Tag Archives: U.S. involvement in Libya

The U.N. Dilemma with Syria

For a month the turmoil’s also known as “Arab Spring” has reachedSyria. President Bashar al-Assad battles with the upmost brutality.

Thousands of dead protesters shock the world and the ultra liberal Europeans don’t seem to understand why nobody is willing to take action against the tyrannical dictator.

As usual the European Leftist media launches the standard accusation against the United States and the United nations, claiming that they don’t care about the dead because Syria has no oil to offer. Unlike Libya who is one of the richest countries in Oil and gas resources.

Europe is the largest business partner inLibya, Europe obtains the majority of its oil and gas needs (Austria for example a total of 25% of its Oil and Gas needs) from Libya.

The United States is only allowed to pay for the War they fight on behalf of the hypocritical Europeans.

But back to Syria and the claim nobody seems to care about the dead protesters and the genocide produced by the local government. Claiming economical interest or the lack of the same is way too easy and way too far from reality.

The truth is that politics is like a chess game. And every chess player knows one always thinks three moves ahead. And that is the real reason why the United Nations cannot surmount itself to harsher sanctions against Syria.

Syria is already a financially and economically challenged country and lives mostly on its banking system, providing the bank accounts not only for Saudi Countries, but also for Iran. Iran has tough UN resolutions on their back and cannot, like any other country, perform its business publically.

Syrian Banks provide the opportunity forIran to buy and sell all kinds of goods from Russia, China, and other Iran-friendly countries, performing and processing bank services. That also includes payments from and to Terror organizations.

Also, Saudi Arabian Countries finance “questionable Groups” through Syria. Payments Saudi Countries do not want the U.S.to know about in order not to jeopardize their Oil business. Criminalists would call it money laundering.

And then there is the United Nations and here is the chess game that comes in.

Between Syria and Israel is the so called UNDOF unit. United Nations Disengagement Observer Forces, with order to protect and uphold the weapons hold status between Syria and Israel.

But the UN is not an occupant and is only there because Syria agreed to it in a contract, which means if Assad feels betrayed by the UN he can easily and without giving any explanation withdraw the permission to have this unit on his soil and that would be devastating for the UN and their radical upcoming agenda in September.

Let’s play that through for the moment.

Eventuality 1:

The United Nations not only strongly condemns, but also punishes Syria for its genocide even threatening military action, and Bashar al-Assad withdraws his permission having UN peacekeeping soldiers on Syrian property.

That is what Iran is waiting for. 427,000 Palestinian refugees from Lebanon will immediately come over the Golan Heights smuggler routes joining forces with 478,000 Palestinian refugees inSyria.

With practically no puffer provided by the UN forces 905,000 Palestinians will make a run forIsrael’s borders trying to overrun them.

Israel will have no other choice than to gather the majority of its troops on the Syrian border in order to stop the flood of Palestinians.

This is exactly what Ahmedinejad of Iran needs, claiming an Israeli attack on Syria, which allows him to come to the aid of his “Syrian brothers”.

Meanwhile, the borders to Gaza and the West bank are weakened and an additional 4.1 Million Palestinians (2.5 Million from the West Bank and 1.6 Million from Gaza) attack Israel seeing their chance to finally do what Hamas and Hezbollah dream of – the final destruction of Israel and the taking over of the entire country.

And if anybody thinks the remaining 2 Million Palestinians inJordan can be stopped they are a fool.

As of here the world has only 2 choices: Sit back and watchIsrael die or interfere with a combined force which will end in a long-lasting brutal war if not a world war or worse a nuclear war.

4,300 Syrian refuges are already inside Turkey, the Financial Times reports and thousands more are to be expected. In case of an outbreak of war on Syria those refugees could easily become guerilla fighters having enough support in a highly muslimized country like Turkey. The third World War would be on.

Syrian refugees in Turkey

Syrian refugees in Turkey

Either way the radical UN Agenda of building a Palestinian state in September recognized and accepted by the world community is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Eventuality 2:

The United Nations keeps doing what they do best, hold meaningless negotiations and weak condemnations against Syria assuring that Assad is not too offended and the situation clears itself up.

That way their radical Agenda of building a Palestine State in September is not in jeopardy at all.

Bottom line is: European allegations that the world does not interfere because of lack of resources is nonsense.

The U.S. does not interfere because it is not our problem and the UN considers the slaughtered victims inSyria collateral damage for their higher Palestinian Agenda in September.

So much for a self declared humanitarian organization – United Nations 

It is all about politics and Agenda

 

 

© Tom Lehner

Source:

  • Tom Lehner: “Israels Nightmare – forcefully back to 1967”
  • Financial Times
Advertisements

President Obama’s Libya deception

On Monday March 28, 2011 President Obama addressed the Nation on Primetime television on his Libya involvement.  This comes nine days after the missile attacks on Col Muammar al-Gaddafi’s regime by the U.S. Military, France and the UK.

President Obama’s speech, presented as compassionate, left many questions, concerns, and contradictions.

Many key issues the President addressed are not fully answered; contradict the ‘UN Security Council resolution 1973’ (1) published by the United Nations Press center under: ‘SC/10200’ (2), as well as the ‘Geneva Convention from 1949’ (3).

Questions, such as the exegesis of the UN Resolution, continued involvement of the United States, the actual “American Interests” in that region, and the role of Al Qaeda in that conflict.

Not to forget the Constitutional Aspect of divided power and when the President is authorized to interfere in an armed conflict.

There is one thing I agree with the president on and that is that Muammar al-Gaddafi is a dictator, a terrorist, and needs to be removed. But let’s not forget who made Col. Gaddafi respectable in the world.

It was not the United States, but rather the European Union and the United Nations who actually lobbied to provide the very same dictator a seat on the UN Humans rights council.

The very same EU and UN who made Billions of Dollars profit from doing business with this dictator, while the pre-Obama U.S.A. had a ban on this country. And these countries now want Gaddafi to be removed and the United States should do the dirty work.

So the key question to be answered is who is President Obama really serving in this conflict?

The Key issues in a nutshell: 

–       President Obama declared that he has deployed American Forces after consulting the bipartisan Leadership of Congress.

But the truth of the Matter is that Congressman Boehner, speaker of the House, said on Sunday March 20, 2011 the President better explain what America’s role” is in the Libya offensive before further military action is taken, Politico.com reports (4).

Speaker John Boehner

Speaker John Boehner

Even his own partisan friends in the House were so surprised that the word impeachment was mentioned by VP Joe Biden and 8 other Democrats (5).

If Obama had really consulted bipartisan Leadership as he claimed in his speech, would the Speaker of the house and the Vice President not have been fully informed and why did the VP talk about impeachment over this action? 

–       President Obama points out over and over that the American involvement was to protect innocent Civilians, and painted a horrific picture of massacres and genocide.

But here is the thing. The Geneva Convention from 1949 (3) specifically spells out who is protected under their Charta and considered a “Civilian” (Part I, Article 3, (1) In case of conflict of not of an international character…persons taking NO active part in hostilities).

Therefore, armed Rebels fighting the current government in hostile actions are not to be considered Innocent Civilians and Obama’s proud announcement of destroying Tanks moving towards the rebels is NOT protecting civilians under the Geneva Convention, but rather supporting rebel forces.

And what about the civilians still committed to Gaddafi? Think about the Dictator what you want – the women and children still believing in him are still Civilians, are they not protected by the Geneva Convention? 

–       President Obama mentions several times how he is determined to fight Al Qaeda and he keeps mentioning Iraq.

Either the President is so badly informed or he purposely withholds vital information from the American people.

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the leader of the Libyan rebels has confirmed and admitted in an interview with the UK Telegraph (6) on March 25, 2011 that jihadists who fought allied troops in Iraq are now on the front against Gaddafi. Mr. Hasidi himself is a member of Al Qaeda and fought against the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.

al-Hasidi

al-Hasidi

Washington Times on March 30, 2011 confirms that Jihadists join Libyan Rebel Forces (9).

Al Qaeda in Maghreb, the African side arm of Al Qaeda, has always been a strong force in that area. They usually move in the no-man’s land between Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt.

To finance their Terror attacks, primarily against the United States, they kidnap preferred European Tourists during a desert trip and demand ransom which is usually paid through Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s Charity foundation. Another financial source for Al Qaeda in Maghreb is providing Terror camps (7)

–       If President Obama is so determined to fight Al Qaeda “wherever they are found”, as he claimed in his speech on Monday why did he announce on Tuesday March 29, 2011 that he does not rule out arming Libyan Rebels (8)?

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not ruled out supporting Rebels with arms.

NATO General Secretary ‘Anders Fogh Rasmussen’ already rejected the idea with good reason.

Not only would this practically arm Al Qaeda Terrorists, but in fact this would violate the ‘UN Security Council resolution 1973’ (1).

Chapter 13 “Enforcement of Arms Embargo” does not specify between Rebel forces and Regular Government Forces. The mandate say’s clear to enforce an Arms embargo against the country.

Even if rebel forces prevail and overthrow Gaddafi, it is up to the United Nations first to remove the Arms embargo before any country can provide lethal weapons.

In addition, arming Rebels against the Government would provide a clear advantage over the Government forces and therefore be a direct interference in an inner conflict of a sovereign state, also known as civil War. And let’s be honest this conflict already is a civil war. And this is clearly not in the UN Mandate.

The mandate speaks exclusively about “providing a No-Fly Zone in order to protect Civilians” and rules out a direct interference. 

–       President Obama did not point out clearly the involvement of ground troops. 

As a matter of fact, in several parts of his speech, the president mentioned so called “Search and seizure” as well as “Search and Rescue” operations.

Rescue who, who does the president want to rescue; all Americans are out of the country. Or does the president actually mean “Search and Destroy” missions?

This would make a lot more sense since the President has signed a “secret presidential finding authorizing covert operations in Libya” as U.S. officials confirmed to Fox News on March 31st 2011, only three days after the president announced there will be no ground troops in Libya (10).

There are only two facts that are undisputable and that is 1) Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi needs to go and 2) the conflict in Libya is a internal domestic Conflict also called ‘Civil War”.

No matter how compassionate or whiningly Obama presents the situation a military support is a clear interference in a inner conflict, arming rebels is a dangerous adventure because it also means for a fact arming Al Qaeda.

Again Gaddafi needs to go, but the way to get there is diplomacy and not military action.

If military action is really the answer why don’t we get involved against Ahmedinejad, who poses a way larger threat to the United States and our ally, Israel? 

___________________________________________________ 

 

Sources:  

1)    CFR.org (UNSCR 1973)

2)    UN Press Center (SC/10200)

3)    ICRC (Geneva Convention)

4)    Politico.com

5)    Youtube.com (Joe Biden Obama impeachment over Libya)

6)    UK Telegraph

7)    The hypocrisy of Europe and how to blame the USA

8)    MSNBC.com

9)    Washington Times

10) Fox News

%d bloggers like this: