hypocrisy

The allies did not fight “the good war,” as it is commonly called, because of the awful crimes of fascism. Before their attacks on western powers, fascists were treated rather sympathetically, particularly “that admirable Italian gentleman,” as FDR called Mussolini. Even Hitler was regarded by the US State Department as a “moderate” holding off the extremists of right and left. The British were even more sympathetic, particularly the business world. Roosevelt’s close confidant Sumner Welles reported to the president that the Munich settlement that dismembered Czechoslovakia “presented the opportunity for the establishment by the nations of the world of a new world order based upon justice and upon law,” in which the Nazi moderates would play a leading role. As late as April 1941, the influential statesman George Kennan, at the dovish extreme of the postwar planning spectrum, wrote from his consular post in Berlin that German leaders have no wish to “see other people suffer under German rule,” are “most anxious that their new subjects should be happy in their care,” and are making “important compromises” to assure this benign outcome.

General Dannatt said in May 2009 that Britain’s “military reputation and credibility, unfairly or not, have been called into question at several levels in the eyes of our most important ally as a result of some aspects of the Iraq campaign”. Therefore, Dannatt continued, “Taking steps to restore this credibility will be pivotal – and Afghanistan provides an opportunity”.

A confidential August 2009 report by US General Stanley McChrystal, at that time the overall military commander in Afghanistan, stated that “the overall situation is deteriorating” and that NATO faced a “resilient and growing insurgency”

British interests in the region are closely aligned with those of the USA:
“The entire region in which Afghanistan sits is of vital strategic importance to the United Kingdom,” stated the then Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth in July 2009.

UK Defence Minister Liam Fox MP has stated that a withdrawal of troops would “damage the credibility of NATO” and “would be a shot in the arm to violent jihadists everywhere, re-energising violent radical and extreme Islamism”.

General Dannatt said in May 2009 that Britain’s “military reputation and credibility, unfairly or not, have been called into question at several levels in the eyes of our most important ally as a result of some aspects of the Iraq campaign”. Therefore, Dannatt continued, “Taking steps to restore this credibility will be pivotal – and Afghanistan provides an opportunity”.

US Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Boucher, confirmed in 2007 that “one of our goals is to stabilise Afghanistan... so that energy can flow to the south”.

The Libyan "pro-democracy rebels" are reportedly commanded by Colonel Khalifa Haftar who, according to a study by the US Jamestown Foundation, set up the Libyan National Army in 1988 "with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency". For 20 years, Colonel Haftar has lived not far from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp. The mujahedin, which produced al-Qaeda, and the Iraqi National Congress, which scripted the Bush/Blair lies about Iraq, were sponsored in the same time-honoured way, in leafy Langley.

Libya's other "rebel" leaders include Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Gaddafi's justice minister until February, and General Abdel-Fattah Younes, who ran Gaddafi's interior ministry...

History suggests nothing less than the kind of machinations exposed by two senior diplomats at the UN who spoke to the Asia Times. Demanding to know why the UN never ordered a fact-finding mission to Libya instead of an attack, they were told that a deal had been done between the White House and Saudi Arabia. If the Saudis would back a US "coalition" to "take out" the recalcitrant Gaddafi, they could put down the popular uprising in Bahrain. The latter has been accomplished, and the bloodied king of Bahrain will be a guest at the royal wedding in London.

In December 2009, the U.N. General Assembly passed 18 resolutions on “The Question of Palestine” which, among other things: reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people over their natural resources, including land and water; reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and their independent State of Palestine; reaffirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem; and reaffirmed that Israel’s settlements in Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development. The United States under President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice, voted against each of these resolutions. Overall, Obama, Clinton, and Rice, by voting with Israel, voted against 16 of 18 General Assembly resolutions in 2009, which were otherwise approved by an overwhelming majority of U.N. member states...

Likewise, in 2010, the General Assembly passed 16 resolutions concerning The Question of Palestine, including those reaffirming Palestinian sovereignty over their own natural resources, the right of Palestinian self-determination to an independent state, the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israel’s occupation, and the illegality of Israel’s settlements under the Fourth Geneva Convention. As in 2009, Obama, Clinton, and Rice voted against these resolutions, and overall voted against 14 of 16 General Assembly resolutions on Palestine in 2010, all of which passed with a huge majority of votes...

Thus, Rice and her bosses, Obama and Clinton, have supported not a single General Assembly resolution on The Question of Palestine, and voted with Israel on 30 of the 34 resolutions over the two-year period.