Libyas Black Hole Stuck to Nato 1 July 2011 03:49 | Yefim Anbilivin Black holes do not suck. They attract the society an astrophysicist Sergey Potapov claims. This is, perhaps, the essential difference between the situation in space and the operation in Libya: a small triumphant war sticks vast sums of money out the Nato countries involved in it. There is no feature that this African black hole, from which it was once planned to pump oil cheaply, would collapse in foreseeable future. Of course, some of the participants would like to finish the operation triumphantly: the President of France, for instance, craves the announcement about the total and final victory in a fortnight, on the 14-th of July on the Bastille Day. One of the highly positioned British officers from the Nato troops in Libya mentioned in regard to that: Sarkozy is going to announce the victory right after the parade, and we are constantly reminded about it. French military forces are under persistent pressure because of that and of course it affects us. It is impossible to conjure a victory, but we have a concrete date. Actually not only France wanted to do away with all that: Britain having some budget problems found out suddenly that the cost of its participation is much more than several tens million pounds. As it turned out a week ago, it is almost 250 million. The financial situation in the USA is not so good either, this is the third war they are engaged in, and taking Afghanistan and Iraq into account according to the specialists estimate the total cost of this entertainment will achieve the level of $4.4 trillion. American tax payer will be paying that sum during the decades since American army provides the veterans with a life-long medical service. This sum of $4.4 trillion is being spent given a huge external debt of the US. Basically the British people have the same problem, but it is less in scale, and so the French people do. The last ones hurry very much, so that they sent the weapon to democracy fighters not knowing the destination. They simply dropped it in the area where the insurgents were surrounded by the Gaddafis supporters. Besides it contradicts the arms embargo, it is impossible to predict who will eventually possess the weapon and who it will be turned on. And this is only one side of the problem. The operation looks like a black hole not only due to the sums invested in it by Nato members. Libyan insurgents evidently have never heard the anecdote: Why do you go on building it having no money? Having achieved some power they suddenly realized that the freeze of Libyas assets abroad triggered by them is a two-edged thing. The frozen assets cannot allow the salary be paid in time and cannot cover other spending. After finding out that the government of a state is paid, the insurgents propounded a brilliant idea in front of the world community: they should be given much money, a lot of money, and the frozen Libyas assets will be the guarantee. It is interesting that the insurgents have recently received $100 million from abroad, but we can see no effect of it. The desire to get more has not disappeared, so the insurgents go on reminding Nato countries about the promise to support them financially. And evidently it is time to do that. Economic policy that the insurgents are going to pursue starts to look like what happened to Egypt gas agreements after the revolution broke out. The winners of the revolution examined those agreements and immediately declared their conclusions stating that the prices of the gas supply were criminally low and were the results of the corruption in top echelons of power. According to the information from the Libyas Interjacent Economic Council the intension to examine all the contracts of oil delivery concluded by Gaddafis regime will lead to the same results: revoking all the agreements, corruption charges, and desperate bargain for new agreements given the overstated prices. Of course, all these problems cannot stay unannounced for a long time on the back of Greek crisis. It is too difficult for the EU and Nato to cover too black holes at the same time. One can see a kind of a disagreement in the ally. Italy and Holland are bored by the campaign, so that they started to express their thoughts about the end of all that. September is coming. Nato has already prolonged the campaign twice: in March and in the beginning of June. If nothing changes in Libya by that moment, some participants are going to bang the door, to stop their participation in the democratization of the North African country. Even the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates who came to Germany this week did no manage to make his coward colleagues feel ashamed. Of course, this situation cannot be perceived as the breakup of Nato, though many and even the ally members would like it to happen. It also reflects the irrationality of the situation in Libya. That military investment turned into a black hole. It will not swallow Nato, but Nato is splitting, however.
Ludmila and Andrew - married couple. He - an engineer, went to Europe. She - the teacher, who agreed to talk about the events in Libya. Here are short excerpts from their story: "In the morning, February 19, suddenly (very surprisingly), riots broke out - a group of young people (now their official propaganda calls the rebels and almost legitimate government of Libya. - Ed.) Roamed the town and destroyed everything in its path. So, before our eyes was destroyed by urban park, created recently by foreigners for the government of the country for most of the Libyans. A few months before the riots in Benghazi, Gaddafi made a beautiful waterfront, but it built a lot of housing, a modern park with lawns, trees, palm trees and fountains. No, I must destroy everything like savages! It became clear that something is going wrong. The television news channels reported on Western popular uprising and attacks on government troops who fired from artillery, Benghazi and bombed from the air, though nothing like that happened. - A well-known artificial freshwater river from the depths of the Sahara - it completed? - My husband built this aqueduct. Pipe with a diameter of 4 meters stretched from the desert to the coast. Construction recently completed, the pipes are filled with pure water. Now, no problems with water supply. And then certain conclusions suggest themselves. Maybe it's not just oil and the distribution of proceeds from its sale. If Libya will be an open country, then anyone can actually see how you can live with equitable distribution of income, but it is an alarming sign for the corrupt regimes of many countries. After the revolution in Egypt and Tunisia and the "counterrevolution" in Libya have different roots, whatever they combined various pundits as antidiktatorskie. It is no accident, and the desire to suppress the threat of Libya (Venezuela, Iran), an example of alternative development on the part of the NATO countries, Egypt and other Arab emirs, merging into a new "crusade." That's why it was necessary to burn their homes and new construction is to simulate the bombing - to excite impressionable Western public and provoke NATO intervention in order to dislodge al-Gaddafi, as was Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. "
This is what realy happend in Lybia [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfG0FOUipXM&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfG0FOUipXM&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
Is there nobody who thinks that it's just and moral to overthrow a dictator like Gadhafi? He's a man who has sponsored terrorism all over the world including the Provisional IRA, and various Palestinian terrorists, and need i mention all the kidnappings, bombings, and chemical weapons issues?It is both beneficial and necessary that such a man be overthrown. The economic and military factors are only secondary to the ideological values that NATO is upholding through its support for the rebels. NATO is carrying the hopes and dreams of the people of Libya, who are otherwise powerless against Gadhafi's military, as well as the mercenaries he has hired from Africa. Gadhafi has even threatened to attack Europe. I find this to be more than sufficient justification to continue supporting the rebels. If Gadhafi is allowed to survive through this rebellion, the national security of many nations will be put at risk. To be so querulous over the economic and military expenses of the Libyan Civil War is both short sighted and even illogical at the present. There is no longer any time to hesitate, we cannot leave a job half finished!
It is both beneficial and necessary that such fools as you are not talking. You've got sawdust in his head instead of brains. You repeat what the newspapers and on TV they say different villains. Here are some smart people: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-TZxI8m8ss"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-TZxI8m8ss[/ame]
Can I just preface this by saying that unfettered idealism is, in my estimation, akin to a blight on humanity? The fundamental reason Gadhafi and others like him are constantly in contention with us is because we are always muddling about in Islamic areas. It's not our business, as Israel isn't our business, as the rest of the Arab Spring isn't our business, and as Iraq and Afghanistan weren't and aren't our business. Leave them alone and you won't have to worry about suicide bombers being dispatched to have your entrails. If the Libyans can't overthrow their own government, such is their own problem. We have no mandate or obligation to assist them. Those such as yourself who espouse this missionary rhetoric would have us bleed our coffers dry and sacrifice thousands of young men and women for fantastical causes. Unfortunately, the realities of the actual international political landscape often fly in the face of such phantasy dogma and end up driving the US into inordinately difficult geopolitical situations which require an especially arduous effort to wiggle out of. For example, reports have already started coming in that, in all likelihood, a fairly significant portion of the Libyan rebels are in some way affiliated with terrorists. Indeed, rebel commanders have stated that a portion of their troops have al-Qaeda and similar links. And if they're forced to admit that, just think how much they're downplaying. The US is going to find the people in control of Libya once Gadhafi is gone to be far less stomachable than it had hoped, methinks. This is the same irresponsible, naive nonsense that happened in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded it and we armed the Taliban. Now the same people we provided munitions to not only harbor jihadists and moujihadeen who are out to splatter us as efficiently as possible across the pavement, but are now considered our number one enemy. This happens time and time again. The Japanese, the Soviets, the Afghanis, the Iranis -- America always gets swept up into some ideological frenzy of goodwill, sticks its nose where it doesn't belong, and then pays the price.
You would rather have people killing each other? It disgusts me how you people criticize the actions of others, and yet do nothing yourselves, and then conveniently label yourselves "pragmatists". You see injustice in other parts of the world, but your only concern is for yourselves. People like you simply do not CARE about the human rights that are being violated, and the people who are suffering. NATO is giving hope to an oppressed people, and all you do here is sit back, comfortably, and complain about them. You have never experienced dictatorship yourselves, there's no way you can understand how cruelly and arbitrarily the futures and dreams of these people have been trampled upon. You would rather have dictators and terrorist groups in power in every third world country the US is involved in, and turn a blind eye to every injustice they commit. To you, justice is nonexistent, but an ideal. You are selfish people who only desire to crush hope for others.
Originally Posted by Plymouth View Post ...This is the same irresponsible, naive nonsense that happened in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded it and we armed the Taliban. Now the same people we provided munitions to not only harbor jihadists and moujihadeen who are out to splatter us as efficiently as possible across the pavement, but are now considered our number one enemy. Plymouth obviously knows nothing about the history of Afghanistan. The Taliban was not an organisation until 1993 (years after the Soviet Union pulled its last troops out of Afghanistan) and apart from a few ex-Mujahideen they recruited to stiffen their cadre of young madrassa students they had no-one who had fought against the Soviets. In fact it was Pakistan that armed the Taliban and helped them to defeat the various Mujahideen warlords and it was those surviving warlords and their men who formed the Northern Alliance and who allied with America to chase the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
The lie that we are fighting for the Libian people is obvious. this is a war of agreesion by not the United States or its people but by the insurgent Barack Hussein Obama who has fraudulently usurped Our Presidency and led a Coup on our military forces. I am willing and able to take over the Position of Commander and Chief. This is no joke!! Our country is facing more than a economic crisis but a crisis on a global war that is intentionally being started by Obama and the Bankers in control of the NEW World Order. If you wish for this to continue do not vote for me right now. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfG0FOUipXM&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - ‪NATO war crimes in Libya - part 1/2‬‏[/ame] Presidential Vote 2008: VOTE HERE! (only lawful vote in the Country) http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=646 VOTE FOR TYLER (HERE) on or after Tuesday, November 4, 2008! View Poll Results To place a valid vote you must register under your real given full first, second and family name (surname) to hawaiian-tv.com and place your vote on this site. You can vote here on this webpage or mail them to me at John Tyler PO Box 10933 Hilo Hawaii 96721. This is a true public electoral vote, not the enfranchised modern voting in secret which is a non-electoral vote. Read how John Tyler IV won the Presidency with only one Lawful vote in the only Lawful election for united States President : Vote scam and Secret Voting The system is so corrupt that vote scam is so blatantly out in the open, and most people know that “the people” don't vote, and politicians get elected by those behind the scenes. Prior to the Civil war, there were no secret ballots, everyone voted in the open. The word “ballot” comes from “ball lot,” they cast their lot with either a white ball or a black ball (that's where the term “blackballed” comes from). But, with secret voting, the so-called powers that be can manipulate that vote any way they like, and that's why they keep their own people in power. And of course it's even better for them now with computers. The secret ballot originally came from Australia: Australian Ballot: A system of secret voting whereby the voter indicates his choice of the candidates who have been nominated by a mark alongside the name of the candidate thus chosen. The system originates in Australia, whence its name. Rayden's Law Dictionary, 1954. And that's why, today, we have no idea whether the actual vote count is true or not. All of the voting laws stem from the Reconstruction Acts after the Civil War. They passed a Voting Act in 1865-1866. Voting is an “elective franchise” and it is a “privilege” granted by the State. The word “privilege” comes from the Latin “privus” and “legis, and that means private law. So when you receive any kind of privilege from government, you are engaging in a private law, the law of the law merchant. That's what all the government officials are for, for this corporate government, which exists for business, for the economy. And the word economy is just another word for mammon (Luke 6:9-13). So you're electing those to give you all the privileges of the wealth of the world. To a large extent it's socialistic. But when you're engaged in a private law, you're not involved in the Law of God, which is NOT private law. You turn your back on God when you look to those things. REGISTER TO VOTE AND VOTE HERE FOR YOUR CHOICE OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT! (Free Registration to Hawaiian-TV is OFFICIAL REGISTRATION FOR THIS TRUE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION). (Barack Obama's name was recently removed as it would be a conflict of interest for him to run both for President of the United States corporation and also for President of the united States of America at the same time.)
I clearly know much more than thee, actually. While not nominally arising as the "Taliban" until 1993 (after the civil war), the Taliban did, in fact, have a substantial number of ex-mujahideen among its ranks. So, perhaps it is a bit erroneous to say that the US funded the Taliban during the Soviet invasion; rather, the US funded the people who would become the Taliban in the 90s during the Soviet invasion. Furthermore, our actions in abetting the Afghanis helped prompt the so-called "Afghan Arabs" movement, which, as you may or may not know, advocated that Muslims from all across the Middle East wage jihad against the invading Soviet heathens. The most famous of these "Afghan Arabs" was, of course, Osama bin Laden, who we did indeed arm as part of the CIA's general mission of providing munitions and material support to the anti-Soviet mujihadeen at large. In other words, during and after the Soviet invasion, there was a large, sort of primordial mujihadeen "soup," as it were, floating about (which we funded) that proved a capital breeding ground in subsequent time for groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Hardly a noteworthy distinction, but you're the type of person to take miles from inches, aren't you? Fallen in the surf, indeed... Not at all. Yes, well, when one's primary platform is inaction, then advocating action would be rather silly, don't you think? It's not that we don't care; nobody wants to see anyone repressed. It's just that it's not our problem. We have no divine mandate to be the guardian of the world's less fortunate. Moreover, we simply don't have the ability to police every tinpot dictator. Look, living is a nasty business. Life isn't fair. That one should be born into a dictatorship instead of a republic is something which should be taken up with fate, not with the United States. Justice is, quite literally, nonexistent. It is at its core a subjective notion, formulated long ago to grant some palpable sense of recourse to the injured. What is viewed as justice by one may not be viewed as justice by another. Exempli gratia, the recent Casey Anthony trial. The concept of justice is even more difficult to apply in cross-cultural and transnational situations, where values are almost always divergent. Nonetheless, even if the above weren't the case, Fortuna has not christened America the ultimate arbiter of international accord. Can you please stop with the melodrama? Nobody wants to go about crushing the hopes of anyone.
