Stopping Gaddafi Not An Easy Decision, But The Right One

March 20, 2011

People seem to be acting as if the decision to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people was an easy, black or white decision. Tough decisions are simply never that clear or easy, if they were, this would have happened close to two weeks ago, when the Libyan Dictator decided to begin the genocide against his own people.

As such, the decision is simply very black and white to anyone that has a high regard for human life above all. If one life is precious, no leader of any country should be allowed to use the weapons supposedly purchased for defending the country from those outside, against his own people. It is not only criminal, but it is a battle no civilian group in the world can expect to survive or even fight against

The problem is that there are not only no rules, but there is the question of who gets to make them? The United Nations, much like most multilateral organizations like it, has always been quite a failure about assuming its proper role in the world. It failed to act in Cambodia, went in too late in Bosnia and has failed to even speak in too many other cases.

What has made Libya and Gaddafi different this time around, is that the forty year old Dictator was quite overt about what he was doing. Once he realized that the fight against him was winning, he decided to use his last weapon: The country’s weapons against his own people.

But the key here is “forty year old” regime. For forty years Gaddafi ahs been an immoral leader in terms of human rights and has been tolerated off and on by the world. Similar things have happened to many others that come from less fortunate or relevant countries.  But Gaddafi the Dictator, was followed by Gaddafi the terrorist, then by Gaddafi the statesman as, like most autocrats, he twisted and turned looking for the only thing that mattered to him: His own survival.

And the West and the East and those in between forgave him and accepted him, even if his hands were bloody from one of the most despicable terrorist acts sponsored by a Government.

And how difficult the decision is or was, can be seen in its backing by the Arab League, many of whose members have incurred in similar, albeit in smaller scale, human rights abuses against their own people. Or are backing them today as I write.

But to invoke peace or oil as the excuse, like Chavez did,  is simply ridiculous, from a Government that could have either abstained from saying anything, or simply could have attacked its own allies, like Saudi Arabia, but failed to do so, as it defended its own selfish interests.

Personally, I am glad the decision is to stop Gaddafi’s forces from killing the civilians and hope it does not go beyond that. If one life is saved the effort would have been worth it.

Unfortunately, this does not seem to have a clear ending. By now, the only possible one is for Gaddafi to leave power and face international Courts. His sons, or relatives, or whomever he chooses, could try to grab power fairly and honestly, nobody really knows in a country divided by tribes if Gaddafi’s own cluster of them is stronger or weaker than others.

But history suggests that conflicts like this one can only be solved and sorted out from within. This should be more so in the case of a tribal country like Libya. If it is not, Libya may be facing decades of additional instability. And that in the end is the worst option, as such a scenario would certainly cause more deaths and poverty for that country.

Chavez’ reaction not only shows his total disregard for human rights, for which he has a long track record that the world refuses to see, but also his fear that this is a precedent that may obligate him to walk the democratic line one day and force him to leave, which I am sure was not in his plans. And I certainly hope we never get even close to a Libya-like scenario and Venezuelans resolve their conflicts internally and peacefully. We would never recover from outside interference or force.

If anyone thinks I exaggerate, you only have to look at Chavez’ trail of blood in ’92 and ’02, his disregard for human rights, today’s interview in La Razon with Che-look alike Humberto Lopez from Colectivo La Piedrita, or remember that some close collaborators of Chavez remain to this date admirers of not only Gaddafi, but also of Pol Pot and his Cambodian revolution.

For now, I am just glad that there is this limited action to stop the genocide by the UN, however inconsistent it may be with its past and that of its members.

65 Responses to “Stopping Gaddafi Not An Easy Decision, But The Right One”

  1. OldSouth Says:

    Deqr Diablo: Thank you for sharing your wise thoughts. They are reasoned and humane, and show the depths of your good intentions.

    There is a significant problem we now face in the US. Obama has authorized the US military to engage in acts of war against Libya with first seeking clearance from Congress. This is significant, and ominous.

    If you will remember, Reagan’s use of force against Gadafi was a one-off retaliatory raid in response to an attack upon US service personnel in Germany. The Granada raid was a hostage rescue. Bush the First’s action in Panama was in response to provocations against Americans as well, if memory serves correctly, although there is a volume that could be written about the US and Panama. Bush the First sought and gained approval for the action in Kuwait against Hussein, as did Bush the Second for his forays into Afghanistan and Iraq (however wise or unwise those decisions turned out to be).

    This time, Obama ordered the Navy into action without the Congress, and without any proximate cause–i.e. a direct provocation against the United States. This is new and dangerous territory into which we have ventured, and Obama does not seem to have any definition of what the goal is, what victory looks like, or the level of involvement to which he will be committing his nation. In reality, the deaths of Gadafi and his inner circle will become a necessity to bring this mess to a conclusion. I won’t shed a tear for Gadafi, but it is not a good precedent for an American president and Congress to set.

    Meanwhile, Obama’s on a goodwill tour of Latin America, playing soccer with children in a Rio favela. Touching.

    Chavez is surrounded by people who admire Gadafi. Obama was nurtured and is surrounded by people who admire Chavez and Castro–and at least two of his mentors, Wright and Farrakhan, are fans of Gadafi. It’s an evil brew of bad judgment, naivete, willful disregard of the US Constitution, and raw hypocrisy, given Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s blistering attacks upon GW Bush for his actions against Hussein and Afghanistan.

    By the same precedent that Obama has now set, some future day could see the cruise missiles over Caracas, for no other reason than a US President has decided that a Venezuelan president has worn out his welcome.

    Again, your heart is absolutely in the right place. However, our President has placed us all in deeper danger.

  2. m_astera Says:

    A quote for OldSouth:

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
    — Sen. Barack Obama, 12/20/2007.

    Sending the US Military to attack a nation that poses absolutely no threat to the US is an impeachable and convictable offense. Of course Obama will neither be impeached nor convicted for this, because he is only following orders from the same people who give orders to the US Congress.

    Re Libya, I’m most concerned about the use of Uranium weapons there. According to my sources, each Tomahawk cruise missile contains 360 kg of almost pure Uranium as a penetrator. It’s called “DU” for depleted Uranium, but is almost pure Uranium. On impact it vaporizes and burns, releasing a radioactive aerosol that spreads and stays active in the environment for, oh say, a billion years?

    Let’s see, yesterday’s bragging said 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired by those brave military heroes sitting 100 km offshore. 110 x 360 kg = 39600 kg of Uranium aerosols now contaminate Libya, forever. This does not count the Uranium-tipped penetrators fired at Libyan tanks by aircraft.

    The use of Uranium weapons is why the women in Fallujah, Iraq have largely quit having children. Anyone interested can do a search for Fallujah birth defects and learn a bit.

    It’s hard for me to imagine a greater crime.

  3. tlas Says:

    Excuse me, the Pentagon doesn’t “give orders” to Congress. It only seems that way because legislators are afraid of being voted out, especially in districts where there are military installations. The President IS the Commander-in-Chief, a civilian, intended under the Constitution.

    Having said that, I am concerned about whether he violated the War Powers Act law. Unmentioned, however, is the belief by many in the left that the United Nations trumps national sovereignty. That is why elitist newspapers have not said a peep about the War Powers Act issue. They believe that a UN Resolution succeeds federal US law. That’s why all the idiotic protests about “illegal war”, as if putting the UN stamp on it makes it all kosher. If you’re going to oppose a war then oppose it for the right reason, not invent sophistries about the legalities of supranational organizations.

    The UN is really good for a nice, big meeting room for heads of state. The anti-Americans diss it, anyway, when resolutions go ahead their feelings.

  4. Kepler Says:

    Tlas,
    Astera did not mention the word Pentagon, I think.
    The US Congress is definitely more kosher…or shall we say, more כשרות
    Still, I’m more concerned about what action will lead to the lesser loss of civilians.

  5. Kepler Says:

    Spiegel reports about Gaddafi forces using civilians as shield in Misurata.
    This thing is turning nastier and nastier.

  6. jeffry house Says:

    Obama’s authority to authorize this intervention pursuant to the US Constitution is in some doubt, as was, for example, Reagan’s bombing of Libya during his administration. His right under international law to support a unanimous decision of the Security Council is not.

    I will begin to worry if, sixty days from now, no authorization is sought from Congress. As things stood, Gaddafi was on the doorstep of Benghazi, whose civilians he was likely to slaughter indiscriminately.

  7. island canuck Says:

    Miguel said: “…that may obligate him to walk the democratic line one day and force him to leave, which I am sure was not in his plans. ”

    That would apply if the man were sane. This, however, is not the case. He will never leave voluntarily.


  8. Before stealing theyre petrol they have first to take there blood! Since several weeks there are Special Forces in Lybia, the british landed with 3 C-130 to evacuate ??? and probably they came with empty planes??? Since day and year the CIA was blackening Khadaffi as they did before with Saddam and the taliban afterwords it will be sombody els , these planifications are going continuesly, look what that ex Special Forces Davies in Pakistan did, taking pictures of military interest, making a general action plan, infiltration and exfiltration ways, other local squad will do the action, because its not allowed for US military to execute dis demselve; The reason? Kadhaffi spended a lot of money to african states that did’nt become money from the world bank or IMF, because the US and Europe want that this states go first on theyre knie’s and promise obidience to them, Kadhaffi did the same last year in Ivorycoast, where ther was an election fraude, in the north thye colected more votes than there where voters and Gbagbo complained against Ouattara, But France(Sarkozy(jew) married the presumed president ouattara (from Burkina faso)with his wife from Algerian jewish origine, Sarkozy in that time meyer from Evry near paris, so persons with any personal links with ivorycoast had to become the most important from Ivorycoast in order that it would be more easely to sell it abroad! SO Europe blocked the financial means of Gbagbo and Ivorycoast and it was Kadhaffi that financialy helped, Sarkozy whas in real anger, this could be 1 of the many reasons wy France so quick to intervene in Lybia!

  9. Kepler Says:

    Rudy, ga terug naar Hands off Venezuela, aub.

  10. syd Says:

    Love the anti-crackpot comments from Kep. Meanwhile, where’s Ghaddafi? He doesn’t seem so brave any more.

  11. A_Antonio Says:

    I understand some worries about USA involvement in coalition force against Khadafy.

    But, again, I think the planet will be better place without individuals like Khadafy and in the past without Saddam Hussein in power

    We should ask if Khadafy is ideologically more incline to support terrorist movement worldwide, than accept democracy and Human rights in general and worldwide.

    Khadafy is getting old and his last diplomatic relationship movements with Occidental countries with Europe is only because Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, “pone las barbas en remojo”. He wants establish his power in time, and for his sons in the future with the approve of most of Occidental countries, only with the promise to not support or has any relationship with terrorist movements.

    But as paranoid as he is, we should ask how long will he kept his promise, and if he ideologically is more incline (for him and his sons) to support future terrorist movements and future terrorist attacks in Europe and USA.

    As like in the movies, without doubts Khadafy represent a clear and present danger to US and to world people.

  12. Kepler Says:

    Interesting: Putin said the West was behaving like crusaders and
    Medvedev declared those words were not appropiate.
    Medvedev has so far behaved like Putin’s Panda-ev and not like a Medved-ev

    What can I say? Deus vult.

  13. A_Antonio Says:

    Another question: Is it not about time for make him paid for his support to Lockerbie plane bombing?


  14. Lockerbiebombing, its not because somebody is judged that he is the actor, look in the US how many people came innocent out of jale in the last years, A police officer made a statement in lockerbie about, the socalled factfinding of that microchip, ” by accident found by an american”!
    To Kepler, Free opinion Venezuela is not free, as i tryed to argue about reasenable things they banned me, so i won’t go back!

  15. A_Antonio Says:

    Rudy, if I recall my memory right, Khadafy actually accept to pay some compensation money to the Lockerbie victims. So, to confession on of the guilty part what can more you had say to defend.

  16. moctavio Says:

    Yes and the 200 people that dies in Chavez’ 1992 coup died from a heart attack, I imagine

  17. Kepler Says:

    Rudy, can’t you read?

    I did not write free opinion venezuela.

    I wrote “Hands off Venezuela”.

    Je moet naar http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/ gaan. Snap je dat?

  18. Bois Says:

    Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I’m getting sick of people putting the US down for their involvement in Lybia.
    Answer this simple question:
    As Gaddafi is killing his own countrymen, what should the US do?
    Ignore it and let a brutal dictatorship slaughter innocent people?
    Get involved and stop this madman?
    Well, what would you do??

  19. Mick Says:

    Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has condemned the Western intervention in Libya, saying it is aimed at “getting their hands on its oil”, and that Iran supports the Libyan rebels, reports AFP.

    Even the Ayatollah has dumped Gaddaffi.

    Evidently he doesn’t understand that the west wants to pay lots of money for oil (as evidenced by the fact that the US could have taken all the oil it wanted from Iraq but didn’t.) Sounds just Hugo, no?

  20. Carolina Says:

    Pardon my ignorance, but wasn’t the “no fly zone” a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations? As far as I know, it had 10 votes in favour and 5 abstentions, and no one against it.
    I don’t understand why so many people turn inmediately to point the finger directly to USA for the bombings, when in this case, is acting in coalition with France, the UK, Italy.
    And they had to act because Gadaffi did violate the resolution! He had enough warning, didn’t he?
    What am I missing?

    What

  21. Pygmalion Says:

    Carolina – what you are missing is that countries are questioning the force with which the no-fly zone is being enforced. Switch on the TV and watch. It was all there this afternoon. I find it strange that the idea of the no-fly zone was to protect the Libyans from Gadhafi but in order to enforce it the coalition is killing the civilians with missile strikes anyway. Still, it does not matter, it’s just collateral damage.

    The point is no one needed to die if negotiations had been accepted and not pooh poohed by Sarkozy and others. Another war for oil.

  22. Carolina Says:

    That is not my point Pyg.
    I am asking why people are blaming the USA when this was a resolution of the UN.
    I don’t agree that this is about oil, as you simply put it, that is the Chavez excuse for everything. There is much more than that. If it would have been oil, it would have happened long time ago.
    By the way, do you know who Mohammed Nabbous was? Do you think his cause was oil? Take a look at his work, his cause and the message of his pregnant wife when he died, and dare to tell me it is about oil only.

    http://www.livestream.com/libya17feb/video?clipId=pla_9745ec21-c64d-440f-abe7-a412e7db456d&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb

  23. Paul Says:

    Hey Pyg..you talk about civilian caualties although there has been no verification other than through the Gadaffi propoganda machine. What would the civilian result be with Gadaffi marching into Bengazi and showing to quote Gadaffi “No mercy”. “War for oil”…laughable if not from someone that has grown up in the Chavez regime.

  24. Dillis Says:

    Pygmalion – reports are coming out today that Gaddafi is placing human shields in a lot of these installations. Is that the collateral damage you are talking about? The British even aborted a mission today because of this.

    Which countries are questioning how the no fly zone is being enforced? China, Russia and India? the countries that could have vetoed it then!

  25. m_astera Says:

    I see no one is interested in discussing the 39600+ kg of vaporized uranium that will now contaminate Libya for eternity. Nor the deformed babies.

    The saying during the Vietnam war was “In order to save the village, we had to destroy it.”

    I think it’s also worth noting that with the exception of Kepler, every comment on this thread has been simply regurgitation of whatever the corporate owned media has chosen to tell the viewers. Not a one of you has any information about what is or has been going on in Libya other than what someone in charge of propaganda and spin has decided to convince you of. You have no idea if Ghadaffi was actually attacking his own people, no idea which mercenaries are in the country or who is controlling them.

    I don’t pretend to know what’s going on there. And I definitely wouldn’t pretend to know about something because some bought and paid for television personality read it to me off the teleprompter.

    How ’bout them deformed babies, though? Go ahead and google “birth defects Fallujah.”

  26. mick Says:

    The US, British, French, etc. all pay through the nose for that black crap. Maybe I am just ignorant, but name one country from whom the US has seized oil in the last 50 years. Why do these patsies like Pygmalion believe such blatant lies? Does they feel better about themselves for being such fools?

    The reason so many politicians make deals with these wolves is — War creates shortages and increases prices. Peace allows production and expansion and therefore reduces prices. They would even make deals with a warlord like Qaddafi or a dictatorship like China because they could keep the peace.

    Chavez, on the other hand, just makes deals to secure his own future. Venezuela is a ship of fools heading to the falls and rowing faster.

  27. Dillis Says:

    m_astera – plenty of ‘tweets’ have come out of Libya for the last few weeks giving first hand experience of what is going on in the country. Of course most of us aren’t in Libya so we have to rely on either the media, or social networking sites such as Twitter.

  28. Roger Says:

    I can’t believe some of the comments to this post. This is a blog about Venezuela and its political and economic problems and not about Libya or an American President just happens to look like a lot of Venezuelans and even more Brazilians. What makes the crisis in Libya important to this blog is that if Gaddafi is allowed to machine gun and bomb citizens that oppose him then so can every other dictator including Himself Hugo Chavez Frias! In 2012 there is an election that the polls say Chavez can’t win. But, what happens if there is no hope to protest for accurate results? I can think of a lot things that could happen.
    What keeps most Venezuelans going and civil is “esperanza” the Spanish word for hope. You hear it in many songs and poems. Y’all sure are good at pissing on their hope of a better tomorrow!

  29. deananash Says:

    Here’s a comment about Venezuela. Miguel wrote: “Chavez’ reaction not only shows his total disregard for human rights, for which he has a long track record that the world refuses to see…”

    Here’s the thing, the world hasn’t shown any interest in seeing Castro’s similar abuse, so Hugo is just following the script. And unfortunately, it’s worked again.

    m_astera, I’ll bite. I agree if your point is that this could have been done a better way. A single bullet is all it would have taken. No claim of credit needed have been issued. Sometimes you just have to shoot rabid dogs. Or, as you’ve pointed out, bomb the whole neighborhood just to kill it, regardless of the costs. I myself would have authorized the bullet. Guess that’s why I’m NOT POTUS.

  30. marc in calgary Says:

    m_astera, it was widely reported by reputable news organizations that K-daffy had attacked by air and his army, his own civilian population. The morgues and hospitals were filled with dead and/or injured civilians attributed to government forces. In K-daffy’s own words, he had threatened to finish the uprising off in a matter of hours, and the Libyan air force pilots that had landed in Malta had supported this reportage. Ask yourself, what is the reason any reporter in Libya would report a concocted story? what’s in it for them? Michael Totten has written a few times and included photo montages of the wonderful world of near stalinist Libya, including the visit of Chavez for his human rights award.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/02/22/libyas-legacy/

    Deformed babies? really? who’d have figured this would happen? and to such nice people too. Do you know why there’s a high level of deformities in Iraq? Have you read what the Iraq forces did to the Kurds? and how the hospitals in Germany found evidence of poison (WMD!) being used? Or is it only “the empire” that is guilty of crimes? It’s not very politically correct, but so often the reasons are not always obvious either. Some people aren’t afraid to ask those questions…

    http://www.islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3970:the-connection-between-muslim-inbreeding-and-terrorism&catid=197&Itemid=19

    Similar findings are to be found in Danish mental institutions/jails. Yet nobody wants to ask why? Strange that.

  31. marc in calgary Says:

    Here’s a list of Libyan officials that seem to believe what they read in the papers/Tv. Who knew they were so easily swayed by the teleprompters?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Libyan_officials_who_protested_or_resigned_during_2011_protests

    Hey it’s wiki, they’ve been doing yeoman’s work in weeding out dissent too. jajaja.

  32. marc in calgary Says:

    “Chavez, you are next”

    http://babalublog.com/2011/03/a-message-for-hugo-chavez-from-the-middle-east/

    although I was hoping that Syria would be next. …

  33. moctavio Says:

    Pygmallion:

    This is a UN decision, not one member vetoed it

    Security Council refuses to meet with Libyan representatives, somehow all of these countries, presided by China, dont seem to have your problem, of course, you use the CIA handbook and may have special info

    Genocide, look it up in the dictionary.

  34. Kepler Says:

    If you care, you can read my points at Caracas Chronicles:

    http://caracaschronicles.com/2011/03/20/a-fundamental-unseriousness/#comment-4540

    Gaddafi is a murderer and he has killed a lot of innocent in the hospitals, at the squares during the open protests, in prisons many years ago, and so on. Still: things are not as clear cut about the airstrikes. Just go to my rumblings in that comment section.

    Mark,
    As for the Fallujah: those deformities are not the product of mustard gas or any of the other weapons Saddam Hussein had. They are product of depleted uranium.
    Fallujah is as Sunni as it goes and as pro-Saddam as it could. It was Arab, not Kurd. Kurds and Arabs are quite different peoples.

    As for the human shields: I saw some human shields yesterday on German TV. I tell you how it was: the journalist, in Tripoli, was told he could move around in there. He had a “driver”, which was actually a spy.
    You can watch it here (in German, but you get the pictures)

    http://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/servlet/content/3517136?documentId=6772500

    specially from 3:30

    The journalist would ask questions everywhere, at petrol stations people trying to tank, on a queue people trying to buy bread and so on. Everybody was careful because the Gadaffi thug was 30 cm from them and they were just saying what the thug wanted. Qaddafi does not notice the whole thing was ridiculous, you could see they were not free to talk.
    Now: the journalist then when to those places where the “shields” in Tripoli were. They were chanting and praising Gaddaffi all the way. What was it? Well, those are the same kind of guys who will go all the way with Chávez in Venezuela and would remain around the Palacio de Miraflores.
    You have never answered, but I believe you are a PDVSA Venezuelan, right? So: even if you are Venezuelan. Although you are very oppo, you know there are such people in Venezuela. Are they human shields? Perhaps…but they do support the man.

    Pigmalion: Libya is providing all the oil the West wants.
    Mick: well, Saudi Arabia has been providing cheap oil to the US for a long time. Do you know Robert Baer, former CIA operative? I think the bloke is very simplistic, but some points about oil policy and Saudi Arabia as he wrote in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_With_the_Devil
    are worth considering.
    In any case: oil producing countries could have taken a much more aggresive policy towards oil prices, which would have resulted in much more money going to them.
    Of course, in the end, it is all a matter of offer and demand and markets. I believe if prices go up too much the world will experience a rapid fuel source shift.

  35. Ira Says:

    M-Astera–you’re living in a fantasyland. There is no depleted uranium used in non-nuclear Tomahawk missiles. Do you also believe that GW bombed the World Trade Center?

    Here are the words from people who know:

    This belief that cruise missiles have depleted uranium warheads has its genesis in the misunderstanding of a 1984 Navy memo about Tomahawk Cruise missile flight tests. This misunderstanding is compounded by the work of Dai Williams, a British industrial psychologist and independent researcher. Among the stories cited by Project Censored, Stephanie Hiller’s article, UMRC’s reports and the Tokyo tribunal all put stock in William’s published hypothesis that many warheads on bombs and Tomahawk cruise missiles include a very dense metal penetrator.

    While Williams concludes only that DU may be the “mystery metal”, others – including now Project Censored – have construed Williams’ misleading conflation of facts and speculation as evidence these weapons all contain massive amounts of DU. The oft-repeated Tomahawk/DU myth is refuted by several government documents that specifically deny the use of DU in conventionally-armed (i.e., non-nuclear) Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    To quote just one, G.A. Higgins, U.S. Navy Medical Service Corps Commander and Executive Secretary, Naval Radiation Safety Committee responded on March 29, 1999, to an FOIA request made by the Military Toxics Project (MTP). It reads, in part…

    “Responding to your second request for information under the Freedom of Information Act pertaining to the amount of depleted uranium in Navy munitions, counterweights, and specifically the Tomahawk cruise missile, as noted above, the only Navy weapons system using depleted uranium ammunition is the Phalanx CIWS. Each 20 mm round contains 70 grams of depleted uranium.

    “Regarding the Tomahawk missile system, there is no depleted uranium used in or on the deployed version of this weapons system. An unspecified quantity of depleted uranium is used as mass for test and evaluation purposes within the United States and is owned by the Department of Energy (DOE)….”

    That last sentence refers to the same circumstance that is the subject of the misunderstood 1984 Navy memo- a flight test model of the nuclear-capable Tomahawk. Other U.S. military documents also confirm that DU is not used in operational Tomahawk cruise missiles, Air Launched Cruise Missiles, Advanced Cruise Missiles, or Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles.

    I am not saying, nor do I believe, that one must accept all government documents as truth. But when establishing facts in dispute, more compelling evidence must be presented. Williams has also located a number of U.S. warhead patents that mention depleted uranium. This circumstantial piece of evidence has, for some readers, constituted further proof.

    But I have read the patents in question and in all cases Williams cites, DU is mentioned not as the primary material for the patented warhead shroud or penetrator, but only as another suitably dense material, after tungsten or similarly dense alloys. Following up on this, I have telephoned two holders of patents in question. Both had no knowledge of any production of such warheads with DU instead of non-radioactive metals; both expressed doubt that such production would have proceeded without their knowledge and both agreed with this writer’s assessment of the patent language in question: that DU is noted as an alternate material simply to protect the innovations of the patented designs, regardless of which available dense metal is used.

    Even the United Nations Environmental Program, who allegedly endorsed the 1,100-2,200 ton estimate, has this to say in direct rebuttal to one of Williams’ and UMRC’s central claims about Iraq:

    “There is currently no evidence that missiles or bombs used during the war – particularly the AGM-86D CALCM hard target penetrators (153 were used) or bunker-busting bombs – contain DU.”

    There are other outrageous and unsubstantiated claims made by the authors of Project Censored’s selections, too many to debunk as thoroughly as the DU in cruise missiles claim. So here is a sample.

    A respected uranium info site maintained by the international anti-nuclear watchdog World Information Service on Energy (WISE) has reviewed the uranium contamination data collected from U.S. soldiers by the UMRC, and reported in the New York Daily News article. They conclude that the relative levels found are anything but “high.” (See http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium)

  36. GeorgeS Says:

    Hey Piggy! Funny you care about civilians all of a sudden, never criticized Gaddafi, you agree with Esteban 120% of the time, but claim to be a Republican.

  37. Kepler Says:

    Well, this is Wikipedia again, but here there are plenty of sources that contradict you, Ira:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Military_applications

    It’s funny who abstained in the UN resolutions mentioned there…again US, France, Israel, China, Russia.

    I called the people you called, Ira, and they told me the world was going to end in the year 2012.

  38. Ira Says:

    And M-Aster and others, you’re wrong about the Presidential right to wage war:

    The President has the power to use the military WITHOUT getting Congressional approval. This is from the War Powers Act:

    Once the President uses the military, he has to notify Congress, and once this notificati­on has been received, this starts the 60-day clock.

    After 60 days, the President must withdraw the military if approval isn’t granted.

    Rachel Madow said last night Congress has declared war ONLY FIVE TIMES in American history, and not once since World War II!!

    Pretty interestin­g, soI doubt Kucinich will get very far with his impeachmen­t proceeding­s.

  39. Ira Says:

    Kepler, DU is definitely used in small, armor-piercing bullets–but not the Tomahawk. And your link doesn’t contradict that.

    Was it supposed to?

  40. Kepler Says:

    I don’t refer to Tomahawks, unlile Astera.

    The US and others are using depleted uranium everywhere.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6105726.stm

    I wouldn’t be surprised they will be using stuff with DU for destroying armor.

    I don’t have the time to delve into it, but if the US or France use something like this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II

    or the like…

  41. Ira Says:

    Okay–understood.

  42. A_Antonio Says:

    I would like to point to two things:

    In Afghanistan there is no oil, if I recall there are one faction call Taliban that have the nastiest disregard to human rights; with a Middle Age Ideology, and also there were training camps from Al Qaeda, camps were used train and teach individuals that participate in 11S attacks. In Iraq is a more gray matter, we can discuss little more, but I am convince the taking out of Saddam was a good thing.

    As Chavez call brother, friend and openly support Khadafy it requires not more of 2 fingers of front head to know that this post matter also to Venezuela and also we should be worried about that.

  43. Kepler Says:

    Antonio,

    Afghanistan has no oil. It does have lots of precious metals, but that was no reason. The Taliban were basically trained by Saudi Arabia and the United States of America, though.
    The Taliban have indeed a hideous ideology. They did get very nice
    In the early years, there were things like this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline

    Check this out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson_%28Texas_politician%29

    If you go to the US or somewhere in the West, get the book by R. Fisk I have recommended several times.

    Don’t get me wrong: I am not for non-intervention. I am cautious and perplexed about the way governments act without thinking through what they are doing.

  44. A_Antonio Says:

    Another points:

    Oil Companies in Lybia: Eni, StatoilHydro, Occidental Petroleum, OMV, ConocoPhillips, Hess Corp, Marathon, Shell, BP, ExxonMobil y Wintershall, BASF.
    Only 5% of the oil goes to USA, the natural market of Lybian Oil is Europe.

    So is US attacking Lybia for its oil, like they do in Afghanistan?

  45. Kepler Says:

    Antonio,

    Write to desarrollo dot sostenible dot venezuela at gmail
    and I will send you some information

  46. Roy Says:

    One week ago, the vast majority of the commentary was decrying the U.S. and the international community for not doing anything to stop Gaddafi from slaughtering his own people. One week later, everyone wants to criticize how and why they are doing it.

    I am sick and tired of this hypocrisy. Y’all want to enjoy the steak, but you don’t want to hear about the steer being slaughtered.

    For all of you complaining, I dare you to go back and read your own comments from a week ago.

  47. Kepler Says:

    Roy, I think there is no discussion here about helping the Libyan. The issue is how to do that. It is a very complex issue. I don’t think the US has the biggest responsability here.

    The UK has screwed it big time and so have many other EU countries, including Germany and France and Italy.

    Now: is it good to bomb and bomb and bomb? How far?
    Where? And what happens if Gaddafi sends a “Sturmvolk” towards Benghazi, forcing civilians to become moving protecting shields?

    That’s the rub. We don’t want to end up killing more civilians with those planes. I frankly don’t know what’s best at this stage. Why on Earth did the West lift the embargo many years ago in the first place?
    Here we are now with the trouble.
    The closer they bomb Tripolis, the bigger the problem. A third of the population lives there.

    Provide weapons to the rebels?
    Don’t know.

  48. Gordo Says:

    It seems to me that the allied actions are a late and desperate attempt to do something that absolves their culpability if there is a bloody massacre.

  49. Gordo Says:

    It also seems to me that the playbook is being refined, and we are seeing a preview of what might be in store for Venezuela.

  50. Gordo Says:

    And, finally, I bet Chavez, the megalomaniac he is, is hearing lots of voices in his head as he watches the events in Libya. That would certainly explain the wild comments he’s been making, i.e. Mars.

  51. Roy Says:

    Kepler,

    I don’t know either, but I am not an expert on that region. But, I do know that the U.S. does have people that are. Can’t we give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that they are doing the best they can given the circumstances?

    It sounds to me like calls for the Quarterback to be sacked after only two plays.

    All,

    I just heard that there are demonstrations planned in front of the U.S. Embassy in Caracas tomorrow. Can you guess who called for them?

  52. claco Says:

    The supplier of the nice shirts and we will see the same group again.

  53. A_Antonio Says:

    The situation now in Libya is very difficult to answer without a direct intervention in ground.

    If the news form more of broadcaster are true, Khadafy has thousands of paid mercenaries from near African countries, against them are civilians without not experience and no organization to a civil war, they now prefer to win or to be killed, Khadafy will only take living prisoners only to been tortured. The opposition do not have choices now, surrender is a slow death in torture and possible tortured deaths to their relatives.

  54. Roy Says:

    Kepler / Ira,

    This is from the World Nuclear Association:

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf14.html

    Take it as you like, but it seems to me, this issue is a tempest in a teapot.

    Health aspects of DU:

    Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U-238 is the same as the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study.

    However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Most uranium actually absorbed into the body is excreted within days, the balance being laid down in bone and kidneys. Its biological effect is principally kidney damage. The World Health Organization (WHO) has set a tolerable daily intake level for uranium of 0.6 microgram/kg body weight, orally. (This is about eight times our normal background intake from natural sources.) Standards for drinking water and concentrations in air are set accordingly.

    Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations. Radiation from DU munitions depends on how long since the uranium has been separated from the lighter isotopes so that its decay products start to build up. Decay of U-238 gives rise to Th-234, Pa-234 (beta emitters) and U-234 (an alpha emitter)m. On this basis, in a few months, DU is weakly radioactive with an activity of around 40 kBq/g quoted. (If it is fresh from the enrichment plant and hence fairly pure, the activity is 15 kBq/g, compared with 25 kBq/g for pure natural uranium. Fresh DU from enriching reprocessed uranium has U-236 in it and more U-234 so is about 23 kBq/g.)

    In 2001, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) examined the effects of nine tonnes of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it5. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water of the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers. A two-year study6 by Sandia National Laboratories in USA reported in 2005 that are consistent with earlier studies, reports of serious health risks from DU exposure during the 1991 Gulf War are not supported by medical statistics or by analysis.

    An editorial in the Radiological Protection Bulletin of the UK’s National Radiation Protection Board stated: “DU is radioactive and doses from inhalation of dust or from handling bare spent rounds need to be assessed properly. However, the scientific consensus at present is that the risks are likely to be small and easily avoidable, especially compared with the other risks the armed forces have to take in war.”

    Thus DU is clearly dangerous for military targets, but for anyone else – even in a war zone – there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route.

  55. A_Antonio Says:

    Well, thinking again, there is an answer to Libyan civil war: a lucky strike, a Tomahawk over the Khadafy head.

  56. Ira Says:

    Thanks for that analysis, Roy.

    I think that those inventing this “holocaust” that the the U.S. is supposedly inflicting on Libya simply throw out this nonsense to change the subject. Never mind that fact that millions of Libyans were BEGGING us to drop these munitions against Ghaddafi forces just a few hundred yards from them.

    But one good thing is coming to come from all of this:

    The world may finally agree on how to spell this maniac’s name, when they engrave the tombstone for him that he so rightly deserves.

  57. geronl Says:

    Why Libya?

    Why not Iran?

    Why not North Korea?

    Why not Cuba?

    Are we going to topple every dictator and hand countries over to Islamic radicals?

  58. Kepler Says:

    To Islamic radicals? Ever heard of

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

    ?

    By the way: and Britain with US help helped to take Iran into what is today by toppling social democratic movements (first came the Shah regime, which was responsible for hundreds of thousands of murders, and that led to this shit now)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

    Why not Iran? Other than nuking them, the US simply can’t. It is a rough terrain, with a huge population and people who are well-trained.

    North Korea? China won’t allow it.

    Cuba? There is no way the US would try to do that AGAIN, specially these times and also with millions of non-Cuban Latinos opposing that.

    Right now the situation is very very difficult. I hope the French stop having tantrums because they are not put as “leaders” of the whole operation.

  59. TechJetSet Says:

    I don’t know if it’s already been mentioned in a prior posting, but I’d like to recommend a new documentary entitled “Iranium” that pieces together much of what is going on in the middle east at this time, as well as featuring El Comandante and his own ties to the Iran. He appears around the 25 minute mark, and there isn’t anything new about him that readers of this blog don’t already know. The information regarding accomplices to Iran is insightful and horrifying at the same time. Iranium is available for download through several bit torrent sites and available in very limited release next month.

  60. Roy Says:

    Ira,

    “The world may finally agree on how to spell this maniac’s name, when they engrave the tombstone for him that he so rightly deserves.”

    He doesn’t even deserve a tombstone.

    I didn’t write that analysis. I just cut and pasted. But, the source is a world organization of professionals in the nuclear industry. I suppose they are not completely impartial, but their opinion is based on research, and not on a desire to inflame technophobic Luddite fear in the public.

  61. Roy Says:

    geroni,

    Someone once said, “Politics is the art of the possible.”

    When the fruit is ripe, it will fall. Some things just can’t be hurried. I see the role of the modern world international community as a midwife to the birth of new democracies. The world can assist, but the mother has to do the pushing.

    In Afghanistan and Iraq, we tried to push for them. Its not working.

  62. Ira Says:

    Geroni, I think Kepler very well addressed the “Why here and not there” question.

    This has been the conundrum of world leaders in the 20th and 21st Centuries, but I guess the more simple answer could be:

    Because these places are all different.

    Do you actually expect the U.S. to support very possible Al Qaeda involvement and subsequent power after the revolt in Yemen?

    You have to analyze each situation differently, but as far as Cuba goes, I agree:

    We should have taken those a-holes out 30 years ago–giving them the benefit of the doubt for 10 years and then finally realizing that they’re just communist, dictator pigs.

    Ironically, leftists get mad when you throw the word “communist” out there, instead insisting on “socialist,” although they don’t get mad when you apply “communist” to Cuba.

    Because that’s what Cuba is, and that’s what Chavez wants VZ to be.

    He’s going to bring Venezuelans to a Communist Paradise whether it kills them or not!

  63. Maria Says:

    Robert Fisk interview of Osama bin laden:

    “Within months, however, Mr Bin Laden was sending Arab fighters – Egyptians, Algerians, Lebanese, Kuwaitis, Turks and Tunisians – into Afghanistan; “not hundreds but thousands,” he said. He supported them with weapons and his own construction equipment. Along with his Iraqi engineer Mohamed Saad – who is now building the Port Sudan road – Mr Bin Laden blasted massive tunnels into the Zazi mountains of Bakhtiar province for guerilla hospitals and arms dumps and cut a mujahedin trail across the country to within 15 miles of Kabul. No I was never afraid of death.

    As Muslims we believe that when we die, we go to heaven. Before a batttle, God sends us “seqina”, tranquility. Once I was only 30 metres from the Russians and they were trying to capture me. I was under bombardment but I was so peaceful in my heart that I fell asleep. This experience has been written about in our earliest books. I saw a 120mm mortar shell land in front of me, but it did not blow up. Four more bombs were dropped from a Russian plane on our headquuarters but they did not explode. We beat the Soviet union. The Russians fled.” But what of the Arab mujahedin he took to Afghanistan – members of a guerilla army who were also encouraged and armed by the United States – and who were forgotten when that war was over?

    “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help. When my mujahedin were victorious and the Russsians were driven out, differences started (between the guerilla movements) so I returned to road construction in Taif and Abha. I brrought back the equipment I had used to build tunnels and roads for the mujahedin in Afghanistan. Yes, I helped soem of my comrades to come here to Sudan after the war.” How many? “I don’t want to say. But they are here with me right here, building this road to Port Sudan.” I told him that Bosnian Muslim fighters in the Bosnian town of Travnik had mentioned his name to me. “I feel the same about Bosnia,” he said. “But the situation there does not provide me with the same opportunities as Afghanistan. ”

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7203.htm

  64. Kepler Says:

    Maria, and what’s your point?
    It’s a part of one of the interviews he had with Osama. Does it tell you something just like that, out of context? Have you actually read the book that part was taken from?

  65. Kristal Says:

    An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a friend who had been doing a little research on this. And he in fact ordered me lunch due to the fact that I found it for him… lol. So let me reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending some time to discuss this subject here on your site.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 11,697 other followers

%d bloggers like this: