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.


USS Enterprise on its way to Libya as America and Britain ramp up threats to enforce no-fly zone abo

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:42 AM
reply to post by jackflap

I always felt that the slightest reason to take out Libya would be good enough for UK and USA. Pan Am was always going to come back and haunt Gaddafi at some point down the line. He's up there with the Ayatollas of Iran with a bulls eye stapled to his forehead

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:45 AM
Countries the US need to save...

There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:02 AM
This is from ten minutes ago. It seems all but inevitable that this is going to get really bad, really quickly.

Libya troops mass in west, US moves in warships

LATEST: Forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi were massed in the west of the country, residents said, and the United States said it was moving warships and air forces closer to Libya. Residents feared pro-Gaddafi forces were preparing an attack to regain control of Nalut, about 60 km from the Tunisian border in western Libya, from protesters seeking an end to Gaddafi's rule. The United States and other foreign governments discussed military options for dealing with Libya as Gaddafi scoffed at the threat to his government from a popular uprising. US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said Gaddafi was "disconnected from reality," was "slaughtering his own people" and was unfit to lead.

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:05 AM
Number one: This is continuing to get more and more developed. The Anti-Gaddafi protesters will storm their capital under a U.K., U.S./NATO air cover. This battle will be remembered as a catalyst for the beginning of the next large war. An Alamo of sorts, but much bigger. There is way to much syncronity here (Gov't shutdown, Libyan and middle east uprings, the collapsing of our U.S. economy). If we see one strong leader arise is the middle east, I'm afraid we already know excatly how things will pan out..........

Number two:

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Egypt: no oil = no problem.

Libya: oil = big problem

Funny how that works. How about "Operation Independent Libya" or O.I.L. I think that has a nice ring to it!

That's funny

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by backinblack

Oh, I agree I just can't shake the feeling that something is going to happened. It's weird. I feel like Libya is going to be a lot bigger deal than everyone is making it out to be. I mean the U.S. dropped 36 bombs directly on Gaddafi's house in 1986. 300 more bombs and like 50 homing missiles were shot all around Libya. Gaddafi didn't forget that, he also tried to get nuclear weapons and has a nuclear weapons program. He's got mustard gas and other weird sht. I think this guy is going down with a fight.

It just seems to perfect; the Middle Eastern protests, great old supercarrier, Gaddafi being defiant with force, Iranian ships, Egypt loses its commander and chief, and the U.S. stealing billions from each dictator. This just feels like its playing out to be something huge. I was thinking possible false flag with the Enterprise but now I feel like they don’t even need one.

There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.

I've heard that before. I wish we could get some proof.

edit on 1-3-2011 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by tooo many pills

I've heard that before. I wish we could get some proof.

lol, the proof is there..It's a fact not a conspiracy..

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by jackflap

Isn't that how it's supposed to work? You mean you haven't been conditioned properly? Just kidding. I am of the opinion that this was predicted a while ago. There are no surprises to those who are pulling the strings.

I know... I heard the same predictions here on ATS about us going to war in Lybia... I just dismissed it because I thought that tactic would be way to out in the open and expose the elitists completely... but yet they are doing it!
It is so crazy... and yet, people will do nothing but stand by and watch on their TVs.

I think people should cut off funding to the government. You know, how they can automatically cut off a countries finances? We should cut off our governments finances... kill the banks... this is just crazy. Don't get me wrong - I support the Lybian people, but how much more do we have to pay our government when they won't even listen to us?

This is going to hit home in a bad, bad way.

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:24 AM
The likes of Cameron and Obama care nothig for the people of Libya. They have had their marching orders from the bankers and oil companies.
What they fear the most is the new leaders of these nations, overthrowing the old guard, and declaring all previous contracts with the big western corporate machine as being null and void. Cameron, Obama and many others got to where they are backed by oil and banking concerns, and that is who they must serve in order to remain in power. Unfortunately for them, the people of these nations rising up against their corrupt and brutal leaders, are making it clear their "help" is neither needed nor welcome. It is for them to decide what direction they take in setting up new governments, NOT us or our leaders (and I use the term leaders very loosly!, corporate stooges seems more appropriate).

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:25 AM

the Enterprise - with its compliment of F-14 Tomcat fighters - is not the best candidate for a humanitarian aid mission.

I think this sums it up pretty good. What bothers me is all the drama about the approaching warships, why not just stay mum, get the Intel on his whereabouts and drop one on him and his son, like tonight. He's not going to go peacfully, the more time he has, the more desperate his situation, the more life's that will be lost. They need to be done with him ASAP.

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:26 AM
Why does this thread only have 7 flags?

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:41 AM
There were others on ATS saying this before me, that this would backfire. They were in-fact pretty quick to assume that USA would do the really awful thing in this situation. It must suck to be a Libyan right now. They have oil, they have protests and they are taking over branches of government. But, US forces stand by to take it all away from the Libyan people. A military intervention will be really bad for the Libyan people. Mark my words, if the military goes in all infrastructure will be destroyed and extremists will gain momentum because of the foreign invaders. That spells out a Libya in chaos. Libyans should settle this themselves. US-forces lack credibility at peace-keepers. They have high credibility as war-mongers. And that is what I really think this situation is all about. Somebody wants to make money, so they make sure there is a new war going on. The US is broke right now, so they need some defense-spending to boost their economy. It is like seeing a drug addict. Also chaos in Libya will make the refugee situation in EU worse, thus making USA stronger compared to them.

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:52 AM
You want to keep track of events and make your own personal maps:

I will try to post some sort of map of the situation if I can get time lol...
edit on 1-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:57 AM
reply to post by muse7

More than likely, because the thread started somewhat around 1 PM EST

More flags to follow I'm sure of it, as this thread branched out from a post on another thread as this report of the carrier heading up the Suez was just brought to all of our attention...

I've been following these events closely and have also another point to bring up and that is it seems that we cant get the whole truth and or coverage of the story necessary due to the "termination and or trickling of media" of these countries' internet, and of course, how convenient that the other form of media the TV satellites have been "jammed."

Could be just as the media states that it is the "regime's" own doing, or something else might be playing a factor as this never happened back in the day, (internet excluded, due to the crudeness of web tech back then, however TV coverage was right in the middle of things if I recall correctly)... You all might remember... when the U.S. was setting up shop so to speak in Iraq...

S+F to OP's thread BTW

edit on 1-3-2011 by Kamesan because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:00 AM
reply to post by nidstav

The US is broke right now, so they need some defense-spending to boost their economy.

Defense spending only boosts the deficit, not the economy...

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:22 AM

Well...lets see...which countries are we keeping the peace in and spreading freedom.

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:55 AM
Let them slug it out. Or better yet, take this action before the UN and get international support. The US and the UK do not need to be sticking their noses in another international crisis where it does not belong. It seems that Libya supplies the bulk of it's oil to southern Europe, why not let the EU handle this mess? Why not have an emergency UN Security Council session and get a general consensus on how this matter should be addressed? Lately, all I have been hearing is frothing at the bit for Gaddafi to step down by the likes of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, President, Barack Obama, and Prime Minister, David Cameron. Any time the US or the UK shows its teeth in incidents like this, it is usually taken the wrong way as is the case with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Furthermore, where is the US Congress or the British Parliament in this latest attempt at foreign military intervention? I thought matters like this had to be deliberated in the legislature before going to Obama or Cameron to initiate action? It took 30 years of Saddam Hussein doing this to his own people before the benevolent leaders of the West decided to respond, what makes a lowly two-bit dictator in Moammar Gaddafi any different? Saddam had oil too! The emperors have no clothes! As I said earlier, let the Libyans slug it out amongst themselves. On another note, the article has said the Gaddafi forces have not been able to regain cities held by rebels, and it seems Gaddafi is desperately trying to hold the capitol of Tripoli.

USS Enterprise on its way to Libya as America and Britain ramp up threats to enforce no-fly zone above Gaddafi

Paramilitary groups and mercenaries allied with Gaddafi were unable to recapture any of the cities or territory held by the rebels.

Gaddafi's forces continued to use helicopters and fighters on the rebels, who themselves have not been able to make any inroads into Gaddafi's Tripoly stronghold.

Let them fight to a stalemate for all I care. Sooner or later the human cost and destruction to infrastructure will be to great for all involved, and hostilities will seize. If Gaddafi remains in power, it won't be for very long, because his people will be left with a bitter taste and thirst for retribution. The walls are closing in on his regime. To cut a long story short, the US and the UK should stay the hell out of this one! To be fair, that goes for any foreign nation acting unilaterally! This is the business of Libyans and not yours.

edit on 1-3-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:28 AM

Originally posted by backinblack
Countries the US need to save...

There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.

Don't be pathetic. The Rothschilds might have an interest in oil corporations, but they couldn't care less about these few countries. You don't seriously think they have a list with a few countries left to tick off, now do you? This is all about strategic interests of the US and the West in general. The US economy is running on oil, since the entire world can buy the substance exclusively in dollars. In other words, the US needs not to produce anything in order to buy oil, whereas all other nations need to produce economic goods, sell them and buy dollars to subsequently buy oil. If they would not do so, they would face massive inflation, whereas demand for dollars due to the ever-lasting need of oil, remains steady - even if the US has no economic output.

That's why the US could always spend almost infinitely - it's not the size of their economy. If that would be the case, we - the largest economy in the world, the EU - could act similarly. Now they have pushed it over the edge with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and health care reforms. Being a big spender is increasingly becoming difficult and all they can do is relying on oil being around to support the US economy.

You might wonder why we still have no large-scale substitute for oil. After all, our technology is advanced enough. The answer is simple - it's simply not in the interest of the US and all the possible solutions are mere show. They are never gonna make it, whereas the real solutions to our fossil fuel dependence are locked away, only to be revealed when the world runs dry of oil.
edit on 1-3-2011 by Mdv2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:34 AM
To be honest I generally look to the number of refugees to give an indicator as to how dangerous it is on the ground, how desperate people are and how close to conflict we are (which feels really close)

If we enter another conflict in the region with another oil producer we risk the price of oil doubling overnight.. such a route will cripple the *cough* global recovery..

And you only have to look at the 70s to see how that could pan out, Imagine the UK returning to a 3 day week *shudders* (which could be replicated in other nations dependent on imported oil)

Supporting the Libyans right to determine who governs them is one thing, But creating a wider conflict that includes the military from nations outside of Libya (i.e the West) we risk that kind of outcome, an outcome that will neither help us or the people of Libya.

Personally I see intervention as the West shooting itself in the foot.

Or perhaps it will be used to mask, control any next global market crash?

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:00 AM
reply to post by backinblack

The House of Rothschild is a red herring and a scapegoat.

If someone really wants an eye opener on the global central banking system, one would look at the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which serves as the central bank to the world's central banks.

They would look at their current membership, aka the network of global central banks.

Here is a map of it. Note all of the blue states are members.

As you can see there are far more than five. Most of the Islamic world is outside the system, due to Islamic law and doctrine on banking. One really has to avoid most of the "mainstream" conspiracy lore, its riddled with hoaxes and misinformation, i.e. the lists of investors in the Fed, which are one of the worst offenders.

Will the wave of liberal progressive revolutions bring these Islamic nations into the global network of central banks?

Only time will tell, but for the Katechon of global governance initiated by the G-20 and the Financial Stability Board to be effective in maintaining global financial and economic order, those nations will have to become member states.
edit on 1/3/11 by MikeboydUS because: !

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:30 AM
So what, American revolution wouldve not succeeded had it not been for the French. Just because America saved their asses in WW2 doesnt diminish what they did for america's freedom in the beginning.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in