US Furious After Source Of "Mystery" Libya Bombing Raids Revealed

[StrangeCaptain]

I am not sure what to make of this one:

_http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-25/us-furious-after-source-mystery-libya-bombing-raids-revealed

 

[mkrnhr]

The news has been reported elsewhere as well:
_http://www.ibtimes.com/if-egypt-united-arab-emirates-hit-libya-airstrikes-heres-how-they-might-have-done-it-1668568
_http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28933070
_http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/africa/egypt-and-united-arab-emirates-said-to-have-secretly-carried-out-libya-airstrikes.html?_r=0
_http://rt.com/news/182712-egypt-uae-libya-strikes/

So basically, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have conducted secret air strikes in Libya. The US seems to be annoyed because it hasn't been informed by its vassals.

 

[Hesper]

So the US is losing control over the monsters it's created? Doesn't surprise me too much considering the US has never been in control. I wonder where this is leading.

 

[Hesper]

It really does look like, except for the networking of the BRICS countries, the world's going the way of the Native Americans (and Gaza). From RT:

_http://rt.com/op-edge/180240-libya-terrorism-un-security/

The situation in Libya is drastically degrading. At the moment this country is becoming a failed state, breaking into small domains ruled by warlords with rather murky reputations.

This situation was created due to complex political, military and social reasons. It is evident that we are dealing not with some short-term crisis, but a long-term tendency that was started by the events of 2011.

This is the outcome of some states’ actions. Having put forward the aim of regime change, they did not think about the possible consequences for Libya or for the region as a whole. The “Libya scenario” did not end with military action in Libyan skies, when NATO countries distorted the decisions of the UN Security Council and supported one of the sides in Libya’s internal military conflict. That scenario also includes everything that happened in the country after that.

“Normal nation-building” has failed. A relatively safe country in close proximity to Europe has become a playground for radical Islamists and terrorists. There is no progress in the national dialogue. There are no law enforcement agencies. All the government agencies that matter are paralyzed. There are more human rights violations now than under Colonel Gaddafi. Civilians are killed every day, infrastructure is being destroyed, not even a semblance of order exists, and economic development is absolutely out of the question. The latest parliamentary elections did not help to stabilize the situation. The situation in Tripoli has deteriorated so far that the first session of the new parliament had to be held far from the capital of the country.

Today the world is following closely the developments in Gaza and Iraq, but the international community still needs to urgently consolidate numerous efforts to help Libya, including important decisions on further activities of the UN Mission in Libya.

This is absolutely disgusting. No doubt those psychopathic military-industrial big wigs are making a "killing" from the weapons sales to the "Generals" and the "Islamists".

 

[gdpetti]

It really does look like, except for the networking of the BRICS countries, the world's going the way of the Native Americans (and Gaza). From RT:
[...]
This is absolutely disgusting. No doubt those psychopathic military-industrial big wigs are making a "killing" from the weapons sales to the "Generals" and the "Islamists".

And it seems that the sooner they close that financial loop, the sooner it closes on them... and they never see it coming... as usual....just like the rest of the herd.

As for the US being 'furious'? Really? Since when have we been furious over such things? Usually, our 'anger' is a sign of support.... covert of course.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

I thought of a sort of fundamental conflict as I read your replies. Not as fundamental as say, good vs. evil, STO vs. STS, etc, but more in terms of how these fundamental archetypes act themselves out on our world's stage...

Prouty liked to characterize the Cold War intelligence-based foreign policy of the US as being reactive and lacking long-term vision. In other words, he described the logistical structure created by US intelligence agencies that allows the launch of covert projects throughout the world as reactive in the sense that when certain parameters are satisfied in certain theaters then the structure cranks out a covert operation almost automatically. He described this foreign policy as lacking long-term vision because it has no real goal for the future form of the world except to keep markets open for preferred franchises.

A most fundamental principle that is entirely disregarded in this approach is that of national sovereignty. Before the end of the Cold War, at least lip service was given to the idea of national sovereignty so that the violation of this principle had to be done very covertly and that war tended to indicate a total breakdown in diplomacy. Covert operations have given way to plausible deniability, where everyone with half a brain and access to semi-decent information knows, for example, that the US stirred up the crap in the Ukraine but has just enough deniability to crank out propaganda on popular media venues. And now, plausible deniability gives way to what I will call "war narratives." Plausible deniability is not even bothered with like in the case of the various war-on-terror, military actions. Instead, one creates a narrative explaining war as something other than what it really is, so that it is acceptable enough to the masses plugged in to the popular media.

In my little rant here, I have two points:

(1) The vassal states are taking daddy's example and violating the principle of national sovereignty with less pretext, and like the classical crapola dad, the Deep State can only answer, "Do as I say not as I do."

(2) I see Putin's strategy to be that of trying to revive the principle of national sovereignty in working with countries where it can still exist. This informs his long-term vision of world affairs or vice versa perhaps.

One last comment pertaining to (2). While I don't necessarily view localized planning or centralized planning to be pre-eminent, that their are probably cases where one needs to be more heavily weighted than the other, reviving national sovereignty seems to be a first step in bringing localized planning back to a world seemingly obsessed with centralized planning.