Document:Understanding the War in Libya
article by Michel Collon dated 2011-04-27Subjects: 2011 Attacks on Libya
Source: Investig'Action (Link)
Wikispooks Comment
These 3 articles are translations from the original French and it is hoped that the translations retain much of Michael Collon's idiosyncratic style. They represent a comprehensive overview of the globalising, neo-imperialist agenda and methodologies of the US/UK/NATO axis of western countries in general, together with solid, shocking detail about the deceptions and real intent of the same Axis in its Spring 2011 intervention in Libya.
★ Start a Discussion about this document
Understanding the War in Libya
Part 1 - Questions to be asked in every war
Michel Collon, who has published several books on U.S. war strategies and the media-lies of the previous conflicts presents a global analysis of the Spring 2011 Libyan conflict .
Part 2 - The real goals of the US/NATO go well beyond oil
What are the true objectives of the United States? We have already pointed out several clues so that finally, at this stage of our reflection, we can dismiss the possibility of a humanitarian war and say that it was not an impulsive response to the recent events either. If Washington and Paris deliberately denied any attempts to negotiate, if they have "worked on" Libyan opinion for a good while and worked out detailed scenarios for the intervention; if aircraft carriers have been ready to intervene for a long time (as was confirmed by U.S. Navy admiral Gary Roughead, the Chief of the U.S. Navy : "Our forces had already taken up their position against Libya", Washington, 23 March), it certainly does not mean that the war was decided at the last minute in reaction to unexpected events, but that it was planned. It was planned because it pursues major goals that go well beyond the person of Gaddafi. What are those goals?
Part 3 - Action tracks
In every war it is it is initially almost impossible to oppose. The media hype is such that one is immediately branded as an accomplice to a monster. After a while, following the “mistakes”, the dead civilians, the military failures and revelations about “our friends”, the debate will eventually opened. But initially it is very hard.
