There is a stupid personal element between Sarkozy and Gaddafi which I don't understand and I don't want to guess at, but knowing the genetic deformations of Sarkozy it must be money or women, or both. We are digging.
Apart from that there is the rapacity of the beards for money and power, translate this in oil.
And last but not least the <WORLDGOVERNORS>, who dabble in <WORLDGOVERNMENTS> and such like and cause a hell of a lot of damage by ignoring the realities of humankind.
They are dangerous loonies.
This article touches on those loonies.
For your info, the Qatar branch of the Brookings Institute is daily on Al Jazeerah English.
MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2011
Libyan War: Globalists Bluffing their way to Victory
Editing note: originally "The Real Military Options in Libya" was erroneously reported to be published March 9, 2001. This is a typo and should have been March 9, 2011.
by Tony Cartalucci
In a war the globalists dared not even debate domestically amongst their bankrupt, imploding societies, they are now oafishly extending their litany of verifiable lies, and unverified accusations over the combat phase of their meddling in Libya.
We were told that UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 1973 was to establish a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians. We would only be kidding ourselves if we didn't realize the entire resolution was just the "camel's nose entering the tent" - and that full-fledged war and regime change is well underway.
Perhaps sensing that non-existent public support will not sustain another decade of war on yet another battlefront, the globalists are trying to bluff their way through to a quick victory. In additional to a terroristic "shock & awe" campaign, the British MI6 are now attempting to threaten members of Libya's government and military with assassination if they don't defect from Qaddafi's government. This comes from a Daily Mail article charmingly titled "MI6 puts gun to generals' heads." Indeed, this is the true face of the "international community," gangsters on a global scale extorting their demands via death threats and acts of shocking violence.
It is also quite apparent that the campaign to demonize Libya's government has hit a few snags with an increasingly astute public forcing propaganda outfits like BBC to concede their reports are merely "allegations" and "claims," with even the Department of Defense admitting to having "no confirmation whatsoever" on reports of Qaddafi brutalizing civilian populations. This is important to keep in mind considering the entire justification behind UNSC resolution 1973, authorizing the recent missile and aerial bombardments of Libya by the US, UK, and France is based on these "allegations" and "claims" of which the US Department of Defense has "no confirmation whatsoever."
The United Nations masquerades as an international authority coordinating and lending legitimacy to "global responses," including the current aggression towards Libya. In reality, it is but a tool, a facilitator for the global corporate-financier agenda. Its recentResolution 1973 is a rubber stamped, nearly verbatim copy of the corporate funded stratagems that have been plotting and articulating regime change in Libya openly since early February.
Front cover of the Brookings Institute's 2010 Annual Report. Corporate
sponsors include Chevron, Exxon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed
Martin, Raytheon, and many more. It is not difficult to delineate their motives
of funding a policy center that blueprints and lays the rhetorical ground
work for geopolitical conflicts that result in booms for both oil and defense
contractors - with "humanitarian concerns" but a marketing ploy.
Corporations wrote UNSC Resolution 1973
In Kenneth Pollack's March 9th 2011 report for the corporate funded think-tank Brookings Institute titled, "The Real Military Options in Libya," he outlines "safe havens:"
"We could carve out safe havens along both borders, defend them with ground and air forces (and ground forces would be necessary) and then bring in the UN and NGOs to provide aid and assistance. Such an operation would be relatively easy to start, but very hard to end. We could only responsibly cease protecting the strongholds when a political settlement in Libya was in place and could be trusted to actually end the violence—and that might be a long time coming, especially if the only Western intervention is to defend the save havens."
UNSC resolution 1973 mirrors this:
"...to take all necessary measures, not withstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory..."
While UNSC resolution 1973 excludes ground troops, the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, vessels specializing in amphibious assault, are already off Libya's shores. The think-tanks that developed the strategy now unfolding in Libya know very well ground troops will be necessary if "bluffing" their way to victory doesn't work.
Pollack continues to outline the "no-fly zone:"
"The NFZs are a problematic option. We have never tried to use a No-Fly Zone to bring down a regime in the past—only to prevent a humanitarian crisis—and it is a difficult operation to use in that manner. A No-Fly Zone is a mostly passive option (which is why it is attractive to many Westerners) in that we would only use force when the Libyan Air Force (LAF) challenged it. Otherwise, no one might even see the Western jets overhead. Thus, the degree of pressure they apply, politically or militarily, is very modest. NFZs did not bring down either Saddam or Milosevic. "
Again, Pollack is straight forward about declaring the globalists' true intentions: regime change. The UN resolution of course, focuses primarily on the no-fly zone, but the clause to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas" leaves the door open for "mission creep" into Pollack's additional options, which include "airstrikes," which are already taking place, the "Afghan option" involving special operation forces supporting armed rebels, and the "blockade, sanctions and covert support" option which is also already underway. An enforced arms embargo and asset freeze is also mirrored in the UNSC resolution 1973. The final option Pollack covers is of course, "invasion."
Pollack has this to say about the "invasion option:"
"Finally, if the United States decides that we really want to get rid of Qaddafi, we could invade. In the aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan, I have a great deal of difficulty imagining that any American would be ready to do this, and certainly no one is calling for it now. Let us hope that we never come to this ugly bridge at all."
Knowing that regime change was the goal from the very beginning, with globalists like Sarkozy of France already recognizing the rebels as Libya's "legitimate government," we can only imagine the stories that will be cooked up by the propaganda outlets to justify an invasion should air support under the cover of "humanitarian aid" fail to hand the rebels victory.
Amazingly, there are still voices all across society, apparently having been absent the last decade of bankrupting war and murderous occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, that seem to believe somehow "this time" the West's intentions are genuine. Clearly, Kenneth Pollack's report is a premeditated signed confession of the West's true intentions which officially articulate the narrative the corporate owned media has been peddling since the Libyan unrest began in mid-February.
The Middle East is going to be re-engineered in favor of the global corporate-financier oligarchs whether we believe the globalists' tired rhetoric or not. All that is left for us to do, is take a look at the corporations funding men like Kenneth Pollack, and put them out of business by boycotting and replacing them with local solutions. We must control our own destiny by reclaiming our responsibilities to sustain ourselves and our communities without paying into the corporate consumer paradigm run by arrogant policy wonks holed up in Washington or the corporations robbing the planet blind from the comfort of Wall Street and London.
by Tony Cartalucci
In a war the globalists dared not even debate domestically amongst their bankrupt, imploding societies, they are now oafishly extending their litany of verifiable lies, and unverified accusations over the combat phase of their meddling in Libya.
We were told that UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 1973 was to establish a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians. We would only be kidding ourselves if we didn't realize the entire resolution was just the "camel's nose entering the tent" - and that full-fledged war and regime change is well underway.
Perhaps sensing that non-existent public support will not sustain another decade of war on yet another battlefront, the globalists are trying to bluff their way through to a quick victory. In additional to a terroristic "shock & awe" campaign, the British MI6 are now attempting to threaten members of Libya's government and military with assassination if they don't defect from Qaddafi's government. This comes from a Daily Mail article charmingly titled "MI6 puts gun to generals' heads." Indeed, this is the true face of the "international community," gangsters on a global scale extorting their demands via death threats and acts of shocking violence.
It is also quite apparent that the campaign to demonize Libya's government has hit a few snags with an increasingly astute public forcing propaganda outfits like BBC to concede their reports are merely "allegations" and "claims," with even the Department of Defense admitting to having "no confirmation whatsoever" on reports of Qaddafi brutalizing civilian populations. This is important to keep in mind considering the entire justification behind UNSC resolution 1973, authorizing the recent missile and aerial bombardments of Libya by the US, UK, and France is based on these "allegations" and "claims" of which the US Department of Defense has "no confirmation whatsoever."
Late February 2011, Libyan opposition leader Ibrahim Sahad, sitting in front of the White House, spells out the game plan long before the US, UK, and EU began their poorly feigned "soul searching" on what to do over Libya.
The United Nations masquerades as an international authority coordinating and lending legitimacy to "global responses," including the current aggression towards Libya. In reality, it is but a tool, a facilitator for the global corporate-financier agenda. Its recentResolution 1973 is a rubber stamped, nearly verbatim copy of the corporate funded stratagems that have been plotting and articulating regime change in Libya openly since early February.
Front cover of the Brookings Institute's 2010 Annual Report. Corporatesponsors include Chevron, Exxon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed
Martin, Raytheon, and many more. It is not difficult to delineate their motives
of funding a policy center that blueprints and lays the rhetorical ground
work for geopolitical conflicts that result in booms for both oil and defense
contractors - with "humanitarian concerns" but a marketing ploy.
In Kenneth Pollack's March 9th 2011 report for the corporate funded think-tank Brookings Institute titled, "The Real Military Options in Libya," he outlines "safe havens:"
"We could carve out safe havens along both borders, defend them with ground and air forces (and ground forces would be necessary) and then bring in the UN and NGOs to provide aid and assistance. Such an operation would be relatively easy to start, but very hard to end. We could only responsibly cease protecting the strongholds when a political settlement in Libya was in place and could be trusted to actually end the violence—and that might be a long time coming, especially if the only Western intervention is to defend the save havens."
UNSC resolution 1973 mirrors this:
"...to take all necessary measures, not withstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory..."
While UNSC resolution 1973 excludes ground troops, the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, vessels specializing in amphibious assault, are already off Libya's shores. The think-tanks that developed the strategy now unfolding in Libya know very well ground troops will be necessary if "bluffing" their way to victory doesn't work.
Pollack continues to outline the "no-fly zone:"
"The NFZs are a problematic option. We have never tried to use a No-Fly Zone to bring down a regime in the past—only to prevent a humanitarian crisis—and it is a difficult operation to use in that manner. A No-Fly Zone is a mostly passive option (which is why it is attractive to many Westerners) in that we would only use force when the Libyan Air Force (LAF) challenged it. Otherwise, no one might even see the Western jets overhead. Thus, the degree of pressure they apply, politically or militarily, is very modest. NFZs did not bring down either Saddam or Milosevic. "
Again, Pollack is straight forward about declaring the globalists' true intentions: regime change. The UN resolution of course, focuses primarily on the no-fly zone, but the clause to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas" leaves the door open for "mission creep" into Pollack's additional options, which include "airstrikes," which are already taking place, the "Afghan option" involving special operation forces supporting armed rebels, and the "blockade, sanctions and covert support" option which is also already underway. An enforced arms embargo and asset freeze is also mirrored in the UNSC resolution 1973. The final option Pollack covers is of course, "invasion."
Pollack has this to say about the "invasion option:"
"Finally, if the United States decides that we really want to get rid of Qaddafi, we could invade. In the aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan, I have a great deal of difficulty imagining that any American would be ready to do this, and certainly no one is calling for it now. Let us hope that we never come to this ugly bridge at all."
Knowing that regime change was the goal from the very beginning, with globalists like Sarkozy of France already recognizing the rebels as Libya's "legitimate government," we can only imagine the stories that will be cooked up by the propaganda outlets to justify an invasion should air support under the cover of "humanitarian aid" fail to hand the rebels victory.
Amazingly, there are still voices all across society, apparently having been absent the last decade of bankrupting war and murderous occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, that seem to believe somehow "this time" the West's intentions are genuine. Clearly, Kenneth Pollack's report is a premeditated signed confession of the West's true intentions which officially articulate the narrative the corporate owned media has been peddling since the Libyan unrest began in mid-February.
The Middle East is going to be re-engineered in favor of the global corporate-financier oligarchs whether we believe the globalists' tired rhetoric or not. All that is left for us to do, is take a look at the corporations funding men like Kenneth Pollack, and put them out of business by boycotting and replacing them with local solutions. We must control our own destiny by reclaiming our responsibilities to sustain ourselves and our communities without paying into the corporate consumer paradigm run by arrogant policy wonks holed up in Washington or the corporations robbing the planet blind from the comfort of Wall Street and London.
There is a reason to disbelieve the danger of "massacres" that I haven't seen anywhere in public:
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone bring his country back to a pariah state for the sake of killing several thousand people?
- Sadism and lack of self-control?
Before 20 February, the West found Gaddafi compliant with all their demands, including those in the domain of prison treatment. Otherwise they wouldn't have been ostentatiously buddies with him.
- Not understanding the seriousness of international threats?
Libya was under economic sanctions for many years. Every Libyan could hardly know better what the threat of sanctions means; Gaddafi worked for years to lift them.
There seem to be two necessary conditions for people to believe in upcoming massacres in Libya:
1) they don't think on the matter
2) they have negative prejudices about Gaddafi or Libyans, possibly because of racism.