|UN Security Council – Wiki Commons|
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
In a war the globalists dared not even debate domestically amongst their bankrupt, imploding societies, they are now oafishly extending their litany of verifiable lies, and unverified accusations over the combat phase of their meddling in Libya.
We were told that UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 1973 was to establish a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians. We would only be kidding ourselves if we didn’t realize the entire resolution was just the “camel’s nose entering the tent” – and that full-fledged war and regime change is well underway.
It is also quite apparent that the campaign to demonize Libya’s government has hit a few snags with an increasingly astute public forcing propaganda outfits like BBC to concede their reports are merely “allegations” and “claims,” with even the Department of Defense admitting to having ”no confirmation whatsoever” on reports of Qaddafi brutalizing civilian populations. This is important to keep in mind considering the entire justification behind UNSC resolution 1973, authorizing the recent missile and aerial bombardments of Libya by the US, UK, and France is based on these “allegations” and “claims” of which the US Department of Defense has “no confirmation whatsoever.”
Genuine Military Defense Anyone?
TheDailyBell.com – by Dr. Tibor Machan
Dr. Tibor Machan
Why, again, is America getting involved in a war abroad, indeed, thousands of miles from its borders? Is the answer nothing more complicated than “It’s oil, stupid”? If so, this is very wrong.
As much as one may object to the Libyan government’s ownership claims to oil within that country – why on earth would a government own anything when its proper function is to protect the rights of its citizens, including to what they own – America isn’t supposed to be some kind of meta-police! Certainly spending American taxpayers’ funds on conducting military actions against Libya is going way beyond the proper military role of the American government, which is to protect its citizen’s freedom from domestic and foreign criminals.
It bears remembering here that however off course the American government has gone in its role in the country, the real role it has is to be a government strictly limited to the functions laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, which is to stand ready to defend the country when it is attacked or when there is a demonstrably clear and present danger that it will be attacked. So the criteria by which one must judge its conduct, both domestic and international, is whether it amounts to such defense.
Sadly, of course, most politicians and bureaucrats, as well as their cheerleaders in the academy and media, don’t give a hoot about restraining the power of government. After all, the same rationale that serves to justify its relentless intervention in our lives at home is what is used to rationalize it abroad. (Does it occur to folks that despite some of the rhetoric of restraint associated with the political thought of President Obama, it is modern liberalism’s interventionism that removes all principled restraint and leads to the imperialist policies of which this Libyan expedition is a case in point?)
I am talking, of course, from the position of someone who has always agreed with President George Washington’s warnings about foreign entanglements, made in his farewell address and one implicit in the basic thrust of the American political tradition of limited government. The limitation is not all that tough to grasp: it is self-defense, just as in the case of when people are justified to use force against each other, namely, when they have been attacked, when they encounter an aggressor. This does not include being deprived of someone else’s productive work or resources, including Lybia’s oil. If my neighbor refuses to sell me his produce or labor, I have no right to attack him and try to force him to hand these to me because I want them very badly, even need them desperately…
Monday, March 21, 2011 – TheDailyBell.com
Hillary Clinton (left) made an unusual break with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who, along with the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and the counterterrorism chief, John O. Brennan, had urged caution. Libya was not vital to American national security interests, the men argued, and Mr. Brennan worried that the Libyan rebels remained largely unknown to American officials, and could have ties to al-Qaeda. The administration’s shift also became possible only after the United States won not just the support of Arab countries but their active participation in military operations … “Hillary and Susan Rice were key parts of this story because Hillary got the Arab buy-in and Susan worked the U.N. to get a 10-to-5 vote, which is no easy thing,” said Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal group with close ties to the administration. This “puts the United States in a much stronger position because they’ve got the international support that makes this more like the 1991 gulf war than the 2003 Iraq war.” – New York Times
Dominant Social Theme: Women are better at war, too – especially Hillary.
Free-Market Analysis: A fundamental dominant social theme of the Anglo-American power elite so far as we can tell has to do with the innate superiority of the female sex. This is a touchy subject for both men and women, but it seems to be true – and we have written about the issue in the past. We last addressed it when we discussed the Women’s Liberation Movement which is not so overtly prominent these days but which had considerable impact on Western culture in the 20th century.
Sunday, March 20, 2011 – by Lew Rockwell
Following the US-lobbied UN authorization of military murder in Libya, the death-dealing regime of Colonel Gaddafi said immediately that it would stop all killing. That put Obama’s war on hold, for a little while. The crazy Colonel has learned a thing or two about American foreign policy. If you pretend to favor the stated goals of the empire and comply with its stated dictates, you can otherwise do what every government in the world is structured to do: stay in power at all costs.
Gaddafi learned this lesson about a decade ago, when, with much fanfare, he announced that he would stop his nuclear weapons program and join the war on terror. The US then decided to rank him and his regime among the world’s good guys, and proceeded to hold him up as an example of wise statesmanship. Then he proceeded to dig in more deeply and tighten his despotic control over his citizens, all with the implied blessing of the US.
But this time it may not work. For weeks, American officials have been decrying Gaddafi’s bloody attacks on his people, but does the US really have a problem with dictatorship of his sort?
Uploaded by southernavenger on Mar 20, 2011
Our intervention in Libya is simply the latest example of how our current president is no different from his predecessor.
In his latest C4L update, Congressman Ron Paul addresses the Libya conflict, including President Obama’s disregard for Congress, the lack of change in the U.S.’ foreign policy, the unintended consequences of the initiative, and the need for Americans to take a stand against abuse of power.
No to War with Libya! It’s Unconstitutional!
By David McKalip, M.D.
These remarks were delivered to the Save America Foundation Convention in Tampa, Florida, on Saturday, March 19, 2011.
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens,), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.
“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?”
These famous words of George Washington’s Farewell Message to America strike us today with remarkable precision and force. Our First President warned us against foreign influence and foreign entanglements — yet Americans have forgotten that message.
We have allowed ourselves to be stationed in military bases all over the world. We have endless entanglements dating back decades. We are in crushing debt in part because of it and seem to be in a state of perpetual war.
As Sun Tzu warned: “There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”
The security of our nation is threatened by this debt we now owe to foreigners. Our children now face what was warned against in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower:
- “We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
This was as he warned us of two dangers to society: control of America by a “military industrial complex” and of public policy being held captive by a “Scientific and technological elite”. He warned
- “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”
Yet here we stand.
- a bankrupt America with our children losing political and spiritual heritage to foreign entities.
-subject to the whims of a United Nations Security Council that appears to regard the U.S. Military as its personal ready response police force.
-Captive to a scientific and technological elite that control our domestic and foreign policy agenda.
-a deeply entrenched military industrial complex that is endangering our liberties and our democracy….
Yes, it’s the empire and the oil, and yes, people in government love to kill and destroy—it’s the ultimate expression of their power lust, that they can visit foreigners with death from the skies. But here is an additional reason: a new war takes everyone’s eye off the financial ball, and makes them forget the looming crisis. The deficits and dollar weakness have harmed the prestige of the State. Nothing like some dead bodies to cheer up the US citizenry and to make the government seem effective. See Wag the Dog.
War in Libya: Barack Obama Gets in Touch With His Inner Neocon
Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute
Candidate Barack Obama ran for president on a platform of change. Many policies deserved reform, none more than President George W. Bush’s propensity to initiate unnecessary wars of choice. Iraq was a debacle from the start; the shift from counter-terrorism to counter-insurgency in Afghanistan turned that conflict into a second disaster.
Since taking office President Obama has left U.S. troops in Iraq and expanded the war in Afghanistan. Now he has taken America into its third war in a Muslim nation within a decade — to promote “global peace and security,” he claimed, the usual justification used by presidents to enter conflicts which serve neither. President Obama obviously has found his inner Neocon and joined Washington’s RepubliCrat Party.
The president received much criticism for taking so long to decide to enter the Libyan civil war. But war is a momentous decision which deserves more consideration than the length of time it takes for one of Washington’s many think tank warriors to dash off a pro-war op-ed. As expected, the potential whiff of gunpowder in the air brought out the famed Sofa Samurai who pushed America into the two other wars in which the U.S. is still entangled. President Obama was right to take longer to decide.
Now he deserves criticism — for deciding wrongly.
What is the U.S. doing in Libya? It is hard to imagine, given the dearth of American interests in that nation.
The administration’s purported humanitarian concerns are charming, but curious. The Western powers knew Muammar Gaddafi was a nasty dictator a couple months ago when they were feting him for having reformed and joined the international community. Humanitarianism didn’t matter much so long as the Crazy Colonel was serving allied interests…