After listening to Obama about the reason the Western powers moved against Gaddafi one might actually think that they really care about the people around the world that are being killed by tyrants. The same people pushing Obama’s foreign policy buttons are the ones that got “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) resolutions passed in the U.N. and other world governance resolutions. These are most often the same people whose names are found on elitist membership lists.<\/p>\n
These people want us to believe that they are so concerned about a few\u00a0 thousand people being killed in the civil war going on in Libya that they want military action, but we see that they could care less about allowing a North Korean tyrant much worse than Gaddafi to stay in power. Their inaction made certain that millions would starve to death in North Korea. Once again hundreds of thousands more will starve to death this year but they are concerned with Libya?\u00a0 These elitists are full of hypocrisy. Their world actions or inactions are all about appearances and about paving the way toward world government. They are not going to do anything that might actually cost them financial or political capital. They know it is not going to help the cause of world government when their world policemen are shipped home in body bags. So they will attack a weak nation by air so the risk to themselves is minimal. They did the same thing against the Serbs.<\/p>\n
That is why they do nothing about the tyrants running North Korea, China, Iran, Syria etc. but a Gaddafi in Libya cannot be tolerated. They have some delusion that a nation of warring tribes can be forced to comply with world socialist idealism. Those with this same delusional thinking are making the same errors in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. There will only be the sham of democracy in these places until the main world policeman removes its armed forces.<\/p>\n
I have to wonder if the real reason for military action in Libya was that the agents sent in by the leftist West to foster this rebellion were in danger of being massacred or exposed. After all, the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt started when Soros and Obama agitators organized it using the Internet.<\/p>\n
Everything is not as you are being led to believe in North Africa and the Middle East. They want us to believe that there is a pro democracy movement all over the Arab world and that it all happening spontaneously by freedom loving people – so we need to support it. The whole premise is a lie. There never was any real democracy in the Arab world and there cannot be any true democracy in the near future because if the Arab’s ever got a democratic vote they would just vote in their favorite warlord or religious leader and he would become tyrannical. The Left is so delusional that they think Islamic people will choose socialist world government after they throw off their secular tyrants.<\/p>\n
Instead of any real move toward democracy in the Middle East, we are already seeing that the Islamists are taking advantage of the situation in Egypt and elsewhere. The Muslim agitators are now using freedom slogans for deception to bring down the Middle East world order that was established by the West after World War I. They intend to replace it with a new Islamic caliphate. If they should ever accomplish their goals, their hatred toward the West and Israel will result in a world war, not a Marxist socialist paradise with a world without borders.<\/p>\n
Obama and the world leaders enforcing the “Responsibility to Protect” U.N. resolution first told us that the military action in Libya was to establish a no fly zone so that Gaddafi could not use his air force against civilians. However, NATO forces have gone beyond just enforcing a no fly zone they are now trying to destroy Gaddafi loyalists using air strikes. It is now clear that NATO forces have taken sides with the rebels against Gaddafi and his loyalists. Control of the rebels is already being taken over by Islamists. If the rebels start winning, Gaddafi loyalist civilians will certainly be massacred. So they trade a possible massacre of some that rebelled and took up arms against Gaddafi for a sure massacre of civilians if the rebels take over the tribal regions that support Gaddafi. You do not protect civilians by taking sides in a civil war. Once the rebels took up arms and formed an army to fight Gaddafi they are no longer civilians anyway.<\/p>\n
I find the term “innocent civilians” in a civil war to be a ridiculous term and it is self-serving to those that like to use such propaganda to get people to support their own positions. Who were the innocent civilians in our own civil war? If I recall all able-bodied men were forced to fight for one side or the other.<\/p>\n
There are a number of issues going on but Obama is not going to tell you that. He will just talk about protecting civilians when our real goal is to support the rebellions. As this rebellion succeeds their hope is that other Arab leaders will fall and democracy will be established in its place. Even so, democracy is not really the end goal either, because even a simpleton knows that any democratic vote in the Middle East will result in the Islamists taking control.<\/p>\n
Democracy to people like George Saros and others promoting one world government is to have local governments that are first subservient to elitist controlled global government and second to be subservient to the will of the local majority. Marxists are humanistic idealists. They do not live in a world of reality. Democracy in Islamic nations will always bring Sharia Law with clerical oversight that will enslave the people. They might participate in a world government but they will only use it toward their own ends and that end is a world submitted to Sharia Law and Allah.<\/p>\n
I think Libya to the socialist world elite is a pilot project or prototype for future U.N. action. If they are successful, it will establish a blueprint for governing the world. They are using the “Responsibility to Protect” resolution of the U.N. to carry out a pilot project on a small nation where they think the risk of failure is minimal. If it works out like they think, then it will establish precedence for the U.N. to police the world and enforce anything the elitists want in any nation through the R2P doctrine. There are scores of examples in the world where the R2P resolution could be invoked but there is one place where it is certain to occur. R2P doctrine will eventually lead to U.N. action against Israel. The next time Israel invades or bombs Gaza or Lebanon, if the U.S. does not veto, or is not able to veto, the R2P resolution will be invoked against\u00a0 Israel .<\/p>\n
Even though any sovereign ruling government would oppose the U.N. the whole premise under R2P is that the ruling administration has lost the privilege to govern their own nation so they will be removed by the collective international world body. R2P recognizes that, while sovereign states are independently in charge of their own citizens, should they fail to protect their citizens from mass killings, either intentionally or through their inability to act, it is the internationally community\u2019s responsibility to protect the citizens being affected. In other words, the U.N. Security Council will decide if they need to protect citizens in any nation.<\/p>\n
The “Responsibility to Protect” resolution is in place and the Security Council is in place all the U.N. really needs is a world police force to enforce its resolutions. We see the start of the enforcement end of this being played out right now in Libya.<\/p>\n
Obviously, they can not use this resolution against powerful nations right now. They will first use it against weak nations like Libya and then work their way up. Getting NATO to become a world policemen is probably a first prime objective. Then after a number of these ongoing police actions take place and are ongoing, armed forces would not be taking orders from their sovereign nations anymore. Military leaders would be taking orders from whatever coalition is enforcing the R2P enforcements of the U.N. In time, military leaders would start to fear not enforcing international decrees even over the orders of their own nation. They would fear being tried in international courts for war crimes. Once military leaders of once sovereign nations fear being tried in international courts U.N. control over most of the earth will be complete.<\/p>\n
That leads to the question of who actually controls the world? The U.N. Security Council runs the world. It has 15 members, five are permanent members: Russia, China, Great Britain, France and the United States. Any one of these five permanent members can now veto a Security Council resolution. If they do not veto, it only take 9 of 15 votes to pass a resolution. It’s kind of interesting that Russia and China are against this Libya R2P military action but they did not veto the R2P resolution. Obviously they believed seeing that the R2P precedence was used was more important than the consequence to Libya. Now they see that NATO has used R2P for a much wider military action against Gaddafi than they were led to believe. But, even NATO is sticking to the letter of the resolution the way they interpret it. That is why they will not remove Gaddafi but they have no problem taking out his military.<\/p>\n
In the future, it has been suggested and is very likely to become the case, that the Security Council rules will be changed so that no single nation will be able to veto a resolution. That will be the beginning of the end of national sovereignty in even powerful nations. Keep in mind that 1\/3 of the votes in the U.N. are Muslim nations, then and add the socialists and a few third world nations and you already have a majority. Most of the world is already anti America and almost all of the world is anti Israel, so you should see where this is all going to lead. The U.N. could even take action against the U.S. if some future administration used force to protect its borders with Mexico.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, expect more and more use of the R2P doctrine.\u00a0 In this police action against Libya it was not necessary to get the military of many nations involved to carry out the U.N. mandate. I also don’t think that NATO will be the only world policeman either. Whenever a R2P ruling comes down from the U.N. any group of nation could become the police force for the U.N.<\/p>\n
So let’s go back to the Islamic caliphate premise. Inevitably Israel will be forced to take action against the terrorist groups (civilians) that surround them. If Israel does not withdraw or cease action when told, the R2P doctrine would come into play in the Security Council. Historically, the only veto assured would be the U.S. but that might no longer be the case under this administration and it certainly won’t be the case if the Security Council veto is taken away. So who is likely to take the military action against Israel under R2P? You got it. Anyone that hates Israel and that has the weapons to enforce it. That might be the reason for the war of Psalm 83, it might also be the reason for the Ezekiel 38 Gog war, and it might even be the basis for the war of Armageddon. First, a local Arab caliphate comes against Israel and they are defeated, then later, a larger group of nations led by Gog comes against Israel and they are defeated, and finally the whole world comes against Israel and they are defeated.<\/p>\n
It is interesting to know from Bible prophecy that Iran and Libya do not come against Israel in the first war against Israel, but they do in the second war. Perhaps that is because when the first war takes place there still will be ongoing R2P actions in their own nations, so they cannot be an enforcer of any “Responsibility to Protect” action against Israel in the soon coming war of Psalm 83.<\/p>\n