It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How the U.S. sought, but failed, to get a green light for military action in Libya

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:29 AM

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Mdv2

Reserves mean bugger all when it isn't being pumped. Sudan does 500,000 barrels a day, compared to Libya's 1 million, so not that far off, is it?

EDIT: But like I said, the Chinese put the block on UN action there. Guess who runs most of the refineries in Sudan?
edit on 28/2/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)

Actually, Libya has a production of 1.6 million barrels a day (until the chaos began), thrice as much as Sudan. Besides, how could you possibly claim that the size of oil reserves doesn't matter. On the contrary, it's all about its potential. Libya has the potential to become one of the big players in the oil industry as soon as Gaddafi is gone, whereas Sudan doesn't have this potential. Ask the oil corporations what country they'd be more interested in. Not to speak about the infrastructure of both respective countries - Sudan is totally destroyed by civil wars, whereas Libya has a relatively developed infrastructure.

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Danbones
im decendant from the 60 million or so indiginious slaughtered by that imperialism

Care to back that up? Also, what about the French and Spanish? Especially the Spanish who actually did do murdering, as oppsoed to the British who tried to get along with Natives and fought side by side with against French and US forces in the American Independance War? Americans who later went on to put us to shame in terms of slaughtering Natives....

Originally posted by Danbones
gahdafi is doing the slaughtering with mainly BRITISH WEAPONS

Really? Because the bulk of the Army is using old Soviet era weapons, their helicopters are old hinds, the guns they tote are all AK-47's... The arms license revoked were tiny. Care to back up what weapons we have sold Libya, bar CS gas or runner bullets?

Originally posted by Danbones
yeah imperialism
an nation of shop keepers

At least our grammar holds up, hey? It's "a nation", not "an nation".

Originally posted by Danbones
ever since the rothshilds lied about nappy winning at waterloo and the brits sold him your country
pennies on the pound

Hardly. Some people took advantage of the delay in communications to make a quick buck on rumours, but hardly sold our nation. That was sold a long time before

Originally posted by Danbones
you are a imperialist stooge not the boss my friend.

No arguments there. It brought most of the world out of stone age barbarism.

Originally posted by Danbones
you queen is a HUN

Haha, no she isn't. Tired old argument this one and only trotted out by those who haven't a clue. Also, just a tad racist, no? Calling a German a Hun? Tut tut, but then because you "apparently" a Nativ American, that makes it ok I suppose?

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by Mdv2

Either way, the West would have done something about Sudan too had the Chinese not put the breaks on, which was my point you're so eloquently not addressing.

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:32 AM
Anyhow, the latest update:


The US military says that is repositioning its forces in the area around Libya in order to be able to provide "flexibility [and] options", Reuters news agency has reported.


David Cameron, the British prime minister, says that his country is not ruling out the use of military force in Libya.

In a statement before parliament, he said:

We do not in any way rule out the use of military assets. We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people. In that context I have asked the ministry of defence and the chief of the defence staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone."


posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:34 AM

Meanwhile, The Daily Mail talks about a “bloodbath that shames Britain”. The tabloid quotes a legal adviser at the UN High Commission on Human Rights, who says that “Britain might be guilty of complicity in the killings”. According to the paper, British weapons are believed to have been used to murder pro-democracy protesters.

speaking of backing up

I am not even going to wast my time on the rest
edit on 28-2-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:36 AM

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Mdv2

Either way, the West would have done something about Sudan too had the Chinese not put the breaks on, which was my point you're so eloquently not addressing.

Just getting the facts right here. I agree though, that the Chinese probably played a role in that. Regardless, the US doesn't seem to care much about the UN when their corporations want something desperately. I doubt they are going to let the Russians indirectly stop them.

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by Danbones

That backs up nothing! One line in the whole link saying "British weapons might be involved"..

Now, I would like to know what weapons.

Also, I think you should look at Germany, France, Italy and Russia for the really big arms deals that took place. We were more for sending BP in, not BAe...

Libya is set to complete the first arms deal with a Western country since an international weapons embargo was lifted in 2004, after signing letters of intent to buy anti-tank missiles and radio systems from European aerospace and defence group EADS.

A Libyan source said that contracts worth a total of 296 million euros (£199 million) had been signed. One deal for 168 million euros was for Milan anti-tank missiles and the other for 128 million euros was for communications systems, the source said.

French Defence Minister Herve Morin said, when asked whether arms contracts with Libya had been signed: "They have not been signed formally. There is a letter of intent from Libya saying we wish to buy Milan missiles...there is also a letter of intent for radio systems."

EADS could not immediately be reached for comment.

The Libyan source said the contract for the Tetra communication system was signed with EADS, while the missile deal was signed with MBDA, the missiles affiliate of EADS.

On Wednesday, the son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was quoted as saying by French newspaper Le Monde that France had agreed to sell anti-tank missiles to Libya as part of a broader military agreement.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy clinched an accord on defence and signed a memorandum of understanding for a nuclear energy deal when he visited Tripoli last week, after helping to free foreign medics imprisoned in Libya.

France denies an arms deal was signed in exchange for the release of the medics but Sarkozy's spokesman David Martinon said his visit may have helped the deal.

"If French or Franco-German companies manage to negotiate contracts, then good, all the better for them," Martinon told France Info radio.

"It's true that President Sarkozy's state visit to Tripoli was very successful because the negotiations for freeing the nurses had gone through just before and, it seems that greatly accelerated things, to the benefit of French companies."

Tony Blair helped to secure defence contracts worth £350m and the promise of more as part of the deal with Libya that allowed the Lockerbie bomber to return home.

The deals were signed during his meeting with Colonel Gadaffi in May 2007, when the then prime minister agreed to a prisoner transfer deal between the two countries. The disclosure has led to renewed accusations that the Labour government entered into a “terrorist for trade” agreement.

Senior officials with two companies which accompanied Blair on his “deal in the desert”, left with large hardware orders under the defence accord between the two countries.

MBDA, in which British Aerospace (BAe) has a 38% stake, left with a £147m contract for anti-tank missiles and a £112m related communication system contract. General Dynamics UK (GDUK) was given a deal worth £85m to supply the Libyan army with radios which could be extended to other elements of its armed forces.

During the talks, Libya also spoke with MBDA about its intention to buy surface to air missiles, a deal which would have been worth at least £200m but later fell through. The firm was also in the running to win further lucrative weapons contracts linked to a sale by France to Libya of Rafale jet fighters.


In 2007, just before the Libyan summit, the British naval shipbuilding company VT Group was negotiating with Libya to sell three high-powered patrol vessels the size of mini frigates, worth £400m.

So, the only actual deal seems to be that we sold them radios. The Europeans sold them the rest of the stuff and most of the UK deals fell through.

And I suspect you don't reply to the rest because you know you're talking out of your arse.
edit on 28/2/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by Danbones

US must supply Israel with all the oil it needs even if the children in the US are all freezing to death.

Really? Can you please point me to proof of this... I would love to read the official US Govt. document that says "even if the children in the US are all freezing to death"...

Or did you throw "children" and "freezing to death" for dramatic effect?

Please and Thank you
edit on 2/28/2011 by ShaunHatfield because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Mdv2
Anyhow, I find it remarkable that we, the West, apparently have no problem with a genocide taking place in Darfur, which has already taken the lives of over 300,000 people and left more than 3 million displaced, while the military option suddenly become a very plausible one when there's a violent conflict of a much smaller scale in Libya.

Just to add some balance to your slant here, but Darfur and South Sudan are actually very oil rich themselves. So the old line of the West trying to "install a friendly regime in an oil rich state" doesn't actually hold water on analysis. I think that you will also find that UN resolutions pertaining to Darfur were either blocked or watered down because of the Chinese and Russians then as well.
But in-so-far, it's only western media that is giving a one sided story about Darfur. If I recall, it was an idiot journalist from New York Times, who increased the number of dead from a few hundred to 200,000 dead within a week period, pluck out of the sky.That number was never proven. The psych ops went forward from there. Notice that the western "Free Media" never ever mentioned much about the Rebels there - and that the US are supporting and arming them. These arm chopping machete rebels are no angels.

So yes, the West is indeed trying to "install a friendly regime in an oil rich state".. the leader of the SLa even had a red carpet welcome in the White House in 2005. A chosen and approved new president of Sudan, if China and Russia had not blocked the UN resolution. BTW, China and Russia are supporting a Legit Govt fighting foreign supported rebels.

I'm not supporting genocide or murders - which the civil war in Sudan do exhibit (both sides) . But when I looked at the region, countries like Chad and Uganda, which is indeed practicing genocide, and is a member of the US "Free world", I do question the hypocrisy in which there are ignored.

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:00 PM
Has anyone else noticed the change in language toward Libya by Washington in the last 36-48 hours? It has gone from "observing the situation" and mild condemnation of the violence toward civilians to "offering any aid military of humanitarian" to the ad-hoc government and active negotiations on setting up a no-fly zone.

What changed?

The bulk of American citizens were safely evacuated and cannot be used as hostages by Gaddafi. I doubt military action was ever on the table save for a hostage rescue contingency plan. Gadaffi has also used language stating that "foreign powers want to occupy Libya." This was done as a rhetorical checkmate against any foreign intervention on the ground...

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:08 PM
From the Al-Jazeera Live Blog:

10:51pm The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) says that it suspects that Libya received a shipment of military equipment from Belarus as the government began a violent crackdown on protesters.

SIPRI says an Ilyushin-76 aircraft left a military base near the Belarusian city of Baranovichi and landed at the Libyan airport of Sebha in mid-February.

"The aircraft came from a dedicated military base that only handles stockpiled weaponry and military equipment," Hugh Griffiths, an arms trafficking expert at SIPRI, said.

He added that the Sebha airport where the plane landed was a key military logistics base in Libya's south.

Griffiths said a Libyan government plane has made two trips to Belarus in the past week, although it is unclear who or what cargo was on board.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:14 PM
If the US wanted a "Green Light" to invade a country, they would get it .. by hook or by crook ...
I don't think the US wanted to invade Libya. Its only supplies 2% of the world's output and Saudi Arabia has agreed to increase its output temporarily to makeup for the shortage. I believe the US would only invade countries with bigger oil or mineral deposits like IRAQ and Afghanistan (no oil rich but mineral rich).

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:43 PM
One of the top 10 worst grossing movies in the history of motion pictures was a movie called "Ishtar" starring Warren Beatty,Dustin Hoffman and Charles Groden.

In the movie,at one point,Charles Groden is a CIA adgent inside a tent telling some people with towels on their head.."Congradulations,we were with you all along,nice coup and take over."

Phone rings... Grodan answers it and hangs up..tells the Sheik "I'll be right back."

Runs out of the tent to another tent about a half mile away to ANOTHER Sheik.
Runs into the tent and says "Sheiky,we KNEW you could hold them off..We were with you the WHOLE time."

Phone rings again.. Grodan "Sheik,Be right back"
BACK to the OTHER tent. "Sheik,NICE WORK" Goes on about 5 times too many,back and forth.

THAT'S what we do. Pitifull. But that's what we do.

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:21 PM
Libya doesnt even supply the US with oil it supplies Europe at about 95 percent of it exports mainly Italy, Germany and France . Russia always plays the hate card you think they dont like to smash n grab look what did they did to Georgia. Russia also benefits from this whole Middle East process as Europe will now have to look to them for more Natural gas and Oil.

No document says the US is trying to go in anywhere alone it says INTERNATIONAL response. This doesnt have US grab for oil on it. If it is a grab for oil its on behalf of Europe not the US.

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:17 PM
Like U.S. doesn't have it's hands in Global Oil?


posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by niceguybob

Sure, but who doesnt if you dont have oil or not using your oil for whatever reason then yeah got your hands in global oil as well.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by CanadianDream420

The UN approved weapons inspectors to invade, not troops.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in