JUAN COLE THESIS IN FAVOR OF UN-NATO INTERVENTION IN LIBYA

Juan Cole thesis in favor of US-NATO intervention in Libya

REVIEW on: Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003
Posted on 03/22/2011 by Juan Cole: http://www.juancole.com/

By HAZ, March 22, 2011


My preliminary comments are in braques

Here are the differences between George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

[[The original request placed before the UN by the Arab League focused on protecting civilian and achieving peace. The US-NATO allies de-emphasized those points by adding preambles to the original doct in order to match the interest of imperial powers on oil. This is the reason why the Arab Legue and Russia and China are now protesting or requesting to recall the UNSC Res 1973]]

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

[[Only the corporate media talks about such 80-90 of peaceful crows who demand the no-fly zone. The fact is that such vast majority of Libyans only exist in head of Juan Cole. There was no formal demand from such “vast majority” of the Lybian population signing the request for a UN no-fly zone. The other fact is that such “peaceful crowds” were well armed by British and other mercenaries when the whole round of Arab uprising started at the end of the last year. Eight of those oil rats were captured and send back to their country. Juan Cole lost credibility when assume that such “vast majority” had been informed about the meaning of “no-fly zone”. The request for “no-fly zone” came from the Arab League that according to George Galloway is a collection of corrupt bureaucrats serving Arab dictators and royalties in the region who are repressing the pacific demands of their own population. They see Gaddafi’s expenses on health and education as bad example in their region. Two of those bureaucrats have been recognized by the conservative regimen of Sarkozy as representers of the Lybian govermnent in exile.]]

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

[[The bombing of Benghazi by Gaddafi’s planes never took place, said the Russian army that had a satellite surveillance on the region and showed a videos in this regard. See my previous articles in my web. So, Juan Cole is repeating the same lie circulated by the Jewish mafia who control big part of the corporate mass media in the US]]

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).

[[Juan Cole forgot to say that the Arab League is now demanding the stop of the US-NATO bombing on Libya given the fact that the civilian dead tool is already greater than the amount caused by the internal war between Gaddafi and the rebels]]

5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.

[[The 1973 UN Res does not authorize the bombing of civilian compounds as it happens yesterday, neither the killing of Gaddafi family, nor any interference on the State sovereignty. The arming of the rebels has nothing to do with the preserving of peace, the destruction of the military army of Libya –even when they obey the ceasefire ordered by the UN Rest- has nothing to do with the real aims of the UN Res, this is just the first step in dividing the country and stilling the oil reserves of this nation. By destroying the army they try to prevent any self-defense from Libyan nationalists when the landing troops come in support of the mercenary rebels. So assuming that “None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops” is the most stupid things that could occur to Juan Cole. The UN Res on “no-fly zone” authorizes to put down Gaddafi’s planes if they fly over rebel location without authorization from the UN committee in charge of implementing the Res, but it does not authorize a foreign military intervention to destroy Libyan army and much less to destroy civilian infrastructure. The preambule # 20 in this UN Res (I numbered) states clearly Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”]]

6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.

[[Obama war mongers and their counterpart among the neocons in the Republican party are now discussing the possibility of using the Patriot Act and the parafernalia “war against terrorism” to get the senate approval for the current war in Libya]]

7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last “days, not months” before being turned over to other United Nations allies.

[[Julian Assange whoud have known about the secret agreements between Hillary Clinton with the corrupt diplomats behind the Arab League. The US lead is a fact; check what Obama said in Chile yesterday or the first speech to the nation about Libya. They contain explicit intentions that has nothing to do with the core of the UNSC Res 1973]].

8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.

[[There are ethnic minorities in Benghazi, some of them very conservative, those who rise the flag of an old time royalty there. This explains in part the initial support from some of the members of the Arab League. There are also some Muslims sects sympathetic with Al Qaeda, this is why Gaddafi accuse all of the rebels of being members of Al Qaeda. It is not the first time that the US deal with them and that is not the case of the British mercenaries who were captured by these minorities and handed over to members of the Gaddafi army. Most of these minorities are nationalist that are not very sympathetic with foreigners.]

9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration’s ‘coalition of the willing’ in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.

[[There is not such “genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity” in the paret of the US army. They are bombing civilians as usual and the official rhetoric can only be appealing to those who has a genuine sense of naiveness. This statement was the tipping point in all Cole argumentation if favor of US-NATO intervention in Libya. Frankly, I lost all credibility in Juan Cole.]]

10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.

[[It is not Gaddafi, it is the military intervention with mercenaries from the UK, France and other investors in the Oil of Libya, which together with the US- CIA and NATO commands designed a plan to take advantage of the fever or turmoil among Arabians for democracy and freedom, those are the ones that pose a threat in the Arab region. They planned to foster their own subversion with the aim of dividing Libya and plundering its oil. A year before Gaddafi was avery close friend of this NATO allies, even Berlusconi invested in Libia as part of a secret agreement to take care of the radical Muslim in Benghazi and prevent their migration to Italy. Later the US-NATO control on Libya will allow them a key geo-political point in their advance to control China. It will also allow the US to control Egypt and other pro-democracy Arab rebellions. Cole is historian and I think he lost the sense of reality that political scientists do have. The fact is that Gaddafi did not “undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt”. The ones who do it are now the US-NATO allies. Their militarization of the social conflict in Libya will foster a military response in this area. Soon or later the democratic movement will be forced to take arms to achieve real democracy]].