Gaddafi is managing to hold out for a few days in Libya, and I must say I wish him and the loyalists well in killing as many of the rebel terrorists as possible. But in the end the rebels and their criminal NATO allies, and war criminal Barrack Obama, will prevail. How can they not? The filthy bullies!
On April 19, shortly after all this illegal war started, I opined that this had nothing to do with waging a war on Libya or Gaddafi and everything to do with putting the squeeze on China. I pointed out that China was far more dependent on Mid-East and Libyan oil than Europe and the U.S., and turmoil there would benefit the West at China's expense. See Libya's real question: Who benefits from Mid-East turmoil and skyrocketing oil prices?
Al Jazeera has the answer in a story titled and subtitled: NATO nations set to reap spoils of Libya war; As rebels take Tripoli, foreign powers are eyeing the prize of Libya's high quality crude oil. So a major supplier of oil to China is now a vassal state to Europe and the U.S. In fact, virtually all of the Mid-East oil countries are now under the American thumb.
The Saudi people aren't our friends; that's where a lot of terrorists come from. But the royal family knows they need the United States to stay in power. We own them. We own the leadership of Iraq. Bahrain was allowed to put down its Arab Spring revolt because we own their leadership. We own the U.A.E. and of course we own Kuwait.
But at what cost? We may have the leadership of these countries in our back pockets, but the poorly educated man on the street has come to hate the United States, and with good reason. It looks like NATO and/or the United States are going to have troops on the ground in both Iraq and Libya for a long time to come. They aren't on the ground in Libya yet, but they will be.
All of which raises another question. Are we intentionally trying to put as many troops in the Mid-East in order to threaten Iran? Our war effort in Iraq was so incompetent that we took a victory with popular support and turned it into a quagmire requiring a long-term troop commitment. Was this intentional? Now with Libya it looks like we are luring the Europeans into introducing ground troops into the Mid-East. Libya is literally an empty country, with less than 1/16th the population density of Iraq and about one-fourth the density of Saudi Arabia. This is a land mass that can be controlled and used to police the Arab world -- essentially one big military base.
There have been numerous reports that the violence in Syria has been fomented by American agents. It's also been encouraged by the NATO bombing of Libyan loyalists. Perhaps with good cause, as the Syrians have been a puppet of Iran and an enemy of the U.S., but the unrest in the Arab world has been carefully planned and calculated. Of course, when America murders Arab children -- and make no mistake NATO targeted children -- it's just war. When Arabs murder American children it's terrorism. I confess I don't understand the difference.
Why does America want turmoil in the Mid-East? Why is America putting as many troops as it can on Arab soil? If this is indeed an attack on China's interests, do our leaders not realize that China will certainly retaliate? Does anyone doubt that the Chinese are just as ruthless as their Western counterparts, if not more so?
Most maddening of all is that the United States has enough energy resources to be completely energy self-sufficient, but the Democrats won't allow us to use domestic resources such as shale oil, arctic wasteland oil, clean coal, or safe off-shore oil. We don't need these people. I just don't understand.
Is this all about forcing Iran to give up nuclear weapons? If so, I would advise Iran not to give them up under any circumstances; because as soon as they do Iran be attacked by NATO. If you don't believe it, look what happened to poor Libya when they gave up their nukes.
Monday May 1st – Open Thread
3 minutes ago