- HOLD ON COLONEL! NATO THOUGHT TO DEFEAT GADDAFI BEFORE EVEN HAVING CONFRONTED HIM …

 
By Luc MICHEL
ELAC / Euro-Libyan Action Committees
 
Time is against NATO!
Only a victory of Gaddafi will be a defeat for NATO!
No defeatism, no defeatist pacifism: with Gaddafi to victory!
 
 
"While NATO continues its airstrikes against the pro-Gaddafi forces, the questions run over the capacity of the Atlantic Alliance of having sufficient military means to carry out its mission if the operation should be prolonged for too long" , commented AFP on 14 June 2011.
 
This confirms my analysis, developed in Tripoli on 17 April: time is for Gaddafi, indebted countries of NATO, and particularly the crisis economies of USA, France and Great Britain have not the means of their war against Libya. And even lesser to afford a long war and more expensive every day!
Eight of the 28 NATO countries – Belgium, Canada, Denmark, USA, France, Italy, Norway and the United Kingdom – participate in air strikes in Libya. Half of the Member States of the Atlantic Alliance do not contribute. Others participate in a limited way, such as Spain or the Netherlands, who only respect the no-fly zone. Everywhere the money is short and it requires choices – carefully concealed from the people of Europe – to the detriment of the struggle against the crisis and to preserve social gains.
In a recent editorial on the NATO "war on credit " (1), I wrote this: " The time turns for Gaddafi in the deadly trial of strength that brings him into conflict with Obama and NATO.
 (… ) the disproportionate cost of the war in Libya also plays for Gaddafi. Because the finances of the NATO countries do not allow them a long war, much less these terrorist strikes. France, like Belgium or the USA do indeed the war on credit, taking on debt. And, having made the stupidity of believing the Islamo-monarchists of Benghazi, "Libyans" living in Western capitals and cut in decades from Jamahiri reality, or the rantings of pathological liar Bernard-Henry Levy – who is so qualified by the U.S. press – Westerners had relied on a "rapid collapse" of Gaddafi. It was a huge mistake … “
 
Today the leaders of NATO too confirm my analysis:
Given the risk of a prolonged conflict, the Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation of NATO, "French" General – mercenaries from NATO have lost their honor between Kabul and Tripoli – Stéphane Abrial, said that "if operations last longer, the question of resources will become critical. " Note that this statement was made in Belgrade during a NATO conference on partnerships of the Atlantic Alliance, symbol chosen carefully to parallel the destruction of Libya and the defeat of Yugoslavia, where NATO conducted a dirty war of terrorist raids in 1999. Serbs will enjoy …
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had already thrown a cat among the pigeons by "warning last week the allies on their lack of military investment and political will," which could "jeopardize the effectiveness of the mission in Libya ". In what AFP calls "a will-speech", which explains that Gates tells the truth about the financial collapse of NATO. And the exact opposite of the lies of the leadership of NATO. "Only eleven weeks after the start of the operation, some allies are running out of ammunition and require, once again, that the United States make up the difference," he said.
 
But the American finances are also in a state of bankruptcy. And Obama was denied the support of Congress and the U.S. Senate.
The U.S. House of Representatives adopted on Monday 13 June at night, a bill to "prohibit the use of funds for U.S. military operations in Libya." This amendment to a comprehensive bill of funding military facilities was approved by 248 votes against 163, it means the isolation of the Obama-Clinton regime in the Libyan case.
Recently, many members of Congress have expressed their dissatisfaction with the decision of Barack Obama to pass the green light from parliament to trigger operations in March and to continue after the legal deadline of sixty days without congressional authorization. They invoke the "law on the powers of war" designed to limit presidential authority for the outbreak of war (2).
 
London said it "might have to make important decisions on a shift in its priorities if the military intervention of NATO in this country continues." "This campaign would have been partly cheaper and much more reactive (sic) if Great Britain still had an operational aircraft carrier" said for his part Admiral Stanhope, Chief of the Royal Navy. Under the plan to reduce the budget of the Ministry of Defence, the only fully operational aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal with its Harrier fighter planes, finally returned to its base in December 2010. "Leaving the UK without any ship able to let fighter jets to take off for the next decade," explains further AFP. With a bankrupt Army (3), the French are hardly in better condition, the British are in a war beyond their means.
 
Gaddafi is the heart of the Libyan resistance. And the lock which prohibits US-Zionist imperialism and neocolonialism to seize Libya.
I am often irritated by those who advance peace proposals or other nonsense about "Libyans who should all sit around a table" and forget the atrocities and war crimes – which are real and that the so-called "court" ICC, puppet of the West does not see – of the Islamo-monarchist "rats" in Benghazi.
Often behind we find the interested defeatist drift of leftists or Trotskyists poisoned by the propaganda of the Islamists of Teheran, or directly from paid agents of Iran (4).
Only a victory of Gaddafi will be a defeat for NATO! No defeatism, no defeatist pacifism: with Gaddafi to victory …
Hold on Colonel!
 
Luc MICHEL
(June 14, 2011)
 
(1) http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&note_id=226893810669706 # / notes / elac-Euro-libyan-action-committees / aggression-against-the-libya-obama-for-more-in -plus-isole-/226893810669706 
 
(2) In 1973, at the end of the direct U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the Congress has indeed passed the War Powers Resolution to compel the president to seek its approval before declaring war. Successive hosts of the White House have all seen later that Act as null and void under the Constitution, which they believe allows the "commander in chief" to take all measures necessary to the security of the Union .
Here’s what the War Powers Act states: Article II Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that if the country’s president is the head of armies, it is up to Congress that belongs "the power to declare war ". This power has almost never been used as representatives and senators were most often presented with a fait accompli: so since the Second World War, the United States has not officially "declared" war, even during conflicts in Korea or Vietnam.
Taking advantage of the weakening of President Nixon in the early 1970s and especially early setbacks – the Watergate scandal – for a head of state until then so powerful, the Congress attempted to reassert its authority by adopting in 1973 the War Powers Act or the War Powers Resolution. This states that the President is "authorized to intervene militarily" in cases of "declared war" and limit "unauthorized" interventions to "sixty days".
 
(3) According to Admiral Sandy Woodward, Great Britain, today, could do nothing more than defend the English Channel, due to the absence of an aircraft carrier and the weakening of U.S. support for British sovereignty. "Twenty-nine years ago now, we regained the Falklands [or Malvinas] for Great Britain at the end of one of the most remarkable campaigns since the Second World War," writes Admiral Woodward in the Daily Mail. "The simple truth is that without aircraft carriers and without the Americans we would not have any hope of doing the same thing today," he says. In 1982, after a bloody war, the British navy had reconquered the islands, invaded by the Argentine army. (Source: AFP)
 
(4) The Iranian propaganda is against NATO, officially, but especially against Gaddafi. Tehran criticizes NATO but with a forked pernicious tongue, attacks Gaddafi and directly supports the Islamists in Benghazi. Units of Hezbollah, under Iranian control, fight against Gaddafi’s forces in Benghazi (as noted Aïcha Gaddafi a few weeks ago).
 
French version :
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&note_id=230197507006003 # / notes/elac-euro-libyan-action-committees/tenez-bon-colonel-/230197507006003
 
 

  

Ce contenu a été publié dans # ALAC / AFRICAN-LIBYAN ACTION COMMITTEES, - ALAC / African publications in English, - ELAC Paneuropean Leadership, - English. Vous pouvez le mettre en favoris avec ce permalien.

Les commentaires sont fermés.