NATO won't investigate the civilian deaths of a few Libyans, because to reimburse a few, thousands would follow which would be too costly. It would open investigations into a war that should have never started.
Recent reports have Human Rights Watch criticizing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for failing to investigate the deaths of innocent civilians in Libya. One reason there is reluctance to investigate, is because it would be a loss in millions of dollars to compensate the thousands of civilians that have been killed by NATO bombs.
NATO asserts that it cannot conduct post-operation investigations into civilian casualties in Libya because it has no mandate to operate on the ground, but the truth has been recorded from the beginning. On Fox News Sunday in May of 2011, it was reported that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) got her facts confused Sunday while objecting to President Barack Obama's decision to participate in the military action against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and the purposed number of deaths as a result.
Did she really get confused, or was she telling the truth?
In August of 2011, F. William Engdahl, political author and activist seems to confirm what Rep. Bachmann said that was supposed to be a mistake, not a prediction. Mentioning high casualties, and a greed, and destruction that would happen in Libya. While giving his interview on RT, the breaking news flashing across the screen is reporting 1300 deaths in Tripoli well before fighting ended. The true count of civilians that lost their lives from NATO bombs is still not known.
By Sept. of 2011 RT's report with "Anti War Group" activist Sara Flounder makes it understandable why the mainstream news isn't focused on the deaths, and destruction throughout the whole country of Libya. By this time, greed was there to feed, and it did!
By Dec. of 2011 the truth continued to come out on all news networks, with Ron Paul, making predictions right along with president Obama. The truth can sometimes hurt, and it did this time.
Libya had no more problems with its people than any other country. Not one country on this planet is 100% satisfied with their leader in power. What made Gaddafi stand out from the rest, was what he did do for his people, and what he wanted to do for others. The crimes against humanity that were waged against Gaddafi, are called atrocities by some, but how different are they really compared to the atrocity having millions of men locked away in U.S. prisons to die?
What Gaddafi did for the people of his country will not be seen in any other by the majority as everything good. He was hated by a few, but loved by many. Now NATO has left a country in ruins, and its people without one of the things their former leader believed they should have.
Two reasons Gaddafi had to die were the changes he wanted maketrading oil with gold, which would have killed the American dollar.
Gaddafi also wanted to take the worlds largest aquifer, supply the whole country with water, and potentially feed the people of Africa, that billions of dollars in aid has not been unable to do. Gaddafi's man-made river, the river of life was one of the first things thatNATO bombedwhich supplied over five million people.
Now NATO would like to go into Syria, and Iran, but transparency to the real purpose of these missions seems to have everything at a standstill.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com