US role in libya: destroy offensive capability

the US administration is pulling out all the stops to hype its justifications for military intervention in libya:

"WASHINGTON – The United States military intervention in Libya has saved perhaps tens of thousands of lives, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday, as she and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates defended a mission they acknowledged is drawing increasing skepticism from both liberals and conservatives." (source: new york times).

this bullshit offensive is only slightly less offensive than the actual invasion of libya itself, about which:

Mr. Gates acknowledged on the same show that what was unfolding in Libya was not a threat to the United States and was “not a vital national interest to the United States,” but that the intervention was justified because of “the engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake.”

when the US starts an invasion on humanitarian grounds, LOOK OUT! the US government never has, and never will consider what is in the interests of common people. its one and only objective is to protect its strategic and business interests.

when it comes to creating rationales for invasions, or covering up the "collateral damage" (read loss of civilian lives), the US government will resort to the most cynical defensiveness, concocting outrageous lies without any scruples whatsoever. instead of acknowledging the random slaughter caused by US munitions,

"Instead, he said, Defense Department authorities were told that Colonel Qaddafi’s supporters placed dead bodies at some of the sites targeted in an effort to create a false impression..."

the irony over which side works hardest to create false impressions should be on obvious one...

when you look at what the US is destroying in its defense of the civilians of libya, its quite plain that all their offensive military equipment -- jets, tanks, armored personnel carriers, the works -- is systematically being demolished. this will prevent a new regime, if it decides not to play footsie with the western powers, to remain defenseless far into the future.

this conveniently puts libya's energy resources where the west can get to them without restriction or hindrance -- which, if one wishes to loot the resources, is a very good place to be.

if, on the other hand, a follow-on regime is "someone we can do business with," then our weapons syndicates will be glad to sell the government replacements for the gear we destroy -- which makes it a win-win situation for the western powers: a new, compliant government, plus a bonanza for the weapons industry.

before we go, we should listen to the flimsy excuses for US intervention in libya, but not syria or yemen:

Pressed to explain why the United States is involved in a military strike in Libya, but not in Yemen or in Syria, where civilians and protesters have also been killed, Mrs. Clinton said in Libya, the government is using its military forces in an organized strike against its own people.
“That crossed a line that people in the world had decided they could not tolerate,” she said on ABC.

get that: they "crossed a line" in libya, using military forces to kill civilians and protesters.

so what about our wonderful friends in tel aviv, who routinely slaughter the civilians and protesters in the west bank and gaza? and what about those who arm the israeli military, enabling it to slaughter the palestinians? these same strictures against use of force by the libyans seem to be flagrantly abused by the US and its allies, and the UN is silent in response.

how can these amoral degenerates expect to have any credibility whatsoever? leave it to clinton to suggest that it's because the US doesn't play the propaganda game expertly enough.