NATO Meets To Address the Crisis in Libya

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
March 8, 2011
Flags Wave in Front of NATO Headquarters

More:President Obama to Those Conducting Violence in Libya -- "It is Their Choice...and They Will Be Held Accountable" | Humanitarian Assistance for People Fleeing the Crisis in Libya

Ambassador Ivo Daalder, U.S. Permanent Representative to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), provided a readout of discussions held today at NATO concerning the situation in Libya. Ambassador Daalder said:

"...We've been closely monitoring the situation here in Brussels for many days now, of course, and we met today to have a first briefing update on the military planning for how we, as an alliance, can support international efforts for humanitarian relief, including how we could help on evacuations. This is part of a whole series of plans that the military authorities are looking at -- for example, ways to enforce the arms embargo, how to establish a no-fly zone, but today and the real focus for now is on what can NATO do uniquely, what kind of capabilities does NATO have that are uniquely useful to support the international effort on humanitarian relief.

"And we had that discussion today. I made a number of proposals on the part of the United States that said let's look to our countries now, and let's look at what capabilities does NATO have that can uniquely contribute to this -- things like setting up our own command-and-control capability, which we as a military alliance have to help coordinate an effort to support humanitarian relief; looking at some of the ships that are now engaged in an exercise in the Mediterranean and see whether it's possible to actually re-task them so they would be available to support any humanitarian sealift; looking at NATO-owned sealift assets that might be available so that assistance could be brought -- food and other kinds of aid can be brought into the country, and if necessary, to help evacuate people; looking at airlift assets. NATO has and owns a variety of different airlift assets which could be used, again, to varying assistance and bring out people and bring them to other parts of the world if necessary. And finally, looking at enhancing our surveillance capacity by deploying NATO-owned and operated AWACS systems, the big airborne coordination surveilling aircraft.

"Generally, this was well received within the NAC. The decision was made to indeed increase the surveillance of the NATO-AWACS capability to make it 24/7, to have a better picture of what's really going on in this part of the world, and it was an agreement that we would look at these issues a little closer over the next few days so that when defense ministers meet on Thursday here in Brussels, they may be in a position to make a decision.

"So that was the focus of what we're doing today, just to put it back into context. We're looking at all the options that are out there in some -- in a pretty focused way. But the most immediate options that are now most available and that we're really looking at is how can NATO support the humanitarian effort that is ongoing by the international community."

When asked about a no-fly zone, Ambassador Daalder said, "...We're looking at the no-fly zone in a variety of different options. We haven't actually had a discussion yet. The military authorities haven't finalized that planning. That will happen in the next day or so. We will have a discussion at our level, and then of course, we'll have a more in-depth discussion when the defense ministers come here. And I think the options that they're looking at is a variety of different ways in which you could put a no-fly zone into place, but none of the details are yet available and that's why we really haven't had an in-depth discussion within NATO as such on what it would take, what capabilities are required, and indeed, what the purpose of such a no-fly zone would be."

He continued, "...Our sense is that a no-fly zone is one possibility. But when you really look at what's going on, we have actually seen a decrease in both fighter and overall air activity over the weekend. It really peaked late last week and it's starting to come down. And indeed, to date, the overall air activity has not been the deciding factor in the ongoing unrest; just as you stated, other things are really determining what's happening on the ground. And therefore it's important to understand that no-fly zones are more effective against fighters, but they really have a limited effect against the helicopters or the kind of ground operations that we've seen, which is why a no-fly zone, even if it were to be established, isn't really going to impact what is happening there today. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at it -- and we are and we will -- but it is not going to be the solution to every problem."

You can read the full transcript here.



Joseph M.
Oregon, USA
March 8, 2011

Joseph M. in Oregon writes:

Madam Secretary;

The demonstrators and opposition, have seemingly lost the "momentum needed" in overtaking Qaddafi and Tripoli.

The U.S. involvement in Libya is much more complex than simply saying "we are on the right side of human-rights, democracy, morality and the freedom of the people to assemble and to stand up to a longstanding authoritarian, autocratic ruler". They (the opposition) are dealing with a brutal dictator and his entourage, Qaddafi is irrational, who will not hesitate in killing any civilian or citizen who challenges his authority, he has had a hold on the Libyan people since 1969 and still holds a marginal percentage of the population who firmly support him, especially in Tripoli and among his tribal people.
The U.S. is already involved in five conflicts in Muslim nations and due to the monumental errors in judgement related to U.S. foreign policy, made by the Obama administration's predecessors, we are in an absolute mess now. Our continued presence in Afghanistan, Iraq and engagement in several countries like Pakistan and Yemen have created a geopolitical polarizing situation. From Afghanistan, Iraq to Pakistan and Yemen, as soon as the U.S., along with our NATO allies would intervene in a direct engagement role in Libya, no matter how good intentioned, the international community would be against us, we are still in Iraq and the international community would draw this parallel to Libya. Besides, it really is up to the demonstrators in Libya, the opposition as to what extend they would want the West or outside entities in supporting there cause.
As I have said before, they've lost the momentum needed and they are lacking in the fire power, training and organization needed for overtaking Tripoli, overtaking strategic cities in Western Libya and for toppling the Qaddafi entourage.

Others have suggested that the U.S. needs to take a more active role, suggesting the implementation of a "No-Fly Zone" in supporting the Libyan rebels, but first we have to completely dis-engage militarily in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, before we would have greater latitude in engaging elsewhere in the Muslim world. In my view, a "No-Fly Zone", even if implemented jointly by NATO, holds a monumental risk of enhancing the "pro-Gaddafi movment" and would be counter-productive at this stage. This has turned out to be a very violent, brutal civil war, where I foresee the opposition loosing ground, taken heavy casualties.

The violent nature of this civil conflict in Libya, is comparable to the conflicts experienced in Kosovo or Bosnia-Herzegovina during the 1990's and has been unseen in Libya since the 1969 revolution, where Qaddafi as a young military officer gained absolute control, power and authority over Libya. Dis-lodging Qaddafi will have to come from the Libyan people.

New Mexico, USA
March 9, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

1 of 2 parts...

"Crater a few military runways and tell the Lybian airforce to go home and take care of their mothers?

There's an idea...get you a "no-fly" zone for about a month that way, easy. If there's anything left for them to fly after that, more precicely.

The question is will their mothers let them back in the house after bombing the people?"


-Posted on Mon Feb 21, 2011



Humans @ all...,

Well now, It seems that the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, the honorable John Kerry-US senator, has gone and stolen my idea.

The evidence can be seen here in this clip from "Face the Nation" on 3/6/2011 direct from the senator's website.


And I suppose I shouldn't complain being that it was suggested in order to save lives in the first place, and John is certainly welcome to further it if he thinks the idea has legs.

But darn it! When the citizen has it right can't the politico's just give credit where credit is due?


I guess I'm going to have make a phone call or two, given that the ranking member, Sen Lugar probably would have thought twice about what he said if he had read what I said on March 6 here:

"Ghaddafi unleashed war on his people and they've taken up arms to defend themselves, the least we can do is level the playing field and create the peace from scratch, by eliminating Ghaddafi's ability to make war...forget a no-fly zone, and get real.

If politicians and governments are going to concoct more lame excuses to not do anything about the "unacceptable", then you might as well declare failure of moral certitude and resign , accepting the unacceptable as the status quo while the rest of this planet goes strait to hell, for lack of tryin' to get your act together and create a better world.

You did alright about half the way there, and now it looks to me like you'all have set yourselves up rather neatly to fall flat on your collective faces in response to this nightmare."

-To the Pres. , Sec of State and Sec. of Defense



I've heard some really lame ideas like "arming the rebels" tossed about, and I think I'll take the time here to knock that idea in the dirt, by siomply saying that from get go US policy has emphasized peaceful protest and a peaceful response by governments to that activity.

Never mind the legality of doing that with an arms embargo declared by UN resolution.

The key to resolving this crisis is in how we go about creating the peace..from scratch.

Thus it becomes emminently logical and practical in order to save lives of the innocent to eliminate Ghaddafi's capacity to make war in every aspect, with every tool at the international community's disposal, with the legitimacy and political will and unaminity needed to implement a simple, strait forward, non-debatable international policy that sets a concrete example for any other tyrant who turns his arms against his people..."forevermore you will be removed from power and rendered impotent in your intent in that process."

That won't be accomplished with some "no fly" zone, but rather requires the formation of a "no-Ghaddafi" zone.

New Mexico, USA
March 9, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

2 of 2...

What I'm saying is that there are larger considerations for a better world to be considered here.

The international community is moving towards a greater human rights awareness and has set precedent in the matter, as a growing realization that as nations folks just don't bear the burden of responsibility to their own people, but to all of humanity in general terms to protect populations.

And yes it seems to always require really tragic example to move governments off their backsides to get the right thing done.

"Not our problem"....doesn't work any more as a response. Simply because it becomes our problem inevitably...maybe that's just America's karma as the leader of the free world I don't know.

But what is certainly a pattern, observable, measurable, and consistant in it's probable outcome is this;

Without exception, every time we've bombed somebody for the purposes of "changing behavior" (ex. Ghaddfi, Saddam, al-quaida in years prior to 9/11), we always end up going back to get the job done right and finaly remove the pustulance from the backside of humanity like popping a boil.

See we need to learn these lessons from history because that karma has already been coming back to us, and I think it becomes self evident that if the US is going to take military action, you don't leave the idiot in power to become a problem for anyone in the future.

So today, we have some karma to resolve in Lybia, and we have a moral obligation to make it right.

Regardless of what NATO does or the rest of the international community thinks about it.

I could turn blue holding my breath waiting for them to pull out a can o' whup-ass on ethical infants over human rights violations.

Those with veto-power in the UN (China, Russia-specificly)don't have any investment in a better world in this regard as yet, and it's about time they ponied up somthing besides excuses and political stall tactics or risk the universal laws of karma coming back to them.

So, where it regards the Sec. of State's assertion that the UN must impose a no-fly zone, rather than the US doing it...

That would be ideal in a perfect world, but we live in something less than ideal and far from perfect on the diplomatic side of life.

And as much as I feel for Sec Gates in not wanting to get involved in something like this right before he retires for the umpteenth time ( understandably not wanting to start somethinmg he most likely won't be around in office to see finished), the world just doesn't cater to individual schedual or desire on most levels.

Undersatand this about "regime replacement therapy" in that this conflict is less than a month old and has become everyone's nightmare, because Ghaddafi was left in power to begin with way back in Ronald Reagan's era.

So I would suggest to Mr. Gates that he has an opportunity to resolve some unfinished buisiness before he leaves office.

That's a more constructive way to approach this from an attitudinal perspective I think.

One thing the Ghaddafi loyalists will figure out rather quickly is that it isn't exactly safe driving tanks across a flat expanse of desert, and frankly the only rational way to render aid to people is to prevent them from becoming cannon fodder in the first place.

Rather than arm rebels, we disarm Ghaddafi & Co. , let him find a hidy-hole if he wants to stick around...don't tell this citizen we're "stretched" when DoD has had half a trillion in basic budget to work with for decades on now...I want my money's worth and there's a better world to create and a few heads to bonk in the process.

So go to it.

Forget all you think about "perceptions" because what lasts as far as opinion is concerned is the respect this nation has for helping to create a continent at peace (Europe) with more difficult economic and political parameters than we see now in the middle East/North Africa.

World opinion is light years ahead of the dark days of the coldwar and there's been a vast improvement in the character of the UN over the years, but this is one of those inflection points in history that cannot be ignored, and demands the hard decisions of an appropriate armed response to man's inhumanity to man and the rest of his family.

Being that it is a celebration of women to support human rights in general, equality and justice and all that other good stuff...I hope to hear Hillary Clinton weigh in with her considered opinion on this;

"The question is will their mothers let them back in the house after bombing the people?"

Attitude is everything.


John P.
March 9, 2011

John P. in Greece writes:

@ Joseph M. in Oregon

“Dis-lodging Qaddafi will have to come from the Libyan people”. I’d also say that Dis-lodging Qaddafi should have come from the Libyan people. But, this is not applicable anymore without USA/NATO military help.

Libyans lost their “time advantage” and now, day by day, Gaddafi continues to kill innocent people, gains back power and if we do nothing at all, very soon he will be preparing his family junta to stay in power for the next 40 years to come.

Although I agree with 99% of your thoughts, the above 10 words made me think that Eric’s analysis is more up-to-date. Maybe not so pleasant to read, but quite realistic, according to my opinion.

Concerning the “costs” that you bring to table –and you are right!- I think that USA must press –for once- all the allies in the region (Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Israel) to take some serious military action by the American/NATO side. After all Gaddafi’s son threatened us (in the Med)

New Mexico, USA
March 9, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Greece,

The nice thing about living in a democracy is never having to say you're sorry for registering one's disgust in the face of political stupidity.

I reserve the right to be just as rude and crude as the circumstance requires to get the job done.

That's sometimes what it requires to inspire folks to think.

If I was worried about who I might piss-off in the process, I wouldn't be blogging on Dipnote.

Long as it helps get results folks can live with, they can always thank me later for having told folks strait up what's on my mind.

I think the Pres. should be already booking some prime-time air-time when he decides to make a hard command decision on this.

Folks will accuse me of trying to escalate this, and we're going to spend a lot of ordanance on things before peace will reign, but there will be peace.

There will be a better future for folks in the region, and folks in MENA will learn what Europeans have about allowing dictators and tyrants to come to power...."never again."

Because right now their reality pretty much sucks because they've had to remove them and their hard work is just beginning in terms of standing up something better.

Least they don't have to count millions of dead to get there from here, so long as nations get together now and remove that present threat.

These are pretty stark choices and there's nothing pleasant about contemplating going from bad to worse.

We have the power to prevent that.



New Mexico, USA
March 9, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Greece,

I forgot to mention that part of my rationale for blogging here is that one must attempt to find humor in the most unexpected circumstance, and take it where one may find it with pithy grace...(chuckle).

That should take the edge off for those feeling unforseen eloquence.

We'll see what NATO has to say tommorrow...stay tuned.


Joseph M.
Oregon, USA
March 10, 2011

Joseph M. in Oregon writes:

@ John P. in Greece and Eric in New Mexico:

Memo for U.S. Department of State;

Although, I have been reading your comments and Eric's from New Mexico on the State Department's blog, I like my own analysis best of all.

Perhaps, it may be due to my academic field of Conflict Resolution, I look at and analyze conflict, whether in Libya, Somalia or Afghanistan from a different "frame-of- reference", a different lens.

That said, the opposition in Libya has lost the momentum needed for overtaking Qaddafi, and his entourage and they are really no match for Qaddafi's military units. Establishing a "no-fly zone" is extremely, controversial, risky and not only would sway the opinion of the international community against the U.S., but is also likely to increase the "pro-Qaddafi supporters" across Western Libya. I really do not think the EU collectively would go with a U.S., U.K. proposed "no-fly zone?"

Although, NATO is a very capable force and helped squelch the violence and mass-killings in places like Kosovo and Bosnia during the 1990's, the prospects for assuming a role by engaging in a successful military operation in Libya, an operation that would benefit the rebels and Libyan opposition fighters are doubtful and unlikely.
I do not see NATO going along with an intervention, other than a very limited "no fly-zone" and possibly a naval blockade. Regardless of NATO's decision, establishing a controversial "no fly-zone" at this stage, in my view will not be enough to change the momentum needed in ousting Qaddafi.

The people of Libya, on the ground need to do the fighting themselves, it is unfortunate that enough of the Libyan military officers and ground forces have not defected or fled in joining the opposition forces. There are no easy solutions here and we must think of our allies, including Turkey and the rest of Europe, who have more at stake in Libya than we do in the U.S.

Thank-you for your comments.

New Mexico, USA
March 10, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

To all who seek clarity...

@ Joeseph, Folks in Lybia who are pleading with the international community to establish a "no-fly" zone are really simply asking the international community for military intervention to stop the slaughter.

The whole idea of a no-fly zone is somewhat of a "straw man" argument based on a lack of knowing by political pundits, the press, and those not versed in military tactics as the quick "answer" to this conundrum about how to restore the peace in Lybia and/or force Ghaddafi from power.

Sec. Gates was clear in that establishing such a zone would of necessity involve the taking out of anti-aircraft weapons...(ie bombing hardware into oblivion generally so it can't be used.)
Folks think of Iraq in the 90's and a sustained op over many year's time and there just isn't time in this case, so the "traditional" idea of a no-fly zone being established by the UN Sec. Council isn't any kind of effective response in actuality, though cratering a few runways will certainly put a dent in Ghaddafi's ability to use his airforce and helicopters if they have no usable bases left to refuel and re-arm for a period of time. There's a level of practicality in that.

While it can be said and shown that the UN has taken very fast action on the diplomatic level in instituting sanction, resolution, and all that has transpired in terms of humanitarian aid that once took months and years to come to agreement on... and now it looks to be turning into a "standard procedure" implemented fairly efficiantly, there's still this question of exactly what needs to get done to resolve the source and instigation of the conflict.

Folks talk of "triggers" rather than time-lines, but both are in play in this situation.

People dying for lack of a decision, and folks will die because of it, the question is will it be the innocent or the guilty?

There's a hard and fast general rule about conflict resolution Joeseph that you should be familiar with.

That's when armed conflict rages, the only political settlement that can be reached is when one side or another determines his goals cannot be attained through military means, and the other parties cannot either.

Then their only alternative is to find a truce, reach compromise, and get on with living together.

Ghaddafi would like your assesment too by the way, but it has a lot of holes in it.

NATO didn't stop the slaughter in the Balkans, US airpower did by executive order, convincing the parties that they could and would be eliminated as players on the scene. We took out a lot of hardware and demolished their intent to harm poipulations in so doing.
The US did that while the rest of NATO watched, basicly.

The President has furthered by policy, in that he's a true internationalist, eternally hopeful that the UN and various other international org's will... with a little US encoragement... finally become worthy of their promise to mankind under their charter obligations to humanity.

And all the while there's this five hundred pound gorilla with a fly-swatter in the corner of the debate just waiting for direction from the President if folks can't get their act that the US armed forces to be precise.

Because you alweays want to have a plan-B if diplomacy fails to deliver. Nothing unilateral about that.

NATO as a org. prides itself on being civilized about all this, and that's a bit of a paradox considering its primary focus is as a military force prepared to unleash the most uncivilized mayhem on any agressor that may threaten one or all of its members.

So generally it's members would rather traditionally as an org. sit back and watch while the US does all the heavy lifting, monitor crisis, and talk a lot, rather than actually get down and dirty with us doing something permanent about it.

Like pulling teeth to get folks to "go out of area." But logic tends to prevail eventually by rude dictat of circumstance.

And that traditional pattern of behavior of hand wringing in the face of crisis is why most US citizens have absolutely no confidence in the international community's ability to resolve crisis expeditiously, going wherever, whenever, and deploying whatever it takes to resolve it.

Ghaddifi is useful in one sense, in that it's causing NATO to "put up, or shut up." and fulfil a global mandate to protect populations.


New Mexico, USA
March 10, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Joeseph,


The simple truth is Ghaddafi knows he has a window of opportunity here to crush the opposition unapposed by the international community's armed forces before they can find consensus to use it to protect populations.

That's why he would definately like your assesment, in fact he's counting on you being right about the international response.

Mind you, I have been a die-hard consistant supporter of the State Dept and US policy for multiple administrations, it not a partisan thing to believe any man elected to the office of president (or woman as that happens), has been endowed with a minimum of common sense by his creator, or at least by his/her parents, and if they are a parent they get that common sense knocked into them by their kids when they ask "What have you done lately to create a better world for us daddy?"

Let alone when a member of the public gets on this blog and puts pedal to the metal with some very harsh and accurate assesment, for very good purpose, as I have done.

It's not just we who left Ghaddafi in power to be able to be the criminal he is today...the whole international community made a bad bet in that regard, thinking he had been de-fanged or some such illusion...

Since Obama came into office , he's been testing the resolve of the governments of this world to create a better one for their kids and grandkids, and the response has been mixed, though he's had more success in getting logic to prevail than I actually thought possible at first, given the dysfunctionality he had to contend with.

That's due in large part to the team the Sec of State has put together to implement his policy and further this nation's influence in international fora.

Fact is, every President since FDR has been a devout internationalist, trying to help folks globally get over their collective angst about what kind of reality we wish to create for ourselves on this planet.

That the world hasn't flat blown itself off the map is mute testiment to the overall success of US policy over many decades.

Gradually over time folks have come to understand what is universally acceptable and what gets deemed "unacceptable" by harsh examples set by ethical infants as well by those opposed to political stupidity and terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.

This is another test of the international system, but if it fails to measure up and bring peace to the Lybian people, then it can never be assured of keeping and/or restoring the peace anywhere, under any circumstance less than ideal for diplomacy alone to facilitate it.

You drop bombs on folks to eliminate their capacity to make war and remove them as a threat to peace after they have broken the peace, not to "change their behavior", that's what diplomacy is supposed to do, and when it fails to convince, then folks need to implement another kind of "standard procedure" to get the job done.

I call it "regime replacement therapy"

A "regime" can be defined as the leadership of a nation, or as simply a mindset that defines a staus quo and the actions and policies that further it.

Whether that be political, economic, military or a combination thereof.


New Mexico, USA
March 10, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

(from State's daily briefing 3/9/2011)

QUESTION: When the United Nations ambassador says that the United States is going to take actions – i.e., the application of pressure – until a foreign head of state leaves office and there is a new head of state, that is a
policy of regime change, is it not?

MR. TONER: James, you certainly enjoy the political – discussion of political philosophy and terminology. Again, what’s clear here is that we want to see Colonel Qadhafi step down, leave Libya, and for the violence to end, the bloodshed to end. We believe that’s the best way for that to happen. And this is not the U.S. acting alone; this is the U.S. acting in concert with the international community. We’ve been quite clear, and it’s been quite apparent
throughout, that we have been in lockstep with both our process at the UN and at NATO in building international consensus on any actions that we’re taking.

QUESTION: Driving toward a change of the regime, correct?

MR. TONER: Driving towards a resolution of the current conflict and trying to, through that resolution, create an opportunity for a democratic government to emerge, or a better government to emerge in Libya.

QUESTION: Via regime change?

MR. TONER: Call it what you will, James.


@ Mark Toner,

Your job is to discus the political philosophy underpinning US foreign policy and defining the lexicon used to accurately describe the processes of policy as they are implemented by the US State Dept, among other duties as a spokesperson in furthering public diplomacy and diseminating information for the public's consumption and awareness.

As such, you should enjoy the question James asked of you, not try and belittle him in any way for asking it.

I don't "enjoy" the effort I've been engaged in trying to change the nature of the conversation the world is having nor am I engaged in a academic semantic excercise to simply define terms accurately decriptive of US policy intent. It has real world implications.

I do so out of neccessity because folks @ State obviously need all the help you can get, especially when you are all far too concerned with not being defined by the last adninistration's lexicon regarding confict resolution measures taken to remove governments posing an existential threat to the US, allies and the general peace of

"Regime replacement therapy" is a better way to defime exactly what it is the US intends as policy in Lybia or elswwhere.

If you need to get direction from "on high" as to whether you can define our policy in this manner "officially" as "regime replacement therapy" then I would urge you to do so.

The whole world is evolving Mark, and so there's an evolutionary process in defining the things that we do in the world we live in as it changes around us. Whether that be as individuals or nations.

More pointedly, you are allowing others to define policy rather than being pro-active about doing so to brook no debate or confusion.

It's like you threw up your hands and gave up..."call it what you will."

Well he probably will because you left him still confused as to what the deal is here Mark.

Now I'm trying to help you help the American public wrap its head around this Administration's apparently "foggy" policy and help you folks in "foggy bottom" shine a bright spotlight on what it is we do asa a nation based upon the values policy is defined by.

A certainly you could not protest that this world is not long due for a lot of therapy in large international measure, and regime replacement has been called for in notable cases and folks call that progress towards a better world sans terrorism and tyrants.

Now just what do you think James would have written if you had told him simply, "No, it's not regime change, it's more a process of regime replacement therapy."

And let him figure that out?

You would have helped this administration accurately descibe the rationale behind calling for Ghaddafi to "leave", the humanitarian response by USAID, the democracy programs helping folks raise institutions of governance in places where we've already removed abysmal forms of government or the people have themselves on their own, and projected consistancy as a US policy package of mutiple aspects and programs in three simple words that define a process of the change we seek in the world generally, and in notable cases of international crisis specificly.

Now if my logic here has any holes in it, you are certainly welcome to come on this blog and state your case, officialy or otherwise as an individual.

I'm sure other's will regardless.

Think of this as a friendly public challenge to be the best spokesperson you can be.

Best regards,



Latest Stories