Paris – Before the war in Iraq, a powerful debate took place on the international scene. The United States, under the presidency George W. Bush, was determined to launch a military operation against Iraq. On the other hand, France and Germany were quite opposed to such a dangerous course of action. The debate became a diplomatic fight in the UN Security Council. Dominique De Villepin, French minister of foreign affairs at that time, gave a historic speech in one of the meetings of the Council relevant to the Bush Administration’s plans to invade Iraq, in which he said: “Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of a scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, would aggravate tensions and would risk paving the way for other conflicts”.
Today, De Villepin’s warning has sadly been proven reasonable and realistic. An obscure terrorist state, Daesh, now exists in the Middle East and it has laid its devilish and cruel hands over an area that covers parts of Syria and parts of Iraq. But to think that George W. Bush is the only one to blame for this situation is unfair. His successor, Barack Obama, has heavily contributed to this situation with his decision of a premature retreat from Iraq. Simply put, George W. Bush took the decision to invade Iraq, then Barack Obama decided to leave the country alone and unready to defend itself after his predecessor’s action had resulted in the destruction of its state and of its military.
US foreign policy in the Middle East has been confusing and unexplainable for almost a decade. Unless the explanation for it would be that the United States has aimed at and successfully reached chaos in the entire region. But for what purpose?
The Iraq War episode was a considerably important step which led to the current configuration of that region. And it was somewhat of a rare occurrence, in that there was a serious and profound debate regarding it, between the United State, a Western power, on one hand, and another Western power, France, on the other. But the global stage never stays the same. Later, the US and its NATO allies, almost under the leadership of the then president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, launched their infamous operation in Libya.
Today’s Libya has become a threat to the entire Mediterranean Basin. Terrorism and illegal migration have become the country’s most notorious exports, in an anarchic apocalyptic environment. And, today, Europe has to deal with that situation. For countries like France and England, it is difficult to find an argument out of their responsibility for it. They helped cause it. And the adage goes : “You broke it, you own it.” But they share that responsibility with the United States. However, Barack Obama‘s country is on a continent far away from Libya and its troubles, just like it is from Iraq and its troubles. And soon after his troupes will leave Afghanistan, the US president will most probably continue to pursue his policy of leaving the pieces his broken pots for his partners to pick up.
In the heart of Europe, things have not been different. The United States and its EU partners took the old continent into a downward spiral in Ukraine. The sight of Victoria Neuland, John McCain, and even John Kerry, in the heart of Kiev, encouraging the revolt of Maidan might have very well helped paint them a flattering picture enforcing their positioning in the American political sphere as so-called great defenders of democracy. But that sight has also proven the interventionist hegemonic agenda pursued in Ukraine by NATO and the EU.
L’informazione che non paghi per avere, qualcuno paga perché Ti venga data.
Hai mai trovato qualcuno che ti paga la retta dell’asilo di tuo figlio? O le bollette di gas, luce, telefono? Io no. Chiediti perché c’è, invece, chi ti paga il costo di produzione dell'Informazione che consumi.
Un’informazione che altri pagano perché ti venga data: non è sotto il Tuo controllo, è potenzialmente inquinata, non è tracciata, non è garantita, e, alla fine, non è Informazione, è pubblicità o, peggio, imbonimento.
L’Informazione deve tornare sotto il controllo del Lettore.
Pagare il costo di produzione dell’informazione è un Tuo diritto.
"L’Indro" vuole che il Lettore si riappropri del diritto di conoscere, del diritto all’informazione, del diritto di pagare l’informazione che consuma.
Pagare il costo di produzione dell’informazione, dobbiamo esserne consapevoli, è un diritto. E’ il solo modo per accedere a informazione di qualità e al controllo diretto della qualità che ci entra dentro.
In molti ti chiedono di donare per sostenerli.
Non ti chiediamo di donare, ti chiediamo di pretendere che i giornalisti di questa testata siano al Tuo servizio, che ti servano Informazione.
Se, come noi, credi che l’informazione che consumiamo è alla base della salute del nostro futuro, allora entra.