Friday, March 18, 2011

UNSC Role Change - Again!

Four years ago, I wrote about the misdeeds of the UNSC in an article entitled UN Security or Gang Rape (see link here).  With the passing of the no-fly resolution against Libya, it has proven itelf to be a simple toolbox for major powers.  The current resolution is a tool for regime change. 

When it comes to 'humanity' and 'defending civilians', the UNSC gang pick and choose carefully.  While most of their shortcomings has been mentioned in the above link, it is worthwhile mentioning some of the more outrageous and current ones to give us a basis for comparison.

Even after decades of warring and mass murder between the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, the UN failed to pass a resolution.  The massacre of the Tutsis started in the 1960's, but Africa was not sexy then.  During 90-91, thousands of Tutsis were  massacred as the UNSC watched.  In April 1994, as the slaughter began, UN forces washed their hands and watched the massacre.  On April 30th, after hours of discussion of Rwanda situation, the UNSC failed to call it what it was - genocide; because it do not want to take action.   It was not until weeks later that the UNSC was obliged to say "act of genocide may have been committed.'    Clearly, the UNSC was not in the business of 'defending' human civilians.
Although the Sudan murders were referred to as genocide, there was no inclinaiton to intervene.  No doubt the oil deals and the arms trade was too lucrative for the Chinese and Americans to think of 'defending' innocent lives.  

Nor was the UNSC in the business of 'defending' the innocent when Palestinians were massacred by Israeli forces.  Where was the 'no fly zone'?  Nor is the UNSC in the business of defending civilians when the Bahrain government brutally cracks down on the protestors an the Saudi army kills them.  But Libya -  How can the powers resist all that oil?  Time for  the UNSC to be the tool for regime change - feigned humanity.   Why was the oil in danger?

 As far back as 2000, it was thought that Qaddafi's revolution was rapidly disintegrating. Libya's economic ossification has led to the rise of an Islamic opposition movement with a claim that a return to religious values could satisfy demands for economic and political regeneration.  Libyans were turning to religion as a uniting factor and a path to defiance.  Islam had been the ideology which had fought colonizers.   What was 'alarming' for the UNSC powers was the possibility of an alliance between the armed forces and the 'Islamists'.

Indpendence is as dangerous as the mad dog that rules Libya.  Bomb them all.

CommonSense prompts us to understand a country's history in order to grasp why the 'international community' - the UNSC gang, responds to situations the way that it does.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Mercenaries versus Contractors

As American "contractors" are unleashed in the region,  Gaddafi is being accused of unleashing "mercenaries".   Terminology is half the battle. 

In watching the events unfold in the oil-rich region,  the lead up to the illegal Iraq invasion comes to mind.  Libya will be subjected to an 'intervention' because as Victor Hugo aptly pointed out: "An army is a strange composite masterpiece, which strength results from an enormous sum total of utter weaknesses. Thus only can we explain a war waged by humanity against humanity in spite of humanity [for humanity]." 

It is with the past events in mind, and  facts readily available that I watch and listen to the Libyans who appear on CNN and other news stations.  The 'news' brought to us on the uprisings in Libya and elsewhere in the region are a chilly reminder of not only the Iraq war, but serve to confirm that we do indeed have a short term memory and  and lapses of judgment..   It seems to me that the Libya agenda is as important as the Iraq agenda (and Iranian, and ....). 

The Iraq agenda was so important to the  Bush administration that the White House had even created “an interagency” ‘Iraq Public Diplomacy group’ comprised of NSC, CIA, Pentagon, State and USAID staffers.” The Iraq Public Diplomacy Group created the ‘Iraqi Voices for Freedom’ -  voices which spoke of Saddam’s brutality and torture, while they readily made themselves available for interviews, especially to foreign press (non-American). In addition to this, a public relations firm, the Rendon Group,  helped create the Iraqi National Congress (INC) in order to promote ‘the democratic voice of Iraq’. What is more telling is that concurrent with the INC, a Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) was formed by a group which called itself ‘distinguished Americans who wanted to free Iraq from Saddam Hossein’s rule’. The distinguished members of CLI had close links to the Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that shaped the Bush foreign policy  (CLI members were involved with Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG) prior to Operation Desert Storm.  Just a reminder that the idea of “babies thrown from incubators" story of Gulf War I, was the creation of a P.R. firm; Hill & Knowlton – which was of course false).  Conveniently, the Iraq fiasco was blamed fully on 'Curveball' - the guy who sent the U.S. to war.  No mention of those who benefitted from lucrative contracts.

Although planned years prior to, in 2006, the BBC reported on the "Information Operations Roadmap".  BBC stated that  Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer. From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war." (source:    In clear violation of the Smith-Mundt Act, the IOR would involve brainwashing the American public:  "Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public,"  

Today, once again, the emotional landscape is being preconditioned for intervention, for wars of choice, and for mass murder.   Although Libya is not the first, nor  the last, (the target countries were mentioned in a September 13, 2001 press release by JINSA - the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a right wing Washington-based advocacy and research institute.  These countries included  Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria and even Saudi Arabia and Egypt.    Of course, I do not believe these to be the only countries which are on the radar.

While the undermining of the Iranian regime in 2009 met with resistance, it is not yet a closed chapter for the neoconservatives.  Libya seems to have proven to be an easier target. 

Has action (humanitarian imperialism) against these countries become more urgent due to the Japan disaster?

Although American/Israeli planners seemed oblivious to the fact that "A nuclear accident anywhere is a nuclear accident everywhere" when they intorduced Stuxnet virus into Iran's nuclear plant which could have had a Chernobyl type accident, the diaster in Japan has resulted to many industrial countries re-examining their reliance on nuclear fule.  These include - but are not limited to China, Germany, and U.S. 

The question to ask is how will the nuclear fuel be substituted in the immediate future if not with more fossil fuel.  

There are no humanitarian wars - history has proven that the US has little regard for humanity else it would not increase aid to Israel after it butchered Palestinians.  What is the objective here is domination - and humanitarian intervention is another fancy word for imperialism.  Arab states foolishly believe if they cooperate (Saudi Arabia and some Persian Gulf States) with the empire, they will be spared the fate of their neighbors and brothers.  Their actions are similar to those of gladiators in Roman times.   Like gladiators, they fight not only to entertain the empire, but fight to see another day and pariticipate in another fight.  

The empire's 'humanitarian' disguise has won too thin.  It is time to see throug the menace.  

Friday, March 11, 2011


by Tommy Douglas (1944)
It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.

They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats.

Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of Canada for last 90 years and maybe you'll see that they weren't any stupider than we are.

Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws--that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds--so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.

All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.

Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said: "The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.

And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat.

You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.

Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik [Socialist]. Lock him up!" So they put him in jail.