War just never seems to be far away from the U.S., we just love to either create or go into protracted conflicts just for the heck of it sometimes. Its funny how we only "intervene" when it suits our national interests, for the the so-called "American people," a phrase always used by the suits to drum up supports but always forgotten. We are so far away from what good `ol Abe Lincoln had said, "a government of the people, by the people and for the people."
Whenever a conflict brews, stirs or blows up, we always think about our national interests first at the cost of civilians or the so-called "people." What`s happening in the middle-east right now is a godsend for the people to finally take back control for themselves but the powers at be won`t ever let that happen. From the deposed leaders of Tunisia and Egypt, the U.S.-backed strongmen are gone but new U.S.-backed strongmen will "emerge" to take the spotlight and "lead the people." What the population of the countries where revolution for true change is occurring should realize, is that true leadership must come from within the population taking part in the revolution or consensus of the people, it is only that person that truly understands their country, their people, not some outside dissident who spends his time in Europe or the U.S., their family living abroad in the lap of luxury and etc. Just for example, the revolution in Egypt was spearheaded by the younger class but coalesced into the general population. Weeks afterward, you have the expatriates and dissidents come and try to "lead" the revolution in the hopes of becoming president of the Egypt. For a time, the news networks just couldn`t get enough about Mohammed El-Baradei, former head of the IAEA, because this was a man who the West knew, likes and probably had contacts when he was chief of the IAEA for "special" assignments, missions, documents...etc. and was trying to make him the face of the revolution. Another guy, Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League has aspirations to be president of Egypt as well and again known by the West and off course has extensive contacts through our State Dept. diplomatic core and a favorite to land the job by the standards of our government.
I`ve never a time when heads of state can just call for the ouster of other heads of state with a drop of a dime. As if theres no judge or jury, just the executioner. Now routinely in our culture we just call for the immediate ouster of leaders and even assassinate. I`m ashamed of my fellow people, people who are well-educated journalists, commentators, analysts, talk-show hosts, government officials...etc who openly now call for assassinations or "taking-out" of world leaders. Who could of thought it would all come to this? (John Bolton calls for killing Gadhafi)
Just a brain teaser - lets suppose China, largest holder of U.S. debt, decides America is spiraling out of control both economically and politically and calls for the ouster of the president or government because they can`t effectively govern the country and is a risk to the trillions of dollars China holds in U.S. treasury bonds. Does China have a valid reason to hold the president accountable and call for his release or ouster because it threatens China`s "interests?" Put America in China`s shoes in this context and this is whats going on in the world.
The situation in Libya is dire. On one side our President Obama proclaims its U.S. policy for Col. Gadhafi to go but U.N. policy not so. I don`t know if there is any other bigger blunder than coming from our president. Is our nation the U.S. greater than the U.N. or the rest of the world, if so then why do we even have the U.N. in place? They don`t want an "American" face to the mission and will take a back seat it, I mean really? We all know America is going to be calling the shots and dictating what occurs and what the so-called endgame is. Here we had a guy (Col. Gadhafi) who the whole world "courted" to get lucrative billion-dollar contracts and basically propped-up him and his regime. Now all of a sudden, because of a civil war brewing we are going to intervene because civilians are dead and now he`s fallen out of favor and must go. Killing of any civilians is unjustified and heinous but what about other places where its documented cases of genocide occurring, like Uganda, Nigeria, Chad and Sudan. The world did nothing when the injustices in Sudan were happening, no intervention no nothing. Now all of a sudden "its about protecting the people" and you immediately "enforce a no-fly zone" and start strategically bombing the country so you cripple it just like Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Its funny President Obama has voiced there will be no "boots" on the ground in Libya, but little do people on the outside know there are various ground personnel already in Libya calling in precision-guided air strikes on high-value and strategic targets. When the targets are taken ut oand rendered no threat, attention will immediately turn to the leader and eventually Gadhafi will be taken out, either one way or another. You are not going to be conducting this type of mission and leave the leader in place-everybody knows and its only a matter of time. Also there are teams of soldiers already there and on their way to Libya "for support of humanitarian reasons."
Also, the U.S. as well as other nations are clamoring for Gadhafi to get indicted for war crimes and stand trial in the International Criminal Court (ICC - the same court the U.S. does not recognize but on a drop of dime will push for someone to stand trial in) will not happen in my idea as well as not for Zine bel-Abedin nor Mubarak, because they will divulge secrets and implicate world leaders and governments who have been propping them up for the last 30-40 years. This would be a huge disaster with great implications. The U.S. already has a tarnished image around the world because we in fact act like an overgrown bully, stiff-arming other people to have it only our way or its the highway. With already two disastrous wars ongoing and now entering and spearing the Libyan conflict, I don`t how we can sustain this until we say enough is enough-but most people have been coerced into seeing and believing its "really about the people." Yeah really the people are so important all of a sudden, I guess they weren`t too important when the "all you can eat" lucrative billion-dollar contracts were being signed and doled out while the people were still suffering and dying. Only when the cameras are rolling, oh now we have to do something. Its plausible to think as well that getting the free oil we thought we would get from Iraq didn`t pan out, hey next stop, lets get it from Libya.
In the end its the people who suffer both ways from any outcome. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq after more than 10 years of war, are there lives any better than when we "intervened" for the sake of bringing peace and freedom. Just go ask the people, and I mean the real people of the country, not the ones the camera gets who are polished individuals.
Watch RT`s commentary by Keith Harmon Snow on Why Libya being attacked now: Why Libya? `Oil, gold, uranium, weapons test mean long conflict in U.S. plans`
No comments:
Post a Comment