Friday, April 08, 2011

Friday, April 8, 2011

"STEPHEN SNIEGOSKI : Neocons’ Goal — Iran by Way of Libya" (Sniegoski is always right about everything):
"It can be seen that most advocates of United States intervention in Libya perceive it as being (1) fundamentally humanitarian; (2) very limited in scope; and (3) dealing with a rather unique situation.  The neocons, however, likely perceive it in broader strategic terms.  For them, United States action against Libya would serve to revive their stalled Middle East agenda by providing the ideal justification for the U.S. to become involved militarily in the internal affairs of Iran, currently their (and Israel’s) major target, which they so far have been unsuccessful in achieving.  Neocons have pointed out that the democratic wave threatens the Islamic regime in Iran, which they certainly want the United States to facilitate.  As Michael Ledeen put it at the time of the revolt against Mubarak’s regime in Egypt:  'if we’re going to praise the Tunisian and Egyptian freedom fighters, all the more reason to hail the true martyrs in Iran.'"
and:
"If the United States should make any type of military attack on Libya, and if that attack in any way could be portrayed as successful (which would require far less than the establishment of a new non-Gaddafi democratic regime) immense pressure could be brought to bear on President Obama to take the same militant approach towards Iran.  Neocons are already arguing that the current democratic upheavals in Libya and the Middle East vindicate the neocon-inspired 'Bush freedom agenda.'  Since Bush’s agenda involved the use of force in addition to ideas there is the definite implication that this should also be applied when needed.  And, if the United States intervened militarily in Libya, it would have once again ignored international law’s prohibition of initiating military force against a sovereign country, further helping to establish the precedent that international law’s position on this mater is passé and thus making opposition to such aggressive wars more difficult.  (Most wars in recent times have been justified, at least in part, with a 'humanitarian' rationale; even Hitler went to war against Poland on the grounds that it was oppressing its German minority.)"
"Libya: more rebels killed in Nato air strikes" (er, this doesn't look like a mistake, as the goal isn't for either side to win; my emphasis in red):
"Fighters said that captured tanks had been marked under an agreement with Nato to prevent friendly fire accidents, but to no avail. According to one rebel, up to seven were killed and others seriously wounded, including one teenaged boy who lost both legs. Others gave different figures.
Witnesses claimed the jets circled for half an hour before firing between two and four missiles. As they fled, rebels abandoned other tanks for fear of being struck again."
"Guest Post: Ongoing Cover Up of Nuclear Crisis By Governments and Nuclear Power Companies"

"The Great Reservoirs of Libya"
blog comments powered by Disqus