Libya: let`s bomb them to post-Kadafi

So the question is (and I know it`s very hard to keep up with all the questions in the modern world): why are we deploying military power in Libya right now? Well why exactly? Is it to defend the "rebels"? Is it to oppose Kadhafi`s dictatorship? Is it because he`s attacking his own people? Human rights? UN Security Council Resolution 1973? I`m not sure. As a matter of fact the international community is not sure about why they are flexing their muscles either, except for the fact that they "kind of got tired" of a dictator they supported for 40 years. That includes 40 years of invitations to summits of heads of state, 40 years of shaking hands between the leaders of Europe and Kadhafi in the diplomatic airport salons and at exclusive summit luncheons, 40 years of taking this guy seriously and actually supporting him and his authoritarian government, 40 years of arms deals between Kadhafi and the West.

But you have to admit: "getting kind of tired" of a dictator you`ve supported for 40 years hardly gives you the right to start a military operation of this scale, especially not if UNSCR 1973 demands "an immediate cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians". Strangely enough (but this irony is a flip-coin to the western hypocrisy) the resolution should bring peace, but it brings more military violence. As with most of these conflicts in oil-producing countries the western "humanitarian" concern will soon make place for a sort of boredom and a superiority complex calling out that "they will never learn". And then the world will move on to other things, while the oil of Libya is under definite Western control again. So let`s bomb them (whoever they may be) to post-Kadhafi, even though we don`t have to look too deep to see that we really don`t know what that is supposed to mean.

Obama bullshit

There`s a courageous girl from South Florida University asking a direct question to President Obama about human rights violations against the Palestinians. I watched this debate hoping/praying for Obama to come up with a straightforward answer about the US`s foreign policy on the matter, with a suggestion towards something akin to what was agreed at at the Taba Summit. Instead I see a President mainly defending Israel`s right to security in a hostile region. This is very obvious when one looks at Obama`s speech from a rhetorical point of view. Just look at what he prioritizes and what he puts in second position. Obama says that FIRST the Palestinians have to unequivocally renounce violence and recognize Israel. So this immediately puts the whole discussion in a context of Palestinian violence against Israel, when the truth is the opposite. Obama then goes on to applaud Netanyahu`s efforts to come to a solution despite the resistance of his coalition, while lamenting the PLO`s political ability (Abbas) to come to a solution taking into account Hammas. After watching this, you just have to watch Obama`s speech at AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and you`ll deduce the rest: this US administration is continuing the policy of previous administrations, that is to say: side with Israel first (because of the money) and deal with the Palestinians only rhetorically. If you want my definition of bullshit: this is it.