Hit men on strike

The cost of snuffing Qaddafi is sure to send hit men running to their union rep demanding a new contract. After all, killing is skilled labor. Look for hit men to stage a walkout if they don’t get parity:

“. . . the cost to U.S. taxpayers for Muammar el-Qaddafi’s head: $1.1 billion through September, the latest figure just out of the Defense Department.”

LIBYA
For $1 Billion, One Dictator
By Kevin Baron
Updated: October 20, 2011 | 6:20 p.m.
October 20, 2011 | 4:55 p.m.

http://nationaljournal.com/for-1-billion-one-dictator-muammar-el-qaddafi-20111020

Don’t get me wrong. I have no objection to killing dictators who represent a clear military threat to America. Qaddafi was not a threat of any kind —— he was a run of the mill dictator. So why is Hillary Clinton cackling?:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7385396n

Clinton is rejoicing at killing a flea while she and her kind embrace a brutal former communist dictator in a long line of communist dictators, Mikhail Gorbachev.

Remember that Nobel Peace Prize winner Gorbachev had his bloody hand in the nine years of brutality the Afghan people suffered at the hands of Soviet Communists. The war, and the unbelievable savagery, was started by Leonid Brezhnev and continued under Gorbachev.

In 2006 the old commie dictator praised then-Senator Clinton when he revealed that he occasionally conferred with her by telephone. He said:

"She is a great woman, and she has some legitimate ambitions."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/18/210227.shtml?s=ic

I guess killing a nondescript dictator is a legitimate ambition.

Clinton is not the only problem with Democrats killing the wrong people. Killing in touchy-feely wars is fundamental policy for Socialists, while killing to defend America is verboten —— even criminal.

And let’s not forget that many top Democrats were responsible for the deaths of our own soldiers in Iraq by giving the enemy hope for a political victory. Joe Biden and John Kerry did the same thing during the Vietnam War. But did you ever hear them, or any top Democrat, suggest killing a communist dictator? Now, they’re all patting each other on the back because of Gadhaffi’s departure.

Frankly, celebrating Gadhaffi’s demise is premature as I said when he was still breathing:

“. . . Hillary Clinton swimming around in her International cesspool is all aglow because Muammar Gadhaffi is on his way out. If it turns out well for America so much the better. But nobody should be popping champagne corks for at least ten years.”

Nobel Peace Prize winner Hussein got credit for killing Osama bin Laden which was okay. Osama ran a terrorist network; so killing him could not come back to haunt this country. On the other hand, Gadhaffi was the head of a country with a huge income from petroleum. Should Muslim fundamentalists take over Libya and its petroleum industry it will be a disaster for America both economically and militarily.

Hussein had three choices in Libya:

1. Strict neutrality.

2. Lead the effort to kill Qaddafi.

3. Play a secondary role.

Hussein chose door number three. It was called “Leading from behind.” America’s secondary role in removing Qaddafi was idiotic because that percentage of Muslims who are happy he is dead will give credit to the French and British, while that percentage of Muslims who are offended when Christians kill Muslims will make America the villain in spite of its secondary role. I suspect that offended Muslims constitute the majority.

Muslims assigning credit or blame is important when you look at the way Muslim infiltration of Europe is progressing. Muslims in France, the UK, and Europe in general will line up with the new Libya should the Muslim Brotherhood take over in the next few years. There is no way in hell America will benefit in the Muslim world from killing Qaddafi as much as does Europe.

I get the feeling that Hussein & Company wanted Europe to get the blame if things went south. They never stopped to think about who would get the credit. So leading from behind ended up with the worst of all possible outcomes.

Klaus Rohrich’s article makes some nice points about Hussein, however, I disagree with this:

But praising Obama as the new McArthur is delusional as there is a wide streak of erratic inconsistency in America’s foreign policy.

Hussein’s policy is a model of consistency. The goal of every decision is aimed at establishing a global government —— not advance America’s interests as a sovereign nation. Using NATO was a multilateral action. Multilateral military action is the cornerstone of every decision in global government thinking. That is the consistency Hussein seeks.

Finally, remember that NATO was also used in Bill Clinton’s Balkan Adventure. The final score is not in on that one either.

Obama whacks another bad guy
Klaus Rohrich Thursday, October 20, 2011

Who’d have thought that Barack Hussein Obama, the skinny community organizer from Chicago, would turn out to be so butch? First, he goes out and personally hunts down Public Enemy #1, Osama bin Laden, and finishes him off with a nice clean double-tap, making his head explode like an overripe watermelon. Then he goes after that arch cross-dresser Muammar Qaddaffi and whacks him as well. America hasn’t seen a president this bellicose since Theodore Roosevelt led the charge up San Juan Hill. Never mind Harry S. Truman dropping The Big One on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Obama gets up close and personal with America’s enemies, making them bleed in the streets.

Or at least that’s what the former mainstream media would have its dwindling audiences believe, as they portray the president as a fearless foe of foreign tyrants. There is such a thing as consistency, a commitment to doing the right thing, the same thing, in each and every instance, but Obama’s butchness is strictly situational. When Bashar Assad’s goons shoot down hundreds of his citizens in the streets Syrian towns, Obama is nowhere to be seen. When Iranian kids protest a rigged election, as they did in July of 2009, Obama was mum for fear of offending the Iranian theocracy.

Most recently Obama sent 100 American military “advisers” to Central Africa to help defeat Joseph Kony, rebel leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, who Obama accuses of waging a campaign of rape, murder and terror for two decades. One wonders where he’ll wage war next.

It’s been said that war is good business and in many respects it’s also good politics, as frustrated voters discover a sense of emotional release by witnessing the demise of a despised despot.

But here’s a question that we really should be asking ourselves before we laud Obama’s pugnacity: Is any of this in America’s best interest? Is killing Qaddaffi in America’s national interest? True, he’s been a thorn in our side, but why wait 41 years to settle the score? Is the capture of Joseph Kony in America’s national interest? Will it advance our foreign policy goals? Why is it not in America’s interest to affect regime change in Iran or Syria? After all, these two (*)(*)(*)(*)-ant countries are among the largest sponsors of terrorism in the world. They have created some real problems for America and its ally Israel, and will continue to do so into the future. So why are they off limits?

I’ll admit that the contract on bin Laden was in dire need of fulfillment and laud Obama for seizing that opportunity when it presented itself. But I hardly delude myself with the idea that anything Obama does is in the best interest of the country.

If there were consideration in the formulation of foreign policy he would not have withdrawn from Iraq, which is now rapidly reverting to no-man’s land, as warring factions blow each other up. In addition, Iran’s indelible hand is plainly evident in the strife now plaguing that struggling democracy. I think Obama withdrew from Iraq because he was afraid that Bush might get the credit for creating the first Arab democracy in the Middle East. Ditto for his hurry to get out of Afghanistan, lest our involvement there will lead to open conflict with Pakistan. But then, open conflict with that country is inevitable and I would prefer it to take place in their in their homeland rather than ours.

Credit should be given where credit is due. But praising Obama as the new McArthur is delusional as there is a wide streak of erratic inconsistency in America’s foreign policy. And that inconsistency and failure to define and advance America’s foreign policy interests can only be laid at the feet of Obama.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41521

 

Russia is making some noise about killing Gadhaffi:

In Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the Geneva Conventions had been breached with the killing of Colonel Gaddafi.

"We have to lean on facts and international laws," Mr Lavrov said. "They say that a captured participant of an armed conflict should be treated in a certain way. And in any case, a prisoner of war should not be killed."

If International law means the Geneva Conventions they do not apply because the rebels who killed Gadhaffi were not signatories. And considering Russia’s treatment of prisoners —— Russians are the last people who should be citing the Geneva Conventions:

Now, for the first time, anyone with a computer can see the files that prove Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and his aides were responsible for the killings of 22,000 Polish officers in the forest in western Russia.

Russia Opens Its Files on the Katyn Massacre
By Beata Pasek / Warsaw Friday, Apr. 30, 2010

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1985903,00.html

The Germans had 91,000 men captured alive after the Battle of Stalingrad. Few of these men returned to Germany after the war ended.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/german_pow.htm

Before Soviet Union sympathizers jump on this, I know Nazi Germany treated Russians just as badly; however, there was no excuse for killing 22,000 Polish officers.

Rebels, Muslim terrorists, or government-approved —— the killing of prisoners buttresses my belief: Scrap the Geneva Conventions. Either captors treat captives humanely or they don’t. No piece of paper is going to change that.

Interestingly, cruelty to prisoners has been increasing since the first Geneva Convention in 1864. That one dealt with the treatment of wounded prisoners during the American Civil War. Later Conventions expanded on the groups who are “protected.”

Moaning about killing Gadhaffi is a nice touch, but money is Russia’s real concern:

Russia has been critical of Nato military action in Libya, saying that it has gone well beyond the stated mission of saving civilian life. The main concern for Moscow now is whether the new Libyan authorities will honour contracts signed by the Gaddafi regime. As well as the oil and arms trade, Russian Railways had secured a £2bn contract to construct a railway line between Sirte and Benghazi. Moscow recognised the National Transitional Council as the official government of Libya last month and said it expected all existing contracts to be honoured.

Gaddafi's death breached the law, says Russia
World Reaction
By Shaun Walker in Moscow
Saturday 22 October 2011

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ath-breached-the-law-says-russia-2374250.html

There was a lot of talk about odious debt when Saddam Hussein’s government fell. Now, the Russians are trying to combine contract enforcement with debt.

Quislings talk about trade as though exporting and importing are business activities they just invented. A global economy is the big one in the globalization arsenal. The truth is that international loan sharks lust after central control simply to insure loan repayments. Example: Bad debt was at the heart of the International community’s objection to America’s success in Iraq.

NOTE: The people who work for the United Nations had a good thing going with OIL-FOR-FOOD. So the UN’s motives were slightly different than the motives of UN member states.

Russia and France wanted the money Saddam’s regime owed just as Russia now wants Gadhaffi’s contracts enforced. Ultimately, they want the UN, and subsequently the American military, to act as collection agencies. Russians hopped in bed with the Devil in Iraq and in Libya. When the Devil stiffed them by dying they cried for relief.

Russia’s ploy probably will not get an ounce of media coverage, but I think it’s a fascinating topic because it encompasses a lot more than appears on the surface. Anyway, these two links will give interested readers a little background on odious debt:

William F. Buckley Jr.
October 07, 2003, 12:28 p.m.
Odious Activities
Should Iraqi debt be repaid to Russia and France?

http://old.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200310071228.asp

Iraq should pay its own way
Phyllis Schlafly
October 6, 2003

http://finance.townhall.com/columni.../10/06/iraq_should_pay_its_own_way/page/full/