Cameron And Hague Must Go

Come on UKIP.  Where’s your voice expressing the anger and shock that Cameron and Hague have started an unnecessary war of aggression against Libya?   The British people do not support the war in Libya.  Their government does.  Where’s the opposition?  UKIP claims to be the new opposition replacing the Liberal Democrats.  They are not.  They are also too weak to speak out against the evil of One World Government.  What’s the point of having UKIP if it’s the same as all the other parties?  It’s not enough to talk only about quitting the EU.  UK Independence means we stand apart from all the organs of One World Government, and not allow our politicians to be bought and controlled from afar.

The day UKIP opposes the war is the day we have an opposition, is the day we still have an independent country.  The Daily Express and UKIP, this is your moment to prove you mean what you say.  I fear both of you are failing.

Global Research

On March 19, US and British cruise missiles joined with French and other NATO combat aircraft in Operation Odyssey Dawn/Operation Ellamy, a neo-imperialist bombing attack under fake humanitarian cover against the sovereign state of Libya. Acting under UN Security Council resolution 1973, US naval forces in the Mediterranean on Saturday night local time fired 112 cruise missiles at targets which the Pentagon claimed were related to Libya’s air defense system. 

But Mohammed al-Zawi, the Secretary General of the Libyan Parliament, told a Tripoli press conference that the “barbaric armed attack” and “savage aggression” had hit residential areas and office buildings as well as military targets, filling the hospitals of Tripoli and Misurata with civilian victims. Zawi accused the foreign powers of acting to protect a rebel leadership which contains notorious terrorist elements. The Libyan government repeated its request for the UN to send international observers to report objectively on events in Libya.

The attacking forces are expected to deploy more cruise missiles, Predator drones, and bombers, seeking to destroy the Libyan air defense system as a prelude to the systematic decimation of Libyan ground units. International observers have noted that US intelligence about Libya may be substandard, and that many cruise missiles may indeed have struck non-military targets.
Libya had responded to the UN vote by declaring a cease-fire, but Obama and Cameron brushed that aside. On Saturday, France 24 and al-Jazeera of Qatar, international propaganda networks hyping the attacks, broadcast hysterical reports of Qaddafi’s forces allegedly attacking the rebel stronghold of Bengazi. 
They showed a picture of a jet fighter being shot down and claimed this proved Qaddafi was defying the UN by keeping up his air strikes. It later turned out that the destroyed plane had belonged to the rebel air force. Such coverage provided justification for the bombing attacks starting a few hours later. The parallels to the Kuwait incubator babies hoax of 1990 were evident. Qaddafi loyalists said Saturday’s fighting was caused by rebel assaults on government lines in the hopes of provoking an air attack, plus local residents defending themselves against the rebels.
At the UN vote, the Indian delegate correctly pointed out that the decision to start the war had been made on the basis of no reliable information whatsoever, since UN Secretary General Ban-ki Moon’s envoy to Libya had never reported to the Security Council. The bombing started shortly after a glittering Paris summit “in support of the Libyan people,” where Sarkozy, Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Stephen Harper of Canada and other imperialist politicians had strutted and postured.
Webster Tarpley on Global Research.  Below an American politician shows how opposition to war is done, on RT.   Here’s the link
or key ”Kucinich – War A Swamp. Obama Libya Action Unconstitutional” in Youtube..

John Redwood expresses his doubts –

(I am tempted to fisk this statement but just look at how many reasons there are as to why this intervention should not be happening.   As for the UN’s desire to protect civilians from barbarism, I would suggest they might be about to do just like the coalition did in Iraq.  The lesson of Vietnam was the best way to protect civilians is not to go around killing dozens of them every day, and bombing them ) 

On Monday I attended the debate on Libya, but decided not to vote. I should explain why.

              I of course support the United Nations in its wish to protect civilians in Libya from the barabrism of its government. I could not disagree with the main sentiments of the Commons motion. We would all like the Libyan government to behave better, and would like democratic forces to be allowed to protest and to seek peaceful change.

             My concern is who intervenes and what they do. 

I would prefer the UN resolution to be enforced by the Arab League, supported by NATO powers close to Libya who will find it easier to lend planes and personnel to the task. 

I do not wish to see more UK lives at risk in conflict after the enormous sacrifices made by our armed forces elsewhere in the Middle East. 

At a time of necessary restraint on public spending  we need to avoid any new open ended financial commitments as well.

The debate raised the issue of how do the UN forces achieve success and get out again?  Whilst the aim of the intervention very clearly is to seek to protect Libyan civilians from violence by its government, and not regime change, the easiest way of seeing an end to this business would be the end of the Gaddafi regime. 

Were the Gaddafi factions to fragment and to topple him, that would provide an exit. If the bombing did kill him, as some have suggested, that too would mark an end.

If the Gaddafi regime stays in place  there will remain a serious risk that he and his forces will revenge themselves on the rebels. 

If the UN does not arm and support the rebels it will be difficult to prevent this. 

The air zone allows bombing of tanks and army units when they are in open ground moving from town to town, but does not allow intervention house by house in urban areas if the Gaddafi forces blend into the urban landscape and attack the rebels at closer quarters. 

There will be growing pressure to offer assistance to the ground forces of the rebels if the internal conflict continues.

This is bloody hopeless.  The real aim is not to help civilians anyway as we know.  The reason so many are being killed and maimed and will be, is so the  oil/banking cartel which bought Cameron and Hague and put them into office, get their pay-off.

John Redwood knows it’s a sack of shit, but he won’t rock the boat…….

UKIP should be piling in.
Rock The Boat by The Hues Corporation might inspire someone to stop prevaricating and openly oppose the war in Libya.  While Hague keeps talking right up his …………arse, as follows –

Writing in the Times, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague argues, “The Prime Minister and I are working to transform the European Union’s neighbourhood policy so that it can act as a magnet for positive change, providing clearer incentives for the creation of free, democratic and just societies that respect human rights”.

And that man thinks he’s a Conservative.  He’s a living nightmare.  Before you say anything more about it being a good idea to kill innocent people, William Hague, please watch this video –

SAS has been operating in Libya for weeks — Daily Mirror, 21 March 2011
Actually, ‘Operation Odyssey Dawn’ as it is officially called, serves multiple functions:
1. It acts as yet another diversion/delusion from other more pressing events (timing is always critical);
2. It attempts to put the Empire on the ‘side of the angels’ following its embarrassment over its funding and (continued) support of a gaggle of murderous military dictatorships;
3. It gives the Empire yet another bridgehead in Africa;
4. And of course it guarantees the largest source of oil in Africa.
Job done.
Amongst those who abstained over Resolution 1973 were Russia, China, Brazil, Germany, and India. Aren’t they embarrassed by their collective display of at the very least ignorance and at the most, indifference? Had Russia or China used their veto, this illegal invasion could at least have been delayed. Damn all politicians!
In the UK only thirteen MPs voted against the Libya operation after the invasion had already been launched! So much for democracy (what would have happened if by some miracle the Commons had voted it down? Could the British government unkill the people it has already murdered in Libya?).
The degree to which politicians use propaganda is illustrated by the following quote from a British MP, John Woodcock:
“Any path we choose is fraught with difficulty and innocent lives will be lost, but Colonel Gadaffi is likely to kill many thousands more civilians if we chose to pull out of enforcing a no-fly zone.” — ‘Cumbrian MPs support UN action against Libyan forces‘, Northwest Evening Mail, 22 March 2011
More pre-emptive rationalization! On this basis anybody, anywhere is likely to be attacked based upon what they might do. It’s outrageous that allegedly civilized people can agree (post-humously) to rain death and destruction down on the Libyan people based on nothing more than an opinion! It’s based simply on the fact that the rebels faced defeat in Benghazi and the assumption that Gaddafi’s forces would then go on the rampage raping and slaughtering the inhabitants of Benghazi.

So instead Gaddafi doing it, it’s being done by the combined forces of the most powerful military machine on the planet that acts with impunity even excusing the inevitable ‘collateral damage’ based simply what he thinks the numbers of dead will be on either side! There speaks the voice of Empire, “Any path we choose” indeed spells it out, the God-given right to interfere anywhere they choose to.

It started life with well-placed atrocity rumours, created by ex-Gaddafi sidekicks that got the whole ball rolling. A classic Kosovo move: plant fake stories of ethnic cleansing and genocide by the Serbians (all the while arming the fascist Kosovo Liberation Army, who had been committing atrocities and funding their operations from the heroin trade), then send in NATO and bomb the shit out of the natives.

Isn’t it about time that the Western ‘left’ stopped passing judgment on the workings of other countries (I suppose I should be thankful that’s all it has) but words that essentially reflect the imperial mindset? The ‘we know best’ attitude, something I have come across all too often in my travels around the planet and one heavily imbued with racism, albeit of the patronizing kind (actually possibly the worst kind, the ‘Robert Fisk‘ kind of liberal racism).

Fidel may be long in the tooth and very much out of the ‘old school’ way of thinking but he knows how the Empire operates, it’s also very much ‘old school’ too.
“The NATO countries are drawing up a contingency plan taking as its model the flight exclusion zones established over the Balkans in the 1990s, in the event that the international community decides to impose an air embargo over Libya, diplomats said.” — ‘NATO’s Inevitable War: The Flood of Lies regarding Libya‘ By Fidel Castro, 4 March 2011
Note when Fidel wrote this, on 4 March, nearly three weeks ago, accurately predicting that the invasion was already a ‘done deal’. But it needed a pretext, a ‘Gulf of Benghazi’ kinda thing, thus the video of a jet going down over Benghazi was offered as proof of Gaddafi’s evil intentions. The problem was that is was a rebel jet, shot down no doubt by Gaddafi’s forces.

As with everything else about the Libyan ‘revolution’ (I wish), nothing is what it appears to be, all is illusion faithfully peddled by a complicit MSM. Thus the chance for the Libyan people to really take charge of their own future has been aborted by the Empire.
Global Research.

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

One Response to “Cameron And Hague Must Go”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I support everything you say here, but I feel there is a little more why UKIP is not speaking out. Firstly I should be honest with you and tell you I am a BNP supporter.
    I feel UKIP has the same problem as the BNP and that is it’s leader. Both leaders are plants and possible masons, just doing enough to keep people interested in them. But when that bit extra is required are loyal to their club first. Both must go for a right wing vote to succeed. I also feel one of the parties must go so the vote could be collective, it’s probably pre-planned to have a few right wing parties just to keep the vote split. I mean we can’t have an opposition to the LIB/LAB/CON trick can we???.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.