As insane as
it might sound, the United States may soon be getting involved in
another war in the Middle East. According to White House spokesman
Jay Carney, "no
options" have been taken off the table when it comes to the
situation in Libya. By saying that "all options" are being considered,
that is basically a way for the Obama administration to threaten
Gadhafi without actually coming right out and threatening him. In
recent days, news reports have been appearing all over the mainstream
media hyping the possibility that we may have to take military action
in Libya. This would not be happening if the White House did not
want it to happen. The truth is that Barack Obama is apparently
seriously considering U.S. military action in Libya. At first that
would probably consist of air strikes and missile attacks, but if
the Obama administration decides that it is going to take ground
forces to get the job done then we could eventually see the U.S.
military actually invade Libya. But the truth is that any military
intervention in Libya would be a really, really bad idea. Is it
really wise to stick our young men and women into the middle of
an incredibly bloody civil war? Do we want to spill even more American
blood in order to protect "U.S. interests"? Do we really want to
spend young American lives to keep the price of oil low? The truth
is that the world hates us enough already. How much more will they
hate us if we decide to start bombing Libya into oblivion?
All kinds of
justifications are already being floated for potential military
action in Libya. Barack Obama is publicly declaring that the killing
of civilians in Libya has got to stop. As if the U.S. government
cares so much about the deaths of civilians. Millions upon millions
of Africans have been slaughtered in Africa over the last couple
of decades in numerous civil wars and we have not intervened.
So why now?
Well, because
oil is at stake.
If Libya did
not produce about 2 percent of the world's oil nobody in the U.S.
government would really care much about what is going on in Libya.
But because
Libya is Africa's largest oil producer suddenly the death of their
civilians becomes a matter of "international concern."
Another reason
being floated for taking military action in Libya is the "weapons
of mass destruction" that Gadhafi supposedly has.
A
recent article in the Wall Street Journal went on and on about
how concerned the U.S. government is about the "weapons of mass
destruction" that are still under Gadhafi's control....
The government
of Col. Moammar Gadhafi hasn't destroyed significant stockpiles
of mustard gas and other chemical-weapons agents, raising fears
in Washington about what could happen to them and whether they
may be used as Libya slides further into chaos.
The Wall Street
Journal article also stated that U.S. officials believe that Gadhafi
possesses "1,000 metric tons of uranium yellowcake" which they believe
are a serious threat to the international community.
Doesn't that
sound exactly like something we have all been told before?
The truth is
that so much of what we are seeing in the mainstream news right
now are "trail balloons" that are being floated by the U.S. government.
They want to
see how the American people and the rest of the world are going
to respond.
Just check
out the CBS video news report posted below. The American people
are being mentally prepared for potential U.S. military action against
Libya....
But what is
this really all about?
Are Barack
Obama and the U.S. government really that concerned about the deaths
of a few thousand protesters?
No.
The truth is
that they are concerned about Libya's oil fields.
"We expect
Libyan production to be shut down completely and we might lose
sweet crudes from Libya for a prolonged period of time."
That is what
this is all about keeping the flow of oil going around the world.
But the media
is trying to pull on our heart strings by highlighting the plight
of the protesters.
A
recent CNN report quoted Navi Pillay, the United Nations high
commissioner for human rights, as saying the following about the
escalating violence of Libya....
"Although
reports are still patchy and hard to verify, one thing is painfully
clear: in (a) brazen and continuing breach of international law,
the crackdown in Libya of peaceful demonstrations is escalating
alarmingly with reported mass killings, arbitrary arrests, detention
and torture of protesters."
So the United
States, the "police of the world," have to step in and save
those poor people, right?
Oh, and if
the first thing we do is to secure "key infrastructure" such as
the oil fields that will be okay too, right?
We live in
an insane world.
If the international
community wants to take action against Libya, shouldn't this go
through the United Nations?
Well, apparently
the United Nations Security Council is going to discuss a draft
resolution that would impose economic sanctions on Libya, but that
isn't going to mean much to Gadhafi at this point.
If the United
States and NATO want to take military action, they are going to
have to do it on their own because both Russia and China would likely
block the approval of military force by the United Nations.
But wasn't
Obama supposed to be a peacemaker?
Well, that
is what he wanted you to believe.
Not only has
Obama greatly escalated the war in Afghanistan, now it looks like
Obama is laying the groundwork for another war in the Middle East.
In a recent
article entitled "Analysts:
More Libyan bloodshed could prompt U.S., NATO intervention,"
Michael Martinez of CNN noted that the White House has publicly
acknowledged that Barack Obama is discussing how to "immediately
respond" to the crisis in Libya with other world leaders....
In separate
phone conversations with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Italian
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and British Prime Minister David
Cameron, Obama "expressed his deep concern with the Libyan government's
use of violence, which violates international norms and every
standard of human decency, and discussed appropriate and effective
ways for the international community to immediately respond,"
the White House statement said.
So what would
a "response" by the United States look like? Well, apparently a
whole "range of options" is being considered....
"The
leaders discussed the range of options that both the United States
and European countries are preparing to hold the Libyan government
accountable for its actions, as well as planning for humanitarian
assistance," the White House statement said.
So does this
"range of options" include military action?
On Thursday,
U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley commented
on the ongoing discussions inside the Obama administration about
the situation in Libya and admitted that "the military is fully
involved in these discussions and doing its own thinking about options
that can be presented to the president."
As the violence
in Libya escalates there are some troubling signs that the U.S.
is getting ready to do something. The U.S. embassy in Libya has
been closed and U.S. personnel have been pulled out of the country.
If Gadhafi
makes a "wrong move" we could potentially see military action within
days.
Ynetnews.com
says that an anonymous "European official" is claiming that the
U.S. and NATO have already been very busy making plans for military
action against Libya....
The
source said NATO and US warplanes stationed in Italy may be ordered
to take down Libyan planes, and that electronic warfare against
them may already have been implemented.
The
source told al-Quds al-Arabi that NATO forces may launch an aerial
attack on Libya or fire missiles from warships positioned in international
waters near Tripoli. Libyan army weapons caches may also be targeted,
the source said.
The rest
of the world is not amused by all of this.
For example,
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is urging the United States
and NATO to
stay out of what is going on in Libya....
"Give
them the opportunity to determine their own fate through natural
means and not with any kind of outside interference."
There is a
lot of wisdom in what Putin is saying there. This is a fight for
the Libyan people. It should be up to them to decide the destiny
of their own nation. If the United States intervenes now, it will
no longer be a "revolution of the people."
The truth is
that Libya is not a place we want to be sending U.S. troops. Libya
is a deeply divided nation made up of a large number of tribal factions.
Many of the tribal factions seriously dislike one another. That
is not something you want to step into the middle of.
Not only that,
but the people of Libya are not too fond of the United States. Any
U.S. military intervention, no matter how "benevolent," would
be deeply resented. Our soldiers would rapidly become targets just
like they are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. government
certainly cannot afford any more wars. We have spent over
a trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
We are in debt up
to our eyeballs and we cannot afford another war that is going
to cost us hundreds of billions more dollars.
Not only that,
but when the U.S. military gets into a country they almost never
leave.
Today, the
U.S. military has a total of
over 700 foreign military bases and is in 130 different countries
around the world. We never left Germany after World War 2. We never
left Japan after World War 2. We never left South Korea after the
Korean War. It looks like we will not be leaving Iraq or Afghanistan
for quite a long time to come.
Can we really
afford to be the police of the world? Can we really afford to have
troops in almost every nation on earth?
Hopefully Barack
Obama will come to his senses and will not order military action
against Libya. This is a Libyan revolution and this is a fight for
the Libyan people to decide.
Any intervention
by the United States would be absolutely disastrous.