Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Why Can't the West Acknowledge the Russian "Invasion" of Ukraine for What It Really Is?
To call Russia's invasion of Ukraine "an invasion" would call for a response that neither NATO nor Washington is ready to give. So the West equivocates, as it dithers and delays, incomprehensibly dismissing a mass movement of Russian troops into neighboring Ukraine as mere "interference."
Putin perpetuates this status quo by his repeated use of "lying" about his illegal military actions in an independent nation, making statements that both he and the West know to be untrue, in the process reviving the use of propaganda, a favorite tool of the former Soviet Union.
Yet no one dares to challenge him, to call a spade a spade, to call invasion for what it is. Even President Obama himself refers to the invasion as an "incursion."
This implausible denial of an invasion that has been occurring for the past few months is indeed a novelty I have not yet seen in Western politics. It is nothing but a form of cowardice. After all, to accurately name things, brings with it an ethical and moral responsibility to see them accurately, for what they are, and then for taking the necessary and appropriate actions -- a responsibility the West has repeatedly shown itself shamefully unwilling to accept.
So Putin plods on, plowing further into Ukraine, in large part only because we allow him to do so....
We all know what the truth is, yet the West not only keep hesitating, but also keeps searching for euphemisms, instead of simply stating and therefore acknowledging what is actually occurring.
And no, what has been going on in Ukraine has never been a "civil war," as it was formerly termed, so implying that the military actions there were arising spontaneously from within, rather than as a result of outside Russian provocation. (Also, with the use of the term "civil war," came the implication that what goes on within the nation was its own problem, making a similar shoddy case for Western inaction.)
I have even heard the Western media previously refer to the Ukraine situation as "The Ferdinand," implying that all the invasion is just an insignificant territorial dispute involving a major power and a largely unknown nation, and is therefore better left ignored, lest it become a powder keg that will set off a nuclear war.
What does the use of all these misnomers and euphemisms and equivocations imply? Is the simple straightforward truth no longer relevant? And what is all this use of newfangled milquetoast terms like "incursions" and "interferences" really all about? After all, we all know good communication requires clear and precise diction and avoids the use of vague, imprecise words that serve more to obfuscate than to communicate. Are we really no different from the former Soviet Union in that we no longer seem to be able to speak freely, clearly, and with conviction but express ourselves in some sort of distorted doublespeak.
Have we all become puppets trying to appease Putin?
For how long will the West allow Putin to continue with his obvious lies in his war of aggression? For how long will we indulge him in his yearning for a return to Soviet times and in his quest for territorial expansion, as we dilly dally about sanctions and choose to not only ignore but remain oblivious to the larger implications of his actions and to the the humanitarian dictates of international law? For how long can the West deny its ethical and moral imperative to act decisively in the name of freedom, human dignity and justice?
In the meantime, I am just getting more and more worried about Ukraine....
(c) Olya Thompson
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
On Libya and "Democracy"
.
I believed in the optimism of the “Arab Spring” and in our country’s support of “incipient democratic movements” in the Arab nations. Like others, I was appalled by the story of the obviously deluded Libyan dictator who was so corrupt that he distributed his country’s wealth among his family, while his own people went without and then, rebelled.
But when I viewed the videotaped actions of these rebels, I wondered what “incipient democratic movements” we were supporting. It was my feeling at the time that, indeed, the barbaric manner of Col. Muammar el-Qadaffi’s death did not bode well for the future of Libya.
After Libyan rebels found the once-charismatic revolutionary leader turned dictator hiding in a drain tunnel, his convoy struck by NATO warplanes, they descended upon him like a pack of wild animals. They even sodomized him with what looked to be a metal stick, all to the incantations of “God is Great,” while filming his ordeal.
Who was this god they were appealing to, I wondered, while rebels tortured and killed the helpless captive.
The graphic videos that resulted, posted on the Internet for all to see, were chilling:
Bright red blood was pouring down and obscuring the side of Qadaffi’s face, who was screaming out in pain. Then, the camera focused on one moment when the dazed dictator, obviously suffering, lifted up his hand to wipe his face, and stared in disbelief at his bloodied palm..
"Keep him alive! Keep him alive!” jeered his attackers. There was an image of him placed atop a jeep or van. There were the sounds of pistol shots. Next, the camera rested on a photo of his dead body. He had been summarily executed, with a bullet wound to his head.
There was talk of an investigation among Western nations, as killing a prisoner of war is against international law, but it never took place.
The official Libyan explanation -- that Qadaffi had been killed in a cross fire – was obviously contradicted by the posted videos. His tormenters and killer were not identified. Rather, they were hailed as national heroes
We left it at that.
“We came, we saw, he died," said our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, unseemingly blithe, when she was shown the graphic video that confirmed Qadaffi’s death. Her take on Caesar’s famous dictum -- “Veni. Vidi, Vici,” or “I came. I saw. I conquered.” -- seemed somewhat flip and arrogant, in view of this flagrant violation of the laws of the Geneva Convention.
Next the rebels posted a videotape that showed the dictator’s decomposing body, displayed in a glass-covered meat freezer, while an endless line of jubilant Libyan citizens, entire families of men, women and children, paraded past it taking photos – celebrating, I suppose, some sort of gruesome Libyan family day
Who were these people who behaved this way? I began to wonder. In a civilized country, a man who committed the crimes against humanity that Qadaffi did would have been called to account in an orderly legal proceeding.
I waited for a response of outrage at this scene of desecration but it never came.
The days after Qadaffi’s death were not marked by the proclamation of “freedom” as we had been giddily expecting, but by the proclamation of Shariah law and the revival of bigamy. Shariah law -- the religious law of Islam, abrogates the rights of women, celebrates “vengeance,” and in its extreme, justifies Jihad – or war against non-believers, endorsing killing and even suicide, done in the name of Allah.
Was I the only one left wondering about where this new development, inconsistent with our democratic ideals, not to mention the rights of women, was leading to?
In our press, there was much talk about Libya’s “liberation” and promising future, as television cameras and reports focused on its “freedom-fighters” ravaging what remained of his Qadaffi’s lavish lifestyle. An op-ed in the New York Times actually stated that there was nothing unusual in the manner of Qaddafi’s death, except for the fact that it was filmed. He died, it said, in the manner of all dictators, citing the infamous Caligula. There was even lot of kidding around, as on a late night comedy show, where a little boy was featured on Halloween, walking about encased in a cardboard drainpipe costume and sporting a military-style hat. The official stance was that Qaddadi deserved to die the way he did. See, for example, Charles Krauthammer's "Libyan 'Crossfire'" in the Washington Post.
Such a stance seemed all the more troubling, in view of the complicated history our nation has had with the Libyan leader. He was certainly responsible for the bombing of Lockerbie, but he also paid reparations to the families of the victims. He reinstated himself in the eyes of the West, also by agreeing to not to stockpile nuclear weapons and not to harbor terrorists. (In fact, it was his anti-Islam stance that most angered his country’s religious extremists.) Just in the past few years he and members of his family had been formally received as visitors to our nation.
In this day and age, it seemed to me, our country had moved much beyond the days of the treatment of Caligula. Maybe not. As I think of the sickening videos posted on YouTube, in our reaction we seemed no different than the Libyans -- or the ancient Romans who watched gladiators killing each other for sport or enjoyed the spectacle of Christians thrown to the lions -- viewing and celebrating scenes that appeal to humanity’s basest emotions. What kind of nation have we become? And what have we accomplished?
It has become fairly obvious by now that the "incipient democratic movements” we so jubilantly supported have brought into power a bunch of militant Islam factions, who abhor and distrust all things Western, their rage exacerbated by memories of colonialism. In the end all that we left behind as a result of our intervention is a lawless country torn apart by tribal warfare, its fighters no different than the ones who so barbarically killed Qadaffi.
http://olyasthoughtsonlife.blogspot.com/2013/03/on-libya-we-reap-what-we-sow.html
I believed in the optimism of the “Arab Spring” and in our country’s support of “incipient democratic movements” in the Arab nations. Like others, I was appalled by the story of the obviously deluded Libyan dictator who was so corrupt that he distributed his country’s wealth among his family, while his own people went without and then, rebelled.
But when I viewed the videotaped actions of these rebels, I wondered what “incipient democratic movements” we were supporting. It was my feeling at the time that, indeed, the barbaric manner of Col. Muammar el-Qadaffi’s death did not bode well for the future of Libya.
After Libyan rebels found the once-charismatic revolutionary leader turned dictator hiding in a drain tunnel, his convoy struck by NATO warplanes, they descended upon him like a pack of wild animals. They even sodomized him with what looked to be a metal stick, all to the incantations of “God is Great,” while filming his ordeal.
Who was this god they were appealing to, I wondered, while rebels tortured and killed the helpless captive.
The graphic videos that resulted, posted on the Internet for all to see, were chilling:
Bright red blood was pouring down and obscuring the side of Qadaffi’s face, who was screaming out in pain. Then, the camera focused on one moment when the dazed dictator, obviously suffering, lifted up his hand to wipe his face, and stared in disbelief at his bloodied palm..
"Keep him alive! Keep him alive!” jeered his attackers. There was an image of him placed atop a jeep or van. There were the sounds of pistol shots. Next, the camera rested on a photo of his dead body. He had been summarily executed, with a bullet wound to his head.
There was talk of an investigation among Western nations, as killing a prisoner of war is against international law, but it never took place.
The official Libyan explanation -- that Qadaffi had been killed in a cross fire – was obviously contradicted by the posted videos. His tormenters and killer were not identified. Rather, they were hailed as national heroes
We left it at that.
“We came, we saw, he died," said our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, unseemingly blithe, when she was shown the graphic video that confirmed Qadaffi’s death. Her take on Caesar’s famous dictum -- “Veni. Vidi, Vici,” or “I came. I saw. I conquered.” -- seemed somewhat flip and arrogant, in view of this flagrant violation of the laws of the Geneva Convention.
Next the rebels posted a videotape that showed the dictator’s decomposing body, displayed in a glass-covered meat freezer, while an endless line of jubilant Libyan citizens, entire families of men, women and children, paraded past it taking photos – celebrating, I suppose, some sort of gruesome Libyan family day
Who were these people who behaved this way? I began to wonder. In a civilized country, a man who committed the crimes against humanity that Qadaffi did would have been called to account in an orderly legal proceeding.
I waited for a response of outrage at this scene of desecration but it never came.
The days after Qadaffi’s death were not marked by the proclamation of “freedom” as we had been giddily expecting, but by the proclamation of Shariah law and the revival of bigamy. Shariah law -- the religious law of Islam, abrogates the rights of women, celebrates “vengeance,” and in its extreme, justifies Jihad – or war against non-believers, endorsing killing and even suicide, done in the name of Allah.
Was I the only one left wondering about where this new development, inconsistent with our democratic ideals, not to mention the rights of women, was leading to?
In our press, there was much talk about Libya’s “liberation” and promising future, as television cameras and reports focused on its “freedom-fighters” ravaging what remained of his Qadaffi’s lavish lifestyle. An op-ed in the New York Times actually stated that there was nothing unusual in the manner of Qaddafi’s death, except for the fact that it was filmed. He died, it said, in the manner of all dictators, citing the infamous Caligula. There was even lot of kidding around, as on a late night comedy show, where a little boy was featured on Halloween, walking about encased in a cardboard drainpipe costume and sporting a military-style hat. The official stance was that Qaddadi deserved to die the way he did. See, for example, Charles Krauthammer's "Libyan 'Crossfire'" in the Washington Post.
Such a stance seemed all the more troubling, in view of the complicated history our nation has had with the Libyan leader. He was certainly responsible for the bombing of Lockerbie, but he also paid reparations to the families of the victims. He reinstated himself in the eyes of the West, also by agreeing to not to stockpile nuclear weapons and not to harbor terrorists. (In fact, it was his anti-Islam stance that most angered his country’s religious extremists.) Just in the past few years he and members of his family had been formally received as visitors to our nation.
In this day and age, it seemed to me, our country had moved much beyond the days of the treatment of Caligula. Maybe not. As I think of the sickening videos posted on YouTube, in our reaction we seemed no different than the Libyans -- or the ancient Romans who watched gladiators killing each other for sport or enjoyed the spectacle of Christians thrown to the lions -- viewing and celebrating scenes that appeal to humanity’s basest emotions. What kind of nation have we become? And what have we accomplished?
It has become fairly obvious by now that the "incipient democratic movements” we so jubilantly supported have brought into power a bunch of militant Islam factions, who abhor and distrust all things Western, their rage exacerbated by memories of colonialism. In the end all that we left behind as a result of our intervention is a lawless country torn apart by tribal warfare, its fighters no different than the ones who so barbarically killed Qadaffi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)