So - Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy condemn the deaths of innocent civilians at the hands of a state's military and have started a new war. As Obummer said "This violence must stop."
Does that mean we will be attacking: Sudan, Bahrein, Burma, Yemen, Balukistan, Ivory Coast ... (the list goes on) - wherever there is violence to be stopped, rights to be wronged, peace to be imposed?
And will Came-Kozy, those new-found champions of freedom, be putting down a Security Council motion against the United States and Britain for their continuing violence against the civilian populations of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq?
Of course not. It is obvious that O'Bummer and Came-Kozy are not motivated by peace - only a brain-dead moron who refuses to look at reality would believe the lies that come out of their mouths.
Remember that in international law a sovereign state may not be attacked by others. The war launched yesterday against Libya is in direct conflict with the United Nations declaration (A/RES/36/103 - 1981) which reaffirms 'in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, that no State has the right to intervene directly or indirectly for any reason whatsoever in the internal or external affairs of any other State'.
That is why Blair and the rest of the scum-bags who appear to be in charge dance around the phrase 'regime change'. It is illegal in international law and lays them open to the charge of war crimes.
(However it is worth mentioning that we are being conditioned to accept a 'new' reality. Change is introduced in baby steps - so gradually we forget. It used to be the case that only Parliament in Britain and Congress in the US could authorise war - no longer, they will rubber-stamp it afterwards.)
It is clear that whatever has been going on in Libya is different from what we have seen in Egypt and Tunisia. The peaceful protests in Egypt, maintained despite the violence of the secret police deployed by Mubarak (a good buddy of ours remember), were inspirational - totally unlike the armed insurrection in Libya.
So what is going on? The most persuasive overview I have read is contained in this wide ranging article by Webster Tarpley - someone with a track-record of accurately reporting inside information. In his view the West is deliberately destabilising many of it's satraps in the Middle East in order to put in more compliant dictators and pursue the global chess game against Russia and China.
In addition there are the well established benefits of war: to the economy (such as laundering tax-payers money into the hands of the financial elite via arms sales); and the effect on people (keep them afraid and distracted).
In times of crisis, for the rich and powerful, war is a no-brainer - unfortunately, that also describes how most of us respond.
Update #1: I have received feedback that this post contains some uncharacteristic language for this blog - true - but it stands as a testament to my feelings about this folly.
Update #2: Note that they are rowing back from the phrase 'regime change' (see here and here). The lawyers must have got to them!
Posted by Nicholas Moore 12:14:22 PM