The UN has always made statements in regards to its disapproval of actions taken by parties in a conflict. The UN has always sent peacekeepers or other troops to protect civilians but it has never actually taken sides in a conflict and armed either side or taken military action on behalf of one party or the other. We should note that "civilians" are people who are NOT engaged in conflict but who are trapped in a conflict zone. Anyone in Libya who has taken up arms against the government of Libya, regardless of whether one thinks it is a legitimate government or not, is NOT an innocent civilian by any definition. Therefore; we need to ask, since when did the UN become a tool for certain countries to determine the course of events in other countries? Or for those of us who have been paying attention, what has changed in the world where the UN is not blatantly a tool of imperial powers? There is a difference between being a disinterested party and a neutral party. No one is saying that the UN should be the former, but it MUST be the latter. Now let me get at the US.
If anything shows that the Nobel Peace prize is now a joke of an award, at least as it is purported to uphold the principle of "peace", It is the recent actions of president Obama. Obama has just upped the Bush antics and in my opinion has fallen square into impeachment territory. When it was clear that Ghaddafi was not just going to sit and be tossed out on his duff as others around him had, Obama went on national TV and said that Ghaddafi "must go now". I don't know about you, but the last I checked there were 50 states and a few territories none of which include the state of Libya. So exactly what standing does Obama (or any head of state) have to say whether Ghaddafi has to go or stay? It would seem that decision is in the sole providence of the people of Libya and for them to work out. It is clear that our imperial black president has gotten comfortable with his position.
Let us be clear here, a "no fly zone" is an act of war. Bombing anything in libya is an act of war. Bombing a building where the head of state of Libya may be is a brazen act of war. Therefore I need to ask where was the congressional authorization for this? The War Power's act does not apply here at all. Libya posed and still does not pose any immediate or long term threat to the United States. Libya has, in fact, been a "partner" in the ongoing so called "war on terror". Therefore; by any legal standards this is a blatant war of aggression against the state of Libya given sanction by the so called "United Nations". Let me repeat for those having a difficulty understanding this:
This is a blatant war of aggression, without required congressional approval, against the sovereign state of Libya, which poses and has posed no threat to the United States of America or any of her so called "allies". All of this is being done with full knowledge of and backing of the so called "United Nations" which itself is in violation of it's own mandate.
Since Libya hasn't been a threat to the US on a state level. Since libya has been a "partner" against Al-Qaeda, the bombing cannot even fall under the "war against terror" laws such as the AMUF(most of which are unconstitutional). There is no excuse for this blatant trespass of international law to which the US is beholden to.
And let us not be fooled by this "coalition" bullshit either. This is the work of England (can we say Pan-Am), the French and the US. Of the bombs that fell on Libya in the past two days 122 were of US origins and 22 were of UK origins (as reported this morning on GMA on ABC 7 NY).
In stark contrast is the response to Bahrain which has been killing opposition protestors none of whom to my knowledge had actually taken up arms against the government and therefore are in fact legal civilians. There are no "no fly zones". There are no US..sorry, "coalition" planes firing on government forces. As a matter of fact our "ally" the monarchy of Saudi Arabia who've been in power longer than Ghaddafi has wet dreams about, has sent troops into that country to help that government put down the protests.
On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, in which she showed that having a woman at the helm can result in the same shit coverage and shit questions as the men, had some military official on who said that the situation in Bahrain was "different" because they are an "ally" and have been "cooperative" in the War on Terror (tm). Really? I told y'all already that Mubarak was "our boy in the Middle East" which is why the administration went through all manner of back channel means to make the transition "orderly". Ghaddafi is apparently not a "wholly owned subsidiary of the United States" and therefore not an "ally" and therefore the rules are different.
I will not even begin to discuss the ongoing open air jail that is Gaza.
The next thing this brings up is the various "austerity" budgets that the US, UK and France have pushed on it's citizens. Among the excuses for these drastic cuts to public services and welfare has been that "there is no money." If there "is no money" then there "is no money" for another war. If there is in fact money to be spent, then given that Libya poses no military threat to any of the so called "coalition forces". then that money be spent on the public. It is clear then that the heads of state for the US, UK and FR do not have their citizens welfare in mind.
That Obama could stand up on national TV after the governor of Wisconsin, under the guidance of the Koch brothers, gutted the public unions ability to bargain collectively after creating a fake budget crisis, and not say that Scott Walker needs to go now. Or to even speak forcibly on the subject of blatant union busting makes it crystal clear to those of us not high on "dumb dust" that there is a serious problem of priorities in the White House. The White House is not the only place where there are problems either.
10 Dowling Street clearly has a problem. Apparently it is preferable to treble the cost of tuition for "austerity" rather than not engage in a war of aggression against a state that poses no threat to the UK. It is also very clear that the UN has morphed into something entirely different than its mandate. It's "lesser" members ought to consider that if the so called "security council" can decide who they can remove from power, then they too can be targeted.
Either way the world is now watching an illegal war sanctioned by the UN. And they keep saying Alex Jones is a crazy conspiracy theorist.
