Libya: BP Evacuates Workers Amid Unrest (click here)
:39pm UK,Monday February 21, 2011
BP has said it was evacuating families of workers and non-essential staff from Libya in the wake of political unrest....
It wasn't enough that Paulson lost the opportunity to actually affiliate with real terrorists that have prostate cancer and destroy jet planes full of people, but, the USA House of Representatives actually DO NOT understand what is occuring in Libya. Not the Senate, but, the House.Okay.
So, where exactly is the confusion, the fact that the United Nation's Resolution 1973 BARS occupation of foreign troops or the fact the oil fields haven't been given to Halliburton yet?
Oh, the Paulson thing? Yeah. Goldman Sachs was seeking to invest heavily in the oil fields in Libya before the rebels decided to take over the country. I am sure they were looking forward to hunkering down with Gadaffi, getting to know him and laughing about the fact MONEY can buy loyality even where the law prohibits it. You know, the prostate cancer charade.
There were actually two bills, one by Representative Kucinich removing the USA from the engagement with NATO into Libya and the other was by Speaker Boner that calls for clarification of the engagement OR ELSE. The OR ELSE is for political propaganda as the Boner bill that passed 268 to 145 vs. the Kucinich bill that failed 148-265. The Kucinich bill recieved bipartisan support as a note of order.
...The resolution by Speaker John Boehner (click title to entry - thank you) said the president has failed to provide a "compelling rationale" for the nearly 3-month old operation to aid rebels battling Moammar Gadhafi's forces. During Friday's debate, Democrats and Republicans complained that Obama ignored Congress' constitutional authority to declare war.
The nonbinding measure insists that Obama provide Congress with details on the scope of the mission and its costs within 14 days. It also bars U.S. ground forces except to rescue an American service member....
But, the Boner Bill does not carry any clout as it is NON - BINDING. The measure does not require any USA involvement to end either. The House was provided information about the NATO decision in the first week of USA involvement, but, evidently can't seem to come to conclusions regarding the topic.
"This resolution puts the president on notice," Boehner said on the floor. "He has the chance to get this right, and if he doesn't, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and we will make it right."
Speaker Boner sells his soul for the chance to espouse political rhetoric. I would think someone that has been in the USA House of Representatives since 1991 would understand the 'precedent' that has been drawn on by the President in order to assist allies in NATO.
It goes like this and to begin, USA intelligence is deployed 'on the ground' in the capacity of intelligence gathering. That is for the specific reason for the safety of civilians as it is nearly impoossible at times to discern rebel movements, etc.
Beyond that there is precedent for the USA to act. First established precedent, is the NATO air campaign to stop Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in 1999. The USA, under Former President Clinton, didn't even have a UN Security Council Resolution when it engaged in these actions in Bosnia. The NATO parties involved were left to their own jurisprudence to decide their actions. The actions in Libya carry the brevity of having not just allies, but, a UN Security Council Resolution invoking the powers of NATO to act to protect the citizens of Libya.
Kosovo remembers 1999 air strikes (click here)
23/03/2011
...He describes how Serbian police came to expel his family from his house in Pristina during the night of March 24th.
"The Serbian police said, 'Do you see NATO? They are coming, but when they come, you will not be here'," he recalled....
But, where does the UN Security Council have the audacity to actually call for protections of civilians in a THEN sovereign country?
Remember Rwanda? Yes? Remember how President Clinton, even today, regrets not acting to stop that genocide? Yes? That 'refecltion' by the Former President and international coalitions began a policy called, "Responsibility to Protect." Most people haven't heard of it, but, certainly I would expect a USA House Speaker to not only KNOW what that policy states, but, to understand it and act on it.
Remember Rwanda? Yes? Remember how President Clinton, even today, regrets not acting to stop that genocide? Yes? That 'refecltion' by the Former President and international coalitions began a policy called, "Responsibility to Protect." Most people haven't heard of it, but, certainly I would expect a USA House Speaker to not only KNOW what that policy states, but, to understand it and act on it.
Here it is:
The RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT ("RtoP" or "R2P") (click here) is a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (ICRtoP) brings together NGOs from all regions of the world to strengthen normative consensus for RtoP, further the understanding of the norm, push for strengthened capacities to prevent and halt genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and mobilize NGOs to push for action to save lives in RtoP country-specific situations. |
If I can refer to Darfur for an analogy.
There are many, many NGOs involved in the Darfur region to assist in the SURVIVAL of people victimized by their government. In order for NGOs to operate 'at all' they need some degree of 'tolerance' to provide the needed supplies to people marginally surviving.
Understanding how vital NGOs are to survival efforts to prevent genocide comes the understanding that for them to provide their services thet have to be reasonably safe. In case of Libya, there was a great deal of danger to the people of Libya directly from their government. The danger came in the way of military armaments and death. There was no way possible for the people of Libya to survive when their government turned against them and there was no way for NGOs to act in their benefit to insure their survival. What had to occur in Libya, as NATO decided, was to stop the bombing of civilians to allow for survival and actions by NGOs to take place. As much as diplomacy worked in Darfur, to somewhat of an effective degree, it was not at all working in Libya.
So, to insure the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was to be effective there was only one resolve left to the international community consisting of NATO; they had to disarm Libya and remove the dangers to its' civilians and the life saving work of international NGOs. There was only one way of doing that and only one country within the NATO Alliance that could carry that directive to completion. I remind, France was the first of NATO allies to enter Libyan air space and did so heroically and without USA involvement at that time. But, France's capacity still wasn't able to address the battery of Libya's national missile defense system and the USA could.
So, to realize how LAX the USA House of Representatives actually is under Republican leadership and majority, this topic is actually closed as the President acted appropriately in support of alliances this country values and has been long standing. He acted as Commander and Chief well within his power and it is the USA House of Representatives that is proving to prove to be incompetent.
I mean really.
