De Arabische lente, Libië & de NWO

[corse]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dr. Strangelove

Alex Jones is één van die Amerikaanse mafketels die denken dat de VN en de Bilderberg-groep een communistische samenzwering is.

Tja, negeren die handel, dat is al wat je kan doen vrees ik. Wie zo'n onzin kan uitkramen, is niet vatbaar voor redelijke argumentatie.

Analyse van de dominante economische wereldhiërarchie: (vrije markt kapitalisme)

De economische dominante wereldhiërarchie gebaseerd op krediet, aanvang 1946 tot heden.
De Bilderberg groep, de verenging der werelddictators, de vrije markt extremisten.
Deze organisaties zetten mensen (de wereldsamenleving) onder druk: (de schuldeneconomie)
Gemanipuleerde en gecontroleerde muntontwaarding of muntopwaardering aan de hand van de medewerking met het systeem, sancties: onderwaardering van de munt of boycot.

De machtsstructuur van het kapitalisme en de vrije markt:

1. Bilderberg groep, (niet democratisch verkozen) (invloedrijke figuren uit het bedrijfsleven)
2. WTO,…… (niet democratisch verkozen) (Wereldhandelsorganisatie)
3. Wereldbank, (niet democratisch verkozen) (eigendom van haar aandeelhouders) (krediet)
4. Council on Foreign Relations wordt de TLC in een aantal theorieën wel gezien als de grote machtsdriehoek van de heersende geprivilegieerde elite. (niet democratisch verkozen)
5. De Trilaterale Commissie (TLC) is een privé-organisatie opgericht in 1973 op initiatief van David Rockefeller. (niet democratisch verkozen)
6. G20 (niet democratisch verkozen) (illegale politieke bemiddeling achter gesloten deuren)
7. De 9.000 hoofdfondsen, de instrumenten van de economische wereld dictators. (krediet)
8. IMF,……… (niet democratisch verkozen) (Internationaal Monetair Fonds) (krediet)
9. Europa…… (Hulp en krediet voor landen in nood) (krediet)
10. Nationaal politiek (democratisch verkozen worden betekend niet democratisch regeren)
11. Privaat banken en staats banken. (krediet)
12. Burgers. (krediet) (de gedupeerde en sociale slachtoffers)
13. Volgende generatie, eerst het krediet betalen van de vorige generatie! ) (de gedupeerde)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0yU37mHf_M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfgCYGi65WM

[zonbron]

Globalists Coming Full Circle
Obama executes final leg of Neo-Conservative imperialism
door Tony Cartalucci

Long before the verified lies of Qaddafi's "door-to-door" genocide and even before the media cleverly tagged the engineered destabilization of the Middle East the "Arab Spring," Libya was already marked for destabilization and regime change. For nearly thirty years the US and UK have funded groups both inside Libya and beyond its borders in various attempts to remove Qaddafi from power. The current administration's feigned ignorance over the nature of the rebels in Libya is nothing short of absolute deception. The CIA and MI6 are on record for decades following, and in many cases supporting, these very groups.

Below is a partial time line covering Western efforts to implement regime change in Libya.

1980's: US-CIA backed National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) made multiple attempts to assassinate Qaddafi and initiate armed rebellion throughout Libya.
1990's: Noman Benotman and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) wage a campaign of terror against Qaddafi with Osama Bin Laden's assistance.
2003: Upon Qaddafi's abandonment of WMD programs, Libya's collaboration with MI6 & the CIA to identify and expose the LIFG networks begins, giving Western intelligence a windfall of information regarding the group.
2005: NFSL's Ibrahim Sahad founds the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London England.
2011: Early February, the London based NCLO calls for a Libyan "Day of Rage," beginning the "February 17th revolution."
2011: Late February, NFSL/NCLO's Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric, literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiated accusations Qaddafi is strafing "unarmed protesters" with warplanes.
2011: Late February, Senators Lieberman and McCain and UK PM David Cameron call for providing air cover for Libyan rebels as well as providing them additional arms.
2011: Early March; it is revealed UK SAS special forces are already operating inside Libya
2011: Mid-March; UN adopts no-fly zone over Libya, including air strikes. Immediately, the mission is changed from "protecting civilians" to "ousting Qaddafi." Egypt violates the arms embargo of UN r.1973 with Washington's full knowledge by supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, while Al Qaeda's ties to the rebels are admitted by everyone including the rebels themselves.
...
Meer

[zonbron]

Exposing the International Arbiters
The corporate funded exploitation of freedom, democracy, and human rights.
door Tony Cartalucci



Bangkok, Thailand April 10, 2011 - The colorful maps of press freedom, democracy, and other metrics we are told are indicative of a free and prosperous society are the products of wholly corporate funded special interest lobbying groups like "Reporters Without Borders," "Transparency International," and the fraudulent "Human Rights Watch." In giving us a clear picture of freedom, prosperity, and human rights throughout the world, they are about as accurate and as useful as divining rods are at finding water.

These large multinational organizations may include professional, dedicated, and immensely sincere people from all walks of life who believe in their cause, however, the vector sum of their effort is to advance the collective interests of the corporations that populate the board of directors and fund them.

Libya

The hyped, unverified hearsay coming out of Egypt, Libya, and now Syria regarding "alleged" brutal crackdowns on "unarmed" protesters has been lent legitimacy by being repeated through organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW). In fact, nearly all of HRWs reports are merely collections of witness accounts, allegations, and hearsay, generally from protesters and opposition members and entirely devoid of any empirical evidence. Hearsay, one would reasonably think, is a good impetus for further investigation, not drawing a conclusion. For HRW however, the conclusion is usually already politically predetermined. In Libya's case, Qaddafi's ouster was a given, leaving HRW the task of simply filling in a compelling narrative.
...

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/20...-arbiters.html

[zonbron]

Waarom werd Glenn Beck ontslagen ?



Een analyse door Brother Nathanael

Why Did Fox Terminate Glenn Beck?

Christians United for Israel (CUFI.org) steunen Glenn Beck

Pastor John Hagee and the leadership of Christians United for Israel are thrilled to announce that Glenn Beck will be the keynote speaker at the national Night to Honor Israel Banquet during the Washington Summit on Tuesday, July 19, 2011.

Night to Honor Israel Banquet:
Now to April 30, 2011 $75
After April 30, 2011 $100

Meer op de site van Christians for Israel
http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer
http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=2011Summit

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Waar beweert hij dat ? Bron ? Link ?

ja sorry hoor, ik heb geen zin om door een stroom artikels van een deranged lunatic te waden om de juiste link te vinden.

Google anders eens met de zoektermen: 'Alex Jones', 'UN', 'Communism', 'Bilderberg' en 'one world government'

je zal duizenden links vinden

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door corse

Analyse van de dominante economische wereldhiërarchie: (vrije markt kapitalisme)

De economische dominante wereldhiërarchie gebaseerd op krediet, aanvang 1946 tot heden.
De Bilderberg groep, de verenging der werelddictators, de vrije markt extremisten.
Deze organisaties zetten mensen (de wereldsamenleving) onder druk: (de schuldeneconomie)
Gemanipuleerde en gecontroleerde muntontwaarding of muntopwaardering aan de hand van de medewerking met het systeem, sancties: onderwaardering van de munt of boycot.

De machtsstructuur van het kapitalisme en de vrije markt:

1. Bilderberg groep, (niet democratisch verkozen) (invloedrijke figuren uit het bedrijfsleven)
2. WTO,…… (niet democratisch verkozen) (Wereldhandelsorganisatie)
3. Wereldbank, (niet democratisch verkozen) (eigendom van haar aandeelhouders) (krediet)
4. Council on Foreign Relations wordt de TLC in een aantal theorieën wel gezien als de grote machtsdriehoek van de heersende geprivilegieerde elite. (niet democratisch verkozen)
5. De Trilaterale Commissie (TLC) is een privé-organisatie opgericht in 1973 op initiatief van David Rockefeller. (niet democratisch verkozen)
6. G20 (niet democratisch verkozen) (illegale politieke bemiddeling achter gesloten deuren)
7. De 9.000 hoofdfondsen, de instrumenten van de economische wereld dictators. (krediet)
8. IMF,……… (niet democratisch verkozen) (Internationaal Monetair Fonds) (krediet)
9. Europa…… (Hulp en krediet voor landen in nood) (krediet)
10. Nationaal politiek (democratisch verkozen worden betekend niet democratisch regeren)
11. Privaat banken en staats banken. (krediet)
12. Burgers. (krediet) (de gedupeerde en sociale slachtoffers)
13. Volgende generatie, eerst het krediet betalen van de vorige generatie! ) (de gedupeerde)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0yU37mHf_M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfgCYGi65WM

Wel inderdaad ja Corse, de Bilderberg groep is duidelijk pro-vrije markt, pro-kapitalistisch, en zit vol prinsen en figuren uit het bedrijfsleven.

Dus, verklaar jij dan eens dat volgens de rechts-libertaire Amerikanen zoals Alex Jones, de Bilderberg-group mee deel uit maakt van een grote samenzwering die als doel heeft een communistische wereldregering op de been te zetten. En meestal wordt de CFR dan ook mee als onderdeel van deze zogenaamde samenzwering gezien.

Dat is dus niet logisch consistent hé!
Dat er Amerikanen zijn die in dergelijke onzin geloven, kan ik ergens nog wel begrijpen, gezien het sterke souvereiniteitsdenken daar en het grote wantrouwen tegen internationale instellingen dat daar heerst. Maar ik snap niet dat jij geloof zou hechten aan het idiote amalgaam dat wordt gemaakt van tientallen verschillende organisaties, elk met hun eigen doelen, belangen en oorsprong.

Bvb: Rockefeller behoort in de VS duidelijk tot het 'linkse' kamp, de Democraten dus (en binnen de Democraten is hij, ondanks zijn groot persoonlijk vermogen, ook nog eens een zogenaamde 'liberal').
Dus voor uiterst-rechtse Amerikanen kan het misschien normaal lijken om zo iemand een socialist of een communist te noemen (ze doen dit al met Obama, een centrum-democraat die hier gewoon bij de VLD zou zitten). En dus wordt alles waar Rockefeller mee te maken heeft gehad (de CFR, de TLC) meteen ook als 'communistisch' gelabeld door dergelijke tea-party-libertairen.

Maar voor jou, die heel goed weet dat een liberale Democraat mijlenver afstaat van het communisme, zou het toch duidelijk moeten zijn dat die mannen onzin verkopen?
En als ze zo verkeerd zijn op dat punt, ze waarschijnlijk op andere punten ook wel eens de bal ferm zullen misslaan, denk je niet?

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dr. Strangelove

ja sorry hoor, ik heb geen zin om door een stroom artikels van een deranged lunatic te waden om de juiste link te vinden.

Google anders eens met de zoektermen: 'Alex Jones', 'UN', 'Communism', 'Bilderberg' en 'one world government'

je zal duizenden links vinden

Ja, inderdaad, aangezien die kerel dagelijks over politiek en aanverwanten praat zal je wel duizenden links vinden met die zoektermen, zoals je diezelfde zoektermen ook voor andere personen/sites kan aanwenden om eveneens duizenden links te vinden.

Maar ik begrijp je wel en verder merk ik even op dat ik geen fan van AJ ben. Hij heeft soms nuttige en betrouwbare informatie, soms gewoonweg desinformatie.
Google is een nuttig instrument om de info die hij geeft aan de werkelijkheid te toetsen.
Het is in elk geval interessanter op te merken welke onderwerpen hij als de pest vermijdt of ridiculiseert.

Verder beschouw ik de luidruchtige fearmonger AJ=Glenn Beck en consoorten... Niet te betrouwen. Zoekmachines en officiele documenten zijn uw vriend...

[zonbron]

Het is officieel: De 'Arabische lente'-subversie is door de VS gefinancierd
door Tony Cartalucci

It's Official: "Arab Spring" Subversion is US Funded
Doubts laid to rest; counter revolutions to come.ie
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand April 15, 2011 - As American bombs rain down upon Libya on the premise that Qaddafi was brutalizing indigenous pro-democratic demonstrators, the accusing fingers of Libya, Iran, China, Syria, Belarus, and a growing number of other nations are pointing at Washington for funding and plotting regime change against their respective governments. Either in an act of absolute hubris or to spin emerging evidence that the US indeed has been funding and preparing the ground for the "Arab Spring" for years, New York Times has recently published "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings."

Essentially throwing these activists under the bus, New York Times exposes that the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, and Entsar Qadhi of Yemen amongst others, received training and financing from the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and the Neo-Conservative lined Freedom House.


The New York Times goes on to explain that these organizations are in turn funded by the National Endowment for Democracy which receives 100 million USD from Congress while Freedom House receives most of its money from the US State Department. While the New York Times asserts "no one doubts that the Arab uprisings are home grown," leaders of groups now admittedly funded and trained by the US are anything but "home grown." The most prominent example is the April 6 Movement of Egypt led by Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Crisis Group. ElBaradei sitting along side George Soros, Kenneth Adelman, Wesley Clark, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, within a US foreign policy think-tank engenders a considerable amount of "doubt."

Meer

Amerikaanse groepen helpten met het organiseren van de Arabische opstanden

U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings
By RON NIXON
Published: April 14, 2011


WASHINGTON — Even as the United States poured billions of dollars into foreign military programs and anti-terrorism campaigns, a small core of American government-financed organizations were promoting democracy in authoritarian Arab states.

The money spent on these programs was minute compared with efforts led by the Pentagon. But as American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections.

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.

...

Some Egyptian youth leaders attended a 2008 technology meeting in New York, where they were taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy. Among those sponsoring the meeting were Facebook, Google, MTV, Columbia Law School and the State Department.

“We learned how to organize and build coalitions,” said Bashem Fathy, a founder of the youth movement that ultimately drove the Egyptian uprisings. Mr. Fathy, who attended training with Freedom House, said, “This certainly helped during the revolution.”

Ms. Qadhi, the Yemeni youth activist, attended American training sessions in Yemen.

“It helped me very much because I used to think that change only takes place by force and by weapons,” she said.

But now, she said, it is clear that results can be achieved with peaceful protests and other nonviolent means.
Meer nytimes

Het globale netwerk van de activisten, gesponsord door oa.

Bekijk de pagina van het globale netwerk van de activisten
http://www.movements.org/pages/sponsors

[zonbron]

NAVO vs. China ?

The NATO operation in Libya, argues author and journalist Patrick Henningsen, is really about targeting the third party nobody is talking about: China.

“NATO fighting another Cold War in Libya” – journalist

Meer + Video

“If you look at the Soviet Union vs. the West, the original Cold War, this was not so much a war that was fought face to face on a military field,” he said. “This was a war that was fought in third-party regions and usually through proxies, and this is exactly what we are seeing today, especially in the last month in North Africa.”

Henningsen stressed that the goals of intervention by the UN and NATO forces are very different from those drawn up in UN Resolution 1973.

“The goals are regime change, and also the goals are the control of resources in that region and the eviction – in other words, the dismantling – of Chinese economic interests in Africa,” he said.

[Piero]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Het is officieel: De 'Arabische lente'-subversie is door de VS gefinancierd
door Tony Cartalucci

Amerikaanse groepen helpten met het organiseren van de Arabische opstanden

Als u meent dat met de bewering: "De 'Arabische lente'-subversie is door de VS gefinancierd" bewezen is dat de VS verantwoordelijk is voor de revoluties in de Arabische wereld dan bent u hopeloos naïef.

Het is algemeen bekend dat politieke en religieuze groeperingen over de hele wereld gelijkgezinde groeperingen elders steunen. Dat geldt ook voor de Arabische landen. Dit betekent niet dat de Staat waar de donerende groeperingen verblijven hierin altijd betrokken is. En zelfs als dit zo is dan is het uitermate dom om te veronderstellen dat de VS in staat is om in islamitische landen honderdduizenden of miljoenen mensen te beïnvloeden zonder daar op de preekstoelen van de moskees te staan.

Dus het idee dat de VS bij de subversiviteit in Tunesië, Egypte, Jemen of Lybië zelfs maar een geringe rol heeft gespeeld vind ik vooralsnog uitermate bespottelijk.

[zonbron]

Michael Scheuer, ex CIA baas contraterrorism op RT TV.

Video

[Cynara Cardunculus]

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/9556/Opstan...Misurata.dhtml

Geen commentaren? Nog steeds niet? 800 burgerslachtoffers en geen gejoel?

O nee, het zijn gewoon moslims die medemoslims afslachten. No probs. No Jews.

[Piero]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Cynara Cardunculus

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/9556/Opstan...Misurata.dhtml

Geen commentaren? Nog steeds niet? 800 burgerslachtoffers en geen gejoel?

O nee, het zijn gewoon moslims die medemoslims afslachten. No probs. No Jews.

Het is u misschien niet bekend dat dit forum bedoeld is om een mening te posten over 'de Arabische lente'; eventueel kan men reageren op een post van iemand anders. Maar beschuldigend 'reageren' op wat niemand heeft geschreven is een ad hominem tegen iedereen; en dat is uitermate dom.

[zonbron]

Enkele citaten uit een vrij lange tekst ivm R2P, de VS en de VN.

GEORGE SOROS STARTS HIS ONE WORLD ORDER – Responsibility to Protect – In Libya – Whether you like it or not

Congress Go Home You are Worthless. Soros Commands, Obama Decrees and We Pay

The U.S. Should Reject the U.N. George Soros “Responsibility to Protect” Doctrine and Stop The WAR IN LIBYA

The “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine outlines the conditions in which a communistic idea in which the the international community is obligated to intervene in another country, militarily if necessary, to prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities. Despite its noble goals, the United States should treat the R2P doctrine with extreme caution.

Adopting a George Soros doctrine that compels the United States to act to prevent atrocities occurring in other countries would be risky and imprudent. U.S. independence — hard won by the Founders and successive generations of Americans — would be compromised if the United States consented to be legally bound by the R2P doctrine. The United States needs to preserve its national sovereignty by maintaining a monopoly on the decision to deploy diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, political coercion, and especially its military forces.

There are ongoing efforts to legitimize the R2P George Soros one world doctrine within the United Nations and other international forums. The R2P doctrine is being advocated by certain wonderful sounding, but evil organizations that do not necessarily consider the best interests of the United States as a priority. International organizations such as the United Nations and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the World Federalist Movement and the Open Society Institute promote R2P in the interest of a nebulous “international community,” not in the interests of the United States or its citizens.

If the United States intervenes in the affairs of another nation, that decision should be based on U.S. national interest, not on any other criteria such as those set forth by the R2P doctrine or any other international “test.”

Origins of the R2P Doctrine
Military intervention by one sovereign nation into another for humanitarian purposes has long been a controversial topic. In the wake of the tragedies in Rwanda and Srebrenica during the mid-1990s, the Canadian government — at the urging of then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan — launched an initiative to set forth principles for when and under what conditions such an intervention would be justified. To this end, Canada announced in September 2000 the formation of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) to “foster a global political consensus” for preventing and responding to future incidents of mass killing and ethnic cleansing.

The ICISS Report. In December 2001, the ICISS issued a comprehensive report, The Responsibility to Protect.[1] Its two key provisions may be summarized as follows:
1. National governments are responsible for preventing large-scale losses of life and ethnic cleansing in their own populations.
2. In the event that a national government is unable or unwilling to prevent such atrocities, the international community, acting through the United Nations, has a responsibility to act and protect the suffering population, with or without the consent of the recalcitrant government.
The first of these provisions is already widely accepted. To date, 140 nations have pledged to protect their respective populations from genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: “The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” If a national government fails to protect its own population from genocide or other atrocities, the R2P doctrine holds that the government effectively forfeits its sovereignty and negates its ability to raise the principle of nonintervention to prevent other nations from intervening to protect the vulnerable population.

The second key provision of the ICISS report purports to create an obligation for nations to act to prevent atrocities not only within their own borders, but also in other nations. Specifically, the report states that the international community has a responsibility to intervene in another country with military force to stop:
1. “large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation” or
2. “large scale ‘ethnic cleansing,’ actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape.”
3.
A New “International Norm.” The R2P doctrine is the latest example of an attempt by certain actors in the international community to create new “international norms” to comport with their particular view of how nations should behave. Often, when there is a perceived need for a new international norm, certain members of the international community — usually international NGOs, government representatives, U.N. officials, and other activists — will gather at a conference for the purpose of “discovering” and/or developing the new norm. These groupings meet to determine what the new norm should entail, write reports, convene conferences, and build networks. They may ultimately call for a convention of national governments to draft a multilateral treaty to memorialize the new norm.

...


The R2P doctrine is traveling along the same path. On December 12, 2007, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon created a new assistant secretary-general position, Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, and appointed Professor Edward Luck of Columbia University to fill it. As the special adviser, Luck’s primary responsibility “will be conceptual development and consensus building, to assist the General Assembly to continue consideration” of the R2P doctrine. Luck will help the Secretary-General “develop proposals, through a broad consultative process, to be considered by the United Nations membership.”

Notably, only three paragraphs of almost 180 paragraphs and 40 pages of the Outcome Document address the R2P doctrine. Yet it was deemed necessary to create a new assistant secretary-general position for the sole purpose of promoting the R2P doctrine.

Advocacy in the International NGO Community. R2P advocates have launched a worldwide effort to convince the international community to recognize and accept R2P as a universally accepted doctrine.
For example, in February 2008, a coalition of international NGOs that includes Human Rights Watch and the World Federalist Movement teamed with such sponsors as George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to launch the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect at the City University of New York. The Global Centre will “serve [as] a catalyst for moving the responsibility to protect from principle to practice.” It “will conduct, coordinate, and publish research on refining and applying the R2P concept” and “serve as an information clearing house and resource for governments, international institutions, and non-governmental organizations leading the fight against mass atrocities.”

Several other international groups have networked with the Global Centre to advocate for R2P around the world, including the Asia–Pacific Centre for Responsibility to Protect in Thailand, the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre in Ghana, the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs, and the Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior in Spain.
Another group — the R2P Coalition — focuses on advocating R2P in the United States. Based in Illinois, the coalition’s mission is:
 “To convince the American people and its leaders to embrace the norm of the responsibility to protect as a domestic and foreign policy priority,”
 “To convince our political leadership that the U.S. must join the ICC,” and
 “To convince our political leadership to empower the UN and the ICC with a legitimate and effective deterrent and enforcement mechanism — an International Marshals Service — a standing international police force to arrest atrocity crimes indictees.”
The R2P Coalition hosted a series of conferences in 2007 and convinced several local governmental entities — such as the City and County of San Francisco — to pass resolutions endorsing the R2P doctrine.

...

I supported humanitarian intervention in order to stop genocide in Kosovo. I wish that the U.S. had acted — with force if necessary — to stop genocide in Rwanda. In neither of these places were America’s vital national security interests at stake, though our national values were. Murder in Kosovo and genocide in Rwanda demanded intervention.
Senator McCain also stated:
Africa continues to offer the most compelling case for humanitarian intervention. With respect to the Darfur region of Sudan, I fear that the United States is once again repeating the mistakes it made in Bosnia and Rwanda…. My administration will consider the use of all elements of American power to stop the outrageous acts of human destruction that have unfolded there.

While neither Senator McCain nor Senator Clinton has explicitly recognized the existence of a legal obligation to intervene in another country where atrocities are occurring, both have characterized the prevention of genocide as a U.S. national interest, although they apparently disagree on whether or not it constitutes a national security interest.
While genocide, war crimes, and other atrocities will always be incompatible with American values, the McCain and Clinton statements raise the issue of whether preventing genocide and ethnic cleansing would necessarily constitute a vital U.S. national interest. In some situations, acts of large-scale ethnic cleansing in some remote nation may indeed affect U.S. national interests.
However, the real question is whether or not the United States should obligate itself through an international compact to use its military forces as the rest of the world sees fit in cases of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Accepting such an obligation would arguably empower other nations to judge whether U.S. national interests or national values are at stake. That begs the question of who will decide whether the United States must commit its limited resources — including its military forces — to prevent atrocities occurring in a foreign land. The R2P doctrine is designed to take decision making on these crucial issues out of the hands of the United States and place it in the hands of the international community, operating through the United Nations.
If the United States consented to such a doctrine, it would effectively surrender its authority to exercise an essential, sovereign power.

First Principles and National Sovereignty
The United States must not surrender its independence and sovereignty cavalierly. The Founding Fathers and subsequent generations of Americans paid a high price to achieve America’s sovereignty and secure the unalienable rights of U.S. citizens. The government formed by the Founders to safeguard American independence and protect individual rights derives its powers from the consent of the governed, not from any other nation or group of nations.
Having achieved its independence by fighting a costly war, America’s Founders approached permanent alliances and foreign entanglements with a fair degree of skepticism. President George Washington, in his 1796 farewell address, favored extending America’s commercial relations with other nations but warned against extensive political connections. Washington well understood that legitimate governments are formed only through gaining the consent of the people. He therefore placed a high value on the independence that the United States had achieved and was rightfully dubious about involvement in European intrigues.

Integral to national sovereignty is the right to make authoritative decisions on foreign policy and national resources, particularly the use of the nation’s military forces. Many of the reasons why America fought the War of Independence against Great Britain revolved around Britain’s taxation of the American people without their consent and its practice of “declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” Once America gained control of its revenue, natural resources, and industry and had formed a government separate and apart from any other, the Founders would not have compromised or delegated its prerogatives to any other nation or group of nations.

...

Specifically, the R2P doctrine requires the United States or any other nation seeking to end genocide to ask the U.N. Security Council for permission to intervene. Indeed, the ICISS report states that the Security Council should be the “first port of call” and that there is “absolutely no doubt that there is no better or more appropriate body than the Security Council to deal with military intervention issues for human protection purposes.”[49] The Security Council’s failure to act in Rwanda and Srebrenica — the very situations that gave rise to the ICISS effort — is apparently of little consequence.
Moreover, even if the Security Council fails to act, the R2P doctrine does not free the United States or any other nation to act. Instead, it suggests that authority for military intervention must be sought either from the U.N. General Assembly or from regional or sub-regional organizations.

The U.S. national interest — not the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. General Assembly, or any other regional organization — should dictate the use of U.S. military force as well as the imposition of economic, political, and diplomatic sanctions. Whether that interest is best pursued through the U.N. Security Council, through NATO, in ad hoc “coalitions of the willing,” or completely alone is for the President, the Congress, and the American people to decide. History shows that most nations decide to use their military forces based, first, on their own interests; second, on the interests of their close allies; and last, if at all, on the interests of an undefined “international community.” The United States should not submit to a doctrine that would make it the perennial exception to that historical trend.

...


The United States should therefore continue to treat the responsibility to protect doctrine with grave skepticism. The independence won by the Founders and defended by subsequent generations of Americans should not be squandered, but rather should be safeguarded from furtive encroachments by the international community.
Only by maintaining a monopoly on the deployment of diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, political coercion, and military forces will the United States preserve its national sovereignty. Acceding to a set of criteria such as those set forth by the R2P doctrine would be a dangerous and unnecessary step toward bolstering the authority of the United Nations and the international community and would compromise the consent of the American people.

Lees het volledig artikel

[zonbron]

Meer over R2P

George Soros – Responsibility to Protect’ – The End of National Sovereignty as We Know it?

By Trevor Loudon

Why Did U.S. President Barack Obama order a military attack on Libya? Why did he seek the permission of the United Nations Security Council, but not that of the U.S. Congress – as he is constitutionally obliged to do? Glenn Beck has explained President Obama’s decision to attack Libya in terms of the United Nations’ “Responsibility to Protect Doctrine”
Mr Beck is right.

According to Radio Free Europe
Those who justify the Libyan intervention on humanitarian grounds draw much of their logic from a concept which has dramatically gained ground over recent decades. The concept is known as “R2P,” shorthand for the world’s “Responsibility to Protect” civilians.
But what does this catchy little phrase mean? Where did it come from? What are its implications?

The United Nations reported in July 2009;
The Obama administration is supporting moves to implement a U.N. doctrine calling for collective military action to halt genocide. In a week-long debate on implementing theResponsibility to Protect Doctrine, the U.S. joined a majority of U.N. countries, including Russia and China, in supporting implementation of the policy. The doctrine itself was approved in 2005 by more than 150 states including the U.S.

The doctrine specifies that diplomatic options such as internal conflict resolution, sanctions and prosecution by the International Criminal Court, should be used first. If they don’t work, then a multi-national force approved by the Security Council would be deployed.
In other words, if the United Nations does not approve of a certain government’s behavior, and that government’s leaders will not respond to sanctions and the threat of prosecution, they will be attacked militarily.

The U.S. organization supporting this concept, named unsurprisingly Responsibility to Protect is affiliated to a financial planning firm, General Welfare Group LLC, based in Oak Brook Illinois.
According to the Responsibility to Protect website:
The doctrine of the responsibility to protect was first elaborated in 2001 by a group of prominent international human rights leaders comprising the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Under their mandate, the Commission sought to undertake the two-fold challenge of reconciling the international community’s responsibility to address massive violations of humanitarian norms and ensuring respect for the sovereign rights of nation states.

Led by Gareth Evans, former Foreign Minister of Australia, and Mohamed Sahnoun, Special Advisor to the UN Secretary-General, the Commission issued its report in December 2001. Focusing on the “right of humanitarian intervention,” this report examined when, if ever, it is appropriate for states to take coercive – and in particular military – action, against another state for the purpose of protecting populations at risk. In essence, the group concluded that when a group (or groups) of people is suffering from egregious acts of violence resulting from internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state where these crimes are taking place is unable or unwilling to act to prevent or protect its peoples, the international community has a moral duty to intervene to avert or halt these atrocities from occurring.Gareth Evans, an Australian Fabian Socialist and Mohamed Sahnoun both worked with leftist financier George Soros in the highly influential International Crisis Group.

The “responsibility to protect” doctrine received renewed emphasis in 2004 when the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan created the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. The Panel was established to “identify major threats facing the international community in the broad field of peace and security and to generate new ideas about policies and institutions aimed at preventing or confronting these challenges.”

Bron

[zebrapad]

In een recenter verleden heb ik hier al de valkuil van R2P aangehaald. Persoonlijk ben ik een voorstander van R2P, maar enkel zonder valse voorwendselen.

Er bestaan 2 voorbeelden van R2P uit het verleden, voordat het onderwerp werd beschreven.

operatie Restore Hope in Somalië
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Task_Force
Die werd eigenlijk in het leven geroepen nadat er al een toestemming bestond voor Unosom, waarbij ook België een bijdrage ging leveren. Weinigen weten dat alvorens men met Unosom van start ging, de deelnemende contingenten werden ingezet onder Restore Hope, waarbij de toenmalige regering getracht heeft om van onder de opdracht uit te muizen.

Operatie Turquoise in Rwanda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Turquoise
Zogezegd om een veilige humanitaire zone te creëren, hebben de Fransen de restanten van het Habyarimana regime een veilige aftocht gegeven naar Zaïre. Men had toen de volledige militaire uitrusting, maar helaas weinig materiaal voor de humanitaire ramp.



R2P in Libië is van hetzelfde laken een zeel, omdat men nog niet vertrokken is, en men had al het goede en het slechte kamp aangeduid. Blijkbaar is dat belangrijk voor de bescherming van burgers...
Hoe een dergelijke humanitaire constructie totaal word verneukt, voor belangen en geostrategische doelstellingen word uitgelegd door Eva Brems (groen). En dat komt dan van iemand die doceert in internationaal recht.
http://www.evabrems.be/pm_brems_de_v...otect%E2%80%99


Rond R2P bestaan heel wat denktanks, en een springt eruit
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/maro/index.php

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zebrapad

In een recenter verleden heb ik hier al de valkuil van R2P aangehaald. Persoonlijk ben ik een voorstander van R2P, maar enkel zonder valse voorwendselen.

Er bestaan 2 voorbeelden van R2P uit het verleden, voordat het onderwerp werd beschreven.

operatie Restore Hope in Somalië
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Task_Force
Die werd eigenlijk in het leven geroepen nadat er al een toestemming bestond voor Unosom, waarbij ook België een bijdrage ging leveren. Weinigen weten dat alvorens men met Unosom van start ging, de deelnemende contingenten werden ingezet onder Restore Hope, waarbij de toenmalige regering getracht heeft om van onder de opdracht uit te muizen.

Operatie Turquoise in Rwanda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Turquoise
Zogezegd om een veilige humanitaire zone te creëren, hebben de Fransen de restanten van het Habyarimana regime een veilige aftocht gegeven naar Zaïre. Men had toen de volledige militaire uitrusting, maar helaas weinig materiaal voor de humanitaire ramp.



R2P in Libië is van hetzelfde laken een zeel, omdat men nog niet vertrokken is, en men had al het goede en het slechte kamp aangeduid. Blijkbaar is dat belangrijk voor de bescherming van burgers...
Hoe een dergelijke humanitaire constructie totaal word verneukt, voor belangen en geostrategische doelstellingen word uitgelegd door Eva Brems (groen). En dat komt dan van iemand die doceert in internationaal recht.
http://www.evabrems.be/pm_brems_de_v...otect%E2%80%99


Rond R2P bestaan heel wat denktanks, en een springt eruit
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/maro/index.php

Bedankt voor de info @zebrapad !

Akkoord, alles kan een goed voorstel zijn, maar dan wel met duidelijke en ondubbelzinnige spelregels.


En... Groen!, wat meer verwachten? Mag het hun goed gaan.

[zonbron]

Remember Google Video


Bush Senior... New World Order Rule of LAW, not of the jungle... when 'we' are successfull... and we will be...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...43478240597133

[zonbron]

Kissinger wil grondtroepen in Libië

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Trilateral Commission (TC) luminaries were bouncing like yo-yos during their meeting in Washington April 8-10, when they met at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs.

Next, they hopped up the street to an Aspen Institute session on “Values and Diplomacy” at the National Cathedral, then some darted north to the historic Bretton Woods II conference in New Hampshire. Several Aspen Institute leaders also attend Trilateral and Bilderberg meetings.

Since these sessions happened around the same time, the international elite had to agree on instructions to give the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), which met in Washington over the weekend of April 16 to April 17.

Henry Kissinger was the biggest yo-yo, giving the same speech at all of these meetings. David Rockefeller, 94, had less bounce. As Rockefeller’s valet, Kissinger kept his wheelchair moving briskly.

Kissinger, visibly depressed, gave a rationale for the war on Libya that the TC and its brother group, Bilderberg, want to keep rolling, according to an inside source who has proved reliable for years. Both groups want the war extended through 2012 to generate turmoil throughout the Middle East and pressure the United States into attacking Iran on behalf of Israel.Which would also produce huge war profits.

That it would be the greatest disaster for American policy in history is not important to these meddlers. In informal comments to bystanders before climbing to the podium, Kissinger continued groaning about a [expletive deleted] weekly journal that disclosed the Arab terrorists’ role in the Libyan rebellion.

But Kissinger’s only concern was that these facts “being forced into the national press makes it more difficult” to sell the invasion of Libya. After AFP exposed this, the major media picked it up but, for the most part, folded it deep into their Libya stories.

In all three speeches, Kissinger played the reluctant damsel who was firmly convinced that the United States must put boots on the ground in Libya—among all the wars that the U.S. is already involved in. America “should always support democracy and human rights politically, economically and diplomatically, just as we championed freedom for the Captive Nations during the ColdWar,” Kissinger said. “But as a general principle, our country should do so militarily only when a national interest is also at stake.”

He called this position “pragmatic realism.” So what is America’s national interest that is “at stake”? Libya is “an exception to the rule,” he explained.

While the United States has “no vital interest at stake in Libya,” Kissinger said, “a limited military intervention solely on humanitarian grounds could be justified.”

Muammar Qadaffi’s forces had already caused heavy casualties among civilians, he claimed. But no one will know for sure whether that is even true until the dust settles and independent journalists and researchers can get into Libya to study the situation. Again posturing as a reluctant warrior, Kissinger (a cook during World War II) said:

Our idealistic goals cannot be the sole motivation for the use of force. We cannot be the world’s policeman. We cannot use military force to meet every humanitarian challenge that might arise. Where would we stop? Syria, Yemen, Algeria or Iran? What about countries that have been strong allies but do not share all our values: Bahrain, Morocco and Saudi Arabia? What about humanitarian violations in other countries, such as Ivory Coast?

In defiance of facts to justify the U.S. attack, Kissinger reached for the nuclear button:

Conduct by Libya “may tempt the Iranian regime to speed its development of a nuclear weapon. Rogue states have to remain convinced of our determination to resist nuclear proliferation.”

So, according to Kissinger, invading Libya prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons that would threaten Israel. Kissinger was not merely mistaken, he was lying as defined by eight centuries of Anglo-Saxon common law.

It is a lie when one deliberately tells an untruth to enrich himself, injure another or both.

...

Meer

Een google video documentaire, 'the trials of Henry Kissinger'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...8527195635002#

[zonbron]

Whoopi Goldberg: Hoe kunnen de VS zich terugtrekken uit Libië/de oorlog ?
Ron Paul : (2.24) Video