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.

 

Libya no-fly bid 'legal without UN'

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Well as far as Libya goes in regards to the military intervention vs Chad etc. I think the bottom line is that those countries don't have anything that appeals to the US ie Oil.

As for the No Fly Zone I would like to pose one question on that as well. You said that you don't condone military action but you do condone a No Fly Zone. How do you think they plan to enforce the No-Fly Zone? Just say hey you cant fly there. No they will shoot down planes that take to the air without permission. I would argue that it is still military action.




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
A no-fly zone over Libya would be a complex operation - LA Times

A Report from the LA Times about the Topic.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Does it bother anyone that these rebels have no food, medicine, or bullets yet they have a huge freshly made banner half the size of a football field ready to wave at the world saying we dont want your help? It looks professionally done.

Where is the consideration for the 2.2 million + people living in the Tripoli area that will be under siege for a protracted period if no help arrives? Who's gonna feed them? If just 1% die of starvation and disease that is a huge number of 20k +. Historically sieges bring famine and death so 10% effected is more likely. Now it's a quarter million dead. Sooner or later these people will not blame Qadafi any longer and blame the rebels for putting out signs refusing help when its over. There will never be a unified nation if 1/3 of the population of the entire country is put to famine like this. Qadafi, as he holds out, wont feed them even if he could and he won't let them leave.

Someone needs to pull a Harry Truman here and take the projected human death toll into consideration, add to that the West wants a unified country at the end of the day and this all makes the no fly zone a no brainer. Maybe boots on the ground after that, there will be no choice as time goes by if this doesn't end.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
this will set a precedent for non sanctioned unilateral actions, be it nofly zones, or invasions

making the UN obsolete in entirety

i have a feeling thats what all this is about.

setting precedents.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by moosevernel
reply to post by ReptilePete
 


Or just let them solve it for themselves without the need for another war we cant afford. A complete waste of soldiers lives and actually being somewhere we are not wanted (again).


Don't come crying( why didn't somebody stop him???) when he's cornered like a rat and uses old crude chemical weapons on woman and kids like Saddam did to the Kurds. or dices up the crowds with hind gunships these idiotsaren't playing around and this one's crazier than Charlie Sheen on a week long coke and hooker bender

edit on 2-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by moosevernel
 


ahh so england has the same arrogance that usa shows for other nations
if UN is a toothless/useless group it should be dissolved not circumnavigated



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


I agree with what you're saying, truly. But, why does it take some nations a few days of seige, and others a few decades to stir our reaction? The answer is, for control of 2% of the worlds oil reserves, we'll find anyone worthy of saving. But what of the Sudanese people of whom an estimated 300,000 have already been murdered? What about Algeria who have lost quarter of a million in the last 2 decades in a 'civil' war? Chad, Somalia, Ivory Coast... or let's just say the vast majority of Africa... for simplicity? Why are there not faces in our media and boots on the ground there as well?

What? We can't save them all? Well after decades of letting them slaughter themselves you're willing to get on your high horse about Gadhafi? Because of what? Your unwavering moral stance? Or because he's the current boogeyman du jour? Well we shouldn't be cherry picking. Surely, first come first served? Or are you only interested in a self serving 'rescue' of people?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
You both make very, very, very interesting arguments.... I wish every topic had this kind of logic involved.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Another thing with Russia now saying that airstrikes never actually took place against the LIbyan people i dont know wether to believe the Western Media.

Im leaning more towards this is motivated by something other than helping the rebels.

It could be very bad as you basically have Russia and China disagreeing with the West on all these issues.

Hmm



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
The wise thing to do in this situation is to impose a no-fly zone and that's it. No airstrikes against military bases. Nothing more.

Just a no-fly zone to ensure that the libyan people have a fair fight against the mercenaries. People will applaud the US if they follow my advice. It's just a wonderful strategy, because it promotes fairness.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by moosevernel
Another thing with Russia now saying that airstrikes never actually took place against the LIbyan people i dont know wether to believe the Western Media.

Im leaning more towards this is motivated by something other than helping the rebels.

It could be very bad as you basically have Russia and China disagreeing with the West on all these issues.

Hmm


Israel certainly couldn't have wished for this in a million years. This is their heaven.

There is no way Israel will give over the West Bank to the Palestinians now. With countries all round them revolting on top of Russia and Iran placing new naval bases in Syria, there is no way on Planet Earth Israel can (in the eyes of the world) give away land for the next generation and more when there is no peace anywhere.

I hate to use capitals but in this instanceits justified...........

ISRAEL WINS.

ISRAEL KEEPS WEST BANK AND GOLAN.

So who is really behind these revolutions?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Pr0t0
 


It's all about not letting Islamic States pop up in certain regions. Case in point, Clinton intervening in Yugoslav region, no oil there.
Time will dictate the response, here again it's all about a unified Libya to keep out the Islamists. I am sure Obama and his people are all smiles about the big signs somebody gave them to drape over buildings with perfect Hollywood photography of rebels waving flags, but that is only going to delay the inevitable intervention if Qaddafi holds out long.
When Egypt fell we quickly backed their millitary taking the reigns of power. No chance of Islamists taking over in the short term and we already see Israel exerting influence to keep Islamists out of their new govt.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


You do realize Yugoslavia was the opposite of the norm? It was actually the Islamic people we were defending. They were the ones being persecuted and slaughtered by Christians
Imagine that.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic
The wise thing to do in this situation is to impose a no-fly zone and that's it. No airstrikes against military bases. Nothing more.

Just a no-fly zone to ensure that the libyan people have a fair fight against the mercenaries. People will applaud the US if they follow my advice. It's just a wonderful strategy, because it promotes fairness.


Anti-aircraft installations which includes command and control facillities will have to be bombed out first before any no fly zone can be put up. This is a forgone conclusion already testified to before Congress by the brass in charge of the armed forces. There is no way to throw flowers around the situation, hold hands and sing coom-bi-ya.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Phantom28804
 


We prevented Islamic extremists from taking up their cause, and in the process an eventual moral foothold in eastern Europe. But you never here of the West being the good guys in the Muslim world for stepping in and eventually prosecuting people for the slaughter of Muslims. It doesn't really matter because Clinton achieved the goal of stealing the extremists thunder and snatching the moral ground carpet right from under their feet. So the overall lesson learned is that the West will always be portrayed as the bad guys in the Muslim world.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Nice backtracking.... Clinton was not the driving force in that action that was a NATO action I was there for one and I would also like to point out that there was no Islamic Extremists being held back. They were quite literally being eradicated by the Bosnian. So I respectfully disagree with your assesment.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Phantom28804
 


If the US refused to go in, NATO would have done nothing, simple as that, Clinton gets the credit.
No oil was involved so where am I backtracking again?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 



Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by Pr0t0
 


It's all about not letting Islamic States pop up in certain regions. Case in point, Clinton intervening in Yugoslav region, no oil there.



Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by Phantom28804
 

We prevented Islamic extremists from taking up their cause, and in the process an eventual moral foothold in eastern Europe. But you never here of the West being the good guys in the Muslim world for stepping in and eventually prosecuting people for the slaughter of Muslims.


Is what I was referring to. You went from implying that the reason the US wants involvement was to fight Islamic's then when I pointed out they were the victims not the aggressors you changed the tune a bit.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by moosevernel
 


So you would rather sit by and let thousands of people be slaughtered?

I don't understand this line of reasoning.


It's not your place to get involved.

Further western involvement will only intensify the situation and the West will use this as an excuse to move right on in and take over.

Are people seriously this arrogant? It is borderline madness.

Do the people who support US intervention in Libya just ignore history? Do they ignore the lies about 9/11, Afghanistan, or the reasons for invading Iraq?

I guess they do. I would have to give myself a lobotomy to be able to accept that US intervention, especially enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Libya, would be done in order to benefit the people of Libya and not the people of the US.

I think it is extremely disturbing that the West, especially those in the US, still tow the party line and speak some morality BS about how they have to police the world. The US is the most hostile nation on the planet, and they care nothing about democracy.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phantom28804
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 



Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by Pr0t0
 


It's all about not letting Islamic States pop up in certain regions. Case in point, Clinton intervening in Yugoslav region, no oil there.



Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by Phantom28804
 

We prevented Islamic extremists from taking up their cause, and in the process an eventual moral foothold in eastern Europe. But you never here of the West being the good guys in the Muslim world for stepping in and eventually prosecuting people for the slaughter of Muslims.


Is what I was referring to. You went from implying that the reason the US wants involvement was to fight Islamic's then when I pointed out they were the victims not the aggressors you changed the tune a bit.



I did not say to fight Islamics, heavy distortion technique there.
I said to prevent Islamics from gaining influence in the region, ie "moral foothold" by taking up the cause of the slaughtered Muslims had the West not acted. Perhaps there would be marching in the streets today against Milosevich's successor, fortunately that scenario was nipped in the bud and it had nothing to do with oil.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join