Tag Archives: rebels

With Friends Like These…

Since the beginning of the War on Terror, the United States has taken on the task of forming hostile nations into allies in the Middle East. The best analogy I can think of to currently describe the way things have gone is likening our nation building efforts to the comic strip “Peanuts”. The nations that we go to war with are much like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, America in this scenario, to kick. We run to kick the football, Lucy moves the football, and we fall on our behind. The difference is that immediately afterward, Charlie Brown knows that he’s been had and vows to never fall for that again, before he inevitably does. Our politicians on the other hand, refuse to reflect on the results of past interventions and many times embrace a “full steam ahead” approach.

I don’t write this as apologetics for Ron Paul, the Cato Institute, the founding fathers, Reason Magazine or any other well known libertarian intellectual cause. Instead, I’m going to use an inherently conservative thought process, the cost-benefit analysis. Liberals hate the cost-benefit analysis because it shows that their government programs to be counter-productive; this is why they often resort to arguing based on emotions and intent. Unfortunately, despite President Bush’s noble intentions, the major engagements of the War on Terror may not pass the cost-benefit test.

We invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to eliminate Al-Qaeda and to topple the country’s acting government, the Taliban. While fighting the enemy, we also helped set up an acting Afghan government. And in 2004 Hamid Karzai was elected president of the country and the US has supported him ever since. However, it has been revealed that Karzai and his family are corrupt and that he perhaps fraudulently won re-election in 2009. The US decided to express its disapproval by sending a troop surge of 30,000 to double down on our efforts of giving him a stable country to govern. Worse yet, its also been learned that Karzai, behind our back, has been in talks with the Taliban and has had diplomatic relations with Iran. But even before Karzai’s corruption became apparent, he still wasn’t exactly our BFF. Karzai frequently threw the US “under the bus” in press conferences and openly supports the farmers there growing Opium poppy despite our requests. Even taking Karzai out of the equation, a cost-benefit analysis must be done (not in this article) on whether or not we should still be fighting in Afghanistan. Former CIA director and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panneta estimated in 2010 that there were no more than 50-100 Al-Qaeda still in the country.

Next we turned to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator who ended up getting what he deserved, not many Americans on either side of the political aisle would disagree with that. But, as the Iraq war winded down and the US turned into a police force to help stabilize their government, the people at home wondered what the new Iraqi government would look like. While still in its infant stages, details of the new Iraqi government have been disappointing at best. It appears as though Iraq has warmed up to its former hated enemy, Iran. This is particularly bad, because the Iraq-Iran conflict helped to keep Iran in check. This is why in the 1980s we helped supply Iraq with materials to produce chemical/biological weapons; with the idea of them to using the weapons against Iran. Further showing its gratitude towards the US, Iraq recently voted against Saudi Arabia’s proposal to increase oil production at OPEC’s 2011 conference. Seeing nations turn their back on the US after the US had invested large sums of money isn’t particularly unusual, but what makes this different is that the US still has 50,000 soldiers over there. This is a blatant slap in the face.

Worst of all is Libya. If there is something positive to be said of the War in Libya, one could say that its been the least costly of the wars. Despite its comparatively low price tag, Libya could quite possibly have the costliest long term consequences. To clarify, just like Saddam, Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator who deserves whatever grisly fate that awaits him. But, the United States went to war for the stated goal of stopping an alleged massacre that never took place, not for “regime change”. Then, in spite of goals which stated otherwise, we stayed until the regime change was complete. Now the question that remains is, “What now? Who are these rebels?”. That answer appears to be an interesting mix of regular citizens who grew tired of their oppressor, radical Islamic insurgents, and long term US ally Al-Qaeda. Wait… no, that’s not right, Al-Qaeda’s goal is to destroy the US and Israel. While the new Libyan constitution hasn’t been written, it was released that Sharia law is anticipated to be the main source of inspiration. If the Muslim Brotherhood’s popularity in Egypt is any indication, the so called “Arab Spring” will not have positive long term effects on the US and it’s allies. Rarely do events have 100% negative consequences without a silver lining, and Libya very well could be one of those times. In life there are disappoints and ideas that backfire, but rarely do you spend money and resources to create a nation whose leadership’s stated goal is to destroy you. Before many marriages that end in divorce go bad, there is usually a blissful honeymoon. Likewise the Libyan rebels started off giving the US a deserved gift, by denying their request to extradite Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi.

The Middle East has plenty of hostile countries, some unfriendly indifferent nations, and very few allies. One of those nations considered friendly to the US is Kuwait, particularly after we saved them from Saddam Hussein’s invasion in Desert Storm. Now to Kuwait’s credit, they have repaid us with their support in the UN by voting against us a region-low 67% of the time. More and more on the right, people grow disenfranchised by our foreign involvements. Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said that behind closed doors, most republicans will admit that Iraq was a mistake. This sentiment briefly gave businessman Donald Trump the affection of some republicans when he considered a presidential run. One of Trump’s main platforms was taking trillions of dollars in oil from Iraq to offset our costs there. The fact that the idea garnered some support among republicans shows that at the very least, they’re willing to admit that the Iraq war didn’t yield desired results; so they feel the need to get something out of it. I agree that in retrospect, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. But you can’t go around taking nation’s oilfields or anything else for that matter, might doesn’t make right. The equivalent I draw from the people who support the US taking oil from these nations we intervene in is this: Let’s say I cut your grass without me asking. You either try to stop me or passively let it happen. When its done I take some household appliances to compensate myself.

A best case scenario in these countries is that we pay billions yearly for their defense, having them become reliant on us, allowing them to become socialist in nature; all while complaining about our presence and influence. This allows them to become what I like to call “International democrats”. They do nothing to warrant the US taxpayer paying for their defense or fighting for them, yet we do it. What would be better is if we charged them at cost or more for us to protect them, but even then, that’s only a solution if you want to use our military men and women as mercenaries instead of only using them to “protect the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic”. Better would be forcing these nations to pay for their own defense, taking them off the government payroll.

In the world there are going to be problems that arise on an international level. Friendly dictators and elected officials alike will lose power or get overthrown from time to time. When a US-friendly regime loses power its one thing, when the US pays great costs in lives and money to create a hostile regime is infinitely worse. Woodrow Wilson’s progressive dream is alive and well today with the goal of “making the world safe for democracy”, championed by republicans (McCain, Graham) and democrats (Lieberman). Creating democracies in a region where the people who make up the electorate despise the US would seem to make the policy mutually exclusive with safety at home.

Tripoli Falls!

Earlier today, Libyan rebels took over Col. Mohammar Qaddafi’s compound in the middle of the capital city of Tripoli.

Fighters poured into the area by the hundreds, carting off boxes of ammunition and firing weapons in the air in celebration. Several young men placed a head seized from a statue of Qaddafi under their feet and kicked it. One happily lifted it above his head while his comrades danced and yelled joyfully around him.

A rebel exited the Qaddafi house wearing the dictator’s hat and other artifacts while saying that he had been waiting for this moment for 42 years. Even as they’ve taken Triploi, Qaddafi loyalists continued the fighting on the city’s edges. The fight is likely to move towards Qaddafi’s home city of Sirte.

There has been no sign of Qaffafi so while the rebels control the capital, the leadership of the country is much in question.

The real concern is what will rise in place of the iron fist rule of Mohammar. There are elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Queda and Iranian militia mixed in the rebel groups each with their own agenda and future intent for Libya.

A draft constitution for Libya as it recovers from the way may be contentious. The new document stresses that all laws be based on Sharia Law.

Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

While making headlines around the world, Sharia or Islamic law is nothing new in Libya. In the early ’70s Qaddafi himself introduced sharia back into Libyan government. Immodest forms of entertainment were shut down and Qaddafi banned non-conforming styles of dress.

The Transitional National Council (TNC), Libya’s interim anti-Gaddafi government, has been the only somewhat legitimate political face of the rebels. On 5 March 2011, the TNC declared itself to be the “only legitimate body representing the people of Libya and the Libyan state”. More than 40 countries have recognized the body, led by Mahmoud Jibril, as the interim government during the transition to whatever Libya’s future may bring. A state department spokesperson stated that the TNC rejects all forms of extremism and the Obama administration seems to be taking them at their word.

It is impossible to know what will rise from the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime, if that is in fact what has happened.

Is This What “Democracy” Looks Like ?

COLD-blooded murder and assassinations, the bombing of a country that attacked no one, and the U.S. participation in three wars that have no defined mission. Is this what Democracy looks like ? Americans seem to have severe cases of selective memory loss when it comes to the very same war crimes that many people have accused George Bush of committing years ago with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, people seem to forget the freedom that was won for the Iraqi people from the murdering dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime that they enjoy today, mainly because of the war in Iraq. They were freed from Hussein’s oppression and brutal dictatorship, yet many people still call this a war crime today.

While leftists around the world and even Republican RINOS in DC today have called the Iraqi war an illegal action, I,d like to point out that we are still there losing brave Soldiers lives. What say you Obama,and your radical Liberal mouthpieces? Where is the cry to pull out of Iraq today? There isn’t one, simply because leftist ideologues are nothing but pathetic hypocrites pushing an anti-American Socialistic agenda, period ! War is only illegal when a Republican is waging it.

How about explaining to the nation how we waged an illegal war on the leader of Libya, all based on your fake cries of Democracy there?  Leftist Democrat Hillary Clinton gave the ragtag radical rebels in Libya 25 million dollars of our tax payers hard earned money, all the time saying it wasn’t for “lethal military equipment.” Well just yesterday the Rebel spokesman was demanding more money to fund the civil war in Libya. We are simply giving aid and comfort to a group of people to topple their government. Of course the leftist propagandists in the media, who get their orders from the Obama regime, seem to have missed this little fact, as there has not been one word written, or one report on TV asking where in the hell did the Libyan Rebels get all the new military equipment from?  Obama and company do not want the American public asking that question. One minute the Libyan Rebels are a ragtag group of 15 – 20 men without uniforms, guns, radios, rockets, etc., and the next thing we see after Hillary gives them 25 million dollars, is that they have all of the afore-mentioned military equipment, including radios, guns, shoulder fired rockets, uniforms, etc. Here is some new information on the illegal funding of the Libyan rebels to promote the overthrow of their government, even though no one knows exactly what kind of government the rebels intend to install if they succeed. Is this what Democracy looks like? From BBC News Africa:

The international contact group on Libya has agreed to create a temporary fund  to assist rebel groups, during talks in Rome.

The rebels’ Transitional National Council says it needs $2bn-$3bn (£1.2bn-£1.8bn) in the coming months for military salaries, food, medicine and
other basic supplies.

Anyone thinking that this money will not be used to buy weapons is in denial of reality here. The propagandists just do not want anyone to be held accountable when it gets proven that NATO and Hillary Clinton in particular, are funding the weapons that will be used to overthrow the Libyan government here. Notice the cutsey name being used for the group funding the rebels now ? ” The International Contact group.” When the U.S. and the U.K, along with NATO are proven to be funding weapons for the rebels, who will be held accountable for it? Nobody, thus the fake “group” mantra being used.  Again, the U.S and the U.K. are funding the rebels to overthrow the government in Libya, as we see again in the above-mentioned BBC article:

British Foreign Secretary William Hague insisted that any financial assistance to the rebels would not be spent on weapons.

Do you mean just like the idiots that “monitored” the pathetic U.N. Oil for Food scandal that you jackasses enabled back in the early 90’s that let Saddam Hussein swindle billions of dollars from you incompetent, Socialist globalists ? Oh yes, we believe you will “monitor all that cash” to make sure it doesn’t buy weapons. It isn’t like your types have been proven to be incompetent buffoons before is it? Oh wait, the Oil for Food thing…

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (far left) and the foreign ministers and representatives of countries and organisations in the Libya Contact Group meeting in Rome - 5 May 2011 The Libya Contact Group has been looking at ways to fund the Libyan uprising against Col Gaddafi

“This [money] will help them to keep basic services going… because in the east of Libya they still need to be educating people, to keep public services
moving and they have to meet the expenses of all that and they don’t have much tax revenue at the moment,” he said.

Just like U.S Liberals, the rebels in Libya have picked a fight that has caused a disruption in their tax revenue, and now the rest of the world is being asked to fund their fight. Ever hear of actions have consequences ? People are now seeing the ignorance of the illegal war in Libya with no stated mission or plan, and now they want others to fix the problems they created. Zero personal responsibility, just like the liberal ideology of the Global Socialists. Is it any wonder the Liberal Nanny-State worshipper Hillary Clinton is right in the middle of this fiasco ? Maybe Hillary and Bill can buy some property in Libya and stay there for the rest of their pathetic lives, instead of continuing to infect America with their Socialistic ideology. One minute it is a war crime to invade another country that hasn’t attacked us, the next it is U.S. policy to have the Secretary of State over there to fund the uprising. Is this what Democracy looks like?  Damn hypocrite fake Democrats disgust me more every day.

In conclusion, we have learned that Libyan President Gaddafi’s son and three grand-kids, all under the age of fourteen were blown to pieces by a NATO bomb. Innocent bystanders murdered in cold blood and no one can be held accountable because they are now hiding under the NATO umbrella. Is this what Obama and Hillary’s Democracy looks like? After all, this is their stated reason for waging an illegal war on Libya. Looks more like murder and war crimes to me.