he United Nations is set to rubber stamp an EU invasion force of ground troops that would be sent into Libya under the cooked up pretense of “humanitarian aid” and empowered to fight if Gaddafi forces threatened to impede their mission to “secure sea and land corridors inside the country,” another blatant attempt to legitimize the aggressive war by goading Gaddafi into attacking western troops and justifying a wider military intervention.
“The EU has drawn up a “concept of operations” for the deployment of military forces in Libya, but needs UN approval for what would be the riskiest and most controversial mission undertaken by Brussels,” reports the Guardian.“The armed forces, numbering no more than 1,000, would be deployed to secure the delivery of aid supplies, would not be engaged in a combat role but would be authorised to fight if they or their humanitarian wards were threatened. “It would be to secure sea and land corridors inside the country,” said an EU official.
The plan is being spearheaded by the EU’s anointed foreign and security policy chief Catherine Ashton, a woman who has never been democratically elected to public office in her life yet is now about to commit EU troops to a new war that some have warned could last anything up to 30 years.
In addition, US Army Gen. Carter Ham has said that the US is considering sending in ground troops to aid rebels. As we reported at the time, before the Orwellian “no fly zone” was even enacted, hundreds of Special Forces from Britain, America and France landed in the countryto train rebel forces.
Deliberately obfuscating the fact that Gaddafi is fighting a civil war against an army trained by British and U.S. Special Forces, the likes of the BBC and the New York Times are still, over a month into the conflict, ludicrously reporting that rebel fighters killed and injured in battle are in fact innocent civilians being indiscriminately slaughtered by Gaddafi forces.Despite the fact that the initial UN resolution specifically forbade the use of ground troops as an occupying force, that’s exactly what NATO powers have been seeking to implement for the past month, with the mass media dutifully maintaining the hoax that the entire war of aggression is in fact a humanitarian outreach.
These are the same propaganda outlets that told us at the start of the air strikes that men in military uniforms driving tanks, flying fighter jets and walking around with rocket propelled grenade launchers were “protesters,” while concocting outright fabrications about Gaddafi using western journalists as human shields.
While Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have launched an illegal and aggressive invasion of a sovereign country and armed one side in a civil war, the media continues to flagrantly insult our intelligence by characterizing NATO bombs as virtuous tools of liberation, just as the 2003 attack on Iraq, which killed at least 1 million people, was billed at the time as an act of spreading freedom and democracy. While NATO air strikes continue to kill innocent civilians, NATO itself cites Gaddafi attacks on civilians as a reason for intensifying the bombardment.
Look at the images below of injured men arriving at a hospital in Ajdabiya. Do these men look like innocent civilians or do they look like soldiers involved in a war?
Are NATO forces really dropping bombs to protect “protesters” and “innocent civilians” or are they making the region safe for an imminent ground invasion aimed at capturing Africa’s richest oil country and turning it into another geopolitical outpost for the new world order?
As Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have made clear, nothing less than the murder of Gaddafi is good enough. There will be no cease fire and there will be no “negotiated exit” for Gaddafi. This is about regime change – George W. Bush style.
“So this is where we’ve come to: from earnest, knitted-brow assurances of a “limited intervention” to outright declarations of open-ended war for regime change — and “accommodations” to bring in more boots, bullets and bombs “on the ground.” This is a crime, “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole,” and it’s being committed, openly, proudly, by the Democrat in the White House,” writes Chris Floyd.
“But precisely because this “accumulated evil” is being committed by a Democrat in the White House, the “progressive” movement is silent. They don’t care. Aggressive war? They don’t care. International law? They don’t care. A blanket refusal of cease fires and peace plans that could spare countless civilian lives? They don’t care. An “active role on the ground” — new mounds of Iraq-style “collateral damage,” corpses, chaos, breakdown, extremism, brutality, suffering? They don’t care.”
No comments:
Post a Comment