.

Author Archive

House rejects GOP bill to cut-off funding for Obama’s war against Libya

Friday, June 24th, 2011

A Republican bill that would have cut off funding for US aggression in Libya failed today (238 “no” to 180 “yes”) – with the majority of Democrat Congressmembers (149) voting for continued military presence in the North African country, which has been under attack by US forces since March 19, 2011.

In a quote to CBS News, Minnesota Democrat Rep. Keith Ellison defended his vote against the Republican bill, which would have ended funding for President Barack Obama’s efforts to initiate regime change in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, by invoking America’s alleged ‘moral obligation’ for taking military action in Libya”

“The most powerful nation in the world shouldn’t stand by while innocent women and children are being mowed down.” (Source).

In an interesting turn of events, House Speaker John Boehner directly questioned Obama’s policy of seeking regime change in Libya:

“Why is removing Qaddafi a part of this mission? What if he doesn’t leave? Who are the rebels that we’re there helping to fight? How long is this going to last and at what cost and what does success look like?”

While Republican Congressmember Ted Poe of Texas (the former Houston Judge famous for issuing creative sentences to offenders in his court) questioned the very same tactics employed by the Bush administration (not to mention the majority of previous US presidents before) of using military aggression to coerce foreign governments deemed hostile to US interests:

“There are a lot of bad guys in the world, and if we start picking them off one at a time we will be at war with most of the world,” contended Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.

The most interesting thing about all of this is the fact that, approximately 8 years ago, these very same Republican quotes could easily have been attributed to the minority of Democratic Members of Congress dissenting against the decision to wage war and occupy the independent state of Iraq under then President Saddam Hussein.

The seemingly “progressive” tone of the above quoted Republicans betrays the fact that this is nothing more than a political maneuver to send a message to President Obama. If this was a Republican president waging war against the people of Libya, you can rest assure that Boehner, Poe, and the others would be toeing the party line.

But behind the public façade and the meaningless quotes – both Democrats and Republicans remain spineless puppets of the decadent bourgeoisie, and the ongoing war against the Libyan people is yet another example of America’s destructive and imperialistic presence in the world.

What does Osama bin Laden’s death mean? Absolutely nothing.

Friday, May 6th, 2011

The recent media fanfare over the US government’s unequivocally illegal assassination of Osama bin Laden, the purported leader of al-Qaeda, betrays the recent incident’s essential meaninglessness.

USA! USA! USA!

The death of Osama bin Laden can best be summarized as a key political victory for the United States in general (after all, he was the bourgeois media’s physical embodiment of evil and responsibility in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center ), and the Obama administration in particular. Few things could have helped pave the way for Obama’s second-term as President than murdering the individual who played the largest role for the 9/11 attacks in the eyes of the American public.

Given the response by the American public, particularly the patriotards celebrating in the streets – even stomping on images of the late Osama bin Laden, it’s hard to imagine Obama NOT winning a second-term in office come November 2012.

Osama bin Laden was never a real strategic target – only a convenient political one. The American people, known for their political short-sightedness and rabid tendencies to need a ‘bad guy,’ are now eating out of the Obama administration’s metaphorical hands. Moreover, having taken place nearly 10 years and two wars later, Osama’s death is relatively meaningless.

What impact will this event have moving forward? Absolutely nothing – the US will continue its failed wars in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq – while at the same time continuing to bombard the Libyan nation in a not-so-subtle attempt to instigate the long-desired regime change that would spell the end of the leadership of Muammar Qaddafi.

What we can expect from the die-hard imperialist war-mongers is a new bogeyman to rile the American people up and justify to the simpletons why we must continue the ongoing failure that is the “war on terror.”

Stomp him good!

NATO terrorists target Leader Gadhafi

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed reports that NATO terrorists conducted an overnight bombing raid of an office complex used by Libya’s Revolutionary Leader Moammar Gadhafi in the capitol city of Tripoli.

Libyan media, including the official Jamahiriya News Network (JANA), denounced the raid as an indefensible assassination attempt on the popular leader – who is taking charge of the country’s civil and military defense against NATO provocateurs and the Western-backed insurgency.

NATO spokespeople told the New York Times that the “strategic bombing” was intended to “influence” Libyan military and government leaders to abandon their positions – in other words, implement a regime change.

While the US has up until now refused to take a clear official position on the conflict in Libya – it’s been abundantly clear since the beginning that the US is indeed intent on ousting Libya’s rightful government and instead replacing it with a more pliable regime willing to negotiate lucrative oil contracts and other business dealings with Washington and its allies in a post-Gadhafi Libya.

Meanwhile – the war-mongers in the US have called on President Obama to use the United States’ “full military capacity” in liquidating Gadhafi – a clear violation of the original UN resolution which originally restricted foreign intervention to maintaining a “no-fly zone” over Libya.

In a New York Times editorial today (aptly titled ‘Finish the job’), Lt. Gen. James Dubik (Ret.) urged the United States’ government to take the next “logical” course of action – dedicating ground troops in a full-scale, multi-national invasion of Libya.

The intense lobbying and provocation which brought about Western intervention in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other locales is building on Capitol Hill – as conservatives and liberals alike look to the President to dedicate more resources to escalating the conflict in Libya – which has now progressed into a full-scale civil war (thanks entirely to the efforts of foreign interventionists).

America’s war-mongers and profiteers have set their eyes on Libya undoubtedly for its massive oil reserves — the largest reserve in the entire African continent and ninth largest in the world (totaling in at an estimated 41.5 billion barrels). With its low cost of production (estimated at around $1 per barrel in some regions) and close proximity to the European market – US and other western oil companies would be able to reap staggering profits if it were able to secure a deal with a pro-capitalist regime in place of Gadhafi and Libya’s revolutionary government.

Though the Obama administration has publicly expressed an unwillingness to embroil itself in yet another fruitless occupation – this comes from the same administration that previously promised to reduce troop numbers in occupied Afghanistan — only to later commit an extra 30,000 more soldiers in less than one-year in office.

NATO’s terrorist campaign against the Libyan people is a complete and total violation of Libya’s rights as a sovereign nation – and should be ended immediately. The people of Libya support the government of Leader Gadhafi, and will not be bullied into succumbing to a foreign-backed government that takes no issue with whoring the country’s resources to Western investors and speculators.

Free Media Productions demands the immediate withdrawal of ALL foreign troops, warplanes, advisors, and “peacekeeping” forces from Libyan soil and complete restoration of Libyan sovereignty.

President Hugo Chavez on Syrian Protests

Saturday, April 2nd, 2011

“Now some supposed political protest movements have begun (in Syria), a few deaths … and now they are accusing the president of killing his people and later the Yankees will come to bomb the people to save them…”

“How cynical is the new format the empire has invented, to generate violent conflict, generate blood in a country, to later bombard it, intervene and take over its natural resources and convert it into a colony.”

- The Guardian

Libyan forces push rebels back, again!

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

Excellent news from Libya today as pro-Gaddafi forces capture yet another city (the second since Tuesday). On Wednesday, government forces captured the strategic oil city of Ras Lanouf, less than a day after forcing rebels to retreat from Bin Jawwad.

According to the report below, Libyan forces have pushed the rebels back over 100 miles in the last two days. Now the oppositionists have only one remaining stronghold in all of western Libya (Misrata), while the advance on Sirte (Gadaffi’s hometown) has pretty much come to an end.

Government forces have apparently made dramatic gains despite the incessant airstrikes and bombardments at the hands of NATO warplanes overhead.

Click here for more.

Click here for video.

NATO Terror in Libya exceeds UN Resolution mandates

Sunday, March 27th, 2011

Pro-Libya rally

The indefensible military aggression underway against the Libyan people by the United States and its NATO allies has gone well beyond the scope of the March 17 United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1973 imposing a strict no-fly zone over the Libyan nation

Though UN Resolution 1973 itself represents nothing more than a blatant attempt by the UN Security Council to undermine Libya’s popular government under Leader Gaddafi from executing its rights and restoring domestic order and public safety, the recent unjustified military action taken by the US and its allies under the guise of supporting the anti-Libyan insurgency has far exceeded the dictates of the resolution within any acceptable standards of international law.

Ted Carpenter, an expert with the Washington, D.C. based libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, correctly noted that the US military’s sole mission in Libya is to unseat Leader Gaddafi, and thus is out of accord with the mandates stipulated by UN Resolution 1973.

Other international voices have also criticized the recent Western military action against the Libyan people, including China’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Li Baodong. During consultations on the situation in Libya this week, Li called on all parties involved to “cease fire immediately,” pointing out that UN Security Council Resolution 1973 limits foreign intervention to “humanitarian aid and protection.”

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin publicly opposed President Dmitri Medvedev’s public support for the US/NATO campaign of terror against Libya, referring to the bombing as an absurd “crusade,” akin to US and NATO’s failed missions in occupied Afghanistan and Iraq.

A number of leaders from African Union (AU) member nations have also voiced concern in regards to US and NATO airstrikes against Libya which have only led to further civilian catastrophes.

Meanwhile, thousands of protests and rallies condemning the imperialist aggression against Libya have erupted all through North America, Europe, Africa, the Middle-East and Asia.

The Ba’athists Approach to Economics

Friday, February 4th, 2011

Came across this a little while ago while doing some research on Aflaq and the development of the Ba’ath Arab Socialist Party (BASP). The Ba’athists proposed proposed economic program, drafted and approved at the Party’s first Congress in 1947, emphasizes the need to develop and create a truly “national” economy based on socialist principles of distribution. Note that it also directly attacks the issue of exploitation, marking it as quite distinct from otherwise “state capitalism.”

There’s very little among this that I would argue or disagree with, at least in general terms (perhaps differing on specifics):

The Economic Policy of the (BASP)

Art. 26:
The (BASP) is Socialist and believes that the economic wealth at home is the Nation’s property.

Art. 27:

The existing distribution of wealths in the Arab Homeland is unjust and, hence, they must be reconsidered and distributed rightly among the citizens.

Art. 28:

All citizens are equal in human value and hence the Party forbids any exploitation of others’ efforts.

Art. 29:

The establishments of public interest, huge natural resources, and means of transportation shall be directly administered by the State. All companies and foreign concessions shall be cancelled.

Art. 30:
The agricultural ownership shall be determined according to the possessor’s capability for full utilization without exploiting other’s efforts, under the supervision of the state and in accordance with its general economic program.

Art. 31:
The petty industrial ownership shall be determined as to what befits the economic standard of the rest of citizens in the State.

Art 32:
The workers shall take part in managing the factories and they will be given, away from their wages, a share of profits to be determined by the State.

Art 33:
Ownership of built real estates is free to all citizens, but they are not allowed to rent or utilize them at the expense of others.
The State shall guarantee minimum limit of real estate ownership for all citizens.

Art. 34:
Possession and inheritance are two natural and protected rights within the boundaries of National Interest.

Art 35:
Usury among citizens shall be cancelled. One governmental bank shall be established to issue the currency, which is guaranteed by the National Income. It shall finance the necessary agricultural and industrial projects.

Art. 36:

The State shall directly supervise the internal and external trade in order to cancel the exploitation between the producer and the consumer. They will be protected together with the national production from the competition of foreign production and a balance between exports and imports shall be assured.

Art 37:
A comprehensive program shall be put in the light of the latest experiences and economic theories for the industrialization of the Arab Homeland, development of the National production, opening frontiers to it and directing the industrial economy in every country.

http://www.baath-party.org/eng/constitution5.htm

Egyptian Protests – Revisited

Thursday, February 3rd, 2011

MG’s earlier post on the protests taking place in Egypt deserved a response, at least for context & discussion, if nothing else.

First and foremost – the situation in Egypt is indeed different from the so-called “election riots” that took place in the Islamic Republic [of Iran] in June ’09. In addition to the points raised by MG, the Islamic Republic had (and continues to have)  a much stronger and broader base of support among the Iranian public than the Mubarak regime. There were

Save for the few who’ve come out on Mubarak’s behalf, the man has little control over his own government, and little institutional support.

The other key difference is that Mubarak is an ally of the Zionists & Americans – putting the West in a precarious position. Mubarak is an ally, and a noted Israeli collaborator. Last week, Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton refused to give any public commentary on the issue – instead only reiterating requests for the government to use “restraint” when dealing with protesters.

However, like the pro-Western opposition groups in Iran, there is a significant section of the opposition that is inextricably linked with the West (much like Mubarak himself), armed with a base political platform amicable to Washington and touting the usual “democracy, freedom, rights, etc.” mantra.

The White House may be taking a relatively “hands-off” approach to the protests in Cairo, but it’s certainly not “disinterested.” The Middle-East and the Muslim World at large have been the focal point of US foreign policy dating well back into the Cold War, and remain critical targets in the modern era.

The most acceptable outcome of the current unrest would be a regime committed to bringing about Egypt’s development independent of the West and Zionist-Israel – one that refuses to serve as a stepping stone or mouthpiece for US interests in the region and capable of bringing about stronger ties between Egypt, the Middle East, and the Muslim World.

Saddam, Our Hero

Sunday, October 31st, 2010

Gaza Flotilla Carnage

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010


SEO Powered By SEOPressor