I have been in contact with Bill Woollam for months on this subject and he and I are of the same opinion. With his permission I post this from him.
Thank you Bill,
Attention Members of Parliament:
I wrote to my Member of Parliament regarding the NATO war crimes against Libya. ie: Supporting ‘outright regime change’, ‘privatizing’ the Libyan oil fields, ‘privatizing’ the former Libyan national banking system, along with bombing raids which are hitting Libyan hospitals, schools, civilian targets and most recently the Libyan water supply system and water pipeline factory.
I have done my research on this topic from day one. Thousands have read my published findings on the net.
It is titled “The Battle For Libyan Oil Fields”
My first question to any ”thinking” member of Parliament is:
“Would not the American Administration use its military force to quell an armed, US domestic revolt?”
“Would not the Canadian military be sent in to quell an armed Canadian domestic revolt within Canada’s borders?”
So why in heaven’s name would NATO forces interfere with Gadhaffi’s decision to quell an armed revolt within his own country?
Why? Could it be that news reports fail to mention the real motives behind NATO’s interference and aggression?
My member of Parliament had the gall to imply that Canada’s role in the obvious ‘war for regime change’ was as follows:
“1) Make clear that the goal of the UN-mandated mission was to protect civilians.
2) Secure an increase to Canada’s support for humanitarian assistance.
3 Strengthen our diplomatic role with the acknowledgment that only a Libyan-led political transition will end this conflict.
4) Ensure improved oversight of Canada’s involvement, including parliamentary committee meetings and better information sharing.”
When one does the research, one quickly discovers that specific British, American and European oil cartel interests have been instigating a takeover of the Libyan national oil fields for over 30 years. Those who pull the strings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have pushed for the replacement of the ‘nationalized Libyan banking system’ with a ‘private-for-IMF-profit” system. And specific weapons manufacturing cartels have also been behind the Libya regime change. See the connections here:
A variety of other excuses have been used to take the West into these
illegal Middle East wars where the ‘power-elite’ who pull the strings of NATO member nations can carry out their agenda of control and domination of Eurasia.
NATO member nations’ military capabilities are being used as a ‘corporate’ police force to enforce the will of specific international corporateers.
I suggest taking two minutes and watching this short video clip narrated by John Perkins (former economic hit-man for the IMF) which explains the entire sinister process.
The salient points of international concern spoken of by Courtenay Barnett (writer for ‘counterpunch’ http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/19/libya-whither-international-law/ ) are:
” 1. Is the world to see the upholding of the principles of the United Nations Charter for the promotion of peace in the world and settlement of international disputes by peaceful means; is Article 2 of the UN Charter to remain the basis on which nations can, under international law, lawfully go to war, or by reference to Article 51 (self-defence) as a legitimate basis to engage in belligerent international action?
2. Does the concept of sovereignty have applicability in the international community, and more particularly has the concept been respected in the case of Libya?
3. Did either UN Resolutions 1970 or 1973 permit the NATO nations lawfully to bomb Libya, and to arm and support a faction in Libya to obtain regime change?
4. Will the actions of the US and the European branch of NATO use Libya as an international precedent for incursions into any resource rich country, or rely on the casus belli of “humanitarianism” as a basis to oppose militarily any nation that deigns to advance any truly independent national polices, not in accordance with NATO’s wishes?
The answers to these types of questions will yield one of two results:-
1. A world that is committed to peace and respect for the rule of international law; or
2. A world of unending and perpetual warfare where covert support for uprisings deemed to be in the interest of the US/NATO will increase with concomitant global instability on a massive scale for most of humankind as covert militarism becomes manifestly more blatant, outrageously illegal and overt.”
September 28, 2011