News

Rebuttal: FG You either misunderstood me or never played RISK;0)

What you wrongly call or see as a Conspiracy theory ... I call Strategy:

Give it a try my friend you may even learn one or two things about how the world has been run since the dawn of time ...

It's not bound to change only because we in the 21st Century Cyber world think "Democracy" and "Human Rights" which we put on a Pinnacle in the West (values which I also uphold as sacred and essential as well) are Universally shared by all cultures, nations and people merely because they have access to Facebook and Twitter.

May I modestly Remind you that EVERYONE believed Churchill was flirting with Lunacy when he made this speech too:   

Well History sadly proved the Old Man Right ! 

Anyway Only Time will say if the current military Operation will prove efficient and more importantly will not ring the bell of the Arab Spring as some "experts" claim it has already. A military operation which should have taken place much much earlier at the time when the very first signs of Bombings by Gaddafi's henchmen were crystal clear. 

A major meeting is taking place in Paris tomorrow between the foreign Ministers of the Allied Forces and will be very interesting to follow it's conclusions all the more that Germany seems to want to play the Party Pooper. 

I rest my case ! 

PS: That Said neither Politics nor history are Rocket Science and I actually hope I am wrong in my above assessment.

Rebuttal: DK and conspiracy theories

WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

First you invent a conspiracy theory in which you claim, with not an ounce of supporting evidence, a "secret" deal.  You insist it be treated as fact and "keep an eye on the (invented) ball.”

The only "ball" is inside your head. Conspiracy theories thrive when a group or individual, motivated by ideology or personal (paranoic) tendencies, seeks to smear a party it dislikes.

Is there a stich of evidence for your alleged secret deal whrn one looks closely?   Well let's look. 

ALLEGED DEAL: "We Give You Libya but we Keep Iran ..."

PROBLEM #1: Anyone can charge a secret deal.  How would DK know?  Was he prsent?  Or is he only making inferences based on his own prejudices and cynicism ("I want to believe it so it must be true.") 

PROBLEM #2: The whole Security Council would have to conclude. Fat chance.   This isn't just a two-party deal.

PROBLEM #3: Aside from humanitarian concerns, the US has a hundred times more motive to want to oust Khamenei than Khadaffi. Need I go over the list?

PROBLEM #4: A formal logically fallacy (argument by analogy) cannot be cited as supporting evidence (or premise) to reach a conclusion others must accept.   The greater the variables between the two situations compared, the worse the fallacy when confused with evidence.

Thus, the Cuban missile deal involved a minor, not major concession. The US save away little since the missiles involved were both antiquated and not needed. Khruchev asked for a fig leaf to cover a whopping defeat for Khruschev and we agree. Iran is no fig leaf and giving it carte blanche would be no minor concession. 

Why would Russia or China need such a face-saver in order to sustain? The Arab League’s recent resolution is what explains their abstensions. Like Khadaffi’s recent military successes and the accompanying slaughter, it made possible what we couldn’t get early.

HOW CYNICS SEE THE WORLD

RE: “Politics is a game played by cynics especially on the International Arena.”

Thieves think everyone steals. Cheaters think everyone cheats. And cynics think everyone is cynical. Only an absolute “purist” would imagine that one can have politics in a democracy without compromising and then confuse compromise with cynicism. In fact, the art of compromise is essential in a democracy.

Most people--and that includes politicians--are a blend of selfish motives and idealism. The kind of person who believes “Everyone is out for what they can get” is a distinct minority.   Such individuals tend to make boring table companions.  People move off, making polite excuses for their departures.

National interests and moral can coincide, as in fighting the Naziis, whether you like it or not

In a democracy it’s hard for a government to intervene soley for moral reasons and when we have presidents have suffered major criticisms.  Unlike dictators, they are not free to act as they like. Presidents must win over the electorate and that takes TIME.

Among western powers, Clinton was alone in campaigned for intervention to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia muslims. Most Americans argued “it‘s bad but not our problem. Why should we always be the oen called on to sacrifice blood and money?" (See letters to the editor in this case for similar arguments)

What pulled the rug out from under Clinton’s efforts to intervene in Bosnia? Blackhawk Dow in Somalia made it politically impossible.  Thank Al Queda.  Meanwhile who armed and aided the Serbs during the Balkan troubles? Saddam Hussein.

The way propagandists and ideological types always use the oil theory to explain every American intervention is exactly like the way every Arab dictator blames outsiders for all protests. Even when no oil is present, we hear it (Afghanistan, Somalia, Kosovo).  We‘ll hear it now.  DK has already started.

When there is (Iraq) such theories overlook that the expenses of military intervention always excede any possible economic gains. Did we acquire ownership of Iraq’s oil? I missed that. In Somalia and Kosovo, costly intervention went AGAINST national interests (especially in Kosovo’s case because we knew it would alienate Orthodox countries and Russia especially).

One-motive theories to explain foreign policy are way to simple, aside from requiring no proof. Nevertheless they will always appeal to conspiracy-minded types. Expect to hear soon that the US intervened in Libya “for oil” even though Libya has never been a major source for US oil consumption.

Don't let Smoke in Libya Distract You Keep an Eye on the Ball

For As Iranian patriots the Real Question is this at What Price ?

Is the UN Green Light ( delivered by the 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council ) for Libyan intervention endorsed only shyly by China and Russia not made at another Price ?.

Which could be summed up as this by the Chinese, Russians and Turks:

"We Give You Libya but we Keep Iran ..."

This is the logic that prevailed when Kennedy responded militarily during the Cuba Missile Conflict which resulted to retrieving Nuclear heads from Cuba in exchange to America relinquishing it's missile installations in Turkey (who was and is still an inconvenient member of NATO):

PRESIDENCY ON SCREEN: Kevin Costner tackles Cuban Crisis in "Thirteen Days"

ALWAYS REMEMBER : Politics is a game played by cynics especially on the International Arena. It does not follow Morality or so called Universal Values such as Democratic Ideals and Human Rights. It is first and formemost about National Interests.

HISTORY FORUM: Machiavelli's "The Prince" and the "Art" of Governing

That is the ABC Of Politics we need to take into account if we hope to understand how decisions are made in our Imperfect world.

And by this assessment I do not mean that we need to consider Attacking Iran or Invading it in order to overthrow the Mullahs as some Neo Con Crazy Hawks have suggested to date on Capitol Hill but will the Western Democracies keep Pressure on Iran and support Regime Change notably by helping the Opposition to the IRI be it Inside or Outside Iran ?

The current "Liberation" of Libyans was made with a counterpart concession to the Western Power's if not Arch Enemies at least luke warm allies: Russia and China both of whom cut deals with Iran as they did with China.

It is all the more important to remain AWAKE regardless of the evolution of the events in Libya.

And Remember : "Knowledge is Power".

The Less Gullible the More wise you can be to make the right and appropriate move towards victory.

In our case victory is Regime Change through a national upheaval in favor of a  democratic government and regime in Iran.

So let's not get distracted by what the UN, France, the US or others say and keep an Eye Open on China, Russia and Turkey ...

Had this retaliation taken place be it two weeks ago the dillemas and challenges of the Muslim worlds Democratic Spring ( including that of Iran, or Bahrain) would have been of an entirely different nature with America and the Western World having the upper hand.

Politics especially in the International Arena is a Chess Board game with it's own set of rules. Don't forget it.

Only time will say what will be the outcome of a victory or not over Libya's Tyrant.

That said I welcome this tough stance by Western Democracies spearheaded by France's Sarkozy: So Better late than Never !

Cheers and firecrackers in Benghazi

Reuters has some interesting details.

..Al Jazeera television showed thousands of people listening to the address (Khadaffi promising no mercy, no pity in a house by house, room by room search) in a central Benghazi square, then erupting in celebration after the U.N. vote, waving anti-Gaddafi tricolors and chanting defiance of the man who has ruled for four decades.

(Ah, convicted by his own rhetoric and recent deeds)

...Fireworks burst over the city and gunfire rang out.

Reuthers also answers a question I had asked earlier:

...French diplomatic sources said military action could follow within hours, and could include France, Britain and possibly the United States and one or more Arab states; but a U.S. military official said no immediate U.S. action was expected.

How the Vote Went

...Ten of the Council's 15 member states voted in favor of the resolution, with Russia, China and Germany among the five that abstained. There were no votes against the resolution, which was co-sponsored by France, Britain, Lebanon and the United States.

As Clinton had warned earlier, a no fly zone would not suffice because...

...The U.N. imposed a no-fly zone over Bosnia in the 1990s, although some analysts say the measure did nothing to stop massacres such as the 1995 slaughter of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the town of Srebrenica.

So how did Khadaffi react?

...Libya said the Security Council resolution was not worth the paper it was written on.

...Gaddafi's Defense Ministry warned of swift retaliation, even beyond Libyan frontiers, if the U.N. voted for military action against the oil-exporting nation...

"Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military (facilities) will become targets of Libya's counter-attack," the ministry said in a statement.

MECHANICS OF ENFORCEMENT

...To enforce a no-fly zone it would probably be necessary to attack Libyan air bases and air defences. Any mission would have to be clearly defined to avoid escalation into ground action.

...An Italian government source told Reuters Italy was ready to make its military bases available for enforcement of the no-fly zone. The airbase at Sigonella in Sicily, which provides logistical support for the United States Sixth Fleet, is one of the closest NATO bases to Libya.

Other military implications for Iran's Supreme Thug

Some of this forces are presently engaged in attacks on the rebels--often in locations far from Tripoli.  Should they get hammered, he should reduce his capacity to hold Tripoli itself.

Unlike the rebels, he chose to slaughter unarmed civilians as a method of intimidation and had promised more of the same.  For that he must now pay.

I wonder if the Egyptians will get involved (air only).  Khadaffi is threating ships at sea.  I suppose--given his nature--that would involve cruise ships.  Any pilot so ordered should defect unless he wants to commit suicide for a Khamenei-style monster.

Finally, won't this news be a psychological shot in the arm for Iran's opposition, given the implicit message?  If a few military can defect and Iranians get arm hemselves to resist, I think Obama would have no choice but to help.   Given Iran's assistance to Al Mahdi and Taliban attackers nearby and its role in kidnapping three US hikers and an FBI agent, we owe this regime.  Throw in the marine barracks and K towers and we've got motive, motive motive in spades.

The rapes, murders, illegal mprisonment, attacks on protestors, moderate clerics, reform leaders, journalists, lawyers and their families given the Iranian people motive enough.   If we help them it's likely to be air only but with a similar "no drive" rule attached.

The IRCG can pick on the Iranian people but taking on the US air force is an entirelty different proposition.