Is President Obama an alliance for the US people or to Israel and its foreign policy?
Source: Press TV
Corporations seek to keep their tentacles sunk in the petro-industry businesses; hence, the post-petro era has been intentionally retarded from evolving for the benefit of financial institutes.
Press TV has interviewed writer and co-founder of the Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement, Mark Glenn, who has also authored "No Beauty in the Beast: Israel without Her Massacre."
Glenn shares his insights on how the US lies consistently about its plans in regards to foreign policy, and that the US politicians could never be taken seriously.
Press TV: Mr. Glenn, let's begin with Libya. There is a new UN resolution under the pretext of saving civilian lives with forty nations involved. One billion dollars has been spent and still counting. What makes Libya different from other countries?
Glenn: Put simply it is in the United States' interests and other western powers to intervene in this thing militarily we should not make a mistake for a second. I'm assuming this has to do with humanitarianism, or the desire to see democracy and human rights spread throughout the region. This is simply a move aimed at maintaining the decade long hegemony over the area that the west has enjoyed now for some time. It could be 40 nations or 40,000 nations and it wouldn't make any differences. These numbers are just delusions and are just part of the stagecraft the west is using in order to try to maintain some Arab legitimacy about this.
However, in general it's no different in its basic substance as the invasion and destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan or even Israel's destruction of Gaza back 2 years ago in Operation Cast Led 2006. There are also flimsy excuses the aggressors use to justify mass murder with high-sounding phrases such as humanitarian of course trying to legitimate all of this through the United Nations. However, in general it's just plan brute mafia type tactics and thug behaviors.
Press TV: How much longer can the United States afford to do this. Let's concentrate on what Mr. Barack Obama said on how the military is focused on saving lives. We look at Libya, which belongs not to a dictator but to its people. This balance of democratic ideas, we can also talk about Egypt and Tunisia in that case with military interests. How much longer can use US use this balance especially in a case like Bahrain where human rights violations are taking place?
Glenn: Well in the first case involving Bahrain I think that I would have to disagree with my colleague here. I think the United States continues to allow a change to take place in Bahrain. The system will remain the same even if the dictator goes. They are not necessarily worried about getting rid of one compliment dictator as long as the system remains the same. Therefore, the fact that the United States at this moment is not backing the rebels in Bahrain or in Yemen or other places does not mean they will not be tomorrow. Keep in mind that two weeks ago Syria wasn't even being discussed. Now it's on the front burner, the United States is already making the same kinds of noises and reminiscing about possibly, what may come of Syria, and how we may deal with it, and even if the Secretary of State at this point says, we have no plans to invade Libya.
Nonetheless, we have some very mouths in Congress namely Senator Joseph Lieberman saying the US should do to Syria with what it is now doing to Libya. Regarding the balance question you asked, the United States could go on a semi-indefinite mode in this regard as far as applying military cohesion to Libya. Syria is martially in the resources of several other nations whereas we are not necessarily US burdened with the overwhelming responsibility militarily as we are when speaking of places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
So the fact that this is a coalition where the efforts are being dispersed out. Even if the United States does take a complete rule in this, the fact of the matter is we are getting help. That certainly would add to the idea that the United States can prolong this situation. We have to keep in mind that Libya population wise is a small country. We are talking only about 6 million people here as opposed to Iraq, which was upward to 40million. Overthrowing the existing government in Libya is not going to be a difficult job as it was with Iraq. Therefore, I think we could see the US and these others countries going on for some time. I would like to address one thing though that was mentioned earlier. Whatever the United States says we have to take this with more than just a grain of salt.
The United States has said certain things and then it does the other. Therefore, when the United States is talking about not going after Gaddafi and not seeking regime change such as from an official position through Hilary Clinton or even the President the fact of the matter is we have to understand that if the United States government is opening its mouth and moving its lips it's probably lying. The latest development with this National Council that is being now talked about. The meeting that is taking place in London. This has been in the works for a long time.
They planned on getting rid of Gaddafi for not just weeks and months but probably for years and possibly even decades. I would caution the people particularly those who are letting their optimism get the best of them in regards to these revolutions that this is the same kind of optimism that the people of Iraq were holding themselves to during the US invasion of that country. They believed they were going to be free if this tyrant and dictator. I guarantee today if you were to poll the average Iraqi, he would say he had it good under Saddam Husain.