On Libya, this week has seen a bumper crop of interesting pieces (that’s what happens when major news coincides with an August lull, particularly for academics). I recommend Joshua Tucker in The New Republic; Daniel Serwer on next steps; and Larry Smith in Huffpost. Many of the opponents of the original intervention have tried to move directly past the rebels’ entry into Tripoli and hence effective overthrow of the Gaddafi regime (though it’s not over yet) to talk about how difficult the next phase is going to be (not that anyone is arguing that it’s going to be easy, as several of my Twitter colleagues pointed out). That is the “do not pass go and do not under any circumstances admit you were wrong strategy.” (To those readers who are bound to raise the issue, I haveadmitted that I was wrong on Iraq and I learned vital lessons from being wrong.) So I have reverted to the earlier debate and lessons learned in a piece published this week in the Financial Times.
But here on the foreign policy frontier, I’d like to explore the question not of what the last five months of U.N.-authorized NATO, UAE, and Qatar military action in Libya means for the future of humanitarian intervention but whether it makes sense to keep talking about intervention at all. If we really do look at the world in terms of governments and societies and the relationship between them, and do recognize that both governments and their citizens have rights as subjects of international law and have agency as actors in international politics, then what exactly is the international community “intervening” in?
International lawyers know that “intervention” and the “non-intervention doctrine” are swampy and highly disputed areas of the law. Former colonies have many good reasons to insist on “non-intervention” by their former imperialist masters, but what exactly constitutes intervention — particularly non-military or quasi-military (sending arms, etc) assistance or sanctions — is often in the eye of the beholder. The UN Charter takes a firm stand: Article 2(7) provides: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.”
But if an international coalition uses force on the authorization of the Security Council, because the Council has determined that a government has overwhelmingly failed in its responsibility to protect its own people, and because the vast majority of those people with access to free means of expression are asking for force to be used, doesn’t it make more sense to say that the citizens of many nations, as represented by their governments, are responding to a call for help from the citizens of a nation unable to compel their government to perform its most basic function?
Note the “closed sphere” assumption reflected in the language of the Charter: spheres defined by a government’s control over territory and a defined population. That control is sovereignty, which once meant, in law and theory if never in practice, absolute control without interference from others. The UN Charter dates from 1945; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not issued until 1949 and the various core treaties translating the Universal Declaration into law — the Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture, the Convention against Genocide, the Convention against Discrimination against Women, and others — all concluded over the next five decades. All of these conventions give citizens defined rights against their governments, with varying degrees of supervision by the international community. And then finally, in the first decade of the 21st century, came the “responsibility to protect.” The UN World Summit in 2005, convened by Kofi Annan, adopted an outcome document with the following articles:
138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. (cont’d)
The U.N. Security Council affirmed the provisions of these paragraphs in a 2006 resolution, giving them the weight of international law, although not as much weight as a formal international treaty.
Fred Kaplan, in an otherwise excellent piece on humanitarian intervention in Slate, says that the responsibility to protect (R2P) is just a sanitized version of humanitarian intervention. Not so, in my view. For the first time, international law and the great powers of international politics have recognized both the rights of citizens and a specific relationship between the government and its citizens: a relationship of protection. The nature of sovereignty itself is thus changed: legitimate governments are defined not only by their control of a territory and a population but also by how they exercise that control. If they fail in that obligation, the international community has the responsibility to protect those citizens.
The most compelling reason for the doctrine of non-intervention in the first place was that it protected weaker states from stronger states, on the assumption that the worst thing that could happen to a state and its population was invasion or some other use of force by another state. That made sense in the 19th century and much of the 20th century. But in the 21st century populations are often at equal or greater risk from their own governments as they are from other states. In a world of governments and societies, the responsibility to protect is the foundation of a new way to think about them both and the relationship between them.
Anne-Marie Slaughter is the Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. She was previously the director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department and dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
August 26, 2011
Related link – http://shorl.com/bryfreprumidela
Here are three things Americans need to know about the Libyan “rebels” the U.S. government isn’t telling us.
One: The inspiration of the Libyan war is as much anti-Western as it is anti-Gadhafi.
The “Day of Rage” that kick-started the Libyan war on Feb. 17 marked the fifth anniversary of violent protests in Benghazi, which included an assault on the Italian consulate during which at least 11 were killed. The 2006 mayhem, as John Rosenthal has reported, during which consulate staff was evacuated after 1,000 to several thousand men tried to storm and burn the building, may be linked to the Italian TVappearance two days earlier of Italian minister Roberto Calderoli. It was then that Calderoli, in defiance of worldwide Islamic rioting against cartoons of Muhammad in a tiny Danish newspaper, revealed he was wearing an undershirt decorated with such a cartoon. In remarks widely reported in Arab media, Calderoli explained that “the gesture was a matter of a ‘battle for freedom.'” The minister said: “When they (the cartoon rioters) recognize our rights, I’ll take off the shirt.”
Unfortunately – and not just for the Italian minister – Calderoli’s boss, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, didn’t recognize those rights. One day after the Benghazi rioting (“We feared for our lives,” the consul general’s wife told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera), Calderoli resigned, a political collapse indicative of Western tendencies to renounce rights that conflict with Islamic law (Shariah).
Two: The anti-Gadhafi, anti-Western forces that NATO power has brought to apparent victory through an air war and not-so-secret deployment of special forces (so far costing U.S. taxpayers $1 billion) include jihadist forces the U.S. and NATO allies have been fighting for the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Captured al-Qaida documents analyzed at West Point reveal that not only did Libya send far more recruits per capita to fight with al-Qaida in Iraq than any other nation (including Saudi Arabia), but also that the “rebel” stronghold of Darnah sent more recruits per capita than any other city. Bonus info: 85 percent of Libyan recruits in Iraq listed their “work” as “suicide bombers.”
This Libyan surge, the report explains, may have been due to the “increasingly cooperative relationship” with al-Qaida of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). What is the LIFG? Designated a terrorist organization by the United States in 2004, the LIFG is a prominent faction among anti-Gadhafi forces today. Little wonder the Los Angeles Times discovered there are “at least 20 former Islamic militant leaders in battlefield roles” in Libya (while what the paper called “hundreds of Islamists” are either “participating or watching from the sidelines”).
These include LIFG leader Abdelhakim Belhaj, described in recent days as the rebel commander in Tripoli. Another rebel leader and LIFG member, Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu, is also an ex-Gitmo detainee, as the New York Times has pointed out. And another rebel leader, Abdul Hakim al-Hasadi, as John Rosenthal hasreported, admitted to Italian media earlier this year not only to “fighting against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but also to recruiting Libyans to fight against American forces in Iraq.” Some of those same recruits “have come back and today are on the front at Ajdabiya,” al-Hasadi explained, referring to a northeastern Libyan town. “They are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists. The members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader,” al-Hasadi added.
Three: The draft constitution of the anti-Gadhafi forces cites “Shariah” as the “principal source of legislation.”
Shariah is Islamic law, the basis of conquest or control of non-Muslims, conscience, speech and other Western-style liberties. Not too surprisingly, rebel spokesman Mustafa Abdul Jalil, former Libyan justice minister, sports a “zabibah,” the forehead bruise of fanatical adherence to Islamic law. He also has animus toward Israel on the brain. WikiLeaks tells us, as Andrew Bostom has reported: “In the course of the discussion of the Criminal Code (with U.S. Ambassador Gene A. Cretz in 2010), Abdul Jalil abruptly changed the subject from freedom of speech to the ‘Libyan people’s concern about the U.S. government’s support for Israel.'” In 1998, Abdul Jalil grotesquely sentenced six Bulgarian nurses to death in a notorious show trial. Maybe more grotesquely, as appeals court president, Abdul Jalil twice upheld death sentencesfor five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian medic tortured and unjustly convicted for infecting Libyan children with HIV virus.
Such is the man touted as one of the powers-to-be in post-Gadhafi Libya, which U.S. government officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman, promise will be “moderate,” “modern” and “secular.” But don’t laugh too hard. The joke is on us.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Diana West is a journalist and columnist whose writing appears in several high profile outlets. She also has a website:DianaWest.net.
In 1876 Thomas Alva Edison opened a laboratory in Menlo Park, New Jersey for the purposes of exploring how to produce and distribute electricity. History records that he invented the incandescent electric light bulb there. By 1890, he had established the Edison General Electric Company, now known simply as GE.
In 2011, Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE and the chairman of President Obama’s “Jobs Council” is eliminating jobs for American employees of GE at a furious pace. To add insult to injury, in 2010 GE paid no federal taxes at all despite worldwide profits of $14.2 billion. GE claimed a tax benefit of $2.3 billion.
From an America corporate icon to an American disgrace, GE epitomizes how federal policies, cronyism, and rent seeking is destroying America from within by avoiding taxes and shipping jobs overseas. Keep in mind, none of this is illegal. It is, however, unconscionable.
A recent article at TheEconomicCollapseblog.com took a look at the way GE is “moving jobs and economic infrastructure to China at a blistering pace.” For example, “GE makes more medical-imaging machines than anyone else in the world and now GE has announced that it is ‘moving the headquarters of its 115-year-old X-ray business to Beijing.”
The article notes that, “Under Immelt, GE has shipped tens of thousands of good jobs out of the United States.” Even the liberal learning Huffington Post reportedthat
“As the administration struggles to prod businesses to create jobs at home, GE has been busy sending them abroad. Since Immelt took over in 2001, GE has shed 34,000 jobs in the U.S. according to its most recent annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But it has added 25,000 jobs overseas.”
“At the end of 2009, GE employed 36,000 more people abroad than it did in the U.S. In 2000, it was nearly the opposite.”
The last GE factory in the U.S. that made light bulbs closed last September. This came on the heels of the federal government’s ban on the 100-watt incandescent light bulb and its push to require Americans to purchase the new CFL light bulbs as part of Obama’s green jobs initiative. The CFL bulbs have been universally denounced as providing less equivalent light, costing more, and using mercury as part of their manufacture.
When John Rice was appointed GE’s head of global operations, responsible for growth in markets that include China, India, the Middle East and Brazil, the Huffington Post revealed that GE planned to spend $500 million on research and development and new customer innovation centers in China, adding more than a thousand jobs there. “More than $1.5 billion is expected to be put toward joint ventures with Chinese state-owned enterprises in high-technology sectors.”
At the same time, Daily Finance.com revealed that GE “is arming China to compete with Boeing—and America.” Peter Cohen that “General Electric plans to sell its aircraft electronics to Chinese companies” noting that China just flight-tested a prototype stealth fighter” as it continues to build up its military. GE is selling technology “it developed for U.S. companies like Boeing to Boeing’s Chinese competitors.”
“America is being de-industrialized at lightning speed and very few of our politicians seem to care,” says TheEconomicCollapseblog while noting that in 1979 there were 19.5 million manufacturing jobs in the United States and today there are 11.6 million.
“The United States has lost a staggering 32% of all its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.”
While President Obama berates the Congress for the lack of free trade agreements, he neglects to say that several such agreements with Latin American nations linger on his desk and none can be acted upon by Congress until he sends them for approval.
While Jeffrey Immelt flies around in his corporate jet and issues vacuous, hypocritical statements about jobs for Americans, he and his close friend in the White House are undermining the economy. Other U.S. corporations are following suit.
The U.S. corporate tax is the highest in the world, but you will not hear any talk of lowering this tax rate, only meaningless class warfare blather about taxing “millionaires and billionaires” more when, in truth, those taxes will fall heaviest on small business owners.
This is the deliberate destruction of the U.S. manufacturing sector.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alan Caruba writes a daily commentary, “Warning Signs”, posted on his bloghttp://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of the National Anxiety Center. His book, “Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy”, is published by Merrill Press.
- Israel has been invaded, and is under constant rocket attack;
- The shooting war in Libya, where American pilots and trainers conducted operations, and others trained and helped organize the anti-Qadaffi campaign;
- We have declared diplomatic and economic war on the Assad regime in Syria, just as we began with Qadaffi’s regime in Libya;
- The war against the Kurds: Turkey now routinely bombs and invades PKK camps in Iraqi Kurdistan, while Iran shells and invades the same region. We are directly involved on this battlefield; we’ve been providing intelligence to the Turks on the Kurds since at least 2007;
- The violence against our troops, and against our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, is relentlessly increasing.
Related link – http://tinyurl.com/3dogmnu
DefendIranDemoc – Aug 25, 2011
Two human rights activists, recipients of Nobel Peace Prizes talk about their visions for their countries. One from Iran, Shirin Ebadi, whose fear from threat and tyranny made her flee the country, Iran only to leave her oppressed fellow countrymen alone. And the other Aung San Suu Kyi whose courage and commitment find her a prisoner of principles and integrity in her own country, Burma. One who spent her whole life to defend Islam, and the other who courageously opposed herself alone to the rifle barrels to defend her people’s freedom and democracy.
Related link – http://tinyurl.com/42pbz34
The citizenry in Iran and Syria must take up their own collective responsibility and shake off fear to depose their dictators, as the people did in Libya. Democracy promotion from outside simply isn’t practical or effective.
When future generations look back, they will remember 2011 as the year of the end of dictators in the Middle East and the Maghreb. Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi appears to have now joined the Middle East parade of despots rejected by an uprising. Practically nine months after Tunisia’sPresident Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was ousted after 23 years of authoritarian rule and the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was thrown out of power by a few weeks of protests in Tahrir Square, Qaddafi is at the end of his reign after 42 years of dictatorship.
The year, 2011, could indeed be considered the starting point of a paradigm shift in the Middle East that will bring the downfall of the remaining despots in the region while restructuring the way energy resources are priced and supplied around the globe.
However positive regime change may be in the longer term, the short-term social and political consequences are likely to be quite challenging. It goes without saying that the overthrow of dictatorial regimes in the Maghreb and the Middle East will have proven easy compared to the difficult and uncertain establishment of secular and democratic governments.
So far, the remaining authoritarian regimes in the region such as Iran and Syria have sought to insulate themselves from an Egypt-like scenario. They continue to practice a high degree of violence against their opposition, believing they can hold onto power as long as they succeed in terrorizing their citizens.
As we’ve seen in recent months, that tried-and-true strategy that has worked for decades no longer does. Yet, since they have no other option, these regimes nonetheless brutally pursue it.
Mr. Qaddafi, Mr. Mubarak, Mr. Ben Ali, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, and those like them have long professed to be the beloved leaders of their people while holding their people by their throats. They have all shared two characteristics: the use of extreme violence against dissidents and protesters and unfulfilled promises. However, if there is one thing history teaches us, especially of late, it is that there is a limit to sheer brutality practiced by a despot against his people. In the end, a dictator cannot jail, execute, or exile such an enormous number of his people while also inspiring loyalty.
Now that the challenge to Qaddafi’s regime is coming to an end with a violent uprising that forced a long-ruling autocrat out of power, all other dictators in the region will certainly undertake their own risk assessments and try to adopt strategies to reduce their vulnerability to a similar scenario.
It remains to be seen whether Mr. Assad and Iran’sRevolutionary Guards can manage to continue terrorizing their fellow citizens extensively enough to win a chance of dying in their own bed. Leaving aside wishful thinking, what is certain is that the Syrian and Iranian regimes, even though they have lost their moral and political legitimacy, are doubling their efforts to crush and fragment civic actors precisely in order not to end up like Egypt or, now, Libya.
In doing so, they have created enormous obstacles to the nonviolent transition in these countries.
Nonetheless, ending the reign of terror in Syria and Iran is not totally blocked if the formerly cowedcitizenry takes up their own collective responsibility, as they did in Libya, to end human rights abuses. However painful it might be to admit, the time is long past for “dictator containment” by an international community that seeks to guide leadership succession and create a space for moderate autocrats.
Democracy promotion from outside is simply not practical or effective as long as the people are not willing to band together and, at the risks and costs to their own lives, to shake off the fear and depose their dictators. As Machiavelli said, “Men are driven by two principal impulses, either by love or by fear.”
Dictators like Qaddafi, who had long professed to love his people while cultivating an image of himself as a father figure feared by his children, have proved to be fooling only themselves. The truth is that at the end, dictators are neither loved nor feared. Sooner, if not later, that same truth will visit Syria and Iran.
Ramin Jahanbegloo, one of Iran’s best-known dissidents, headed the contemporary studies department of the Cultural Research Bureau in Tehran until his arrest in April 2006. He was released that August and now lives in exile in Canada, where he teaches at the University of Toronto.
August 23, 2011
Related link: http://tinyurl.com/3hfl443
- Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’a
- Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’a.
Related link – http://tinyurl.com/3babzv9
These freedom seekers are dying to learn what kind of qualifications they need for the American administration and the European governments to consider them eligible for their support. Perhaps the UN should put out a list of criteria to which the people who want to be freed from dictators and Islamist fascists will try to adhere, whenever they want to rise up in protest.
Millions of young Iranians and Syrians are all wondering why all the leaders of the western democracies jumped on the band wagon to support the Egyptian people. They were puzzled when the western media went along to force president Hosni Mobarak to step down, but kept its lips sealed about the killing spree against the Syrian people carried out by the dictator Bashir Assad. The question is; why is it that all the bloody bodies of the Syrians on the streets of Damascus and the dying faces of young Iranians on the tarmac of Tehran are not important to the world but Tahrir Square gets a worldwide propaganda campaign?
Is it because in the case of Egypt, President Hosni Mobarak was a friend and therefore easily dispensable, but with enemies the choice is appeasement? It seems that we are rewarding the worst and punishing the not so bad!
What is the message that United States is sending to the dictators and the people of the Muslim countries through its pick-and-choose methods? What are the policy criteria of President Obama and Mrs. Clinton? The least we can do is let the freedom seeking people of the Muslim world know where we stand with each one of them.
Why did the west decide in haste to go all out and even resort to a costly military campaign, considering our economic situation, in support of the people of Libyan people against Muamar Ghadaffi?
Didn’t Ghadaffi respond to the extended hand of President Obama and give up his nuclear plans and initiate a friendly relationship after 40 years of animosity? Why, then, are we adamant that Ghadaffi needs to go, but not Bashir Assad or the Islamic terrorist regime of Iran? These have been behind more terrorism in the Middle Eastand Africa than any single government in the world.
Meanwhile the United Nations that was established after WWII for the sole purpose of supporting universal human rights preventing the rise of the dictatorships and fascism, after the WWII, is silent? None of its auxiliary organizations, UNCSW, UNHR, UNIFEM, etc., have uttered a word. I have wondered if the United Nations has forgotten what its real mission and responsibilities were when it was established.
The people of Iran rose up for their human rights and freedom, thinking that United States and the international community would stand with them. They were ignored and the regime killed over a thousand and have doggedly been pursuing, imprisoning and torturing thousands more to this day.
In Syria Bashir Assad has been on a killing spree of the people who have been purring it to the streets, in search of freedom, day after day for months but the United Nations and the international community has chosen to pretend they are deaf, Dumb and blind.
Can the United Nations please publish the policy that makes a people eligible for support in their quest for freedom?
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Manda Zand Ervin is a human rights activist for Iranian women and children and the founder of the Alliance of Iranian Women.
Related link – http://tinyurl.com/3mry94r
It is the discriminatory Islamic teachings that condone and even promote wantonpractices in violation of the United Nations declaration. Islam is a primitive barbaric ideology for the benefit of the male believer.
Islam, by fiat, discriminates against women. Qur’an 4:11 “Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”
There are many more “directives” that for all intents and purposes make women chattel of men. Here are some of the shameful rules and practices of Islamic misogyny.
Will Muslim women ever break out of their bondage and claim their rightful place among emancipated non-Muslim women? It is the long sub-humanized Muslim women who must discard Islam and claim their equal human rights. Muslim men will resort to every means to maintain their privileged position and their cruel dominance over women, citing the Quran as justification. Any document that consigns one half of the human race to second-class status is null and void.
Its constitutional sub-humanization of women aside, Islam has a raft of beliefs andpractices that violate fundamental human rights of non-Muslims in general. A few cases should suffice to fully substantiate the contention that Islam is religiousapartheid. And there is no need to draw cases from the repugnant “extremist” Islamic groups such as the Taliban to make the case. Even the most “mainstream” and “peaceful” Islam is guilty of systemic apartheid. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.
* On December 16, 2006, Egypt’s Highest Administrative Court decreed that in order to receive an Identity Card, only Islam, Judaism, or Christianity must be entered on the application. No one of any other religion or no religion at all is permitted to list his belief or even leave it blank. Without the identity card, just about all the rights of citizenship are denied to minorities such as Baha’is, Hindus, and Buddhists. People are forced to choose between falsely claiming an approved religion and depriving themselves of just about all rights of citizenship such as jobs, education and medical care.
* In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic law denies dyyeh to any and all people who are not Muslims or members of the only other three recognized religions. Every one of the 500,000 members of the Baha’i Faith can be murdered without the family receiving justice or compensation. As a matter of fact, the Islamic government itself has executed Baha’is for the sole “crime” of being Baha’is and has demanded that the innocently murdered person’s family reimburse it for the bullets they used to execute him.
* The Islamic Republic of Iran’s President’s repeated threat to wipe out Israel from the map is ignored by some as an empty rhetoric of an unhinged fanatic. Yet, Ahmadinejad’s threats are far from the baseless saber-rattling of a zealot. Ahamadinejad’s government has recently ordered the comprehensive gathering of data regarding the Baha’is and all their activities. This order is deeply troubling, since it is almost a replica of what another fascist, Hitler, did before launching the genocide of six million Jews and some four million other “undesirables”. Ahamadinejad is an Islamofascist whose aim is to have a practice run on the Iranian Baha’is before embarking on destroying the Jews and other “undesirables,” following in the footsteps of the German fuehrer.
Islamic societies shamelessly practice all the sanctioned injustices listed in the U.N. charter on apartheid (see paragraphs 2 and 3, above). Islam is religious apartheid. And apartheid, by universal agreement, is an inhumane, unjust and condemned practice.
Islam cruelly practices its oppressive dogma on minorities in its lands; it is in clear violation of the provisions of Universal Human Rights. Ominously, Islam is encroaching in the traditionally non-Islamic parts of the world and doing all it can to impose its horrid doctrine on others.
It is for this present and imminent danger that the free people of the world must rise and do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty. Muslims in the non-Islamic lands may seem harmless, and many of them indeed are harmless. Yet, Islam compels its leaders to uphold and promote its tenets at any and all costs to anyone. It is for this reason that on the one hand the Islamic governments sign the U.N. Charter that condemns apartheid, and on the other hand, these governments violate every provision of it when they are in power.
Islamofascism, the enemy of liberty, is already inside the gate. It is the duty of every free human to defend freedom by defeating the enemy.
Related link – http://tinyurl.com/4yvgne4
Relate link – http://tinyurl.com/4xkbkrb
In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.