Newspaper pimping for an all-out war against Libya to destroy Qaddafi
lo yeeOn
James Joyce): Newspaper pimping for war, telling the President how to
lie.
"Now, President Obama, all you have to do is just to quote Qaddafi
saying that he's gonna terrorize Europe as evidence that America's
security will be threatened, if we don't finish him off first."
These warmongers and pimps forget that Qaddafi was not a threat to
American security (nor that of Europe or any other country)
before, and yet we went and barbarically bombed his country.
So Qaddafi did like any other leader in his situation would do: he
rallied his people and gave NATO's barbarism the rhetorical response:
"We may decide to treat you the same . . . If we want, we can go to
Europe like locusts, like bees. We advise you to withdraw before a
disaster [brings us to that point]."
Remember that this is already months after a series of air strikes
were carried out by NATO, including multiple attempts of assassination
aimed at his own life and the killing of many Libyan civilians,
including one of Qaddafi's own sons.
Besides, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dismissed the threat
saying that "Rather than issue threats, Gaddafi should put the welfare
and interests of their people first, and he should step down from
power and to facilitate the transition to democracy." (To paraphrase
Hillary: "What, me worry?")
The real reason why NATO was told to bomb Libya in the first place is
because the western powers decided that attacking Qaddafi's Libya
would not incur harm to the security of western nations. And
Mrs. Clinton's dismissive remark clearly confirms that sentiment.
So, the bottom line is that the Bloomberg editors are, like their
counterparts at the Wall Street Journal and those at the New York
Times, sitting in their board room and pimping for wars, using lie
after lie (mensonge apr`es mensonge).
Shame on warmongers and their stooges. They use the fig leaf of
"protecting civilians" to attack defenseless people. You know why
they call it a fig leaf? Adam wore a fig leaf Adam as did Eve when
they discovered shame before God. NATO's barbarism is shame and that
is why NATO and the political leaders behind the war machine need a
fig leaf to cover up their shameful act.
lo yeeOn
========
PS: Hillary has admitted that NATO is killing innocent peoople because
it is gunning for Qaddafi.
If Bloomberg News wants a war there should be a tax exclusively levied
on big banks and financial services like Bloomberg LP to pay for it.
========
"NATO hits one tank and then goes away," lamented a commander of
Libya's opposition forces to the Washington Post. "But NATO could
turn this war around in a day if they wanted to." Muammar Qaddafi, by
threatening to launch terrorist attacks against Europe, has given the
Obama administration a solid rationale for doing just that. After four
months of letting European nations show what they can do, the Obama
administration should heed an important lesson from the war in Bosnia
and take over leadership of NATO's air campaign. "You will regret it,
NATO, when the war moves to Europe," Qaddafi warned Europeans
recently. "Libyan fighters will attack your homes, your offices and
your families," he said. Having already killed hundreds in the Pan Am
103 terrorist attack, Qaddafi's threat is credible enough. President
Barack Obama need not wait for the Libyan leader to extend his threats
to North America to conclude that what was once a moral intervention
to save Libyan civilians is now a national security imperative.
Just as in March, when the White House used Qaddafi's threat to wipe
out the civilian population of Benghazi to justify the original
intervention, it can now cite the Libyan leader's threat of terrorism
against the West as a reason to step up U.S. involvement.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to such a decision is political. Twice
this summer, the House of Representatives voted on the war in Libya,
and twice it showed bipartisan opposition to even the supporting role
the U.S. is playing.
The politics of the Libyan war aren't straightforward. Some
Republicans, such as Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham,
want the U.S. to do more than support its NATO allies: They want
Washington to lead, as it did in Kosovo and Bosnia in the 1990s.
Opposing them is a large group of House Republicans who say the
U.S. has no national security interest at stake. These politicians
acknowledge the risk that Qaddafi will snuff out Libya's pro-democracy
opposition, including many thousands of civilians, but they say Libya
is closer to Europe, so the Europeans should handle it.
Democrats are also divided. Some, like Senator John Kerry and Senator
Harry Reid, support the Obama administration's limited approach. But a
large number of Democrats in the House, like their Republican
counterparts, argue that the U.S. cannot be the world's policeman.
Today's political confusion echoes a similar moment in the early days
of the previous Democratic president, Bill Clinton. At the time, both
parties were internally divided over the question of whether
Washington should take the lead from Europe in the effort to prevent
Slobodan Milosevic's Serbs from slaughtering Bosnia's Muslims in
Sarajevo.
Like Obama today, Clinton wanted to focus on the domestic economy and
limit U.S. involvement to support for a European-led military
operation. Here the parallel gets a little eerie. In trying to justify
this stance, a top Clinton official, Undersecretary of State Peter
Tarnoff, said the U.S. was "too poor to lead". That infelicitous
explanation haunted the Clinton administration for most of its first
two years.
Cut to May of this year, when a senior official in the present
administration made a similar remark to the New Yorker. Our strategy
to support a European-led operation in Libya, this unnamed official
said, amounted to "leading from behind". And it is this explanation
that now dogs the Obama administration.
The administration would do well to remember the key lesson learned
from Clinton's early days. Because of the U.S.'s unique combination of
military, economic and political power, along with Europe's relative
weakness, resolving a complex security crisis like the one in Bosnia
required U.S. leadership. Europe was unable to muster a decisive
response.
In 1995, Clinton took charge. The Bosnian Serbs suffered a NATO air
assault, succumbed to U.S. diplomatic pressure, and accepted the
Dayton Peace Accords that ended the war. Politically, Clinton's
leadership united most of the disparate elements of the Democratic
Party and even won the respect of many Republicans. That shift -- from
too poor to lead to the later formulation of "the indispensable
nation" -- was a turning point in Clinton's presidency.
The Obama administration should make a similar strategic shift: from a
supporting role to the traditional U.S. role of military leader of the
NATO alliance. Doing so, we believe, would hasten the end of the
Qaddafi regime. It would also give the U.S. a decisive influence on
the events of the Arab spring.
Republican candidate Tim Pawlenty told Bloomberg View earlier this
week that the best way for the president to gain Republican support
for the Libya campaign would be to make the case that Qaddafi now
poses a threat to U.S. and Western security. We agree.
bmo...@nyx.net
> See a portrait of the newspaper editor as warmonger (apologies to
> James Joyce): Newspaper pimping for war, telling the President how to
> lie.
>
> "Now, President Obama, all you have to do is just to quote Qaddafi
> saying that he's gonna terrorize Europe as evidence that America's
> security will be threatened, if we don't finish him off first."
>
> These warmongers and pimps forget that Qaddafi was not a threat to
> American security (nor that of Europe or any other country)
> before, and yet we went and barbarically bombed his country.
>
> So Qaddafi did like any other leader in his situation would do: he
> rallied his people and gave NATO's barbarism the rhetorical response:
How do you know it was rhetorical? He has already terrorized Europe in
the past by blowing up an airplane with hundreds of innocent people in
it. If he launches more attacks against Europe you'll still support
him, won't you?
rst9
Killing of one form or another won't help anyone. The air support
provided by the UN and the USA also killed many civilians, and this
war in Libya will continue on for a long time. We can not afford
another long war in Libya.
prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
abdication of Gaddaffi .
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-21/lessons-of-history-would-hel...