of Comidad
NATO last Monday last, the voice of his secretary general, has launched a solemn warning to Gaddafi, according to which the bombing on civilians constitute crimes against humanity and therefore NATO is not will be watching. There is no denying that when it is to bomb civilians, NATO has never been limited to watch, but it has always been busy in person. This time is also not rehash the past, since the massacres of civilians by NATO made the merit of the contemporary than the official propaganda that is currently attributed to Gaddafi.
Just a few days ago, yet another massacre of children by NATO helicopters has led to an angry demonstration in Kabul, before which even the president Karzai puppet that had to raise his voice against the head of NATO forces, the General Petraeus. Even at the end of February, Petraeus had dared to say that the wounds inflicted on children during the bombing NATO was a forgery of the Taliban, which allegedly led their supporters to burn his arms and legs to their own children, only to accuse the U.S. military. To invent this story, Petraeus must have redone the classic psychological warfare that is "Apocalypse Now" Marlon Brando in which a zero shaved told of an incident never happened, that is, the cutting of the arms of Vietnamese children at the hands of Vietcong ; a hoax, however, has become a kind of "historical truth", consecrated by custom to the narrative. Then the face of evidence of tests for the latest killings of civilians, the same Petraeus did not find other film to tell, and got away with an apology. The United States just say an "oops!", And also carried out a bombing raid on civilians at close range with helicopters, the newspaper becomes an unfortunate accident, confined to a few lines the inside pages and forget immediately.
In this last week it seemed that the implementation of a "no fly zone" on Libya the doubts grow in the same U.S. administration. It was recalled that only a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates had declared in front of the students that only a fool would suggest a war in the Middle East to the U.S. president. But when did the U.S. have paved the ground for their wars without using the rhetoric antibellicistica?
The media have spread the voice of opposition to the "no fly zone" by China and Russia, but in fact the Chinese and Russian press have been limited to advocate a peaceful solution to Libya without announcing a diplomatic or threaten retaliation battle at the UN.
Another issue that has raged on blogs in recent weeks about the decline of the U.S. and its alleged inability to embark on further military adventures. Some commentators already believe in after-USA, and try to identify the superpower of the future: China or India, or perhaps both, the "Chindia". But who puts the cart before the horse, often finds himself closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Not really There was never a time when the United States were not in decline and that their power is not in a crisis. Even the U.S. dominance in the 80s had given up before the rising power of Japan.
Georges Clemanceau spoke about an amusing aphorism, according to which the United States is the only country in the past directly from barbarism to decadence without ever passing through civilization. The inability to win the wars the U.S. has become a cliché, but General Fabio Mini has long warned that the concept of victory was ousted by the military strategy. Military occupation does not require military victories, and can persist even without achieving victories military. In fact, the real strength of the United States has always consisted in the international network of complicity and connivance who were able to set up.
The great resource of the United States are pro-American, that is reactionary and affairs of the planet. A decisive role in the colonial domination of U.S. multinationals also play the international organizations like the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the European Union itself, and of course the UN.
For example, a confusion of historical memory that occurred in these days when there was talk of Libya and Kosovo model, covered the UN's role in the Kosovo war of 1999. It has been said rightly that the aerial assault on Serbia was launched by NATO without Security Council came to a decision, then a war "illegal," but you forgot to add that was in fact the Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999, the same Security Council to allow and legalize the NATO occupation of Kosovo. Appendix 2 of the resolution is in fact entrusted to a NATO role in "substantial" in peace-keeping operations in Kosovo, legalizing the paradox of entrusting the peace who had sparked the war. NATO was never able to obtain employment in the field of Serbian soil, and was the UN to enable it, namely Russia and China. http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/cogit_content/articoli/EkpFVAFklFJmxqwZqO.shtml
Putin is not a puppet of the United States as it was Yeltsin, and is also surrounded the shaft of the media "Western" because of the skill with which conducts its business, perhaps this is why Putin has become the hope of the "right antagonist ". A memory lapse about the applicant, however, Putin is overshadowed in its responsibilities nell'affossamento the Serbian regime of Milosevic.
Putin was still president when NATO attacked Serbia, but NATO was not to overthrow Milosevic, but the duplicity of Putin became prime minister on the appointment of Yeltsin in August 1999. With a daring military operation, perhaps taking advantage of the then chronic ethyl coma Russian President Boris Yeltsin in June of that year the Russian army was even able to occupy the capital of Kosovo, the city of Pristina, arriving to meet the British troops of NATO. The fact also caused a pained and worried article by Ernesto Galli della Loggia, an example of how the official opinion of weights and measures used to use are completely different, depending on whether the military action "Western" or other.
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1999/giugno/13/NAZIONALISMO_FINE_SECOLO_co_0_9906133789.shtml
On the Web, however, you can find the news of that company, but you can not know when and how the Russians were forced to retreat . Why
Putin took advantage of the advantageous position that the Russian military occupation gave him? Why months after Milosevic left outstanding under a U.S. election result clearly manipulated by the interference?
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2000/ottobre/02/Mosca_pronta_scaricare_Milosevic__co_0_0010022940.shtml
The application may be referred to today, because Putin was quick to download Gaddafi?
The answer is always the same. Putin can not oppose all the way to the United States because he speaks their language, that of the business. Putin does not want to return a role and prestige of the Russian armed forces, because that would hamper its plans privatization carpet. For half a century, the Red Army was the only true crutch of Soviet socialism, so his defeat in Afghanistan has left the gate open to privatization took business from the thighs of the KGB, today riconvertitosi in Gazprom.
Putin had to leave in the army in Ossetia, because that was the U.S. pressure on its borders, and so would have risked unpopularity and paved the way for a military coup, but, apart from these emergency situations, he left total decay in the military logistics and armaments. Even the Russian army in Ossetia has been forced to tear out blood from turnips to come up, given the outdated means at its disposal, in the face of modern weaponry and the hyper-privatized army of Georgia.
Only in the field of nuclear missile Putin is concerned to maintain the technological leadership, but again this is a matter of his personal survival. A few years ago, the Russian parliament also passed a law allowing Gazprom to acquire a private army, Blackwater putting up their own, a story that has filled with joy the Russian armed forces.
http://translate.google.it/translate?hl=it&langpair=en% 7Cit http://www.liveleak.com/view & u =%% 3FI 3D829_1183743028
0 comments:
Post a Comment