I wondered about this and did my research on NATO. Admittedly, I've a very limited knowledge about NATO even after my research. But with what I found out from Internet and asking people, I don't feel strongly against it. Another fellow from OC voiced a similar opinion and that's what led me to post this thread. I thought may be there are many others out there who feel the same way or may be they don't and will educate me why NATO is bad.
Regardless of NATO's worthiness to protest against, I still believe we should go out and protest as a simple matter of strategy since there will be international level media coverage and we can use that opportunity to get our word out about issues we deem important. I personally like to oppose NDAA, SOPA, Gitmo, prisoners abuse and death penality.
What are your thoughts?
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:30 am
Nato's shameful role in Libya
Convicting Liberia's Taylor of war crimes while ignoring the actions of western leaders is hypocritical
By Seumas MilnePublished: 00:00 May 18, 2012
Libya was supposed to be different. The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan had been learned, British Prime Minister David Cameron and former French president Nicolas Sarkozy insisted last year. This would be a real humanitarian intervention. Unlike Iraq, there would be no boots on the ground. Unlike in Afghanistan, Nato air power would be used to support a fight for freedom and prevent a massacre. Unlike the Kosovo campaign, there would be no indiscriminate cluster bombs: only precision weapons would be used. This would be a war to save civilian lives.
Seven months on from Muammar Gaddafi's butchering in the ruins of Sirte, the fruits of liberal intervention in Libya are now cruelly clear, and documented by the UN and human rights groups: 8,000 prisoners held without trial, rampant torture and routine deaths in detention, the ethnic cleansing of Tawerga, a town of 30,000 mainly black Libyans (already in the frame as a crime against humanity) and continuing violent persecution of sub-Saharan Africans across the country.
A year after the western powers tried to make up for lost ground in the Arab uprisings by tipping the balance of the Benghazi-led revolt, Libya is in the lawless grip of rival warlords and armed conflict between militias, as the western-installed National Transitional Council (NTC) passes Gaddafi-style laws clamping down on freedom of speech, gives legal immunity to former rebels and disqualifies election candidates critical of the new order. These are the political forces Nato played the decisive role in bringing to power.
Now the evidence is starting to build up of what Nato's laser-guided bombing campaign actually meant on the ground. The New York-based Human Rights Watch this week released a report into the deaths of at least 72 Libyan civilians, a third of them children, killed in eight separate bombing raids (seven on non-military targets) — and denounced Nato for still refusing to investigate or even acknowledge civilian deaths that were always denied at the time.
Article continues below
Given the tens of thousands of civilians killed by US, British and other Nato forces both from the air and on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen over the last decade, perhaps Nato commanders prefer not to detain themselves with such comparative trifles. And Human Rights Watch believes that, whatever the real number of civilians directly killed by Nato bombing, it was relatively low given the 10,000-odd sorties flown.
But while Nato's UN mandate was to protect civilians, the alliance in practice turned that mission on its head. Throwing its weight behind one side in a civil war to oust Gaddafi's regime, it became the air force for the rebel militias on the ground. So while the death toll was perhaps between 1,000 and 2,000 when Nato intervened in March, by October it was estimated by the NTC to be 30,000 - including thousands of civilians.
We can't of course know what would have happened without Nato's bombing campaign, even if there is no evidence that Gaddafi had either the intention or capability to carry out a massacre in Benghazi. But we do know that Nato provided decisive air cover for the rebels as they matched Gaddafi's forces war crime for war crime, carried out massacres of their own and indiscriminately shelled civilian areas with devastating results - such as reducing much of Sirte to rubble in October.
There were also Nato and Qatari boots on the ground, co-ordinating rebel operations. So Nato certainly shared responsibility for the deaths of many more civilian than its missiles directly incinerated.
That is the kind of indirect culpability that led to the conviction last month of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, in the UN-backed special court for Sierra Leone in The Hague. Taylor, now awaiting sentence and expected to be jailed in Britain, was found guilty of "aiding and abetting" war crimes and crimes against humanity during Sierra Leone's civil war in the 1990s. But he was cleared of directly ordering atrocities carried out by Sierra Leonean rebels.
Which pretty well describes the role played by Nato in Libya last year. International lawyers say legal culpability would depend on the degree of assistance and knowledge of war crimes for which Nato provided cover, even if the political and moral responsibility could not be clearer.
But there is of course no question of Nato leaders being held to legal account for the Libyan carnage, any more than they have been for more direct crimes carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only Briton convicted of a war crime over the bloodbath of Iraq has been Corporal Donald Payne, for abuse of prisoners in Basra in 2003 - while former US president George W. Bush has boasted of authorising the international crime of torture and faced not so much as a caution.
Which only underlines that what is called international law simply doesn't apply to the big powers or their political leaders. In the 10 years of its existence, the international criminal court has indicted 28 people from seven countries for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Every one of them is African - even though ICC signatories include states such as Colombia and Afghanistan.
As long as international law is only used against small or weak states in the developing world, it won't be a system of international justice, but an instrument of power politics and imperial enforcement.
Just as the urgent lesson of Libya - for the rest of the Arab world and beyond - is that however it is dressed up, foreign military intervention isn't a shortcut to freedom. And far from saving lives, again and again it has escalated slaughter.
— Guardian News & Media Ltd
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 11:10 am
Though we cannot say what would have happened if NATO had not intervened in Libya, the dramatic rise of the death toll after NATO's intervention speaks volumes:
"the death toll was perhaps between 1,000 and 2,000 when Nato intervened in March, by October it was estimated by the NTC to be 30,000 - including thousands of civilians."
NATO allows Western leaders to act without being punished, while leaders from the third world must face repercussions for their actions. This constitues a bias.
"international law simply doesn't apply to the big powers or their political leaders. In the 10 years of its existence, the international criminal court has indicted 28 people from seven countries for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Every one of them is African - even though ICC signatories include states such as Colombia and Afghanistan."
NATO is an instrument of Western imperialism; it allows Western countries to take military action in countries where the political situation is often much more complex than the public will ever understand (take Libya, for example). NATO puts a veil of moral justice on what is really cultural and military imposition.
"As long as international law is only used against small or weak states in the developing world, it won't be a system of international justice, but an instrument of power politics and imperial enforcement."
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 11:10 am
36 Central Park South #603, New York, NY 10002
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 1:02 am
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:05 am
- Location: la
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:39 pm
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:22 pm
- Location: usa
http://buy-virilityex.jigsy.com/entries ... irility-ex
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:54 am
- Location: Indonesia
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests