For the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize,* it wasn’t enough to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan undertaken by his predecessor in the United States presidency, George Bush. Like him, and consistent with his Nobel Peace Prize investiture, Obama has added a new conflict to the record of his country and inaugurated his personal account of warlike confrontations in the name of freedom.
In reference to the leader of Libya, the Nobel Peace Prize stated, “Colonel Gadhafi needs to step down from power. … You've seen with great clarity that he has lost legitimacy with his people.” No wonder, then, that the war against Libya has been launched by the coalition led by the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Nobel Peace Prize speaks of supporting the “international community” to overthrow Gadhafi in defense of human rights, but dozens of countries have rejected the aggression: Russia, China, Brazil, Cuba, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, the African nations and, certainly, the majority of countries that make up the U.N. General Assembly.
With the rationale used by the Nobel of Peace for attacking the Libyan people, intervention in Pakistan could be right around the corner, under the pretext of dislodging the Taliban and al-Qaida from their dens, or perhaps an intervention in some other part of the world.
Obama believes in war. The Nobel of Peace sent a compelling message to the speaker of the House, John Boehner, of the Congress of the United States, and to Daniel Inouye, president pro tempore of the Senate. In his letter, the Nobel of Peace says, “Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States.” It is clear that we are speaking of the interests of Washington. The options were oil or death, and the White House has made its disastrous choice.
Soon, there will be a book in circulation about the wars of Obama. Like his predecessors, this Nobel of Peace will be remembered for the armed intervention in Libya. The Nobel Peace Prize has said that the bombs against Libya are to preserve human rights. But as [Uruguay’s] President Mujica said, the bombs involve “a reversal of the current international order.”
“The cure is much worse than the disease. This saving of lives with bombs is an inexplicable contradiction. All this must be mourned,” said Pepe,* even though he is not the Nobel Peace Prize.
*Translator’s Note: “Pepe” is President Mujica’s nickname.
*Editor’s Note: The author refers to Obama as the “Nobel Peace Prize” and the “Nobel of Peace.”
Al premio Nobel de la Paz 2010, Barack Obama, no le alcanzó con continuar las guerras emprendidas por su antecesor en la presidencia de Estados Unidos, George Bush, en Irak y Afganistán. El presidente demócrata ha iniciado la suya propia, junto a sus aliados europeos, en Libia.
De esta forma, y consecuente con su investidura de Premio Nobel de la Paz, suma un nuevo conflicto al récord de su país e inaugura su cuenta personal de enfrentamientos bélicos provocados en nombre de la libertad.
El Premio Nobel de la Paz afirmó al referirse particularmente al líder de Libia: "Muamar Kadafi tiene que dejar el poder; un líder que bombardea a su pueblo pierde legitimidad y tiene que irse". No debería extrañarnos entonces la guerra iniciada contra Libia por la coalición que lidera el Premio Nobel de la Paz.
El Premio Nobel de la Paz habla de apoyo de la "comunidad internacional" para derribar a Kadafi en defensa de los derechos humanos, pero decenas de países rechazan la agresión: Rusia, China, Brasil, Cuba, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, las naciones africanas y, con seguridad, la mayoría de los países que integran la Asamblea General de la ONU.
Con el razonamiento esgrimido por el Nobel de la Paz para atacar al pueblo libio, podría estar cerca la intervención a Pakistán con el pretexto de desalojar de sus guaridas a los talibanes y a la gente de Al Qaeda, o quizás alguna intervención en otro punto del planeta.
Obama está convencido de la guerra. El Nobel de la Paz dirigió al presidente de la Cámara baja del Congreso estadounidense, John Boehner, y al presidente provisional de los senadores, Daniel Inouye, un mensaje concluyente.
En la misiva, el Nobel de la Paz expresa: "Si no se abordaba, la creciente inestabilidad en Libia encendería una mayor inestabilidad en el Medio Oriente, con peligrosas consecuencias para los intereses de seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos". Está claro que hablamos de los intereses de Washington. La opción era petróleo o muerte, y la Casa Blanca hizo su nefasta elección.
Muy pronto estará circulando un libro sobre las guerras de Obama. Como sus antecesores, este Nobel de la Paz será recordado por la intervención armada en Libia. El Premio Nobel ha dicho que las bombas contra Libia son para preservar los derechos humanos. Pero como dijo el presidente Mujica, los bombardeos implican "un retroceso en el orden internacional vigente".
"Es mucho peor el remedio que la enfermedad. Eso de salvar vidas a los bombazos es un contrasentido inexplicable. Todo esto es para llorar", afirmó Pepe, pese a que no es Premio Nobel de la Paz.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
The U.S. must decide what type of foreign policy it wants to pursue: one based on the humanism of Abraham Lincoln or one based on the arrogance of those who want it to be the world’s policeman.
U.S. companies, importers and retailers will bear the initial costs which most economists expect to filter through the supply chain as a cost-push inflation.