It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Analysts: More Libyan bloodshed could prompt U.S., NATO intervention

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Analysts: More Libyan bloodshed could prompt U.S., NATO intervention


www.cnn.com

If the U.S. military were to intervene in an increasingly chaotic Libya, it would most likely be part of a NATO action in which Libyan bloodshed has reached a humanitarian crisis, analysts said Thursday.

Military intervention "is something which I hope doesn't happen, but it looks as though at some point that it should happen," said Simon Henderson, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
If the U.S. Military intervenes in Libya, could this mean that there is more than meets the eye to these protests? Also what would this mean (not just for the people of Libya) for the people of US and NATO countries?

I guess the one good thing is that this has not happened.... yet.


"What's an acceptable number of civilian deaths? I don't know. Choose your figure," Henderson said. "At the very least, instead of having a casualty list certainly in the hundreds, possibly in the thousands, we don't want a casualty list numbering in the tens of thousands, or 100,000 or so."

North Atlantic Treaty Organization defense chiefs ought to be holding discussions about "not taking action but preparation" for the Libyan crisis, said Robert Kagan, a Mideast expert who worked in the State Department under President Ronald Reagan.

"I don't think anyone is talking about immediate military actions now," Kagan told CNN, especially as 167 U.S. citizens are waiting on a ferry to leave Libya.


Is military action an inevitability?

Peace & Respect,

AS

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 25-2-2011 by AeonStorm because: structure



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
My nephew is in the navy and usually just chills in Jacksonville. My sister tells me that he most probably will be sailing to libya in the next few days



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Okay I can see the US going into rescue civilians sure...
But Obama doesn't strike me as the type (Has the Balls) to sign that "Send in the Marines" unless NATO does it first...



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I`d rather NATO went into Palestine first and sort out the problems they`re having.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
There is NO reason to intervene in a civil war.
Those who do not want to fight can simply run to the neigboring borders and request asylum.
If they do not get it they can camp on the border en masse.
This will make inevitable an armed force on the opposite side of the border to record any atrocity.
Let the tough guys duke it out by themselves.
I just hope that all factions involved realize that "blue helmets" are not there to help, they are simply the elites army.
And should be dealt with accordingly.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


DaddyBare, if the malignant little dwarf that came before him, hadnt have crapped the US's moral high ground up so hard , Im sure Obama would prove how wide the swing on his big 'n' shiny's is . Personaly , while I agree that intervention may be nessacary , it MUST be done with as close to zero collateral damage as is physicaly possible. An intervention on humanitiarian grounds, as this most surely would have to be, cannot be supported if prosecuting such an action causes more civilian death in its opening manouvres, than the unrest in total already has.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I have heard, from a person I have very high confidence in, that the US is preparing for a NONCOM NEO... Non-Compliant Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation.

Not entirely sure what forces/options are being considered, but I would not be surprised to see a SEAL/Air-Combat Controller inserstion into a portion of the International Airport in Tripoli to secure a section of runway to bring in C-130's to fly American citizens out.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Dreine
 


It wouldn't be a SEAL team....
The Marines have experience in Libya to much experience... ( was there three times in my day)
besides the Marines are trained to secure and extract personal from embassies and the like...
plus they come with their own air and sea support... fast in fast out...



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare
reply to post by Dreine
 


It wouldn't be a SEAL team....
The Marines have experience in Libya to much experience... ( was there three times in my day)
besides the Marines are trained to secure and extract personal from embassies and the like...
plus they come with their own air and sea support... fast in fast out...


Aye, perhaps not a SEAL team. Force Recon, maybe? I'm sketchy when it comes to SpecForces units for the most part, I was in the spooky side of the house during my service.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare
Okay I can see the US going into rescue civilians sure...
But Obama doesn't strike me as the type (Has the Balls) to sign that "Send in the Marines" unless NATO does it first...


And what right does Obama have to intervene in someone else's civil war? That's what this is. Maybe American's should learn to mind their own business.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


This I agree with,sort out Palestine fist, stop israel,then deal with lybia after it. Kinda double standards Israelgets away with Human rights violations but other countries do not.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Laurauk
 


Palestine will have it's day... as will Israel. Hopefully.

Unfortunately, the entire Middle East is a living, breathing human rights violation. As is most of Africa and Asia. Sad but true.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Dreine
 


And the USA and the UK, and the rest of the damm world. But gets me they pick and choose whom is in violation and whom is not. See what a joke the human rights are. And how bigot these countries are whom decide which countries, violate the act and which do not.
edit on 25-2-2011 by Laurauk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Laurauk
 



Indeed. We're all basically commodities and trade good for the corporations and the rich. They do not see us as people... as fathers, sisters, friends, etc. No matter where we come from, no matter what race or heritage we are, the vast majority of mankind is used to make the super rich super richER.

And the winners (rich/elite/etc.) make the rules and deem what human rights are and who violates them, although we all know that every nation in this world violates the rights and decency of it's citizens, either overtly or covertly. Maybe I'm pessimistic on this one, but greed is one hell of a motivator.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


I never said he has the right to do anything there... other than to protect innocent Americana's who through no fault of their own find themselves caught in the middle of a civil war...

If anything I said
yes go in and get them out, but that's it...

don't assume I'm a war monger just because I'm a retired Marine... What's going on in Libya right now is their concern and they will work it out, one way or another...



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Dreine
 


Oh I know,greed is the main violator of it all.

If the Elitists smell makingmoney they will go all out to,profit from others suffering. But we as in the Western world well alot of us fall for it.

We realy should not be getting involved in these crisis going on in Lybia what so ever. Doesnt history not tell us something.. Besides who and which country will get invovled?

That is going to let us all see who is behind all these crisis which is happening in the middle east right now.

Remember wasn't long ago, Tony Blair was good friends with Gaddaffe,how things change eh



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
the thought of NATO/USA intervening to help the libyan protestors against gaddafi is a great way to help, however they should let the libyans solve the problem with their blood, when its over they will be happy, the libyans will be happy. glory for them. unite libyans!!!!

America, NATO, dont steal the glory and honor from the libyans.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by RizeorDie
 


And once again they will screw it up, exactly same way Iraq was screwed up and then afghanistan. The exact same will happen. They will interveane, mistakes will be mae,the population of lybia wlturn against them. More soildiers will be killed if they put in ground troops.

Nato countries are way over stretched, to get invovled in with another, conflict.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
US and NATO intervention would have nothing to do with bloodshed and everything to do with Kadafi's threat to bomb his own Oil fields IMO.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join