Tuesday, May 31, 2011

The Libyan war goes on and on.........

Well, here we are on the last day of May and the ‘humanitarian’ intervention in Libya is still ongoing.

When it started, it was supposed to be about protecting civilians in Benghazi- now it’s quite clearly about regime change- which is illegal under international law.

And in the words of The Guardian's Jonathan Steele:

Beware ministers' claims that a military campaign is making slow but steady progress. It nearly always means the opposite. If "progress" was really being made in Libya, why would it be necessary for Britain and France to send attack helicopters?

As to how much this latest military adventure is costing us- take a look at this .
Remember the article the next time you hear a coalition politician trot out the line ‘we’ve got no money left because Gordon Brown spent it all’.


brian said...

For Those Who Support the Libyan "Opposition"

People doing fact finding in Libya:


not that the facts arent blindly clear: that NATO is killing civilians and destroying infrastructure to terrorise the Libyas to ousting Gadaffi
. They do it in plain sight while using a Big Lie Goebbels would be proud of: that they are working to protect civilians!
Its a farce of breathtaking brazenness.

this invasion was a fraud from the beginning. Why did the UNSC let NATO attack Libya? NATO is not a peacekeeper? Just who invented the R2P fraud? believe it or else, an australian former labor foreign minister: a sinister minister:

Douglas said...

The leaders in the US Congress are trying to cover up that there is bipartisan Congressional opposition to American participation in the Libyan war.

Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio), attracted more than 60 cosponsors for a separate bill saying that Congress disapproved of the Libya operation. Obama “has already had 75 days [15 more than given under the War Powers Act]. I don’t believe that there’s additional information that he’s going to provide.”

On a related note, the prediction market Intrade offers a "Gaddafi out of power by 12/31/11" bet, currently trading at roughly the equivalent of 3/2 odds. They were offering 10/9 odds when the bombs started falling. How do you feel about those odds?

Neil Clark said...

Brian- thanks for the links.
Douglas- those odds are very interesting to say the least! It's good that opposition to the intervention seems to be growing in the US.

Douglas said...

As long as we're on the subject of Libya, Russell Berman of The Hill (a news outlet specializing in the US Congress) reports...

On Thursday, the House defeated by a mere five votes an amendment from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), attached to an appropriations bill, that aimed to restrict funds for the Libya mission.

The vote was 213-208; Sherman said he believed the measure would have passed if not for member concerns that it was not germane to the underlying bill, which provides funds for the Department of Homeland Security.

brian said...

Sarah Flounders:
'Without presenting a shred of reliable evidence, NATO and International Criminal Court conspirators are charging the Libyan government with conspiracy to rape -- not only rape as the "collateral damage" of war, but rape as a political weapon