Do you think it may have something to do with the fact that Bahrain is a Saudi puppet and a Western stooge in the region?
I really miss the iconic image of Khrushchev allegedly banging his shoe in the UN General Assembly. Autres temps, autres moeurs.
Wojtek
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:50 AM, fernando cassia <fcassia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent article from Australia´s The Age
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/this-is-warwith-an-uncertain-outcome-20110318-1bztn.html
>
> --
> This is war...with an uncertain outcome
> March 18, 2011 - 1:44PM
>
> It's a paradox, dropping bombs to save lives. But that is precisely what the
> United Nations has authorised by this decision to cast a no-fly zone over
> Libya.
>
> In fact it goes further. The key phrase in the mandate passed by the UN
> Security Council this morning is to use ''all necessary measures'' to
> protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Libya's 40-year dictator
> Muammar Gaddafi.
>
> That gives wide powers to the US, France and Arab countries who have said
> they are willing to use force to save the teetering Libyan rebellion.
>
> US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already said options for use
> against Gaddafi's forces include use of drones and arming rebel forces. It
> was important to recognise, she said, that actions must be taken to protect
> the planes and the pilots enforcing the no-fly zone.
>
> Clinton's words betray the risk that the US most fears. Should its pilots be
> shot down, will the American public be willing to accept casualties in
> another Middle East war?
>
> And if a plane is downed and ground forces be sent into Libya to mount a
> rescue, could this conflict spiral into a larger fight? How many lives is
> the West willing to give in the cause of Libya's bid to rid itself of
> Gaddafi?
>
> Whatever the euphemism --- an intervention, targeted strikes, a humanitarian
> operation --- this is war. And as with all other wars, the outcome is far
> from certain. The resolution passed after Russia and China decided against
> wielding their Security Council veto. Neither supported the proposal, but
> they did not block it either.
> --
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>