For those who still believe in the humanitarian war
In a televised debate I had with Louis Michel, former Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Commissioner for Development Cooperation, the latter swore – hand on heart – that this war was intended to “accord to the conscience of Europe” . He was supported by Isabelle Durant, Belgian leader of the Greens and European. Thus, “peace and love” environmentalists have mutated going to war. The problem is that every time we speak of humanitarian war, and every single time these “left” people like Durant get caught in it. Wouldn’t it be better for them to read what the U.S. leaders really think the instead of just listening to them on television ?
Listen for example, about the bombing against Iraq, to the famous Alan Greenspan, who was long director of the Federal Reserve of USA. He wrote in his memoirs : ‘I am saddened that it is politically incorrect to acknowledge what everyone knows : the Iraq war was mainly for oil “ [2] . Adding “Officials from the White House told me : ‘Well, unfortunately we can not talk about oil’.”
Listen, about the bombing against Yugoslavia, to John Norris, director of com Strobe Talbott who was then U.S. Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, in charge of the Balkans. Norris wrote in his memoirs : “What best explains NATO’s war is that Yugoslavia resisted the broad trends in political and economic reforms (it means : refusing to give up Socialism), and it is not our duty to the Kosovo Albanians. “
Listen, about the bombing against Afghanistan, what the former U.S. Minister of Foreign Affairs Henry Kissinger said : “There are trends, supported by China and Japan, to create a free trade area Asia. An Asian bloc opposed combining the most populous nations in the world with great resources and some of the most important industrial countries would be inconsistent with American national interest. For these reasons, America must maintain a presence in Asia … “
This confirmed the strategy put forward by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was in charge of foreign policy under Carter and was the inspiration for Obama concerning “Eurasia (Europe + Asia) remains the chessboard on which the battle takes place for global primacy. (…) The way the United States ‘manage’ Eurasia is critical. The largest continent on the globe is also the geopolitical axis. Any power that controls it, thus controlling two of the three most developed regions and more productive. 75% of world population, the majority of natural wealth in the form of companies or deposits of raw materials, some 60% of the world. “
When Obama says it himself, wouldn’t you believe him either ? On 28 March, Obama has thus justified the war against Libya, "Aware of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to resolve the many challenges facing the world. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. Given the costs and risks of the intervention, we must measure our interests whenever faced with the need for action. America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi to defeat those who oppose him. " Isn’t clear ? So, some say "Yes, yes, the U.S. acts as if they find their interest too. Failing to intervene everywhere, at least they will be saving these people. " False.
We will show that only interest will be protected. No values. First, every U.S. war claimed more victims than there were before (in Iraq, one million direct and indirect victims !). Then, the intervention in Libya is preparing other victims too...
Who refused to negotiate ?
As soon as you make a doubt about the opportunity of this war against Libya, immediately, you feel guilty : "You refuse then to save the Libyans of the massacre ?” Badly posed question. Let’s suppose that everything we’ve been told really happened. First, should we stop a massacre by another massacre ? We know that by bombing, our armies will kill many innocent civilians. Even if, as in every war, the generals promise that it will be "clean", we're used to this propaganda. Second, there was a much simpler and more effective way to save lives immediately.
All Latin American countries have offered to immediately send a mediation mission headed by Lula.
The Arab League and African Union supported this approach and Gaddafi had agreed (also offering to send international observers to verify the cease-fire). But the insurgents and the Western Libyan refused mediation. Why ? "Because Gaddafi is not in good faith," they say. Possible. Whereas, the insurgents and their Western protectors have always been in good faith ? About the United States, it is useful to recall how they behaved in all previous wars every time a cease-fire was possible ... In 1991, when Bush attacked Iraq because it invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein offered to withdraw and that Israel must also evacuate from the illegally occupied territories in Palestine.
But the U.S. and European countries have refused six negotiating proposals.
In 1999, when Clinton bombed Yugoslavia, Milosevic accepted the conditions imposed in Rambouillet, but the U.S. and NATO have added one more condition, one that is voluntarily unacceptable : the total occupation of Serbia.
In 2001, when Bush's son attacked Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden to an international tribunal if they provided evidence of his involvement, but Bush refused to negotiate. In 2003, when Bush's son attacked Iraq under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has offered to send inspectors, but Bush refused because he knew that the inspectors would find nothing.
This was confirmed by the disclosure of the memo of a meeting between the British government and leaders of the British secret services in July 2002 : "British officials hoped the ultimatum is drafted in unacceptable terms so that Saddam Hussein rejects them immediately. But they were far from certain that this would work.
So, there was a Plan B : the aircrafts patrolling the "no fly zone" throwing many more bombs in the hope that this will cause a reaction that would give an excuse for a broad bombing campaign.
So, before asserting that "we” always tell the truth while "they" always lie, and also that "we” are always looking for a peaceful solution, while "they" do not want to compromise, we should be more careful ... Sooner or later, the audience will learn what really happened during backroom negotiations, and will realize once again that he was manipulated. But it will be too late, and we will not raise the dead.
Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI
Para volver a Guerra humanitaria, Michel Collon, pulse AQUI
No comments:
Post a Comment