. etc.) are available.”

-

Can you be more specific on these recommendations and cooperative aids that are, or were, available in Libya?  Which specific recommendations would have prevented the uprising or, conversely, turned Qaddafi’s away from brutal dictatorial control?

The reason I ask is a simple one.  We all see you writing of how the world does it wrong - Particularly the United States.  Teach us, specifically, how to do things correctly.

Bl: Contrary to the talking heads, Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing they just can’t tell until it’s over.

Yeah, right. You should be writing scenarios for Hollywood studios.

Everybody is flying by wire on this one.

The conflict in Libya is like an iceberg——-we only see 1/10 of it.  There are maneuvers and negotiations taken place with a shadow government.  Don’t forget there are many functionaries and high level ministers who have defected from Qaddafi who will be the nucleus of a new government.  When the time is right, Gaddafi will be taken out.  In the meantime his military will be neutralized and kept away from mounting any serious attack on the freedom fighters.  Contrary to the talking heads, Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing they just can’t tell until it’s over.

Question for LaFayette and others:

What prevents the U.N. from taking earlier and more creative and effective ways sto “invent peace” in troubled situations rather than to allow bad situations to become worse till they reach a state where military intervention seems inevitable as a “last resort?”

This negligence (or blindness, or whatever it is) prevents alternative initiatives from being proposed and discussed.  It keeps “diplomats” sucking on the ends of their pens while country after country endures 30 or 40 years of abuse at the hands of soe tyrant, then explodes when thousands of helpless, unarmed people decide they must risk their lives in order to remain human.

The initiatives of which I speak (joint study of specific situations in detail with recommendations for change plus cooperative aid in instituting recommentations after adoption, etc. etc.) are available. They are just ever tried in time, and so, even if they are invoked later, they don’t work because it is too late for them to be effective.

This routine neglect of alternatives to violence appears to be deliberate, and is perhap the main way the MIC asserts control and promotes violence for its own ends.

YESTERYEAR

rz: it is no right of ours to subvert other governments. all those weak brains thinking if we do not

It is a right, contrary to what you think, and intervention depends upon the situation. There is no general rule.

Yes, we made a lot of mistakes in the past by subverting governments. But that history has not much to do with today. Let’s hope we’ve learned a thing or two.

[For instance, overthrowing a Communist Prime Minister in Iran (Mossadegh) to install the Shah Pahlavi simply paved the way for a Khomeni to enter and sweep it all way by instituting a Religious Autocracy.)

The current today is that these countries should be ruled by a parliamentary democracy - and there seems to be an international consensus as regards that belief.

TODAY

There is a notion that escapes many Americans called Universal Human Rights, one for which Americans (in their hell-bent drive for “property rights” and “individual liberty”) do not seem to have the slightest notion.

These rights were first announced in 1948 - after much lobbying by Eleanor Roosevelt - by the United Nations as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see here). The US signed the agreement (a treaty, of sorts) but never ratified it in the Senate.

There is more order in International Law today than there has ever been to deal with despotic undemocratic governments. It’s high time to implement that law, where we can around the world - starting with the UN Security Council and ending, if need be, with the International Court of Criminals.

It should please us to know that the ICC has been tracking, capturing, bringing to justice and condemning many a person guilty of genocide in the Balkan War of the mid-1990s.

ABOUT AMERICANS AND UNIVERSAL RIGHTS

And if the Yanks are so shortsighted about Universal Human Rights, it is largely because of the “oversight” at the end of the 1940s when America did not ratify the Declaration.

I figure it was intentional, because the declaration treats the right to unionize, which was probably anathema to our smallminded Congress at the time - and which likely still is, one might add.

Those Human Rights are not binding in a legalistic sense, but they are guidelines regarding how humans should treat other humans. How we implement them by intervening is a matter for a UN Security Council to decide, as has been the case in both the Balkan War (more than a decade ago) and Libya today.

Besides, they go a lot farther than the antiquated American Constitution. Which was a good start, but really ‘n truly needs updating into the present context of democracy and human rights.

ABOUT LIBYA

The Gadaffi Guys are murderous despots. One who does not believe that is blind to the facts.

After four decades of despotism, they had to be dealt with. The time was ripe to give rebellious factions a chance to overthrow them. The Libyans had been living in a police state reminiscent of Germany and its Gestapo - when people simply “disappeared” without equitable due-process.

ABOUT HOLLYWOOD

It appears that many on this forum have their own Petty Agenda about the CIA and its nefarious business in foreign countries. I submit that you have been watching too many Hollywood Films.

Hollywood is not life, it is entertainment. And to be entertaining it must wildly exaggerate real-life, which it does with excellence.

But anyone with a brain must make the distinction between what we see on the BigScreen and what happens on the ground.

PRELIMINARY EXPECTORATION

ahem. (cough)

OUR TEXT

We will now read a passage from drbhelthi:

Since the “Greys” and the “Aryans” (as tagged by Hitler) are aware of the inhumanity of mankind, passing their space vehicles and armament to “earthlings” was a slow, but sure way of “weeding out” humanity on earth. No need to do the destruction themselves.

But now that “earthlings” have the space-travel-vehicles, how do they plan to prevent “mankind” from ruining their habitats, as mankind has ruined the earth?

HUNKER IN THE BUNKER

Whenever drbhelthi refers to people as “earthlings”, it creeps me out. I always thought he acted a little above it all but this is too much.

If mankind already ruined the earth, then how will “mankind” be able to ruin it again now?

What about these space-travel-vehicles? Perhaps drbhelthi will share with us whether he has one himself, or what he plans to do with it during his next visit to earth.

THE WAY THE WORLD TURNS

Win lose or draw… War or peace… rebellion or supression… it matters not in the empty space of the universe we know affectionately as “drbhelthi”, because to him nothing is ever the fault of the helpless little darlings upon the ruined earth, which they are about to uhh… ruin some more.

Instead, all this ruin, both versions in fact, not only that but everything else, is the fault of the alien “Greys” which is the same as “Hitler”, which drbhelthi finally crystalizes into “GHWBushSr”!

MY POINT

drbhelthi is Truthdig comedy at its finest.

hello. back on topic, scorch and burn, and put foot
soldiers on the ground, and begin the rebuilding
under secure conditions: whereby overpaid contractors
will not be killed. profit. as for the CIA remarks,
it is no right of ours to subvert other governments.
all those weak brains thinking if we do not, they
will come here: should join the National Guard. our
CIA belongs in our country, and as a global
intelligence gathering agency for our defense, and
not engaging in covert political manipulations, to
acquire another country’s resources. functioning as
gangsters is not their charter. if those people
really believing we have to get them before they get
us would just back away from the joystick and talk to
their neighbors, we would have all the information we
need. stop believing in killing. i have been baiting
for all the murderous rogues to get on board, but
they must be preoccupied tuned into CNN for exploding
missile footage. this is a national sickness of
elderly career kiss butts wanting their promised
share, and the promise has to be broken. there are
better things to spend money on than killing peoples.
vote all the incumbent Republicants out of office.

Well, here’s my humbly educated take on the Libyan issue! Putting aside the long-term issues of neocolonialism that the former colonial powers will always play, there is a more immediate material benefit that comes in the form of cash and weapon sales in the troubled waters of Libya.

Let me explain! Libya is reported to have huge billions of dollars deposited in the banks of Western countries, now known the No-Fly Coalition. Though only an omniscient-God, will ever know the actual numbers, it has been reported that a sum of 30 billion have been frozen in the US alone. What will happen to these billions regardless of whether Qaddafi stays in power or the opposition wins?! Okay, if Qaddafi wins and he stays in power, the Western powers will freeze and eventually appropriate these billions. However, if the opposition wins, with the so-called help of the Coalition Powers, then these billions will be billed against the cost the coalition spent on their military operations as well as against rebuilding the military infrastructure of Libya for the new regime.

In any case, the Libyan people at large will be the immediate losers, and large sums of Libyan money will be recycled in the military-industrial complexes of the neocolonialists!

Another sad chapter in the annals of the merchants of death and destruction!!!

In WWII the Nazis launched the VI terror bomb, an unmanned guided plane-like missile. Plainly the precursor to our brave Tomahawks and more..

This is a good link showing some of the direct use of Nazi tech in developing our own terror weapons:
http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/sub/marshwvr.htm

American exceptionalism!

Adios.

To Lafayette: YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE!!!

To Lafayette…

You have still failed to provide a “tribal” analysis of the west ie the labor disputes in Wisconsin!!!

THE WAY THE WORLD TURNS

BBF: There is no talk in the board rooms or the corridors of Washington about intervening to help the people of Kuwait, Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain overthrow their dictators.

And why should there be? Were these autocrat leaders killing their own people by the hundreds, digging their graves in the middle of the desert at midnight burying people never to be heard from again by their relatives?

There is a magnitude of difference between the Gaddafi Guys and the other autocrats of the Middle East. And a quick glance at the investigations of the International Criminal Court indicate why.

We supported the Kosovars and Serbian Muslims when they were being massacred by the Orthodox Serbs. Why should we not show the same concern for the rebel Libyans?

And why is it that people think that because a movement is a CIA front that it does not deserve support? Where’s your reasoning there?

Or are you making an inappropriate amalgam of painting all such fronts as illicit because, of course, they are puppets of the CIA so they therefore must be illegitimate.

Why do people think the CIA can control and manipulate everything? So much of their work has proven inept in past years, it is perhaps wise to be more circumspect about the CIA’s supposed competencies.

Besides, every nation has a CIA for an obvious reason: The nation that does not have one is in dire straights vis-a-vis the others.

I don’t like that, you don’t like it, nobody likes it. But that is the way the world turns.

EZ: It seems to me like the word “tribal” is being used far too liberally and as a dismissive term.

In the US, yes, it is used too liberally and incorrectly. Besides, if applied where it should, to the Indian Nations, most Americans would wonder if they are being “politically correct”.

I guess some employ the word incorrectly but pejoratively.

But the word does apply to Muslim Cultures. They still have both a tribal and religious delineations, which, I suggest, limits their ability to create parliamentary democracies. People will vote for tribal candidates because they figure the candidates in their government functions will somehow show preference to those of their tribe. Unfortunately, they do.

Which is possibly why the Muslim Brotherhood
was created in the first half of the last century (in Egypt, I think) to bridge the delineations.

The Libyan people are suffering from the same high prices and unemployment that underlie the rebellions elsewhere and that flow from the worldwide capitalist economic crisis.

There can be no doubt that the struggle sweeping the Arab world for political freedom and economic justice has also struck a chord in Libya. There can be no doubt that discontent with the Gadhafi regime is motivating a significant section of the population.

However, it is important for progressives to know that many of the people being promoted in the West as leaders of the opposition are long-time agents of the US. The BBC on Feb. 22 showed footage of crowds in Benghazi pulling down the green flag of the republic and replacing it with the flag of the overthrown monarch King Idris - who had been a puppet of U.S. and British.

The Western media are basing a great deal of their reporting on supposed facts provided by the exile group National Front for the Salvation of Libya, which was trained and financed by the U.S. CIA. Google the front’s name plus CIA and you will find hundreds of references.

The Wall Street Journal in a Feb. 23 editorial wrote that “The U.S. and Europe should help Libyans overthrow the Gadhafi regime.” There is no talk in the board rooms or the corridors of Washington about intervening to help the people of Kuwait, Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain overthrow their dictators.

There was no talk of U.S. intervention to help the Palestinian people of Gaza when thousands died from being blockaded, bombed and invaded by Israel. Just the opposite. The U.S. intervened to prevent condemnation of the Zionist settler state.

The US and European interest in Libya is not hard to find. Bloomberg.com wrote on Feb. 22 that while Libya is Africa’s third-largest producer of oil, it has the continent’s largest proven reserves - 44.3 billion barrels. It is a country with a relatively small population but the potential to produce huge profits for the giant oil companies. That’s how the super-rich look at it, and that’s what underlies their professed concern for the people’s democratic rights in Libya.

I would like to see a “tribal” analysis of the current labor disputes in the U.S.

It seems to me like the word “tribal” is being used far too liberally and as a dismissive term. Why not say “primitive” or “backwards” ???

HUNKER DOWN

What do they do now?

They do what they are doing now. They are keeping Ghadafy’s forces holed up in the cities and hunkered down. To the point where, to avoid anti-tank missiles, they have placed civilians around them.

Keeping the mercenaries and Libyan Army (that of it which has not deserted) in the towns east of Tripoli is necessary in order to restructure the rebel army and perhaps get to them some ground-launched anti-tank weapons.

The rebels are a rag-tag army of overly enthusiastic teen-agers who rush down the road (in Toyota pickups and cars) towards a standing army, which then shoots off a round, and then they rush back up the road. They have little leadership and no coordination whatsoever. They could never defeat a regular army.

So the question is, “How regular is the mercenary force under Ghadafy’s son?” Mercenaries typically are brought in for immediate tactics and not a long drawn-out war. After all, they have only one loyalty – BigBucks. If that ever runs out, they will dissipate like the morning dew - and even before if they figure they are sitting ducks.

Nor do they have a mandate to overturn the existing government in Libya, install a new one, build democracy, etc.

They don’t need one. The European countries have already descended upon Tunisia in whole and Egypt in part to press onto both countries the rudiments of a parliamentary democracy.

They’ve also opened up the money-bags by means of guaranteed loans offered by the European Investment Bank. And the NGO’s will follow naturally to help reconstruct civil services. Libya wont need the money-loans, however.

In fact, the countries in question, namely Tunisia and Egypt, are at about the same level of economic development as Libya – and without the Oil Money rolling in systematically. So, Libya, when it gets its act together, can start successfully on the long road to redevelopment as well. It’s infrastructure in no way resembles that of most African states on the rest of the continent in or below the Sahara. It is far more advanced.

What is needed most is a couple of military victories that will convince the Ghadafi Guys that their exit is preferable to a less than honorable hanging in a Public Square. Which means they can get back to whoring about European capitals with all the money they’ve stashed away in those accounts.

(I kid you not; these guys are “regulars” at Parisian and Geneva brothels. And Daddy used to attend Berlusconi’s Bunga-Bunga parties in the latter’s villa north of Milan. How do I know all this? Easy, it’s been in the press.)

MY POINT

Parliamentary democracy is a learning exercise. We’re still learning in the US ... not how to free ourselves from an Autcracy but a Plutocracy.

Who are we to give the Libyans any lessons?

“No fly” has become regime change, against the UN charter.

No more targets. Go home.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/the-coalition-of-the-conflicted-goes-to-war-in-libya/article1952331/

There is a genuine democratic revolution appearing in North Africa and the Middle East. But as Mr.Pfaff recognizes it must be accomplished by the people of the region themselves. Thus the dilemma. In Libya a brutal dictator is is willing to defend his order my any means necessary, resulting in the necessity of a humanitarian UN supported military action. But the international support and the needs of a truly democratic revolution demand Libyan and not international action. Libyans must develop a capacity to say more than yes or no to the dictator, something that is central to democratic transition (see http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/01/transition-to-democracy-in-the-arab-world/),but war doesn’t provide the time or place for this to happen. This suggests that post-Qaddafi Libya will not be pretty.

Gadhafy could have remained had he agreed to permit Rockefeller-Halliburton types to take over Lybia´s oil industry.  However, he insisted on continuing to use profits to maintain the existing social level of Lybian folk.  We see what happens to leaders who say NO to the GHWBushSr entourage.

Since the “Greys” and the “Aryans” (as tagged by Hitler) are aware
of the inhumanity of mankind, passing their space vehicles and
armament to “earthlings” was a slow, but sure way of “weeding out”
humanity on earth. No need to do the destruction themselves.

But now that “earthlings” have the space-travel-vehicles, how do
they plan to prevent “mankind” from ruining their habitats, as
mankind has ruined the earth ?

The Arab countries that have been under siege by the West for so long have
governed themselves in ways which have allowed them to survive. They
basically trust their family and tribal relationships for better or worse. There
hasn’t been any incentive for them to embrace anything else. The West has
brought them exploitation, death and confusion. So they have a right to decide on
their own how to settle their disputes, how to handle foreign relations, and
what to do with their oil and other resources.

The only way the US and other powerful countries have been able to control nations for economic or strategic purposes is to aggressively crush any
aspirations the citizens may have to choose the way they want to govern
themselves. This has been all along the key ingredient in the recipe for
domination.

The US population continues to elect and support leaders who pursue this
policy of aggression which has already produced great human and economic
loss here at home and abroad.  This country is getting weaker and weaker all the
time.  But there’s still widespread belief in the profiteering gurus who keep saying “you can have everything you want and you can be anything you want to be” while never mentioning the price.

hello. let’s nuke Tripoli. we can crater out the
entire Mediterranean shoreline, and in time Seafaring
Cruises can rebuild a modern, democratic, European
winter wonderland, in conjunction with Mouse Resorts-
with free gasoline for the kiddies. we can give
Europe their own megatropolis sand castle, with
rotating solar skyscrapers, and artificial island
floating city docks. start carpet bombing, and use
bunker busters, and drop kegs of plastic explosives,
and launch missiles from undisclosed locations, and
level the the whole coastline. get it done this week,
we have other countries to destroy.

Now what? Well, now we buckle down to decades of supporting our new Mediterranean fleet’s Tomahawking of Moammar’s tent/privies, and eliminating school lunch programs and vaccinations for children, and health care for our veterans of foreign wars to pay for it all.

The signs of fanaticism are all evident in US policy:

presumption of superiority  
fear of differences among cultures
endless aggrandizement of military power
centralization of political power
disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes
crimes against humanity such as official torture
stubborn ignoring or moral values
use of propaganda,limits on freedom of information
inability to be flexible, persisting in failure

“Far from being the terrorists of the world, the
Islamic peoples have been its victims, principally
the victims of U.S. fundamentalism, whose power, in
all its forms-military, strategic, and economic-is
the greatest source of terrorism on Earth…. People
are neither still nor stupid. They see their
independence compromised, their resources and land
and the lives of their children taken away, and their
accusing fingers increasingly point north: to the
great enclaves of plunder and privilege. Inevitably,
terror breeds terror and more fanaticism. But how
patient the oppressed have been.”
(John Pilger)

You’d be a fool to think the CIA and USAID were not
behind this “popular” uprising.

Presenting George Kennan as anything other than a
psychotic sycophant insults the intelligence.  Using
his pretzel logic as a basis for any objective
analysis stretches credulity past the breaking point.

The author has swallowed hook, line, and sinker
Western presumptions and the beatific myth that tells
us the stench of empire and colonialism is okay as
long as we are doing the shitting on others.  The
author presents all the elements of the self-
aggrandizing line, disappointingly leaving any real
critique to the imagination of others.  No wonder he
has a column.  He sticks to the well-tread excuses
empire always trots out on such occasions when their
corporate mouths begin to water and they smell blood
in the water. 

The real war, as ever, is to convince the American
people that they are virtuous and democratic and free
and peaceful, despite the mountains of evidence to
the contrary that gets more cover stories and
“justifications” heaped upon it by the hour, while
the brutality of neo-colonialism and capital
exploitation carries on.

The self-important quote -Western democratic -
unquote- nations (news flash: top-down, elite and
corporate rule is not a democracy!) absolutely DO NOT
have a right to ask of other countries that they
observe “minimum standards of civilized diplomatic
intercourse.”  The US doesn’t observe any such
restrictions.  NATO doesn’t. The hypocrisy is
stunning.  It is not Ghadafi that has consistently
behaved uncivilized.  He has not invaded sovereign
countries at every whim, as has the US throughout its
history. He has not overthrown democracies by the
handful.  He did not starve the hundreds of thousands
of children in Iraq.  He did not provide arms to
Saddam to kill his own people with. He did not send
his people to die in wars based on a false-flag
operation. He does not run a School of the Americans
to train international terrorists.  Western
“diplomacy” is a boot in your face.  It is as much a
facade as the oligarchs concern for the rule of law
or human rights violations, or indeed democratic
rule. The majority of the US citizenry is against
these wars, disagrees with the torture policies
emanating from the White House, but the will of the
majority is perpetually ignored, the truth of what
the oligarchs are up to perpetually hidden. NATO and
fighter jets are not the Peace Corps. The US
Department of War is not a humanitarian interest
group.  Ghadafi’s alleged crimes are peanuts against
what our staunch allies perpetrate, and none of them
hold a candle to what we’ve done, in far greater
magnitude, to far greater numbers.  The Western
oligarchy seeks to destroy so that it can then will
send in the NeoCon vultures to privatize and steal
everything that isn’t nailed down nice and “legal”.

It is far past time for regime change in the lawless
US. Civilized? The West doesn’t know the meaning of
the word.  Democracy? Human Rights? The West’s
journalists would do us all a favor by just saving us
the trouble and report the official propaganda in its
original German.