evince
Truthmatters
so now your a non interventionist?
Clinton Emails on Libya Expose The Lie of 'Humanitarian Intervention'
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
so now your a non interventionist?
always have been -I was against Iraq when everybody was running around with yellow ribbons and American flags.
But i'm not an isolationalist like Rand Paul either..The US has an active role to play, but do it with realpolitik
evince
Truthmatters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol
Geneva Protocol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Geneva Protocol (disambiguation).
Geneva Protocol
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare
Drafted
17 June 1925[1]
Signed
17 June 1925[1]
Location
Geneva[1]
Effective
8 February 1928[1]
Condition
Ratification by 65 states[2]
Signatories
38[1]
Parties
138[3]
Depositary
Government of France[1]
Geneva Protocol to Hague Convention at Wikisource
The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929.[4] The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects — the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
A number of countries submitted reservations when becoming parties to the Geneva Protocol, declaring that they only regarded the non-use obligations as applying to other parties and that these obligations would cease to apply if the prohibited weapons were used against them.
The main elements of the protocol are now considered by many to be part of customary international law.
Geneva Protocol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Geneva Protocol (disambiguation).
Geneva Protocol
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare
Drafted
17 June 1925[1]
Signed
17 June 1925[1]
Location
Geneva[1]
Effective
8 February 1928[1]
Condition
Ratification by 65 states[2]
Signatories
38[1]
Parties
138[3]
Depositary
Government of France[1]
Geneva Protocol to Hague Convention at Wikisource
The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929.[4] The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects — the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
A number of countries submitted reservations when becoming parties to the Geneva Protocol, declaring that they only regarded the non-use obligations as applying to other parties and that these obligations would cease to apply if the prohibited weapons were used against them.
The main elements of the protocol are now considered by many to be part of customary international law.
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#2011_Civil_War
lets do remember what lybia looked like in hose moments though.
hind site is always 20 20
lets review
2011 Civil War[edit]
Main article: Libyan Civil War (2011)
Demonstrations in Bayda on 22 July 2011
After the Arab Spring movements overturned the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt, Libya experienced a full-scale revolt beginning on 17 February 2011.[67] By 20 February, the unrest had spread to Tripoli. On 27 February 2011, the National Transitional Council was established to administer the areas of Libya under rebel control. On 10 March 2011, France became the first state to officially recognise the council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.[68][69]
Pro-Gaddafi forces were able to respond militarily to rebel pushes in Western Libya and launched a counterattack along the coast toward Benghazi, the de facto centre of the uprising.[70] The town of Zawiya, 48 kilometres (30 mi) from Tripoli, was bombarded by air force planes and army tanks and seized by Jamahiriya troops, "exercising a level of brutality not yet seen in the conflict."[71]
Organizations of the United Nations, including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon[72] and the United Nations Human Rights Council, condemned the crackdown as violating international law, with the latter body expelling Libya outright in an unprecedented action urged by Libya's own delegation to the UN.[73][74]
On 17 March 2011 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973,[75] with a 10–0 vote and five abstentions including Russia, China and Germany. The resolution sanctioned the establishment of a no-fly zone and the use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians within Libya.[76] On 19 March, the first act of NATO allies to secure the no-fly zone by destroying Libyan air defences began when French military jets entered Libyan airspace on a reconnaissance mission heralding attacks on enemy targets.[77]
In the weeks that followed, American forces were in the forefront of NATO operations against Libya. More than 8,000 American personnel in warships and aircraft were deployed in the area. At least 3,000 targets were struck in 14,202 strike sorties, 716 of them in Tripoli and 492 in Brega.[78] The American air offensive included flights of B-2 Stealth bombers, each bomber armed with sixteen 2000-pound bombs, flying out of and returning to their base in Missouri on the continental United States.[79] Clearly the support provided by the NATO airforces was pivotal in the ultimate success of the revolution.[80]
By 22 August 2011, rebel fighters had entered Tripoli and occupied Green Square,[81] which they renamed Martyrs' Square in honour of those killed since 17 February 2011. On 20 October 2011 the last heavy fighting of the uprising came to an end in the city of Sirte, where Gadhafi was captured and killed. The defeat of loyalist forces was celebrated on 23 October 2011, three days after the fall of Sirte.
At least 30,000 Libyans died in the civil war.[
lets do remember what lybia looked like in hose moments though.
hind site is always 20 20
lets review
2011 Civil War[edit]
Main article: Libyan Civil War (2011)
Demonstrations in Bayda on 22 July 2011
After the Arab Spring movements overturned the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt, Libya experienced a full-scale revolt beginning on 17 February 2011.[67] By 20 February, the unrest had spread to Tripoli. On 27 February 2011, the National Transitional Council was established to administer the areas of Libya under rebel control. On 10 March 2011, France became the first state to officially recognise the council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.[68][69]
Pro-Gaddafi forces were able to respond militarily to rebel pushes in Western Libya and launched a counterattack along the coast toward Benghazi, the de facto centre of the uprising.[70] The town of Zawiya, 48 kilometres (30 mi) from Tripoli, was bombarded by air force planes and army tanks and seized by Jamahiriya troops, "exercising a level of brutality not yet seen in the conflict."[71]
Organizations of the United Nations, including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon[72] and the United Nations Human Rights Council, condemned the crackdown as violating international law, with the latter body expelling Libya outright in an unprecedented action urged by Libya's own delegation to the UN.[73][74]
On 17 March 2011 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973,[75] with a 10–0 vote and five abstentions including Russia, China and Germany. The resolution sanctioned the establishment of a no-fly zone and the use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians within Libya.[76] On 19 March, the first act of NATO allies to secure the no-fly zone by destroying Libyan air defences began when French military jets entered Libyan airspace on a reconnaissance mission heralding attacks on enemy targets.[77]
In the weeks that followed, American forces were in the forefront of NATO operations against Libya. More than 8,000 American personnel in warships and aircraft were deployed in the area. At least 3,000 targets were struck in 14,202 strike sorties, 716 of them in Tripoli and 492 in Brega.[78] The American air offensive included flights of B-2 Stealth bombers, each bomber armed with sixteen 2000-pound bombs, flying out of and returning to their base in Missouri on the continental United States.[79] Clearly the support provided by the NATO airforces was pivotal in the ultimate success of the revolution.[80]
By 22 August 2011, rebel fighters had entered Tripoli and occupied Green Square,[81] which they renamed Martyrs' Square in honour of those killed since 17 February 2011. On 20 October 2011 the last heavy fighting of the uprising came to an end in the city of Sirte, where Gadhafi was captured and killed. The defeat of loyalist forces was celebrated on 23 October 2011, three days after the fall of Sirte.
At least 30,000 Libyans died in the civil war.[
evince
Truthmatters
On 17 March 2011 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973,[75] with a 10–0 vote and five abstentions including Russia, China and Germany. The resolution sanctioned the establishment of a no-fly zone and the use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians within Libya.[76] On 19 March, the first act of NATO allies to secure the no-fly zone by destroying Libyan air defences began when French military jets entered Libyan airspace on a reconnaissance mission heralding attacks on enemy targets.
NATO
who did Bush have behind him to do Iraq?
NATO
who did Bush have behind him to do Iraq?
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing#Usage_over_Iraq
In November 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush, visiting Europe for a NATO summit, declared that "should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."[2]
The Bush administration briefly used "coalition of the willing" to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent military presence in post-invasion Iraq. The original list released in March 2003 included 46 members.[3] In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.
The list of coalition members provided by the White House included several nations that did not intend to participate in actual military operations. Some of them, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands, do not have standing armies.
In November 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush, visiting Europe for a NATO summit, declared that "should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."[2]
The Bush administration briefly used "coalition of the willing" to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent military presence in post-invasion Iraq. The original list released in March 2003 included 46 members.[3] In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.
The list of coalition members provided by the White House included several nations that did not intend to participate in actual military operations. Some of them, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands, do not have standing armies.
Jamahiriya = Libyan armed forces under Qadaffi.
Not footnote 71 - "the brutality" is described by The Independent a British newspaper, and an active member of NATO/US
in the bombing campaign.
Germany stayed out of it, but the old colonialists ( to use a phrase I picked up from BAC)
of France and Great Britain were in it all the way to regime change...
Hilary was a major international, and US player ; also Rice and Powers to an extent.
My opinion is this all started by France when Qaddafi was trying to organize a pan -African currency
Declassified emails reveal NATO killed Gaddafi to stop Libyan creation of gold-backed currency
Washington, D.C. – In spite of French-led U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 creating a no-fly zone over Libya with the express intent of protecting civilians, one of the over 3,000 new Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on New Year’s Eve, contain damning evidence of Western nations using NATO as a tool to topple Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi.
The NATO overthrow was not for the protection of the people, but instead it was to thwart Gaddafi’s attempt to create a gold-backed African currency to compete with the Western central banking monopoly.
The emails indicate the French-led NATO military initiative in Libya was also driven by a desire to gain access to a greater share of Libyan oil production, and to undermine a long term plan by Gaddafi to supplant France as the dominant power in the Francophone Africa region.
The April 2011 email, sent to the Secretary of State Hillary by unofficial adviser and longtime Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold,” reveals predatory Western intentions.
The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”
Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.
The email makes clear that intelligence sources indicate the impetus behind the French attack on Libya was a calculated move to consolidate greater power, using NATO as a tool for imperialist conquest, not a humanitarian intervention as the public was falsely led to believe.
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)
The email provides a peek behind the curtain to reveal how foreign policy is often carried out in practice. While reported in the media that the Western backed Libyan military intervention is necessary to save human lives, the real driving factor behind the intervention was shown to be the fact that Gaddafi planned to create a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency, which would lessen French influence and power in the region.
The evidence indicates that when French intelligence became aware of the Libyan initiative to create a currency to compete with the Western central banking system, the decision to subvert the plan through military means began, ultimately including the NATO alliance.
The NATO overthrow was not for the protection of the people, but instead it was to thwart Gaddafi’s attempt to create a gold-backed African currency to compete with the Western central banking monopoly.
The emails indicate the French-led NATO military initiative in Libya was also driven by a desire to gain access to a greater share of Libyan oil production, and to undermine a long term plan by Gaddafi to supplant France as the dominant power in the Francophone Africa region.
The April 2011 email, sent to the Secretary of State Hillary by unofficial adviser and longtime Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold,” reveals predatory Western intentions.
The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”
Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.
The email makes clear that intelligence sources indicate the impetus behind the French attack on Libya was a calculated move to consolidate greater power, using NATO as a tool for imperialist conquest, not a humanitarian intervention as the public was falsely led to believe.
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)
The email provides a peek behind the curtain to reveal how foreign policy is often carried out in practice. While reported in the media that the Western backed Libyan military intervention is necessary to save human lives, the real driving factor behind the intervention was shown to be the fact that Gaddafi planned to create a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency, which would lessen French influence and power in the region.
The evidence indicates that when French intelligence became aware of the Libyan initiative to create a currency to compete with the Western central banking system, the decision to subvert the plan through military means began, ultimately including the NATO alliance.
evince
Truthmatters
can you remember what I was like in that time?
I have vivid memories of that moment of the Arab spring.
there for a few months I truely seems the people would win.
the people wanted freedom
it looked like they would STOP A NOTHING to get it.
You have to study all of history not just ground facts.
the world was heading towards FREEDOM
It surely looked like a groundswell
do you remember at all?
I have vivid memories of that moment of the Arab spring.
there for a few months I truely seems the people would win.
the people wanted freedom
it looked like they would STOP A NOTHING to get it.
You have to study all of history not just ground facts.
the world was heading towards FREEDOM
It surely looked like a groundswell
do you remember at all?
^ me? absolutely . The Arab Spring started over food riots in Tunisia. Lack of opportunities and food crop failures.
But it was coopted in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood ( Morsi) -and in Syria Assad put it down, and prolly would have done so
except for international organization against that regime .
The US stupidly wanted Mubarak out ( yesterday was the 5th anniversary),and the "friends of Syria" was in response to Assad.
The lesson is be careful what you wish for: Egypt had to overgo a counter-revolution and a crackdown by el-Sisi.
Syria you can still see the results.
I don't think Libya was a true Arab (sic) Spring either -more like seditionists from the east.
Qaddafi warned us the east was infested with AQ ( LIFG/Ansar al-Sharia) - leadership of the NTC.
But it was coopted in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood ( Morsi) -and in Syria Assad put it down, and prolly would have done so
except for international organization against that regime .
The US stupidly wanted Mubarak out ( yesterday was the 5th anniversary),and the "friends of Syria" was in response to Assad.
The lesson is be careful what you wish for: Egypt had to overgo a counter-revolution and a crackdown by el-Sisi.
Syria you can still see the results.
I don't think Libya was a true Arab (sic) Spring either -more like seditionists from the east.
Qaddafi warned us the east was infested with AQ ( LIFG/Ansar al-Sharia) - leadership of the NTC.
evince
Truthmatters
hind site
there were reasons we backed the people taking out Gaddafi.
You pretend everything is knowable
You pretend every move should only bring exactly what was planned.
But you only leave that level of outcome at the democratic party memebers feet.
Not any president we ever had found the exact outcome desired in every move.
you on the right insist WE be prefect
then you embrace the non stop fail your ideas produce as if they are winning
there were reasons we backed the people taking out Gaddafi.
You pretend everything is knowable
You pretend every move should only bring exactly what was planned.
But you only leave that level of outcome at the democratic party memebers feet.
Not any president we ever had found the exact outcome desired in every move.
you on the right insist WE be prefect
then you embrace the non stop fail your ideas produce as if they are winning
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kovalik
United States[edit]
In the United States, Kovalik works as the Associate General Counsel of the United Steelworkers union.[3] As a critic of the foreign policy of the United States,[5] Kovalik describes every President of the United States that followed World War II as a "War Criminal" and believes that United States citizens accept poor actions by its leaders, stating that "it is this acceptance, especially by the Liberal establishment, which continues to allow the worst crimes to continue today in the name of democracy, freedom and human rights".[14] He is also critical of the R2P doctrine, believing that it is "a tool of U.S. intervention".
how often do you agree with this author?
United States[edit]
In the United States, Kovalik works as the Associate General Counsel of the United Steelworkers union.[3] As a critic of the foreign policy of the United States,[5] Kovalik describes every President of the United States that followed World War II as a "War Criminal" and believes that United States citizens accept poor actions by its leaders, stating that "it is this acceptance, especially by the Liberal establishment, which continues to allow the worst crimes to continue today in the name of democracy, freedom and human rights".[14] He is also critical of the R2P doctrine, believing that it is "a tool of U.S. intervention".
how often do you agree with this author?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Would the Arab Spring have come about if not for the Iraq War, Daesh?
evince
Truthmatters
yes It would come
this is the sell Chenny made to Bush so he could lie us to war.
You see they will come to it someday
no mater how much you hate them or not
how many of the humans in the area are DEAD because your evil owners wanted o get at he oil in there before it became obsolete and didn't care how many peoples lives were ended for them to get at it?
You are a sociopath so that doesn't mater to your ilk
this is the sell Chenny made to Bush so he could lie us to war.
You see they will come to it someday
no mater how much you hate them or not
how many of the humans in the area are DEAD because your evil owners wanted o get at he oil in there before it became obsolete and didn't care how many peoples lives were ended for them to get at it?
You are a sociopath so that doesn't mater to your ilk