Euro News: 'Moammar Gaddafi's Deadly Weapons Arsenal Prompts US Concern'

Source:Euro News- don't ask me to translate this for you. LOL

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"As the Gaddafi regime hangs by a thread the United States is becoming increasingly concerned about the fate of Libya's weapons stockpiles.

US intelligence fears that Gaddafi may use the weaponry in a bloody last stand. But there is also the prospect of dangerous material falling into the hands of al Qaeda or other militant groups, even if the rebels consolidate victory.

 Libya possesses a huge and varied arsenal including chemical agents and raw nuclear material as well as some 30,000 shoulder-fired rockets." 

From Euro News

Libya in the short and long-term is going to need protection and the transition from the authoritarian dictatorship of Moammar Gadafi, to a transitional government, to a permanent national government that can defend itself and respects human rights. But at this point the Libyan Transitional National Council isn't capable of defending and governing this very large country on their own. 

Libya is going to need short-term protection as they rebuild their military and National Law Enforcement or Interior Department. But again the Libyan TNC won't be able to do this on their own and this is where NATO, the European Union, Arab League, United Nations and the United States to a smaller extent will have to play a major role in order for Libya to be able to make successful transition from the Gadafi Regime to a more stable government. 

Libya is going to need foreign troops to help defend and secure the country, the Libyan Rebels can play a role in this, as well as be part of the new Libyan military and law enforcement, but they are going to need reinforces to protect the country. But to also rebuild its military to retrain the military and rebuild its law enforcement. As well as find the Gaddafi weapons of mass destruction, that apparently the Gaddafi military had a better supply of then the Saddam Hussein Regime when it was kicked out of power back in 2003. I don't believe they'll have to be destroyed like they were in Iraq or what's left of the current Libyan Military will have to be destroyed either. 

Libya is already going to need more than enough help to secure the country as they transition from Gaddafi to a more respectful government. And dismantling what's left of the current Libyan Military won't accomplish that, which is what was done in Iraq. I believe the fastest and most responsible way for Libya to rebuild its military and security forces, to build on what they already have by bringing ex Gaddafi fighters as well as the Libyan rebels. 

Once Libya is somewhat secure with an international coalition of NATO the EU, AL, UN perhaps the African Union as well, then they can move transitioning from the TNC to a permanent national government. With a national constitution and having elections in the future, rebuilding the Libyan oil industry which will be critical to providing the resources necessary to rebuilding the country. As well as new trade agreements with Libya, releasing frozen assets to the TNC. Where hopefully they'll make a smooth transition from authoritarianism to democracy that the Libyan people will have to figure how to accomplish this. 

But before Libya can accomplish and of this, they are going to have to secure the country and not just Tripoli but the other cities and the thirty two provinces that are in this very large country.

Euro News: 'Libya Puts The E.U. To The Test'

Source:Euro News- Catherine Ashton: Chief of Foreign Policy, for the European Union.

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"The flag of the Europe Union was raised in the rebel held town in Benghazi four months after the revolution in Libya started. It was more than symbolism and backed with the opening of an office by Catherine Ashton after politics and posturing within member states. In Brussels on Tuesday she outlined the bloc's latest response saying she will sit down with the UN, African Union and Arab League in New York at the end of the week. It is, Ashton admitted a test on how the EU can act effectively. Euro News." 

From Euro News

With the United States facing a national debt of 14T$ and a budget Deficit of 1.8T$ and with a weak economy with very little economic or job growth, where we are already over committed in the world, the last thing we should do right now is have more American troops on the ground in another country, especially another Middle Eastern country. 

We need to step back and play a major role from the outside with things like foreign aide and helping them form their own national government. But don't do it for them, but Libya is an example of where the European Union which is just a short swim away from Libya. (Not literally in case, you are thinking of swimming from Italy to Libya or something)

Here's an example of where the European Union could play a major constructive role in their backyard. In areas like helping Libya developed its new military, law enforcement, developing their provincial government's. With their troops as well as foreign aide and having trade agreements with Libya which is something the United States should do as well. 

This is an opportunity where the E.U. can step up of show some influence in the world and not just in Europe and be a real player and partner on the world stage by helping Libya close this ugly forty two year chapter in their history of the Gadafi Regime. And move to form a responsible government that respects its people and respects human rights. 

This is also an area where the Arab League can step up and play a major constructive role as well, especially Egypt to help secure the new Libya as they work to build their new government and country. With troops and other resources as well. 

Libya is a very large country about the size of Iran physically with thirty two provinces. And will need additional armed forces to defend this large country especially as the Libyan rebels and NATO beat down a lot of the Gadafi military. Libya will also need help rebuilding its military. 

Libya is an opportunity where the European Union can influence what type of national constitution and national government Libya will have going forward. And developing those things and show them what type of governments are in Europe and to influence them in that way as well. Not to try to make them set up their type of government, only Libya can decide that for themselves, but to have a say in what type of government they have through influence. 

Libya has a long way to go before they'll have a functional government that will be able to defend the country in a responsible way. And will need help in developing that especially since the Gadafi Regime did almost nothing to develop its own governmental institutions. The European Union and Arab League could help play a vital role here while the United States steps back instead of trying to be the sole policemen of the world. 

Euro News: 'Winning Unity Next Challenge for Libyan Rebels'

Source:Euro News- Libyan rebels.

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia  

"There is nothing like a common enemy to unite old foes but the speed and manner of the rebel advance on Tripoli has been astonishing. NATO's bombing campaign may have evened out the battlefield against Gaddafi's troops giving the poorly armed and ill-equipped forces the chance to take the capital. But only last month divisions and disarray threatened to rip the rebels apart. The murder of the rebel army chief, Abdul Fatah Younis, exposed the difficulties for Libya's future government. Euro News." 

From Euro News

Now that Moamar Gadhafi is apparently out-of-power and no longer running Libya and is perhaps more of an opposition force to the Transitional National Council in Libya and it's just a matter of capturing Gadhafi and his deputies, Libya can move to build their own country that respects it's people as well as their human rights and rule of law.

But assuming Libya can start their own personal nation building process fairly soon, the next step for Libya and the TNC as well as the Libyan people, is how do they build up Libya as a functioning country with a functioning national government and functioning provincial and local government's as well, so the people can be free to live their own lives, send their kids to school, have a functioning health care system, legal system, etc. Libya is going to need a national constitution, rule of law, law and order, all things that any functioning nation need that Libya currently doesn't have. 

The issues that Libya have unlike Egypt, is that Egypt by in-large already had most of these things. And Libya is more like Iraq post-Saddam Hussein where the entire Hussein Regime fell and the United States literally had to install its own transitional government there before a new Iraqi Transitional Government could be formed. Libya does have a Transitional National Council, so at least they have something they can build on. 

Libya needs a national constitution that the Libyan people should have to approve. They are going to have to rebuild their law enforcement, their military, an interim President or Prime Minister or both, before they hold general elections to elect a new Parliament or Congress as well as President or Prime Minister. 

Libya is going to need transitional, provincial, and local government's, before they hold provincial and local elections. Establish political party's to compete for power of the country. A court system and they may have to bring in some of the former Gadhafi Regime members to help with this transition which could cause problems. 

Libya has a lot of work to do, but they do have a large oil industry that will help in providing the resources to do so but they are going to have to rebuild that as well. 

This as I see it is a huge opportunity for Libya obviously to go from an authoritarian regime to functioning country that respects human rights, if democracy all together, but its also a huge opportunity as well for the Arab League as well. 

Time the Arab League to move past the days of being in the pockets of these authoritarian Arabian regimes. And move to a place where perhaps they aren't speaking out in favor of liberal and social democracy, which I think would be a stretch. But at least get to the point and they've shown some progress in this direction on with Egypt and Syria. 

The Arab League needs to get to a place where they are no longer backing authoritarian regimes with brutal human rights records and at least speaking out against these regimes. And if anything working to get these regimes thrown out-of-power and installing government's that at least respect human rights. 

The Arab League could work with Libyan people to move past Moammar Gadhafi and work with them to build a respectful and responsible government there.

Euro News: 'Rebels Close In On Moamar Gaddafi's Tripoli Stronghold'

Source:Euro News- civil war in Libya.

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Who controls what in Libya? Amid fierce fighting, it is still unclear whether rebels have, as they claim, seized control of two key coastal cities." 

From Euro News

I supported America's role on the NATO no fly zone in Libya back in March when we first became part of it under the War Powers Act. But my problem with this operation since is how President Obama has interpreted the War Power Act using the WPA as justification to get involved in Libya but not living up to the WPA as far as reporting to Congress within ninety days after our involvement. 

I haven't supported basically any involvement in Syria or the gulf states because I don't trust the Obama Administration at this point in how they would handle potential American military operations there, because I believe they've basically taken this position that they have the authority to send American troops oversees on our own and even if they don't, who's going to stop us and the hell with Congress and everybody else involved, just send them the money to fund these operations. 

The Obama Administration's current position of the WPA looks very similar to the George W. Bush Administration on national security: it looks very neoconservative and not why Barack Obama was elected President. 

So with the Libyan Rebels starting to make real progress in Libya now and hopefully about to knock Moamar Quadaffi out-of-power, the time is very close for the United States to pull out of Libya and let NATO take complete control there with the help of the Arab League. And bring our planes home from Libya and start to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq as well. 

The fact that we've been involved in Afghanistan our longest war ever for coming up on ten years (in October) Iraq for eight years and now Libya since March and with Iran pursuing nuclear weapons without us having much if any ability to do anything about it, the fact that we have the largest defense budget in the world by far (second place is not even close) with our defense budget being around 700B$ a year and of course our 14T$ national debt with 20% of that coming from our defense budget, is more then enough evidence that we can't be the sole policemen of the world and need more partners. 

What America should be doing instead as of right now and into the future is work with our allies to build up regional alliances to handle situations like this in the future. So when a murderous dictator like a Moamar Quadaffi or a Bashar Al-Assad decides to murder his own people in the future, because they decide that they don't like their government and want the freedom to live their own lives, there would be an international alliance ready and able to deal with thugs.

A alliance like this like the Arab League in Arabia or the African Union in Africa (to use as examples) can step and knock these authoritarian regimes down or at least hold them down, while rebels fight for their freedom. Like what is going in Libya right now, but instead of this no fly zone being an Arab League operation, its a NATO operation instead because the AL isn't equipped to do something like this right now. Which is a big problem and why we are there right now.

Marijuana Community: 'Get Info About Marijuana!'

 

Source:Marijuana Community- What are you smoking? LOL

"GET INFO ABOUT MARIJUANA! Marijuana Community." 

From the Marijuana Community

You take politics out of the marijuana debate and politicians not worried about looking "soft on crime" or "soft on the War on Drugs" than marijuana would already be legal in America. Same thing with alcohol in the 1920s and 30s: take politicians out of that debate and we don't have alcohol prohibition either back then. 

Marijuana prohibition is about big government trying to control how people live their own lives, trying to protect people from themselves. Marijuana decriminalization is about pragmatism and sanity, making something that government already knows a lot of its people use, as safe as possible. Just the way alcohol and tobacco are regulated in America and that system by in-large has worked very well in America. 

I'm not arguing that marijuana is healthy for people and that everyone should be using it and I wouldn't make the same argument for alcohol and tobacco either. I'm just saying that if you know people are going to do something that is very similar to other things that are already legal like alcohol and tobacco, you might as well take a realistic and practical approach to marijuana and decriminalize it at least at the Federal level. And let the States figure out where to go with marijuana from there, just as they regulate alcohol, tobacco and marriage today. 

If you are anti-big government and don't want government controlling how you live your own life, as long as you are not hurting innocent people, then you have no problem with marijuana decriminalization and then regulating and taxing it. 

If you believe 2M people is too many people to have in prison and the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of people in prison just for possession or use of narcotics, then you don't have a problem with marijuana decriminalization. And again regulating and taxing it, treating it like alcohol and tobacco to prevent people from driving or flying to use as examples while they are high. Again to make it as safe as possible because marijuana like alcohol and tobacco have negative side effects. 

 Let's decriminalize marijuana, let's stop arresting people for simple use or possession of it. 

Let's pardon our prison inmates who are in prison for marijuana possession or use who haven't committed any other crimes while in prison. 

Let's transfer our prison inmates who are in prison for possessing or using other narcotics and haven't committed any other crimes while in prison to drug rehab clinics and halfway houses where they can get the help that they need with their addiction and turn their lives around. Because they don't represent a threat to anyone else other than themselves. 

Let's save our limited prison space for the people who need to be in prison who do represent a major threat to society. 

And let's end the failed forty year fake War on Drugs where we've spent trillions of tax revenue trying to control how people live their own lives, instead of how they interact with each other. 

And let free people in a free society live their own lives instead of trying to control our population. If you know someone is going to do something and you can't stop them from doing it and all you can do is to react to what they did after the fact. And they are not hurting anyone else with their actions, you might as well give them as much info as possible about what they are doing. Instead of trying to stop them all together, so they can make the most informed decisions as possible. 

Marijuana Prohibition to me is sort of like sex prohibition for adolescents: it's just as ineffective.

CBS News: CBS Evening News- President Richard Nixon vs. Senator Ted Kennedy on Health Care (1971)

Source:CBS News- Washington correspondent Daniel Schorr.

"Back in 1971 Republican President Nixon and Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy debated national health care reform. Here's a report at the time from CBS News' Walter Cronkite and Daniel Schorr." 

From CBS News

If you look at what President Richard Nixon proposed in health care reform in 1971 to Congress and you look at what Senator Ted Kennedy wanted to do then and perhaps his whole Congressional career, the debate then between President Nixon and Senator Kennedy is very similar to the debate that President Barack Obama had with the Democratic Socialist faction of his party in 2009-10. 

The one difference between 1971 and 2010 on health care is that President Nixon being a Republican obviously and a ProgressiveRepublican (I know that sounds strange) Someone who didn't believe in empowering the Federal Government and expanding it generally in the economy, other than to help people help themselves and serve as an economic insurance system for people who truly needed.

And Senator Ted Kennedy who I would describe as the Bernie Sanders of the 1970s, along with Senator George McGovern and perhaps a few other left-wing Democrats in Congress, who believed in social insurance programs and the welfare state. And in protecting them and even expanding them. 

Health care being a perfect example of this as Senator Kennedy was in favor of a single payer health insurance system. With Medicare being the only health insurer for the whole country. But what President Nixon offered and I give him a lot of credit especially as a Republican for taking on health care reform an issue that the Democratic Party has owned at least since the creation of Medicare in 1965.

But what the Nixon Administration offered looks very similar to what President Obama worked out with the Democratic Congress in 2010. The Nixon Administration essentially created our employer sponsored health insurance system. Where a lot of American workers get their health insurance today. And for a long time through their employer. 

What President Nixon wanted to do in health insurance was to expand it to millions of Americans who couldn't afford health insurance on their own. Or couldn't afford their employers health insurance plan. President Nixon's program was essentially private health insurance expansion through workers employers. Which is what the ACA is with a Patients Bill of Rights built into it as well and a health insurance mandate.

So to call the Affordable Care Act extreme or socialist, or anything like that is nonsense. (To be generous) It's a very mainstream approach to health insurance reform. That was started in 1971 in the Nixon Administration and then later proposed again in 1993-94 with then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole a Republican, obviously. Along with then Senator John Chaffey a Northeastern Republican during the failed Clinton health care reform debate then. That President Clinton now admits that he regrets not taking the Senate Republican compromise in health care reform.

The Senate Republican proposal of the early 1990s, that President Clinton could've had, but would've given him a partial victory in this debate and an accomplishment. And a chance to fight round two of health care reform in his presidency and build off of the first bill. And perhaps even saving the Democratic Congress in 1994. But of course we will never know. 

Senator Kennedy clearly didn't like the Nixon health Care reform plan as this video indicates. But it's hardly an extreme proposal proposed by right-wing extremists. Because the Dole/Chaffey health care plan in 1993-94 would've build off of the employer sponsored health insurance system. And what was in the Nixon plan, a lot of it is in the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

Helmer Reenberg: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- On The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1963)

Source: Helmer Reenberg- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) talking about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, in 1963.

"Assassination of John F. Kennedy, mortal shooting of John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, as he rode in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. His accused killer was Lee Harvey Oswald, a former U.S. Marine who had embraced Marxism and defected for a time to the Soviet Union. Oswald never stood trial for murder, because, while being transferred after having been taken into custody, he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby, a distraught Dallas nightclub owner." 

From the Encyclopedia Britanica 

"Senator Barry Goldwater talks to reporters about his memories of and respect for President Kennedy." 

From Helmer Reenberg

The assassination of Jack Kennedy was tragic in so many ways for so many people and a big reason for it was, because of how talented President Kennedy was as a President as well as a man. But just as political junky from my perspective, one of the reasons why his death was so tragic, was because of what could've been. 

The 1964 presidential election would've look and it would've probably affected the Congressional elections as well. Because I believe and we will never have anyway of knowing this that a Goldwater-Kennedy election would've been much closer. 

After President Kennedy was assassinated most of the country turned to Lyndon Johnson to be their President to full-fill President Kennedy's agenda. Which is a big reason why Richard Nixon didn't run for President in 1964 and waited till 1968. But I believe the 1964 presidential election had it been between Goldwater and Kennedy, would've been a great presidential election. I think Kennedy would've still won though.

But with Senator Barry Goldwater, you would've had a presidential candidate representing classical conservatism about as well as it could be represented. And to a certain extent I believe he did that anyway in 1964. Running against President Johnson despite losing in a landslide where I believe he won less than 40% of the vote and lost around forty states. But managed to win Southern states that were owned by the Democratic Party. 

And then you would've had President Jack Kennedy on the Center-Left, a liberal hero of mine, representing liberalism as well as it could be represented. And I believe we would've seen great debates across the country. As they were apparently already talking about doing in as early as 1962, I believe from what I would've heard. And they would've been great debates, on civil rights. The President being in favor of the civil rights bills that President Johnson got through Congress. Senator Goldwater had a different approach: Medicare which was a bill that President Kennedy tried to push through Congress. Senator Goldwater would've wanted a different bill with more competition for senior citizens. 

Cuba with Fidel Castro and how we try to deal with that Communist Republic, there would've been a lot of great issues that these great men would've debated in 1964. 

The assassination of President Jack Kennedy was tragic on many levels, but from a perspective of a political junky, it was tragic for the country as well. Because they were left with one less great general election. With President Kennedy running a tough race to get reelected and Senator Goldwater giving him a run for his money. 

A Goldwater-Kennedy presidential election, would have been a great classic battle, between the Center-Right and the growing conservative movement. Against Center-Left Liberals, who are called New Democrats today. But we'll never know. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)