RugbyRebels

& they're going to make the architect of all this President?

Just five years after bombing Libya to dispose of Muammar Gaddafi, the US is now officially bombing the country again, this time against alleged Isis terrorist strongholds that cropped up in the power vacuum created by the last bombing.

It’s yet another episode of the War on Terror Circle of Life, where the US bombs a country and then funnels weapons into the region, which leads to chaos and the opportunity for terrorist organizations, which then leads more US bombing.

Like usual in the Obama administration’s wars, there was no congressional vote on the latest airstrikes in Libya and no declaration of war, as required by the constitution. The administration is pinning the legal authority for this military incursion on the 2001 Authorization for Military Force that was meant for Afghanistan and the perpetrators of 9/11, al-Qaida. Isis, of course, didn’t exist until years later, and the two groups are now enemies, but those technicalities don’t seem to bother the Obama administration, which is continuing to expand US military presence abroad with little to no public input.

The pattern of bombing-chaos-bombing in Libya follows the same pattern as Iraq, which was largely free of al-Qaida members before the US invasion in 2003, only to see it become a terrorist hotbed for the group once the US military arrived, eventually leading to the formation of Isis. Iraq War III has been quietly but steadily increasing for months now – the US has well over 5,000 troops back in the country after leaving at the end of 2011. The US troop presence went up again recently, recently reaching battalion-level numbers.

With even less fanfare, the same cycle has been playing out in Yemen, which the US has been backing in its appalling and indiscriminate Saudi Arabian bombing campaign that has killed thousands of civilians and led to many calls of war crimes. The war there continues to receives scant coverage in the media and is completely ignored by both presidential campaigns despite the fact that it has also created space for al-Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula (Aqap) to completely rejuvenate itself. As a Reuters investigation in April put it, Aqap has “become stronger than at any time since it first emerged almost 20 years ago”.

The US quietly announced in May that it now has troops inside Yemen, fighting the same al-Qaida that it helped strengthen by supporting the Saudi war.

And where will we be in Syria in six months? Well, if Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 presidential election, her campaign is already promising a “reset” on US–Syria policy, where the military has already been dropping bombs for more than a year. Her “reset” policy, described by an adviser in the media last week, sounds an awful lot like she will be starting a war against the Assad regime, in addition to a wider bombing campaign against Isis she has already promised should she get into office.

It’s worth noting that the US has been accused of killing dozens of civilians in Syria with its airstrikes on at least two different occasions in the last few weeks. How they plan on avoiding even more destruction – and backlash – when the conflict increases is anyone’s guess.

As foreign policy expert Micah Zenko pointed out, when so-called Iraq War III first started almost two years ago now, officials claimed it “will be of a limited duration”. In Yemen two months ago, they absurdly said that “we view this as short-term”, despite the crisis-level situation they helped create inside the country.

With Libya this time around, I guess we can be relieved that at least the US government isn’t outwardly lying about any time limits on this military incursion. As the Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman reported: “The US officials say [this] will be a sustained offensive against the militant group,” and a Pentagon spokesman admitted: “We don’t have an end point at this particular point of time.”

Whoever is in office after Obama leaves in January will have many decisions to make about wars across the Middle East. But one thing seems clear: the government’s established pattern of needing to address the problems its own past actions helped create will continue.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ious-cycle

Heil Hillary!

rowan wrote:Heil Hillary!

Never seen that before! You would have thought a politician would be a little more composed than that. She was acting like one of those loose women morons.

Doesn't it seem just slightly suspicious that America has all these wars going on across the Middle East - and they never seem to end? Nothing to do with controlling the lucrative oil industries these countries just happen to have, of course. Nothing to do with justifying a trillion-dollar military budget and keeping the military industrial complex and arms dealers happy.

rowan wrote:Doesn't it seem just slightly suspicious that America has all these wars going on across the Middle East - and they never seem to end? Nothing to do with controlling the lucrative oil industries these countries just happen to have, of course. Nothing to do with justifying a trillion-dollar military budget and keeping the military industrial complex and arms dealers happy.

America does not do long term planning. Something happens ,they react. I'm not sure there is a long term strategy.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Doesn't it seem just slightly suspicious that America has all these wars going on across the Middle East - and they never seem to end? Nothing to do with controlling the lucrative oil industries these countries just happen to have, of course. Nothing to do with justifying a trillion-dollar military budget and keeping the military industrial complex and arms dealers happy.

America does not do long term planning. Something happens ,they react. I'm not sure there is a long term strategy.

Thanks, Sandy. Good one! Didn't know satire was part of your reportoire!

But even Wiki says America does long-term planning:

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative[1][2][3] think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.[4][5] The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[6] The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century

In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter, who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.” (Eugene Debs, 1855-1926, speech Canton, Ohio, 16th June 1918.) The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), unleashed in June 1997, has largely disappeared from the political radar, yet the mire, murder and general mayhem the US, UK and dwindling “boots on the ground” allies find themselves in, are seemingly rooted in its aims, which march relentlessly on.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-neocon ... ce/5305447

"Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)" is a policy document published by a neoconservative Washington think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Its pages have been compared to Hitler's Mein Kampf in that they outline an aggressive military plan for U.S. world domination during the coming century. And just as Hitler's book was not taken seriously until after his catastrophic rise to power, so it seems that relatively few Americans are expressing alarm at this published document that is a blueprint for many of the present actions of the Bush administration, actions which have begun to destabilize the balance of power between the nations of the world.
https://www.antiwar.com/orig/stockbauer1.html

THE U.S. LAUNCHED a major new military campaign against ISIS on Monday when U.S. planes bombed targets in Libya, responding to requests from the U.N.-backed Libyan government. Strikes took place in the coastal town of Sirte, which ISIS took in June of last year. The strikes represent a significant escalation in the U.S. war against ISIS, spreading the conflict thousands of miles from the warzones in Syria and Iraq. All of these attacks took place without congressional authorization or even debate.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/01/u-s ... ar-moment/

I speak from my first hand experience. In over a decade of working with the US military, I never came close to seeing anything like a coherent strategy.

Sandydragon wrote:I speak from my first hand experience. In over a decade of working with the US military, I never came close to seeing anything like a coherent strategy.

at least they're consistent. All the people making obscene money out of these conflicts should volunteer their sons and daughters to go and deal with this on the front line.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I speak from my first hand experience. In over a decade of working with the US military, I never came close to seeing anything like a coherent strategy.

at least they're consistent. All the people making obscene money out of these conflicts should volunteer their sons and daughters to go and deal with this on the front line.

One of the nice things about being on ops is that most of the wankers weren't there.

rowan wrote:Heil Hillary!

Wow that is crass.

Fucking fat-hipped tactless trout bitch. Unbelieveable.

That's your next president, folks, because it sure as hell won't be Trump ...

rowan wrote:That's your next president, folks, because it sure as hell won't be Trump ...

I see more charter schools, corporate welfare, and working class kids being roped into the military machine to enforce profits for corporate warriors. She has been lined up for this and has paid the Devil. Fucking hell.

She's backed by the banks......duhhhhhhhh.

Took them long enough to figure this out

Who actually benefits from American-led wars across the globe? The aftermath of American-led conflicts shows it is not the common people, though the military and politicians vow they are liberating and protecting them.
The Sunday Mail, Zimbabwe’s “leading family newspaper,” has published accounts of a number of Libyans who expressed regret over Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow in 2011, despite the fact some of them even took up arms against him. As one said:
“‘I joined the revolution in the first days and fought against Gaddafi,’ former revolutionary fighter Mohammed, 31, said from the southern city of Murzuq. ‘Before 2011, I hated Gaddafi more than anyone. But now, life is much, much harder, and I have become his biggest fan.’”
In 2011, we were told Gaddafi was going to commit grave bloodshed against his own people and that as a result, the international community needed to intervene to protect Libyan civilians. This proved to be false, according to an analysis of statistics obtained by Human Rights Watch. Further, an investigation conducted by Amnesty International also found a number of claims against Gaddafi were fabricated, as noted by the Independent:
“Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.
“An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.”
The so-called “no-fly zone” the U.N. Security Council Resolution authorized did not allow for regime change, something NATO representatives further promised their Eastern counterparts would not happen. The resolution only authorized the coalition forces to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory. The resolution requested that the coalition immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.
What this “no-fly zone” actually entailed was a full-scale assault on Gaddafi’s forces to ensure none of his aircraft could fly within his own country’s airspace. It also meant anything capable of taking out a coalition warplane would also have to be destroyed.
All of these NATO bombs were allegedly intended to protect civilians.
Furthermore, a Libyan rebel commander went on record to admit his fighters included al-Qaeda-linked jihadists who had fought against U.S. troops in Iraq. These fighters, known at the time as al-Qaeda in Iraq, are now referred to as ISIS. It should be no surprise that ISIS now has a stronghold in Libya following the fall of Gaddafi.
Before the NATO onslaught, Libya had the highest standard of living of any country in Africa. This meant the people enjoyed state-sponsored healthcare, high literacy rates, and other benefits that come with living in a relatively prosperous society. In 2015 alone, the country fell 27 places on the U.N. Human Development Index ratings. According to UNICEF, there are now two million Libyan children out of school.
Consumers of corporate media might also be surprised to learn Libya had an inclusive and progressive democracy where decision-making was conducted at the local level. It was not the dictatorship Sacha Baron Cohen incorrectly portrayed in his film, The Dictator.
Regardless of one’s views of Gaddafi, the former Libyan leader was able to provide stability and good governance to the people of Libya. It may be the case that he was responsible for torturing scores of dissidents, but one should bear in mind that the United Kingdom would actually send those dissidents to Gaddafi, knowing full well they would be tortured.
Making this corruption even juicier, former French leader Nicolas Sarkozy, the man who essentially had Gaddafi assassinated, was actually under investigation for having accepted 50 million euros from Gaddafi for his election campaign.
Are we supposed to trust these corrupt politicians to protect the interests of civilians?
To the warmongers within the American political establishment, the destruction of the Libyan way of life was nothing but a (hilarious) game.
As stated by Libyan medical student, Salem:
“We thought things would be better after the revolution, but they just keep getting worse and worse.
“Far more people have been killed since 2011 than during the revolution or under 42 years of Gaddafi’s rule combined.
“We never had these problems under Gaddafi.
“There was always money and electricity and, although people did not have large salaries, everything was cheap, so life was simple.
“Some of my friends have even taken the boat to Europe with the migrants because they feel there is no future for them here.
“I would like to escape this mess and study abroad but I have been waiting a year for a new passport and, even when I do get one, it will be hard to get a visa because all the embassies left in 2014.
“So now I feel like a prisoner in my own country. And I have started to hate my own country.”

http://theantimedia.org/libyans-opposed ... me-change/

I'd be fascinated to know who is actually in control/guarding the oilfields. Wiki only says it's 'local forces'.

Not sure at this present time. The Libyan National Army seized control from the UN-backed government in Tripoli earlier this month, leading to violence, including American bombing of the LNA. It's obviously become another Iraq, and Syria will follow suit if the Russians allowed NATO et al to have their way. One thing we can be pretty certain of is that the US, Britain & France all have a stake in that oil. Of course, this sort of thing has been going on since the usual suspects overthrew Iran's first democratic government in 1953 and reinstated the brutal shah, which eventually culminated in the Islamic Revolution (and US/European support for Saddam in his vicious war on Iran as revenge).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -142482013

Apologies for linking to The Fail,....and being a tad OT but the brass neck historical revisionism of this man is staggering.

My attention quickly wandered to this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... drama.html

"Credit RT"

"Posted by ANTI NEW WORLD ORDER"


Yep, seems legit.

It seems to concur with countless other reports, however. Tariq Ali (above) makes a similar point, for instance. I don't follow RT anymore personally, because of the increasing amount of BS they come out with, but that doesn't mean I'll ignore anything of theirs I happened to come across incidentally; just as I don't ignore everything that comes out of the BBC, CNN, Washington Post, NY Times & so on. Even Al Jazeera is absurdly biased on Syria and Yemen, but they also produce some outstanding stories on other parts of the world. So it's probably not a healthy approach to just take a black and white view of this, because you would be left with very little to go on at all otherwise...

Hands off America's colonies, Moscow

'For five years the US and other western powers worked to unite Syria’s disparate rebel factions, combat Islamic State and broker a peace deal with Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Prospects of such a deal have all but evaporated after Russian air power crushed rebels in their stronghold of Aleppo.'
https://www.theguardian.com/…/us-says-r ... s-libya-wa…
or, as one reader noted, a more accurate version:
'For five years the US and other western powers worked to *arm* Syria’s disparate rebel factions and *overthrow* al-Assad'

Then, at the bottom of this article, the Guardian has the nerve to ask readers to fund its 'independent, investigative journalism...because we believe our perspective matters'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... rts-battle