Posts in "NATO"

By Jayel Aheram at 11:13AM

Aug 25, 2011

Libyans' devil's pact with NATO

WikiLeaks Tweet

If you think getting rid of Gaddafi was hard, wait till you see what happens when Libyans try to get rid of NATO.

There will be no peace in Libya even after Muammar Gaddafi’s death or capture. NATO’s bombings will continue as pro-Gaddafi loyalists prolong the fighting. Did Saddam Hussein’s capture and execution bring an end to the Iraq War? Did the fall of Kabul and the Taliban, or even the death of Osama bin Laden, end the Afghanistan War?

Libyans will learn very quickly that nothing good will come about with their devil’s pact with NATO.

For additional reading, I recommend John Glaser’s piece why the rebels are unfit to govern and why NATO or the U.S. stepping in is not any better.

Posted in:

1 comment

By Jayel Aheram at 11:19AM

Aug 24, 2011

Who are we to decide Libya's future?

The dead have yet to be buried and already Europe’s corporate giants are scrambling to suck Libya’s oil wealth dry:

The fighting is not yet over in Tripoli, but the scramble to secure access to Libya’s oil wealth has already begun.

[…]

Western nations — especially the NATO countries that provided crucial air support to the rebels — want to make sure their companies are in prime position to pump the Libyan crude.

It can be argued that without NATO and U.S. intervention, the Islamist and Al Qaeda-backed rebellion would have had a tougher time ousting Muammar Gaddafi. If anything, NATO involvement ensures that the U.S. and its allies will have a claim in deciding Libya’s future.

NATO’s involvement will not end with the fall of the Gaddafi regime; there will always be justification for the continued bombing of Libya, whether it be pro-Gaddafi loyalists or the inevitable North African terrorists. In fact, United Nations and European Union are already planning for the administration of post-Gaddafi Libya with an American president promising even more intervention in Libya.

As the corporate media shift their attention away from Libya to shamelessly cheer yet another U.S.-led regime change, Libyans will learn that nothing good will come about with their devil’s pact with NATO.

Many are hoping and promising that Libya will not end up like Iraq.

Of course, the one question not being asked: Who are we to decide Libya's future?

Posted in:

2 comments

By Andrew Owens at 9:25AM

Jul 8, 2011

Disturbing Trends Continue for NATO Airstrikes

At least 14 civilians have been pronounced dead, including eight children, in yet another round of NATO airstrikes in the Khost Province of Afghanistan this week. This incident follows a similar event on Tuesday, where as many as 11 civilian deaths were attributed to NATO strikes.

For a president who received the Nobel Peace Prize, it is disheartening to see such warrantless aggression take place almost a decade after the September 11th attacks. The concept of 'blowback' is no better epitomized than with the recourse of events like these. As the global financial downturn continues, the American citizenry can be assured that US foreign policy is relentlessly destroying families and villages in the name of fighting terrorism.

As if one bomb-blasted province in one country is not enough, NATO strikes continue to unfold in Libya as well. Despite very little support from the American public regarding US involvement in Libya, President Obama refuses to back down -- addressing the conflict's growing criticism as distracting "noise." One can only hope that the president heeds the warnings of common sense before it is too late. Sooner or later retribution will find itself on the shores of America -- bringing with it a new round of security measures the likes of which Orwell himself would not have dreamed plausible.

To the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the 2008 US Presidential election I say: With Bin Laden dead and most of the Middle East on its knees, "war is over -- if you want it." It is such a shame that you do not.

Learn more here, here, and here.

Posted in:

1 comment

By Matt Cockerill at 5:38PM

Mar 27, 2010

CIA Sees Obama as a Key Tool in Continuing NATO War

Despite an MSM blackout and dissapointing recent gains for the war's popularity, about half of Americans oppose the "good war" in Afghanistan. Though this certainly isn't negligible opposition, overseas it's a different story.

Most people in most NATO countries were antiwar from the start. Pro-peace sentiment overseas, even in traditional US allies like the UK, continues to grow. As the occupation drags on, and the supposed "risk" of terrorism from withdrawl seems more abstract and less realistic, many people are concluding it's simply not worth it.

Since government everywhere and always depends on the consent of the governed, our charming CIA is trying to figure out ways to "manipulate public opinion in these foreign countries." The full leaked CIA document, reported on by Glenn Greenwald in his Salon column, just gets creepier. Writes Greenwald:

The Report seeks to provide a back-up plan for "counting on apathy," and provides ways that the U.S. Government can manipulate public opinion in these foreign countries.

On a Road to Disaster

Baloch Warriors from the 1800s The New York Times recently reported that a “NATO airstrike on Sunday against what international troops believed to be a group of insurgents ended up killing 27 civilians in the worst episode involving noncombatant deaths in six months, Afghan officials said on Monday.”

NATO, an international organization which is supposed to “safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries,” found it necessary to kill innocent civilians in the name of freedom and security. Understanding that civilian casualties are always and should always be expected, targeting 27 is hardly just a "mistake."

This not only represents the failure of international organizations to promote anything for the common good, but it also shows how the strategy in Afghanistan is inherently flawed and on a road to disaster.

It’s extremely difficult to fight a land war in Afghanistan, let alone win a war on an ideology.

The "Progressive" NATO Knowingly Slaughters Innocent People

The mainstream left is always fomenting about how we must have the "international community's" support before waging war. This Orwellian term should not be taken to mean the regular folks in allied nations -- who are overwhelmingly against both the "bad" and "good" war -- but their self-interested political leaders.

But apart from misleading, this attitude reeks of state-worship and naivete. If someone decides to bomb a residential area, are the innocent people maimed -- that is, the victims -- really going to care whether the "international community" sanctioned this aggression? NATO seems to think such a distinction is justified, as demonstrated by its recent decision to directly slaughter about a dozen Afghanis to get an alleged terrorist.

But of course, neither tough-talking NATO generals nor the chickenhawk politicians who employ them would accept blowing their children's legs off as a means to an end. The job of libertarians is to preach the Golden Rule and remind our fellow citizens that no government institution is above the natural law binding private society.

Posted in: