Obama's Wars: Malalai Joya "Kill Teams" Typical Of U.S. Aggression & Racism in Afghanistan Occupation

I must report that Afghans do not believe this to be a story of a few rogue soldiers. We believe that the brutal actions of these "kill teams" reveal the aggression and racism which is part and parcel of the entire military occupation. While these photos are new, the murder of innocents is not. Such crimes have sparked many protests in Afghanistan and have sharply raised anti-American sentiment among ordinary Afghans.

    ...Successive US officials have said that they will     safeguard civilians and that they will be more careful, but in fact they are only more careful in their efforts to cover up their crimes and suppress reporting of them.  Malalai Joya March 30, 2011 Guardian UK.

Dishonest journalists fuel war propaganda
Russia TV March 29, 2011.

"It's impossible to be an independend journalist in a conflict zone," Keith Harmon Snow, a veteran war correspondent said speaking on Libya. He explained many journalists in conflict zones are not honest about the war, because to tell thruth they have to consider who they are working with. It is hard to tell a story that looks bad for coalition forces when you are living with and protected by coalition forces, he said."



If Malalai Joya is right most Americans having demonized and devalued the lives of the Afghan people will pay little attention to the photos taken by so called "Kill Teams" since the killing of civilians in Afghanistan is rather low on the US governemtn or publics lists of concerns.

as for the legitimacy and morality of the continuing occupation and war in Afghanistan Afghan activists Malalai Joya says the Afghan people are fed up with this war and believe the US and NATO occupation forces operating in Afghanistan are just fueling the hatred and the the cycle of violence .
Will the war end only when there are no Afghans left alive to fight the occupation.

Kill Teams in Afghanistan: The Truth: These disgusting photos of murdered Afghans reveal the aggression and racism underpinning the occupation of my country by Malalai Joya Guardiaqn UK via CommonDreams

  The disgusting and heartbreaking photos published last week in the German media, and more recently in Rolling Stone magazine, are finally bringing the grisly truth about the war in Afghanistan to a wider public. All the PR about this war being about democracy and human rights melts into thin air with the pictures of US soldiers posing with the dead and mutilated bodies of innocent Afghan civilians.

I must report that Afghans do not believe this to be a story of a few rogue soldiers. We believe that the brutal actions of these "kill teams" reveal the aggression and racism which is part and parcel of the entire military occupation. While these photos are new, the murder of innocents is not. Such crimes have sparked many protests in Afghanistan and have sharply raised anti-American sentiment among ordinary Afghans.
I am not surprised that the mainstream media in the US has been reluctant to publish these images of the soldiers who made sport out of murdering Afghans. General Petraeus, now in charge of the American-led occupation, is said to place great importance on the "information war" for public opinion – and there is a concerted effort to keep the reality of Afghanistan out of sight in the US.
Last week my initial application for a US entry visa was turned down, and so my book tour was delayed while supporters demanded my right to enter the country. The American government was pressed to relent and allow my visit to go ahead. Ultimately it too will be unable to block out the truth about the war in Afghanistan.

The "kill team" images will come as a shock to many outside Afghanistan but not to us. We have seen countless incidents of American and Nato forces killing innocent people like birds. For instance, they recently killed nine children in Kunar Province who were collecting firewood. In February this year they killed 65 innocent villagers, most of them women and children. In this case, as in many others, Nato claimed that they had only killed insurgents, even though local authorities acknowledged that the victims were civilians. To prevent the facts coming out they even arrested two journalists from al-Jazeera who attempted to visit and report from the site of the massacre.
Successive US officials have said that they will safeguard civilians and that they will be more careful, but in fact they are only more careful in their efforts to cover up their crimes and suppress reporting of them. The US and Nato, along with the office of the UN's assistance mission in Afghanistan, usually give statistics about civilian deaths that underestimate the numbers. The reality is that President Obama's so-called surge has only led to a surge of violence from all sides, and civilian deaths have increased.
The occupying armies have tried to buy off the families of their victims, offering $2,000 for each one killed. Afghans' lives are cheap for the US and Nato, but no matter how much they offer, we don't want their blood money.

Obama Tries, Without Success, To Explain An Undeclared War
by John Nichols at The Nation via CommonDreams.org, March 29, 2011

President Obama finally got around to speaking to the American people about the fact that he has led the country into a third war.

Unfortunately, he also spoke about how he had initiated the way on his own: "I ordered warships into the Mediterranean." I refused to let that happen." "I authorized military action..." "At my direction..."

The problem is that presidents are not supposed to start wars, especially wars of whim that are offensive rather than defensive in nature. That was the complaint against George W. Bush when he failed to obtain a declaration of war before ordering the invasion of Iraq, that is the ongoing complaint against Obama for maintaining the undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is the legitimate and necessary complaint against Obama now, a complaint that should come not just opponents of the military intervention but supporters who want that intervention to be lawful and legitimate.

The president did not address the fact that the Libyan adventure is an undeclared war. In fact, he barely mentioned the Congress that is supposed to declare wars, saying only: "And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973."

But the Constitution does not discuss "consulting the bipartisan leadership..." It says that: "Congress shall have the power... to declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
That was the point that Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, made with regard to the speech.
-----------

While Obama has set the stage for another US war he has done little to turn the tide as it were in Afghanistan where the US & NATO forces are bogged down with no real exit strategy.

Obama 's exit strategy from Afghanistan goes into effect once AlQaeda and other terrorists are defeated, and when there is a stable democratic government , when the War Lords and Drug Lords and the Taliban are defeated or when Afghanistan is no longer dependent upon the production of opium. Possibly the USA will leave when they too like Soviets before them did when they finally realized there was no easy winning in sight and that the costs were undermining the Soviet economy and its political stability .
But then again this is where the USA created a situation which later they would be forced to pay for.
The USA unwilling to leave well enough alone jumped in with both feet during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in order to weaken the Soviets and destroy the USSR and so help to create the mess that exists in Afghanistan , Pakistan , Uzbekistan , Hindu Kush etc.

"Only Thing Clear About Obama's Afghan Policy: It's a Disaster" by Ray McGovern CommonDreams.org , March 29, 2011

Pleasing the Establishment

Instead, in his March 2009 speech – and the one on Dec. 1, 2009, at West Point announcing the additional troop buildup – Obama was following the interests of the pro-war political/media Establishment that still dominates Washington. It remains almost as influential inside his administration as it was inside Bush’s.

Hoping to assuage this Establishment, which was a touch nervous by all his campaign talk about “change,” Obama offered continuity, from keeping Defense Secretary Gates and the rest of Bush’s Pentagon high command to appointing another hawkish Secretary of State, Clinton for Condoleezza Rice.

Meanwhile, Washington policymakers and intellectuals who had gotten on Bush’s wrong side for raising doubts about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were just as unwelcome in the Obama administration.

For instance, there was the case of Paul Pillar, deputy chief of the counterterrorist center at CIA in the late 1990s, who from 2000 to 2005 held a very senior position as National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia. He is now director of graduate studies at Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program.

Pillar’s mild manner cannot obscure the razor sharp judgments that made him a bête noire of the Bush crowd after he retired. But he remains as much of an outsider under Obama.

On Sept. 16, 2009, before the White House decisions on Obama’s second escalation, Pillar wrote an incisive op-ed for the Washington Post, entitled “Who’s Afraid of a Terrorist Haven?”

Pillar noted that the key operations for the 9/11 attacks took place in Germany, Spain, and flight schools in the U.S. — NOT in the al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. And he observed that, today, terrorists can now choose among several unstable countries besides Afghanistan and U.S. forces cannot secure them all.

----

And another criticism is that while the USA is supporting the uprising against Qaddafi in Libya the US government is still defending the crack down on citizens protesting in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia etc. and at the same time refuses to criticize the Saudi invasion of Bahrain ostensibly to quell the uprising there.
The Saudi's claim as does Qaddafi and other regimes facing uprisings that the protest are being fueled by outside agitators such as AlQaeda, Shia radicals, Iranians or even the Israelis or the CIA . It couldn't be that those nations friendly to the USA could be capable of doing anything wrong, untoward let alone criminal. Either Obama , Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates are just lying and know better or are delusional and mistrust anything Qaddafi says while trusting the Saudi Royal Family and that of Bahrain and of course Israel.

It is troublesome to say the least that not just NATO, the Arab League but the USA has also once again used the United Nations in dragging other Western nations into another undeclared war.
The United Nations has become America's toady, quisling (bitch) and is fearful to oppose US imperialism.

And as has been pointed out the USA is no longer in a position to preach about ethics, morality or human rights or to dare even to make accusations about human rights abuse or War Crimes and Crimes against humanity.

Being a state which approves of torture and abuse of prisoners (POWs or terrorist suspects)or even a Whistleblower such as Bradley Manning and arresting people for protesting about his ill treatment in prison while the US government is still spying on millions of its own citizens via telephones, Internet Social Media etc.
Obama insists he has the right to even shut down the internet if he feels like it.
He has also decided that Miranda Rights can be done away with .
He of course also refuses to even question the criminal activities and war crimes committed by the previous Bush administration or by the US armed forces, special operations, CIA, FBI , Homeland Security and so on .

But the Saudi military is killing unarmed civilians indiscriminately and cracking down on any public gatherings and beating, incarcerating any who in any way criticize the government of Bahrain. While the Saudis in their own nation have made protests, demonstrations and gatherings and any anti-government activities including speech or in the press illegal.
And yet Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates make excuses for the brutal anti-democratic actions of their friends that is the Saudi government and that of Bahrain and Yemen etc.
It appears that if a nations government is pro USA or pro-Saudi Arabia they are then exempt from any real condemnations or threats of actions to be taken against them.

And as Malalai Joya has pointed out the Obama administration just like the Bush administration have ignored large anti-Karzai and anti-American protests and demonstrations in Afghanistan.
And we can add to this protests taking place in Iraq, Syria, Morocco, the Ivory Coast are also either ignored or are branded as being the work of anti-American Islamists or even members of AlQaeda . As even Obama admitted there maybe some unsavory elements among the uprising in Libya but that does not mean that all these protesters, dissidents and rebels should be abandoned.
So why can't he use the same reasoning in dealing with these other nations.

So as Mark Levine points out the Obama administration has done little to stop the abuses by the government of Bahrain or of its partner in crime Saudi Arabia.

So Obama and Hillary Clinton's self-righteousness and faux outrage doesn't play well in the Middle East and North Africa as other countries and their citizens are also being beaten, abused and silenced by their rulers as in Bahrain and Yemen and so on.

The USA and United Nations and the EU and Nato have no comment when the Bahrain or Saudi airforce drops bombs on schools and hospitals or refuses medical treatment to the injured and wounded and the dying.
That's Okay according to President Obama and other gutless leaders in the West and the Middle East and so on.

And when protesters in Gaza are beaten by Hamas thugs the US will shed big wet tears as if they cared about the destitute people of Gaza.
 When the UN and other international bodies have called for investigations into alleged War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity committed by Israel's IDF the US does all in its power to make sure such unbiased investigations never take place.

When Islamist blow up hospitals or schools it is a crime when Israel or some other American ally or American forces do the same thing they did so out of necessity ie the terrorists or insurgents were using civilians as human shields

The West's 'double standards' in Middle East
Support for Bahraini government's crackdown on protests is a paradox as West supports Libyan rebels, activist argues. by Mark Levine, March 28, 2011

One Month into the uprising in Bahrain, the warnings of last fall have come to fruition. Bahrain has returned to absolutist rule, with the King declaring martial law a few days after the Saudis entered the country. 

Aside from violently clearing out and even destroying Pearl Roundabout, the symbol of the protests, the crackdown has been noticeable for three factors.

The first is the fact that the government forces have taken over hospitals and prevented them from being used by injured protesters.

This move is clearly a violation of international human rights law, but it had the intended effect: major protests leaders have decided that further large scale protests were to dangerous to hold, considering that people shot or otherwise harmed by government forces would not be able to receive medical attention, likely leading to an unacceptably high number of deaths.

Second, the government has attempted to arrest leading human rights and pro-democracy activists, with the goal of silencing those with the best ability to document ongoing abuses and relay the information to the outside world.

Finally, the United States and other Western countries have clearly thrown their support behind the government, refusing to go beyond mild rebukes against the government-initiated violence, even though they have thrown their full military weight behind the Libyan rebels.
"This is the situation we're facing," explained Nabeel Rajab, President of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.

"We are not only facing a regime and neighbouring powers, but American influence as well. They either do not want to see change or only slight changes that do not give people real democracy because the monarchy might lose power. Everyone sees the US double standards very clearly now. They see Gaddafi hitting people and the US strike back. But here they even bring in foreign armies who don't believe in democracy and killing people on streets and the US does nothing. It is a big mistake the Americans are making, losing people, losing the faith of the streets."

Rajab has good reason to be angry, although he speaks with an equanimity utterly at odds with the fact that only days before we talked he had been arrested, beaten and threatened with death by security forces.

"They came at 1 am at night and knocked on my door, then my father's door and by the time I came downstairs after my wife called me, they already broke into my father's house and almost broke into mine. 25 masked men in civilian dress came in and she thought they were mercenaries coming to assassinate me. But I saw the government cars outside the window. I asked if they would wait till I took my sleeping daughter out of our bedroom before searching it but they burst in and she woke up to them and me handcuffed. They took everyone's laptops and cartons of papers, blindfolded me and pushed me into the back of a four-wheel drive car.

"And the moment I was in a car they started treating me worse. They started using sectarian abuse, saying I'm Shia, and then started beating me in the car while saying things like: 'we will rape you and kill you now'. They seemed to be looking for other activists but did not find them and ultimately they took me in another car to the Investigation Directorate of the Ministry of Interior. A senior agent asked me if I knew someone with a gun, and I replied that I did not and that I do not know anyone with a gun and believe we should not use guns because the protests. And with that, the man told the other agents to give me my things and take me back home."

--------------


Phyllis Bennis argues that support for intervention in Libya is dwindling in part because the intervention is already going beyond what were supposed to be its narrow parameters ie no fly zone that is not allowing Qaddafi's forces to use air power against the rebels and innocent civilians.
Instead already we know that CIA special ops personnel are on the ground with the rebels and the American military strikes have gone beyond that of its stated goal of defending civilian populations and that there is talk about overtly or covertly arming the Rebels and insurgents.


Libya intervention threatens the Arab spring: Despite its official UN-granted legality, the credibility of Western military action in Libya is rapidly dwindling.by Phyliss Bennis, at AlJazeera, March 22, 2011

Western air and naval strikes against Libya are threatening the Arab Spring.

Ironically, one of the reasons many people supported the call for a no-fly zone was the fear that if Gaddafi managed to crush the Libyan people's uprising and remain in power, it would send a devastating message to other Arab dictators: Use enough military force and you will keep your job.

Instead, it turns out that just the opposite may be the result: It was after the UN passed its no-fly zone and use-of-force resolution, and just as US, British, French and other warplanes and warships launched their attacks against Libya, that other Arab regimes escalated their crack-down on their own democratic movements.

In Yemen, 52 unarmed protesters were killed and more than 200 wounded on Friday by forces of the US-backed and US-armed government of Ali Abdullah Saleh. It was the bloodiest day of the month-long Yemeni uprising. President Obama "strongly condemned" the attacks and called on Saleh to "allow demonstrations to take place peacefully".

But while a number of Saleh's government officials resigned in protest, there was no talk from Saleh's US backers of real accountability, of a travel ban or asset freeze, not even of slowing the financial and military aid flowing into Yemen in the name of fighting terrorism.

Similarly in US-allied Bahrain, home of the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, at least 13 civilians have been killed by government forces. Since the March 15 arrival of 1,500 foreign troops from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, brought in to protect the absolute power of the king of Bahrain, 63 people have been reported missing.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said: "We have made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing Bahrain. Violence is not the answer, a political process is."

But she never demanded that foreign troops leave Bahrain, let alone threatened a no-fly zone or targeted air strikes to stop their attacks.

Legality vs. legitimacy

Despite its official UN-granted legality, the credibility and legitimacy of Western military action is dwindling rapidly, even in key diplomatic circles. For the Western alliance, and most especially for the Obama administration, support from the Arab League was a critical prerequisite to approving the military intervention in Libya.

The League's actual resolution, passed just a couple of days before the UN Security Council vote, approved a far narrower military option - essentially only a no-fly zone, with a number of stated cautions against any direct foreign intervention.

Of course, a no-fly zone is foreign intervention, whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, but it is not surprising that the Arab League's approval was hesitant - it is, after all, composed of the exact same leaders who are facing inchoate or massive challenges to their ruling power at home. Supporting the attack on a fellow dictator - oops, sorry, a fellow Arab ruler - was never going to be easy.

And as soon as the air strikes began in Libya, Arab League chief Amr Moussa immediately criticised the Western military assault. Some commentators noted the likelihood that Arab governments were pressuring Moussa out of fear of Libyan terror attacks in their country; I believe it is more likely that Arab leaders fear popular opposition, already challenging their rule, will escalate as Libyan deaths rise.

and so it goes,
GORD.

What exactly is a "Limited War?" Libya another Iraq???

President Obama Defends Yemen Government As it Continues to Kill Protesters

caption"Controversy has built around a proposal to bring dozens of Saudi pilots to an Idaho training facility to learn how to pilot F-15E Strike Eagles, 84 of which Saudi Arabia is purchasing in a new arms deal"[GALLO/GETTY]from article in AlJazeera  below. 

Unbelievable but true the USA as part of its insensitivity to the Arab street is helping out poor little Saudi  Arabia- it is a rich country populated by the oppressed and hungry. Trillions spent on USA weapons and trips to France to drink gamble and womanize-fun guys

US providing more high tech weaponry and technical training to the Pro-Wahhabi Saudi Arabian Regime.
This is just quid pro quo for the Saudis for allowing the American Empire to have permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia.

Wasn't that one of Ossam Bin Laden's excuses for his terrorist attacks that the infidel /Kafir Americans were permitted to set up military bases in the Islamic holy land that is after all where Mecca and Medina the wo holiest cities in Islam apart from Jerusalem.

according to some observers the Saudis don't use most of the weapons they have bought from the US because they are afraid if their milirary and airforce had access to all of these weapons they could pose a threat to the Monarchy

Others are also concerned that the Saudis will use their knowledge, technical training with such powerful armaments on their own people especially the Shiite minority and any dissidents.
The Saudis the last couple of weeks have been using their military training and American made hardware in Bahrain to crush the popular uprising there with US & Israeli approval .
So is that part of the US/Saudi deal that the Saudis will help remove any regimes which are not pro-American including those who actually do want democratic reform and to have governments which will protect the country's assets to ensure the country as a whole gets some benefits from its assets and not just a super-wealthy anti-democratic corrupt elite.

America's Saudi air war
A plan to train Saudi air force pilots in Idaho is turning former allies into bitter enemies. by Nick Turse at AlJazeera, March 19, 2011

...Last December, amid the holiday rush, the US air force quietly announced that it had selected Mountain Home Air Force Base as the preferred location for the long-term training of a contingent of pilots and flight crews from the Saudi Royal Air Force as part of a $60bn arms deal between the US and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia announced that autumn.
Under the mammoth military package, Saudi Arabia is set to receive 84 new F-15E Strike Eagles - advanced fighter aircraft designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground combat missions. Capable of flying day or night in all weather conditions and reaching speeds in excess of twice the speed of sound, each F-15, packing missiles, bombs and a 20mm cannon, is a formidable weapon.
Under the air force's proposal, Saudi pilots will learn how to fly the advanced fighters at Mountain Home Air Force Base for five years, from 2014 to 2019, with the possibility of a longer commitment left open.
"Facilitating the modernisation of Royal Saudi Air Force aircraft, as well as providing enhanced air crew and maintenance training, would build partner capacity and contribute to the stability of the [Middle East] region," said Heidi Grant, the deputy undersecretary of the air force for international affairs.
While the arrangement has yet to be finalised - the local community, including the Shoshone-Paiute tribes, have yet to weigh in and an environmental impact assessment has to be carried out - the rough plan is for the first Saudis to arrive in the US in late 2013, with their ranks growing over the next year.

And unfortunately this is another example of Obama just continuing with USA gunboat diplomacy though often made through a proxy -Saddam, the Shah, King Abdullah ( and he keeps women in their place Sharia Wahhabi Style -brutal merciless) Pervez Musharaff , or the Bhutto Family dynasty-

( its easy to see why the elite liked her corrupt, rarely spoke the truth stole $ 1.5 Billion - 

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are backing the Yemen government and the Bahrain government and others to ensure their their friendly dictators , mobsters and torturers stay loyal to the trinity of terror USA., Saudi Arabia and Israel.

We should ask each and every day why is the USA concerned about the people of Libya.
And if they cared about human suffering why have they allowed the Israeli army IDF to slaughter so many Palestinians in Gaza. Why do they not speak up when Palestinians or even Israeli Jewish citizens who dare speak out are arrested and beaten and tortured .

Yemen government uses the AlQaeda /Terrorists card in order to brutally crush peaceful protesters

Yemen we are told is a trustworthy partner in the Orwellian or Kafaesque "War on Terror" and therefore they can do what they want-This is just hypocrisy masquerading as policy.

Tragedy strikes amid Yemen lawlessness

March 28, 2011.



Yemen 18 Killed Sanaa




President Obama and his war mongering crowd are up in arms over Qaddafi while in other Middle Eastern and North African nations protesters are being intimidated, beaten and killed-The USA doesn't want to criticize those countries which have invented imaginary AlQaeda terrorists that they hunt down and kill.

Most of their victims are peaceful dissidents but these days they are all put under the umbrella term "Terrorists" as not long ago any who dared threaten authority were deemed to be "Communists" no matter how justified their cause might be.

While the Saudi arrests, beat, torture and kill protesters or any and all critics of the Royal Family the US says "Tut Tut" and makes more arms deals with these thugs dressed up as Kings.
And now the USA finally has in its pocket the United Nations itself no wonder Hillary Clinton appears a bit giddy as she gives a wink and a nod to the Saudis and other illegitimate rulers to fill their streets with the blood of any who dare question the status quo.

And their decision to take out Qaddafi is just part of a bigger game they are setting into action. It is quite comparable to how in the end they betrayed Saddam who for years was one of their loyal tyrants who kept reform and democracy at bay.

The USA and this seems to have been forgotten did nothing well actually they even defended the brutality of Saddam against his own citizens when he was still America's friend.
The CIA had no problem sitting in on torture sessions in Iraq or standing by as Chemical Ali gassed thousands of Kurds.-

Afghanistan Activist Malalai Joya Tells NATO and USA To Stop The Massacres & End The Occupation

Last week I reported that Afghanistan activist Malalai Joya was being refused entry into the USA. She it appears is considered "an Enemy of the State"

Why because even Obama and Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden et al are when it comes down to it are not in favor of free speech which criticizes the USA and especially if the criticism is aimed at the real power structure in America The Military, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the rest of the overinflated over indulged corrupt to the bone Military , Security and Intelligence Complex .
That interconnected elitist group is at the very least eating away at America's last threads of dignity while gorging on Billions of dollar each month and it gets greedier every day.
Those Billions could have been used over the last ten years to overhaul the infrastructure of the USA from schools, Universities,healthcare, roads, highways and built for instance a high speed railway system , built tens of thousands of homes for the homeless or put money into alternative energy projects such as building better Windmills and better solar panels but no Americans prefer to blow stuff up rather than have to deal with complex issues.
That's part of the reason why so many Americans actually pay heed to the likes of Glenn Beck who insist America never apologize even when in the wrong and that America has a divine mission to conquer the world in the name of GE and Westinghouse, Dyncor , Halibuton , BP , Wall Street and God all in the name of greed and the lust for power and to make all the nations of the world to humble themselves before America's Superiority.

America's arrogance and its dismissive attitude towards other nations is beyond the pale and many nations and peoples have suffered and will suffer the consequences of America's hubris.

NATO and the USA claim they are occupying Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons to protect the Afghan civilians and especially women but their occupation is only making things worse.
Without US and NATO support of many of the groups fighting will lose their financial and material support .
The Taliban and other radical groups will loose support once the US and NATO stand down and stop supporting the Puppet Regime and the War Lords ,Drug Lords and other criminals.
But of course she is being naive since the USA is in Afghanistan for its own geopolitical reasons for instance to build some pipelines for oil and gas and to keep an eye on their arch enemy Iran . Even though Iran is not threat to the USA anymore than Iraq or Afghanistan is or was.
The USA as usual just keeps looking for excuses to invade nations to increase its influence as an Empire.
The USA of all nations can no longer consider itself the World' s Morality or Human Rights defenders since the US is in favor of torture and abuse of POWs and is against any international organization or international agreements unless exceptions are made for America.
The Taliban is wrong to abuse and torture but the Americans are not.
The American Empire refuses to call those incarcerated POWs but rather the dubious term "Detainees"
The US including Pres' Obama refuse to accept the designation and treatment of "Child Soldiers" anymore than they are against Child Labor as long as the children are not Americans .
The USA and Pres. Obama uses banned weapons such as cluster bombs , phosphorus and land mines which have beeen banned by a majority of nations.
The USA and Pres. Obama may use the United Nations to provide a dubious legal veneer for its actions otherwise the United Nations is ignored as in the various resolutions passed chastising America's best buddy Israel or various other Rogue Nations.

DemocracyNow! Amy Goodman Interviews Afghanistan activist and former Parliamentarian Malalai Joya
Malalai Joya wants NATO and USA to stop the massacres of innocent people
The average Afghanistans are fighting the Taliban, the War Lords Drug Lords and the Puppet Regime and NATO and the USA.
Part 1.



DemocracyNow! Amy Goodman interviews Malalai Joya Afghanistan Feminist /Activist Part 2.

Obama Newest Appointee Torture Psychologist In Chief Dr. Larry James & USA Supports Dictators, Torturers , Mass Murderers In The Name Of Security

Another shameful act of the Obama regime is the appointment of a psychologist who took part in torture of detainees/POWs at Guantanamo and Abu Ghriab.

Top Bush-era GITMO and Abu Ghraib psychologist is WH's newest appointment by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, March 25, 2011

One of the most intense scandals the field of psychology has faced over the last decade is the involvement of several of its members in enabling Bush's worldwide torture regime. Numerous health professionals worked for the U.S. government to help understand how best to mentally degrade and break down detainees. At the center of that controversy was -- and is -- Dr. Larry James. James, a retired Army colonel, was the Chief Psychologist at Guantanamo in 2003, at the height of the abuses at that camp, and then served in the same position at Abu Ghraib during 2004.

Today, Dr. James circulated an excited email announcing, "with great pride," that he has now been selected to serve on the "White House Task Force entitled Enhancing the Psychological Well-Being of The Military Family." In his new position, he will be meeting at the White House with Michelle Obama and other White House officials on Tuesday.

For his work at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, Dr. James was the subject of two formal ethics complaints in the two states where he is licensed to practice: Louisiana and Ohio. Those complaints -- 50 pages long and full of detailed and well-documented allegations -- were filed by the International Human Rights Clinic of Harvard Law School's Human Rights Program, on behalf of veterans, mental health professionals and others. The complaints detailed how James "was the senior psychologist of the Guantánamo BSCT, a small but influential group of mental health professionals whose job it was to advise on and participate in the interrogations, and to help create an environment designed to break down prisoners."

During his tenure at the prison, boys and men were threatened with rape and death for themselves and their family members; sexually, culturally, and religiously humiliated; forced naked; deprived of sleep; subjected to sensory deprivation, over-stimulation, and extreme isolation; short-shackled into stress positions for hours; and physically assaulted. The evidence indicates that abuse of this kind was systemic, that BSCT health professionals played an integral role in its planning and practice. . . .

Writing in 2009, Law Professor Bill Quigley and Deborah Popowski, a Fellow at the Harvard Law School Human Rights Program, described James' role in this particularly notorious incident:

In 2003, Louisiana psychologist and retired Col. Larry James watched behind a one-way mirror in a US prison camp while an interrogator and three prison guards wrestled a screaming, near-naked man on the floor.

The prisoner had been forced into pink women's panties, lipstick and a wig; the men then pinned the prisoner to the floor in an effort "to outfit him with the matching pink nightgown." As he recounts in his memoir, "Fixing Hell," Dr. James initially chose not to respond. He "opened [his] thermos, poured a cup of coffee, and watched the episode play out, hoping it would take a better turn and not wanting to interfere without good reason ..."

Although he claims to eventually find "good reason" to intervene, the Army colonel never reported the incident or even so much as reprimanded men who had engaged in activities that constituted war crimes.

James treated numerous detainees who were abused, degraded, and tortured, yet never took any steps to stop or even report these incidents

And yet Americans wonder why in so many countries they are hated.
They are not hated for their so-called freedom or human rights but rather for what they have done to the peoples of other nations by commission or omission.
If again and again the US supports one dictator after another sooner or later some people will get fed up with being told that as a people they do not deserve justice, human rights, freedom or that the government should be more concerned about its peoples needs and not just lining their own pockets or acting out their own prejudices and bigotry.
A nation which oppresses its people should be called out on it rather than praised as Obama has done with Saudi Arabia , Syria, Egypt, Bahrain etc.

For example the US ally Uzbekistan uses torture routinely and yet no member of the US government or the US media dare speak the truth.
Even Obama we know has done little to change the way the government, the intelligence and security community along with the CIA, FBI and the Pentagon are fighting their dirty war against the over-hyped Islamic-Terrorist threat to Western Civilization.

So before those in power flush everything down the Memory Hole let's see what we do know about America's and the UK's relationship with brutal oppressive anti-democratic anti-human rights Regimes ie Uzbekistan, Syria , Yemen, Algeria, Egypt , Pakistan, Morocco, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain.



UK says that intel obtained under torture is perfectly legal.
Former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray was fired for telling the truth about the Uzbek government and America and Britain's Faustian deal with the Uzbekistan government.
The Uzbek government was using the threat of terrorism to oppress its Muslim population and anyone who criticized the government of Uzbekistan .
The wider problem is that other nations are also using this excuse to deny democratic freedom and human rights to their citizens.
They can use this fear to act with not just impunity but with the blessings of the USA and the UK and their quisling immoral lackeys.
Even under Pres. Obama the USA is still either covering up the torture they use and that of their allies against so-called "terrorist suspects" there is still no recourse for Justice for the victims or their families.
The West should learn a lesson from those nations with popular uprisings and that is those in power are there to defend the status quo at any cost.
Uzbeks invented connections between dissidents and Muslims in Uzbekistan with AlQaeda


Torture in Uzbekistan another ally of the USA which abuses and tortures prisoners with impunity and the protection of the United States of America




Part 2 Sufferings (SACKING OF AMBASSADOR) ILLUSTRATED



The interviewer suggested HRW is in bed with US government in fact they are also hated in the USA, Canada, UK etc.

Uzbekistan has destroyed its Civil society and allows human rights abuses to continue.
Once again the hypocrisy of the USA, Britain and even Canada is absolutely graven.

Human rights in Uzbekistan/ HRW's Steve Swerdlow talks to VOA Uzbek Feb 2011.mp4




and more on Yemen, Morocco, Syria


Yemen brute force by government against the people protesting for Reform
American marketing fear campaign inorder to rationalize its continuing support for anti-democracy regimmes such as in Yemen, Morocco, Syria Ivory Coast , Uzbeckistan

America's next war is with Yemen?




Huge demo in Yemen, president blames US, Israel
This is what democracy looks like in Countries under US imperialism???
Protest in yemen turns deadly army opens live bullets 5 killed in aden city 2 26 2011




this is how the Yemeni security deal with the demonstrators in Aden Maala part 2



Battlefield LIVE BY THE YEMENI ARMY Against Peaceful Protesters ADEN CITY 3-4-2011



Morocco


Moroccan teachers to strike after violent protests Reuters march 28, 2011

RABAT (Reuters) - Teachers in Morocco will stage a two-day nationwide strike starting on Tuesday after two recent demonstrations for better benefits ended in violence, union officials said on Monday.

Moroccan police had on Thursday and Saturday clashed with teachers demonstrating in the capital Rabat. Organisers said 170 people were injured in Saturday's clashes.

"Unions will show their solidarity with the teachers and condemn the barbarous way the peaceful demonstration of teachers was suppressed and stage a 48-hour strike," three Moroccan unions representing teachers said in a statement.

Local organiser Said Nazizi said 165 people were hurt, 65 seriously, including people with broken limbs or gashes from beatings by police. Unions said 50 were taken to hospital.

Interior Ministry and police officials declined to comment on the violence.

Various groups have stepped up protests in Morocco in recent weeks, emboldened by successful uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Tens of thousands gathered in cities across the kingdom earlier this month in one of the largest anti-government protests in decades.

Although many of the protests in the Arab world are focused on removing their rulers, most demonstrators in Morocco are not seeking to topple King Mohammed, who this month promised in a speech constitutional reform. Instead, they are seeking political rights, and end to corruption and various social benefits.

"The speech delivered by the king is not enough," Nazizi said. "There is nothing on the ground, nothing in reality."

Nazizi, like most protestors in Morocco, said he did not want to remove the king, only to see his role limited to the largely ceremonial function played by monarchs in Spain or Britain.

We don't want him to do everything," the teacher said. "We want the parliament to decide."

Teachers are seeking improved benefits although other groups want expanded political rights, an end to corruption and various social benefits


Morocco: Thousands Demonstrate Peacefully:Police Restraint Contrasts with Previous Week’s Violent Repression Human Rights Watch,MARCH 21, 2011

(Rabat) - Moroccan authorities allowed peaceful, pro-reform demonstrations to take place in cities across the country on March 20, 2011, Human Rights Watch said today. The police restraint contrasted with their violent dispersal of demonstrators the previous Sunday in Casablanca.

Since Moroccans joined the protest movement sweeping the Arab world with marches in several Moroccan cities on February 20, security forces have alternated between tolerating public rallies and forcibly dispersing them. The decision on whether to allow or repress the demonstrators seems to rest more with political decisions by authorities than with the behavior of the demonstrators, Human Rights Watch said.

"On March 20, Moroccan authorities respected the right of citizens to assemble and protest peacefully," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "The stance toward peaceful protesters we saw on that day should be the rule."

...The peaceful conclusion of the March 20 demonstration in Casablanca contrasted with what happened there on the morning of March 13, when hundreds of youths assembled in front of the main police station at United Nations Square to demand "real reforms," an apparent rebuke of those that the king had announced four days earlier.

The police, who that morning had been deployed throughout the city in large numbers, struck the protesters with batons to disperse them. Some of the protesters retreated to the nearby headquarters of the Unified Socialist Party (PSU), a small, legal opposition party. PSU members, who were meeting that day, came out into the streets. The police beat some of them as well, including a senior party figure, Mohamed Sassi. A dissident comic, Ahmed Snoussi, was also among those beaten that morning.

The police in Casablanca injured many protesters and arrested more than 100 over the course of the day; all were released later that day. The February 20 Movement said it received medical certificates from more than 20 injured protesters, some with broken arms, others with head wounds. Among those beaten by the police were members of the Islamist ‘Adl wa'l Ihsan (Justice and Spirituality) movement, who joined the rally at United Nations Square and resisted the police's violent efforts to disperse it.

The pro-reform street protests in Morocco began largely peacefully when thousands demonstrated in towns and cities on February 20, largely without police interference. But by the next day, the police began violently breaking up smaller protests.

On February 21, police in Rabat clubbed demonstrators in Bab el-Had square. Khadija Ryadi, the president of the Moroccan Association for Human Rights (Association Marocaine des Droits Humains, AMDH) was among those who went to the hospital after being beaten.

In the southern city of Agadir, police arrested at least four students on February 22 as they distributed a bulletin announcing a sit-in at al-Amal plaza downtown. The police questioned and photographed them before freeing them with a warning that they would be arrested if they proceeded with the sit-in, Mohamed Nafaa, a member of the AMDH's Inezgane-Aït Melloul branch, told Human Rights Watch. On February 23, the police prevented protesters from staging the sit-in in Agadir and detained some of them.

Also on February 23, police in Rabat forcibly dispersed a small demonstration called by the Moroccan Democratic Network for Support of the People in front of the Libyan Cultural Center. The police beat would-be participants, including Abdelkhaleq Benzekri, Abdelillah Benabdeslam, Montassir Idrissi, and Taoufik Moussa'if. Moussa'if, a human rights lawyer who is active in the judicial reform association Adala, said that as protesters arrived, an official ordered them to disperse. When they refused, the official ordered the use of force. Moussa'if told Human Rights Watch that the police beat him on the head, shoulders, and feet. Benabdeslam, of the AMDH, told Human Rights Watch that baton-wielding police clubbed the protesters hard on various parts of their bodies.

"It is great that Moroccans were free to march peacefully for reform on March 20," Whitson said. "But as long as their efforts sometimes meet with a green light, sometimes with police truncheons, the right of peaceful assembly in Morocco will remain a gift that authorities bestow or revoke as they please, rather than the fundamental right it remains."

SYRIA:

Syria has been under Emergency rule since 1963
Syria has been used as a proxy torturer for the the USA
Abuse and torture common in Syrian jails


Syria: Government Crackdown Leads to Protester Deaths
Authorities Should Halt Use of Excessive Force on Protesters Human Rights Watch

MARCH 21, 2011

(Cairo) - Syria should cease use of live fire and other excessive force against protesters, as it did on March 18 and 20, 2011, in the southern town of Daraa, leaving at least five people dead, Human Rights Watch said today.

Sunday, March 20 marked the third day of protests in Daraa, where government forces yet again fired on protesters and used teargas to break up a public gathering, killing one person and injuring dozens of others, according to media reports. Today's fatality brings the total number of protesters killed in Daraa to at least five.

"The Syrian government has shown no qualms about shooting dead its own citizens for speaking out," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "Syrians have shown incredible courage in daring to protest publicly against one of the most repressive governments in the region, and they shouldn't have to pay with their lives."


Security forces used teargas and fired on protesters who gathered in the town. An eyewitness speaking on a BBC Arabic television broadcast claimed they used teargas in far greater quantities on Sunday than during Friday's protests. Today's protests also reportedly turned violent with the BBC reporting that some protesters in Daraa set fire to several buildings including the headquarters of the ruling Baath Party.

On March 18, following Friday prayer, several thousand protesters had marched from the al-Omari Mosque in the southern city of Daraa, calling for greater political freedom and accusing members of the government of corruption, according to a resident of the suburbs of Daraa who spoke to Human Rights Watch. Media reports provided similar accounts. Footage of the events on YouTube show security forces using water cannons to disperse protesters, but later, the security forces started firing at the protesters.

According to Reuters, security forces fired on and killed Wissam Ayyash, Mahmoud al-Jawabra, and Ayham al-Hariri. A fourth protester, Adnan Akrad, died on Saturday from wounds also sustained by live ammunition used by Syrian security forces. Another YouTube video shows a body being carried from the crowd, covered in blood, with the sound of repeated gunfire in the background. Human Rights Watch was unable to confirm independently the names of the dead. A resident in Daraa told Human Rights Watch on March 19 that he understood four people had been killed and that two bodies were returned to their families on Friday. The residents also heard that some of the wounded had been taken by helicopters to unknown destinations. They believed that there were approximately 35 other civilians wounded and 15 security men who were transported away by helicopter.

On March 19, security forces also used teargas to disperse thousands of mourners who gathered for the funeral of Ayyash and al-Jawabra who had been killed. A resident from Daraa told Human Rights Watch:

"After the burial of the two men, ... people left the cemetery chanting that after today there will not be any fear. Security members met them at the bridge with teargas canisters and later used bullets to disperse them."

"The Syrian government's attack on the funeral procession only adds insult to injury," said Whitson. "Syrian authorities promised to investigate, but such promises ring hollow while the government continues to attack Syrians to for exercising their rights to public assembly."

Over 150 protesters murdered by American backed Syrian Forces
Obama is silent as Syria is a US ally lackey & quisling
03/25/2011 Deadly Government Crackdown on Syrian Protesters

Obama Executive Order On Miranda Rights & Obama's Righteous Intervention In Libya or Just Another Imperialist War ???

President Obama uses Executive Order to take away Miranda Warnings for suspected "enemy Combatants " or Terrorists.
So this another right of American citizens being taken away so why are they disingenuously trying to teach their like minded dictators/Monarchs and Generals about "Democracy" and "Human Rights.

Once incarcerated for being a terrorists or giving aid or comfort to so called terrorist front organizations the individual can kiss all their rights away . They in fact have to sign a waiver so they will not publicly criticize their captors ie physical and mental abuse amounting to torture and they are not permitted to take the government to court over these issues.
According to Obama and president Bush "human rights" are not guaranteed but can be withdrawn on the whim of a president or the Pentagon or the CIA or FBI or military commanders in the field or even by the average rank and file American soldiers or mercenaries/Private Contractors working for the US government or an American corporation can decide what is or what is not a "Right"- In the New Improved America even CEO's can deny someone their "Human Rights" and civil rights cause that's how America now rolls???






Another blow to the rights of America- Obama continuing the Bush Regime's slide against human rights.

The Alyona Show
Obama Weakens Miranda Rights




Is it a humanitarian intervention in Libya or just another American Imperialist war.
For instance one wonders how pure America's motives are in Libya when at the same time Obama and Hillary Clinton defend Saudi Arabia's use of brute force on pro-democracy demonstrators in Saudi Arabia and also has invaded the sovereign nation of Bahrain to slaughter civilians who are part of a non-violent uprising in Bahrain.
Again at the same time the US under Obama or Bush is all too willing to publicly condemn similar actions taken by the government in Iran.
When Iranians shoot protesters this is a horrible tragedy-when the House of Saud kills protesters this is seen as their right as a sovereign nation.

Alyona Show March

25, 2011
Fireside: Libya, Just Call it a War





Rachel Maddow's take on Obama's intervention/war in Libya

Maddow argues that President Obama's way of handling intervention in Libya is different from the way George W. Bush & CO. handled intervention into Iraq.

Part of the difference is to do with procedure and process-

Obama she argues made sure other counries were on board with intervention in Libya
Obama waited til the UN would also back action against the Libyan government
Obama has also outlined the parameters of the military attacks and their goals
But Maddow doesn't answer the question why intervene in Libya and not in other nations where popular uprisings have been met with brute force ie Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Morocco, the Ivory Coast etc.

Rachel Maddow - Obama's War in Libya is a Justifiable War




Rachel Maddow dissects the Anti-American Narrative which says that America only acts with its own self-interest as its concern .
Obama she argues is trying to change the American narrative to a more positive one of not being a colonial -imperialist power.

America Has Lost So Much Credibility No One Believes Action In Libya Is Not For Imperialist Reasons-Rachel Maddow

Obama's Hypocrisy : Why is the USA & Its Lackeys interfering in Libya but not Syria , Yemen, Saudi Arabia ,Bahrain , Iraq etc.

Why is the USA interfering in Libya but not Syria , Yemen, Saudi Arabia ,Bahrain , Iraq

Are the peoples of these nations not as important as the people of Libya.
In one way or another these brutal authoritarian regimes whether ruled by a dictator or the military have denied their people basic human rights and freedom and yet the International Community does nothing.

These nations from Egypt to Tunisia Yemen, Libya, Syria , Saudi Arabia , Bahrain have had to live under the brutal authoritarian Regimes which were put in power and supported by the United States .

If Obama is to be taken seriously firstly he would not have had Bradley Manning arrested
secondly if arrested he should make sure Manning is treated properly
If Obama is defending Manning's detention then he should personally visit Bradley Manning at the Quantico prison.
President Obama makes great speeches but his actions are not much better than the actions of the BUSH/Cheney/Rumsfeld
While defending Manning's incarceration Obama after all that has gone on over the last ten years he and this is unbelievable he actually trusts the Pentagon and the US military to be honest with him about Manning or anything else.
These are the same people who defended the torture and abuse and denial of due process to thousands of so called"Detainees : who should have been treated as POWs re the Geneva Conventions.
But as an American Obama like Bush and Company believes that international law has no jurisdiction over the USA or its citizens .

Obama's Promises Just Empty Rhetoric
130 AMERICANS ARRESTED for PFC Manning & Iraq War while OBAMA BOMBS LIBYA!





To many people Bradley Manning as a Whistleblower is seen as a hero
He leaked information to Wikileaks.
This information helps the American people and other nations to better understand how these people in power work behind the scenes.

This is Obama's Reply to Those Who want The US government ToStop Torturing Bradley Manning .
In America doing what's right is discouraged Under the Obama Regime
To many people Bradley Manning as a Whistleblower is seen as a hero



This what Freedom is like in Saudi Arabia America's Best Friend
in Saudi Arabia And In Bahrain President Obama and US Allies Support Saudi Massacre Of Protesters





But the international community after decades of supporting Qaddafi have decided Qaddafi is no longer an asset so they are bombing the crap out of Libya to topple Qaddafi .
But what are the motives of the USA and its lackeys -well to get at the oil of course.

If the United States and Obama were so concerned about the rights and freedom of the people in these nations then why would they allow Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and slaughter those protesting against the Bahrain Regime.

Saudi Arabia claims the protesters in Bahrain do not represent the majority of the people but is rather a "Shiite insurgency" engineered by Iran.

But observers on the ground in Bahrain argue that it is a popular uprising including Sunni and Shia and other groups in Bahrain.

The contradictory stories coming out of Libya suggest on the one hand a popular uprising and on the other an uprising which is not that popular but which has been engineered by the CIA and other outside forces.


This is not much of a stretch of the imagination since the CIA and USA have engineered uprisings, coup d'etat or the assassination of leaders in the Middle East and Africa and in Central and South America.

The US and CIA overthrew the governments of Guatemala, Iran in 1953 and took out President Allende in Chile in 1973 (the other 9/11)

The USA and other Western Nations also backed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union.

By deciding to back the more extremist Islamists The Americans and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia helped to create the Taliban and AlQaeda in Afghanistan

The USA used the people of Afghanistan and Islamic Jihadists volunteers from a number of other countries in their proxy war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

Some observers and experts on the region claim that the CIA and Pakistan's ISI -Inter-services Intelligence deliberately created a series of events which they hoped would force the Soviet Union to take military action against Afghanistan. Well it seems to have worked since the Soviets did invade Afghanistan and were bogged down in Afganistan for a decade.

Once the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan the USA and its allies did nothing to help to rebuild Afghanistan and instead left the region even more unstable than it was before the Soviet invasion.
This instability was used by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to put the Taliban into power in Afghanistan. The Taliban was made up primarily of students (Talibs) from the extremist Wahhabi Madrassas (Islamic religious schools)in Pakistan.

The Madrassas and military training camps were financed and supported by the Saudis who are still striving for the Wahhabi movement to spread and become the dominant sect throughout the Muslim world.


Libya Al Jazeera



Syria AlJazeera-March 25
Live update from Syria's Daraa city



Syrian forces 'shoot at protesters'



Yemeni presidential guards clash with army




Yemen footage of appalling

U.S. Arms Dealers and Multinationals Prefer War Not Peace & Prefer Repressive Regimes to Democracy and the Defense of Human Rights and Freedom

" If protecting civilians from evil dictators was the goal, though -- as opposed to, say, safeguarding natural resources and the investments of major oil companies -- there’s an easier, safer way than aerial bombardment for the U.S. and its allies to consider: simply stop arming and propping up evil dictators. After all, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi reaped the benefits from Western nations all too eager to cozy up to and rehabilitate the image of a dictator with oil, with those denouncing him today as a murderous tyrant just a matter of weeks ago selling him the very arms his regime has been using to suppress the rebellion against it.

In 2009 alone, European governments -- including Britain and France -- sold Libya more than $470 million worth of weapons, including fighter jets, guns and bombs. And before it started calling for regime change, the Obama administration was working to provide the Libyan dictator another $77 million in weapons, on top of the $17 million it provided in 2009 and the $46 million the Bush administration provided in 2008.

Meanwhile, for dictatorial regimes in Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, U.S. support continues to this day. On Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even gave the U.S. stamp of approval to the brutal crackdown on protesters in Bahrain, saying the country’s authoritarian rulers “obviously” had the “sovereign right” to invite troops from Saudi Arabia to occupy their country and carry out human rights abuses, including attacks on injured protesters as they lay in their hospital beds. "

from : " Instead of Bombing Dictators in Libya and Around the World, Stop Selling Them Bombs If the bitter lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us anything, it's that wars of liberation exact a deadly toll on those they purportedly liberate." by Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis at Alternet.org, March 23, 2011


The simple and elegant and practical way to stop these dictators, monarchs, generals from oppressing their own people we should first stop selling them billions in arms they don't really need.
This solution is we are told unacceptable to the United States and other arms dealers because they are dependent on the lucrative profits involved in selling armaments.

The other reasons for propping up these dictators or authoritarian rulers include ensuring them as friendly allies who will cater to the wishes and whims of the United States and other Western Nations and their international corporations.

We are told that what's good for Western Corporations and the Western elites is all that really matters and so the subjugation of other supposedly sovereign states is in the interest of the Multinational Corporations, the Arms manufacturers and Arms dealers is what is most important.

Secondly given the influence the United States and European countries have over these various oppressive regimes they should use this leverage to get them to improve their human rights record ie stop torturing prisoners, stop arresting people for criticizing the governments , alow for a free press and Media and the right to protest and freedom of speech and freedom of association.
The problem the United States and other Western Nations and multinationals have is that real democracy is messy at times and unpredictable which leads to some uncertainty and possible instability which the Western interest see as an issue -so they prefer states which are fairly stable with a government which provides continuity and no unwanted surprises.

So American or Western nations prefer stability and continuity over democracy and human rights.

While claiming to champion human rights and democracy the USa has had no problem with selling arms and trading with the most brutal of dictators if the price is right.



There are some hopeful signs that the opposition to Qaddafi is united and is creating a temporary government .
Qaddafi should be pressured into accepting this Interim Government as at least playing a mediation role in negotiating a cease fire .

"Libyan Rebels Form "Interim Government" " by Interpress Service at Truthout, March 23, 2011

Tripoli/Benghazi (IPS/Al Jazeera) - Libya's pro-democracy fighters have formed an "interim government" even as forces backing the country's leader, Muammar Gaddafi, press ahead with attacks against them.

Heading up the new government as an interim prime minister is Mahmoud Jibril, who had been working as a representative to foreign powers.

He is best known on the international stage for meeting Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, which led to France diplomatically recognising the rebels' transitional council as the sole representative of the Libyan people.

Opposition spokesman Nisan Gouriani told Al Jazeera: "The provisional national council is a legislative body, but we need an executive body to take control and provide an administration."

He said the rebels' "position has been very clear from the beginning - that Libya is one unit".

"Our capital is Tripoli and will forever be Tripoli," he said. "We are striving to liberate the western parts of the country, and Tripoli, and keep the country united. We would like to emphasise this over and over again."


The rebels had been wary of calling their nascent administration in their Benghazi stronghold an interim government, seemingly cautious of signifying a split in the country.

"But they remain committed to one Libya," said Al Jazeera's James Bays, reporting from Benghazi. "They want the people of Libya to remain united, just without Gaddafi."



Why I Support President Obama's Decision to Invade Libya By Ed Schultz at Huff Post March 23, 2011

The president's base is angry because we're firing millions of dollars of missiles at Libya instead of investing in America's infrastructure.

On the other side -- the Republicans are hammering the president not because he is not invading the entire Middle East, but because he's not doing it the way they would want to do it.

President Obama has decided on a more focused, realistic approach. He's trying to give the rebels, those who want democracy, a fighting chance at just that and trying to stop Gaddafi -- this is the human thing to do -- from slaughtering his own people.

Please take note that since we started this mission, Gaddafi hasn't been killing civilians, his own people. Does the president get credit for that? Does the coalition get credit for that?

This president, President Obama, has made his choice. And it is his leadership. He inherited Iraq. He inherited Afghanistan. And now, he has made a decision to invade Libya.

As a country, we really don't have much of a stomach for this right now and a lot of us are torn because of all of our needs here at home.

But remember -- and this needs to be pointed out -- there have been no lies told, no fear games played on the American people by President Obama and his administration.

I find it very interesting how conservatives are just picking away at President Obama. But the Republican Party -- the party that steamrolled America into two wars -- has suddenly discovered a barrage of reasons to oppose a Democratic president's military action.

Why?

Because he didn't do it their way? He didn't go far enough? He actually had a coalition?

I'm with the president on this one, and I think if it is defined the way he says it is -- limited in scope -- this actually could be a situation where we don't hear from Gaddafi for a long, long time.

So, what I think is going to happen is that we're going to have a Libya with Gaddafi. He might survive this. And then we're going to have a country with rebels who want democracy. This is all about democracy.

This is all about people in Libya wanting the simplicity of freedom.

I'm with the president on this one. As I said, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

It's your call, Mr. President. This is one American who's with you.

Is it a means of further distracting the public from the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan continues with no end in sight.

Is it a means to distracting the public from the fact that Obama has still not taken action against the Bush Regime and its war crimes and crimes against humanity specifically the torture and abuse of thousands of POWs / Enemy Combatants that US to muddy the waters refer to those captured as detainees . In their Orwellian world merely changing the word used to describe POWs or Enemy Comatants is enough for those incarcerated to be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions and other International Agreements.

Obama after just a few months after becoming president assured the military, the CIA, FBI and any Americans involved in the abuse and torture or even murder of these "Terrorist Suspects" would never have to face charges from any international body because all such organizations have no jurisdiction over the USA.
This appears odd since the US managed to get a green light on its attack on Libya by pressuring the United Nations, NATO and the EU to give theUS a legal veneer for its war mongering . So the United Nations and other international bodies and agreements can be used to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation but have no jurisdiction over the USA or some of its allies including Israel, Saudi Arabia , Pakistan
So now is the US intent on a full scale war against Qaddafi.

As discussed here previously interference in Libya's uprising should have begun with meetings with Qaddafi and the opposition leaders to first try to come to some sort of agreement or compromise.
While at the same time there should have been negotiations concerning a cease fire.
Even now instead of just demonizing Qaddafi the UN and USA shoul begin talks with Qaddafi to reassure him that the UN and Usa are not out to conquer and occupy Libya.

actual humanitarian aid and insisting that Qaddafi allow human rights groups and humanitarian organization to operate freely in Libya.
This would include the Red Cross and or Red Crescent, Human Rights Watch , Doctors without Borders etc.
These and other steps should have been implementd before dropping bombs and tomahawk Missiles on Libya.


Gadhafi's military: Trained and armed by Uncle Sam by Justin Elliott at Salon.com, March 23, 2011

The United States has trained the Libyan military in recent years and American manufacturers have sold the Gadhafi regime military equipment, putting the U.S. in the strange situation of bombing a foreign force that it helped build up.


The extent and nature of all the training is not clear, but State Department figures show that the sale of millions of dollars worth of aircraft parts to Libya was approved in recent years -- ironic, in hindsight, given the current focus on Gadhafi's air force. The cooperation highlights how quickly America's Libya policy has shifted as well as the sheer reach of U.S. military training programs. In fiscal 2009, the U.S. spent at least $536 million on training military personnel from 159 countries.


The backdrop for the cooperation between the American and Libyan militaries was improving relations between the two countries generally, following the announcement in 2003 by President Bush that Moammar Gadhafi had agreed to give up "weapons of mass destruction" programs. When John McCain visited Tripoli in the summer of 2009, Gadhafi's son Muatassim pressed a receptive McCain on getting military supplies. McCain, according to a diplomatic cable describing the meeting, spoke of the cooperation between the two militaries:

"[McCain] encouraged Muatassim to keep in mind the long-term perspective of bilateral security engagement and to remember that small obstacles will emerge from time to time that can be overcome," the cable says. "He described the bilateral military relationship as strong and pointed to Libyan officer training at U.S. Command, Staff, and War colleges as some of the best programs for Libyan military participation."

The writer below and others question the merits of attacking lLibya . Well why Libya why not Pakistan or Saudi Arabia Compares the attack on Libya to the first and second Gulf War , Kosovo and so on in which the public through the quisling media pushed for war before and they are doing it again.



Libya: Murder and Plunder Masquerading as “Humanitarian Intervention” By Orwellwasright March 23, 2011

March 23, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- On March 20th 2003 Western forces launched their “Shock and Awe” attack on Iraq, heavily bombarding Baghdad and elsewhere, massacring hundreds if not thousands of innocent men, women and children. On March 20th 2011 the very same forces attacked Libya, beginning what many believe will be yet another mass slaughter.

What is obvious to all but the most duped and apathetic is that once again we have another war launched by the imperialist powers thinly veiled as a “humanitarian intervention”, dressed up as a mission of peace driven by the use of heavy bombardment and murder, where the truth lies diametrically opposed to the propaganda being pushed by the mainstream media. Nothing is what it seems; the lies and deceptions are as Orwellian as ever. The similarities with Iraq go well beyond the date of the opening salvo – indeed, there are many consistencies between the current attack on Libya and numerous other military interventions and acts of aggression carried out by the US, NATO and their allies in recent years.

The propaganda currently being pumped out by the mainstream media, led by the usual suspects in the American corporate press and the liars and sycophants over at the BBC, is essentially a re-run of the Iraq invasions and Kosovo: a largely fabricated case for humanitarian intervention based on violence stoked by special forces troops and covert operations, with the consistent demonisation of the leader recast as a mass murdering tyrant to justify a heavy saturation bombing campaign in the name of human rights and justice. Any historical context that might cast the so-called “Allies” in a negative light – for instance large-scale sales of weapons to the new enemy figure – is carefully omitted from the narrative.

and again reminds us that questioning someones sense of justice and morality of any who dare be against attacking Qaddafi but given recent history it is only right to ask these questions

...the accusation of being a Qaddafi sympathizer. Those who make such accusations are guilty of obfuscation and missing the broader point. Certainly, Qaddafi is no angel – likewise Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein were guilty of despotism, crimes against humanity and more. But those who make such charges miss the irony of their rhetoric, given that they support the unbridled use of violence by far more powerful military forces against largely civilian populations, leading to death tolls that far exceed those committed by the puppet dictators they seek to overthrow. That these dictators and despots committed their own atrocities with weapons supplied by Western nations is never mentioned, for doing so would lay bare their hypocrisy. “We must kill to avoid killing,” is the ideology they promote, oblivious to the inherent contradiction that lies within.

Instead of Bombing Dictators in Libya and Around the World, Stop Selling Them Bombs If the bitter lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us anything, it's that wars of liberation exact a deadly toll on those they purportedly liberate. by Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis at Alternet.org, March 23, 2011

When all you have is bombs, everything starts to look like a target. And so after years of providing Libya’s dictator with the weapons he's been using against the people, all the international community – France, Britain and the United States – has to offer the people of Libya is more bombs, this time dropped from the sky rather than delivered in a box to Muammar Gaddafi's palace.

...While much of the media presents an unquestioning, sanitized version of the war -- cable news hosts more focused on interviewing retired generals about America’s fancy killing machines than the actual, bloody facts on the ground -- the truth is that wars, even liberal-minded “humanitarian” ones, entail destroying people and places. Though cloaked in altruism that would be more believable were we dealing with monasteries, not nation-states, the war in Libya is no different. And innocents pay the price.

If protecting civilians from evil dictators was the goal, though -- as opposed to, say, safeguarding natural resources and the investments of major oil companies -- there’s an easier, safer way than aerial bombardment for the U.S. and its allies to consider: simply stop arming and propping up evil dictators. After all, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi reaped the benefits from Western nations all too eager to cozy up to and rehabilitate the image of a dictator with oil, with those denouncing him today as a murderous tyrant just a matter of weeks ago selling him the very arms his regime has been using to suppress the rebellion against it.


In 2009 alone, European governments -- including Britain and France -- sold Libya more than $470 million worth of weapons, including fighter jets, guns and bombs. And before it started calling for regime change, the Obama administration was working to provide the Libyan dictator another $77 million in weapons, on top of the $17 million it provided in 2009 and the $46 million the Bush administration provided in 2008.

Meanwhile, for dictatorial regimes in Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, U.S. support continues to this day. On Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even gave the U.S. stamp of approval to the brutal crackdown on protesters in Bahrain, saying the country’s authoritarian rulers “obviously” had the “sovereign right” to invite troops from Saudi Arabia to occupy their country and carry out human rights abuses, including attacks on injured protesters as they lay in their hospital beds

And so it goes,
GORD.

U.S. Arms Dealers and Multinationals Prefer War Not Peace & Prefer Repressive Regimes to Democracy and the Defense of Human Rights and Freedom

" If protecting civilians from evil dictators was the goal, though -- as opposed to, say, safeguarding natural resources and the investments of major oil companies -- there’s an easier, safer way than aerial bombardment for the U.S. and its allies to consider: simply stop arming and propping up evil dictators. After all, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi reaped the benefits from Western nations all too eager to cozy up to and rehabilitate the image of a dictator with oil, with those denouncing him today as a murderous tyrant just a matter of weeks ago selling him the very arms his regime has been using to suppress the rebellion against it.

In 2009 alone, European governments -- including Britain and France -- sold Libya more than $470 million worth of weapons, including fighter jets, guns and bombs. And before it started calling for regime change, the Obama administration was working to provide the Libyan dictator another $77 million in weapons, on top of the $17 million it provided in 2009 and the $46 million the Bush administration provided in 2008.

Meanwhile, for dictatorial regimes in Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, U.S. support continues to this day. On Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even gave the U.S. stamp of approval to the brutal crackdown on protesters in Bahrain, saying the country’s authoritarian rulers “obviously” had the “sovereign right” to invite troops from Saudi Arabia to occupy their country and carry out human rights abuses, including attacks on injured protesters as they lay in their hospital beds. "

from : " Instead of Bombing Dictators in Libya and Around the World, Stop Selling Them Bombs If the bitter lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us anything, it's that wars of liberation exact a deadly toll on those they purportedly liberate." by Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis at Alternet.org, March 23, 2011


The simple and elegant and practical way to stop these dictators, monarchs, generals from oppressing their own people we should first stop selling them billions in arms they don't really need.
This solution is we are told unacceptable to the United States and other arms dealers because they are dependent on the lucrative profits involved in selling armaments.

The other reasons for propping up these dictators or authoritarian rulers include ensuring them as friendly allies who will cater to the wishes and whims of the United States and other Western Nations and their international corporations.

We are told that what's good for Western Corporations and the Western elites is all that really matters and so the subjugation of other supposedly sovereign states is in the interest of the Multinational Corporations, the Arms manufacturers and Arms dealers is what is most important.

Secondly given the influence the United States and European countries have over these various oppressive regimes they should use this leverage to get them to improve their human rights record ie stop torturing prisoners, stop arresting people for criticizing the governments , alow for a free press and Media and the right to protest and freedom of speech and freedom of association.
The problem the United States and other Western Nations and multinationals have is that real democracy is messy at times and unpredictable which leads to some uncertainty and possible instability which the Western interest see as an issue -so they prefer states which are fairly stable with a government which provides continuity and no unwanted surprises.

So American or Western nations prefer stability and continuity over democracy and human rights.

While claiming to champion human rights and democracy the USa has had no problem with selling arms and trading with the most brutal of dictators if the price is right.



There are some hopeful signs that the opposition to Qaddafi is united and is creating a temporary government .
Qaddafi should be pressured into accepting this Interim Government as at least playing a mediation role in negotiating a cease fire .

"Libyan Rebels Form "Interim Government" " by Interpress Service at Truthout, March 23, 2011

Tripoli/Benghazi (IPS/Al Jazeera) - Libya's pro-democracy fighters have formed an "interim government" even as forces backing the country's leader, Muammar Gaddafi, press ahead with attacks against them.

Heading up the new government as an interim prime minister is Mahmoud Jibril, who had been working as a representative to foreign powers.

He is best known on the international stage for meeting Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, which led to France diplomatically recognising the rebels' transitional council as the sole representative of the Libyan people.

Opposition spokesman Nisan Gouriani told Al Jazeera: "The provisional national council is a legislative body, but we need an executive body to take control and provide an administration."

He said the rebels' "position has been very clear from the beginning - that Libya is one unit".

"Our capital is Tripoli and will forever be Tripoli," he said. "We are striving to liberate the western parts of the country, and Tripoli, and keep the country united. We would like to emphasise this over and over again."


The rebels had been wary of calling their nascent administration in their Benghazi stronghold an interim government, seemingly cautious of signifying a split in the country.

"But they remain committed to one Libya," said Al Jazeera's James Bays, reporting from Benghazi. "They want the people of Libya to remain united, just without Gaddafi."

Why I Support President Obama's Decision to Invade Libya By Ed Schultz at Huff Post March 23, 2011

The president's base is angry because we're firing millions of dollars of missiles at Libya instead of investing in America's infrastructure.

On the other side -- the Republicans are hammering the president not because he is not invading the entire Middle East, but because he's not doing it the way they would want to do it.

President Obama has decided on a more focused, realistic approach. He's trying to give the rebels, those who want democracy, a fighting chance at just that and trying to stop Gaddafi -- this is the human thing to do -- from slaughtering his own people.

Please take note that since we started this mission, Gaddafi hasn't been killing civilians, his own people. Does the president get credit for that? Does the coalition get credit for that?

This president, President Obama, has made his choice. And it is his leadership. He inherited Iraq. He inherited Afghanistan. And now, he has made a decision to invade Libya.

As a country, we really don't have much of a stomach for this right now and a lot of us are torn because of all of our needs here at home.

But remember -- and this needs to be pointed out -- there have been no lies told, no fear games played on the American people by President Obama and his administration.

I find it very interesting how conservatives are just picking away at President Obama. But the Republican Party -- the party that steamrolled America into two wars -- has suddenly discovered a barrage of reasons to oppose a Democratic president's military action.

Why?

Because he didn't do it their way? He didn't go far enough? He actually had a coalition?

I'm with the president on this one, and I think if it is defined the way he says it is -- limited in scope -- this actually could be a situation where we don't hear from Gaddafi for a long, long time.

So, what I think is going to happen is that we're going to have a Libya with Gaddafi. He might survive this. And then we're going to have a country with rebels who want democracy. This is all about democracy.

This is all about people in Libya wanting the simplicity of freedom.

I'm with the president on this one. As I said, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

It's your call, Mr. President. This is one American who's with you.

Is it a means of further distracting the public from the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan continues with no end in sight.

Is it a means to distracting the public from the fact that Obama has still not taken action against the Bush Regime and its war crimes and crimes against humanity specifically the torture and abuse of thousands of POWs / Enemy Combatants that US to muddy the waters refer to those captured as detainees . In their Orwellian world merely changing the word used to describe POWs or Enemy Comatants is enough for those incarcerated to be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions and other International Agreements.

Obama after just a few months after becoming president assured the military, the CIA, FBI and any Americans involved in the abuse and torture or even murder of these "Terrorist Suspects" would never have to face charges from any international body because all such organizations have no jurisdiction over the USA.
This appears odd since the US managed to get a green light on its attack on Libya by pressuring the United Nations, NATO and the EU to give theUS a legal veneer for its war mongering . So the United Nations and other international bodies and agreements can be used to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation but have no jurisdiction over the USA or some of its allies including Israel, Saudi Arabia , Pakistan
So now is the US intent on a full scale war against Qaddafi.

As discussed here previously interference in Libya's uprising should have begun with meetings with Qaddafi and the opposition leaders to first try to come to some sort of agreement or compromise.
While at the same time there should have been negotiations concerning a cease fire.
Even now instead of just demonizing Qaddafi the UN and USA shoul begin talks with Qaddafi to reassure him that the UN and Usa are not out to conquer and occupy Libya.

actual humanitarian aid and insisting that Qaddafi allow human rights groups and humanitarian organization to operate freely in Libya.
This would include the Red Cross and or Red Crescent, Human Rights Watch , Doctors without Borders etc.
These and other steps should have been implementd before dropping bombs and tomahawk Missiles on Libya.


Gadhafi's military: Trained and armed by Uncle Sam by Justin Elliott at Salon.com, March 23, 2011

The United States has trained the Libyan military in recent years and American manufacturers have sold the Gadhafi regime military equipment, putting the U.S. in the strange situation of bombing a foreign force that it helped build up.


The extent and nature of all the training is not clear, but State Department figures show that the sale of millions of dollars worth of aircraft parts to Libya was approved in recent years -- ironic, in hindsight, given the current focus on Gadhafi's air force. The cooperation highlights how quickly America's Libya policy has shifted as well as the sheer reach of U.S. military training programs. In fiscal 2009, the U.S. spent at least $536 million on training military personnel from 159 countries.


The backdrop for the cooperation between the American and Libyan militaries was improving relations between the two countries generally, following the announcement in 2003 by President Bush that Moammar Gadhafi had agreed to give up "weapons of mass destruction" programs. When John McCain visited Tripoli in the summer of 2009, Gadhafi's son Muatassim pressed a receptive McCain on getting military supplies. McCain, according to a diplomatic cable describing the meeting, spoke of the cooperation between the two militaries:

"[McCain] encouraged Muatassim to keep in mind the long-term perspective of bilateral security engagement and to remember that small obstacles will emerge from time to time that can be overcome," the cable says. "He described the bilateral military relationship as strong and pointed to Libyan officer training at U.S. Command, Staff, and War colleges as some of the best programs for Libyan military participation."

The writer below and others question the merits of attacking lLibya . Well why Libya why not Pakistan or Saudi Arabia Compares the attack on Libya to the first and second Gulf War , Kosovo and so on in which the public through the quisling media pushed for war before and they are doing it again.



Libya: Murder and Plunder Masquerading as “Humanitarian Intervention”

By Orwellwasright March 23, 2011

March 23, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- On March 20th 2003 Western forces launched their “Shock and Awe” attack on Iraq, heavily bombarding Baghdad and elsewhere, massacring hundreds if not thousands of innocent men, women and children. On March 20th 2011 the very same forces attacked Libya, beginning what many believe will be yet another mass slaughter.

What is obvious to all but the most duped and apathetic is that once again we have another war launched by the imperialist powers thinly veiled as a “humanitarian intervention”, dressed up as a mission of peace driven by the use of heavy bombardment and murder, where the truth lies diametrically opposed to the propaganda being pushed by the mainstream media. Nothing is what it seems; the lies and deceptions are as Orwellian as ever. The similarities with Iraq go well beyond the date of the opening salvo – indeed, there are many consistencies between the current attack on Libya and numerous other military interventions and acts of aggression carried out by the US, NATO and their allies in recent years.

The propaganda currently being pumped out by the mainstream media, led by the usual suspects in the American corporate press and the liars and sycophants over at the BBC, is essentially a re-run of the Iraq invasions and Kosovo: a largely fabricated case for humanitarian intervention based on violence stoked by special forces troops and covert operations, with the consistent demonisation of the leader recast as a mass murdering tyrant to justify a heavy saturation bombing campaign in the name of human rights and justice. Any historical context that might cast the so-called “Allies” in a negative light – for instance large-scale sales of weapons to the new enemy figure – is carefully omitted from the narrative.

and again reminds us that questioning someones sense of justice and morality of any who dare be against attacking Qaddafi but given recent history it is only right to ask these questions

...the accusation of being a Qaddafi sympathizer. Those who make such accusations are guilty of obfuscation and missing the broader point. Certainly, Qaddafi is no angel – likewise Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein were guilty of despotism, crimes against humanity and more. But those who make such charges miss the irony of their rhetoric, given that they support the unbridled use of violence by far more powerful military forces against largely civilian populations, leading to death tolls that far exceed those committed by the puppet dictators they seek to overthrow. That these dictators and despots committed their own atrocities with weapons supplied by Western nations is never mentioned, for doing so would lay bare their hypocrisy. “We must kill to avoid killing,” is the ideology they promote, oblivious to the inherent contradiction that lies within.

Instead of Bombing Dictators in Libya and Around the World, Stop Selling Them Bombs If the bitter lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us anything, it's that wars of liberation exact a deadly toll on those they purportedly liberate. by Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis at Alternet.org, March 23, 2011

When all you have is bombs, everything starts to look like a target. And so after years of providing Libya’s dictator with the weapons he's been using against the people, all the international community – France, Britain and the United States – has to offer the people of Libya is more bombs, this time dropped from the sky rather than delivered in a box to Muammar Gaddafi's palace.

...While much of the media presents an unquestioning, sanitized version of the war -- cable news hosts more focused on interviewing retired generals about America’s fancy killing machines than the actual, bloody facts on the ground -- the truth is that wars, even liberal-minded “humanitarian” ones, entail destroying people and places. Though cloaked in altruism that would be more believable were we dealing with monasteries, not nation-states, the war in Libya is no different. And innocents pay the price.

If protecting civilians from evil dictators was the goal, though -- as opposed to, say, safeguarding natural resources and the investments of major oil companies -- there’s an easier, safer way than aerial bombardment for the U.S. and its allies to consider: simply stop arming and propping up evil dictators. After all, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi reaped the benefits from Western nations all too eager to cozy up to and rehabilitate the image of a dictator with oil, with those denouncing him today as a murderous tyrant just a matter of weeks ago selling him the very arms his regime has been using to suppress the rebellion against it.


In 2009 alone, European governments -- including Britain and France -- sold Libya more than $470 million worth of weapons, including fighter jets, guns and bombs. And before it started calling for regime change, the Obama administration was working to provide the Libyan dictator another $77 million in weapons, on top of the $17 million it provided in 2009 and the $46 million the Bush administration provided in 2008.

Meanwhile, for dictatorial regimes in Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, U.S. support continues to this day. On Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even gave the U.S. stamp of approval to the brutal crackdown on protesters in Bahrain, saying the country’s authoritarian rulers “obviously” had the “sovereign right” to invite troops from Saudi Arabia to occupy their country and carry out human rights abuses, including attacks on injured protesters as they lay in their hospital beds

And so it goes,
GORD.