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.

 

Point Of No Return: U.S. And NATO Prepare For War With Libya

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
is this for real?!?!

what are peoples views on this?


www.globalresearch.ca...




posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by wongy
 


Yeah with all the turmoil in the Pacific right now, this is the perfect chance for the US government to sneak into another war. Every media outlets' attention is diverted, peoples' attention is diverted, this would be an ideal moment for the bad guys. We all knew this was going to happen sooner or later.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I have a feeling that the US/NATO invasion will fracture the American Empire even further. It remains me of how the British Empire faded by attacking Suez



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
America simply cant afford to go to war, if this is a reliable source i hope the americans would be outraged rather than go with the government with this is us unreal... it will cripple america even more, why do they have to stick their noses in every situation?? i really hope they are not going ahead with this



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by raiders247
 


Actually if my source is right lebanon is the one to watch on sunday as these protests against hezbollah could turn violent apparently hezbollah might drag israel into it if it feels threatened then SHTF.

All speculation mind but as for the title of this post is misleading to say the least i thought the link was at least a link to a confirmed news outlet that wasr had indeed broken out but no.....just another speculation thread AS ALWAYS.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Well they can't afford to have a Euro sign on the worlds largest oil reserve, don't they?

It's too obvious yet no-one says it.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Iraq invasion deja-vu



Remember Saddam Hussain? He was a “strong man dictator.” We imposed him on the Iraqi people for a long time. He was a “bad guy” who sometimes “attacked his own people,” the Kurds in Iraq. He was a bad guy but he was our “bad guy” with lots of oil so we supplied him with lots of guns and money so that he could help mind the region for us. And now millions are dead. The killing is every day and never stops. Can you say genocide? Better still, can you say Nuremburg? And this Gadaffi guy, he‘s a bad guy too. Guess what ? His country has lots of oil like Iraq. Not as much as Iraq which has the second largest known reserves, just the twelfth largest know reserves in the world. But have you seen gas prices these days? Still many, many, many tanker loads of cash! Can you see the Imperialism even a blind and dumb American like me sees plain as day?


SOURCE



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Skittle
 


Indeed it is...

This is not a one-liner!



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wongy
 


US will be a part of the action only, quite some European countries will join this time. Also, the fact that NATO got the green light for a non-flight zone from the Arab countries will make things "legal".. I do not expect to see any Afghanistan or Iraq - like stories, just pinpoint targeting over Gaddafi so the rebels will have the table turned in their favour.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
hmm sorry i really hope it is speculation, the world is going through so much its hard to take in everything. i had to get some answers from the majority



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
As soon as the US said "We'll leave it up to NATO",War was declared.

Remember Bush, Iraq and NATO?



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I think I'll go out on a limb and go with the crazy Lindsey Williams info. I think the U.S. and friends (Not centralized - true PTB) are just stirring the pot to force and cover their planned mayhem in Saudi Arabia to really make oil spike, then it will go down hill really fast.
edit on 12-3-2011 by usmc858 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
If anything at all I thought we would just impose a no-fly zone, which is more than likely what will happen. No need to have a real "war" over it. The rebels are only asking for help against the attacks from the sky, if they say they can handle the rest on the ground, let them prove themselves and give them what they want.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wongy
is this for real?!?!

what are peoples views on this?
www.globalresearch.ca...


what it really does is punctuates the absolute abject hypocrisy of barack obama and the sheep that have supported him.

they whined incessantly about an "illegal, unnecessary war in iraq and afghanistan" but when barry and his controllers decide that they need to bomb the hell out of another country obviously for political reasons, his sheep supporters get in line like lambs to the slaughter.

the hypocrisy and the lies of these people is astounding and sickening.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FPB214
No need to have a real "war" over it.


The Iraqi invasion was no "real war" over it. It was an upright slaughter, and still is.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PureET
 


World largest oil supply?

2% of the worlds production you mean?

We have to help the people. Even I must admit we are to late



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
When the people at the top of the pyramid want their most valued resource there is no stopping them. The idea of fighting three wars at one time won't stop them, citizens marching and protesting their capitals won't stop them, and $15 trillion in red won't stop them.

I think the U.S. will just take out every target to create a no-fly zone, then let the E.U. and U.K. take the country on the ground, while providing cover with a carrier group. The European's are much more dependent on Libyan crude and their armies haven’t done anything major together for the E.U. superstate yet. I feel they want E.U. to become a much stronger superpower to help the U.S. in global domination.

Maybe, they will use the money they froze/stole from Mubarak and Gadhafi to pay for the war this time...? That might be asking a little much, sounds more like an incentive to start the war in the first place.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Skittle
 


Ok, I didn't mention anything about Iraq, since that isn't the main subject. Whether or not people think it was a "real war" and whether they agree with it or not, Iraq (for right now) is more balanced and better off then it was.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I'd be happy for NATO to go in and overthrow Gadaffi, he's attacking his own people.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Technically I believe this is a pretty good article. There aren't any missteps I detected on the American Military. It got some of the logistical details down correctly, such as the need for lots of tankers for refueling. It also nails what you'd have to do set up a no-fly zone. My quibble would be that it overplays the capabilities of the Kerasarge Amphibious Ready Group and the Enterprise Strike Group.

The only reason they are keeping the Enterprise in the Red Sea is because they do not want to abandon the Arabian Sea and leave just one carrier, the Vinson, there by itself. And if you look at a map, launching against Triploi from the Red Sea is about a 1200 mile trip. The fighting radius of an F-18 is about 400 miles, so you're looking at serious air refueling issues with not enough tankers in the world to do it. (A consequence of ditherig for a full ten years on the Boeing vs Airbus tanker deal. Thanks, McCain.)

If Obama has actually wanted to keep his options open he would have sent the GHW Bush to the Med two weeks ago and it would be there by now. But he didn't do that and now his options are limited. Sending fighters from Europe is also a long-shot refueling nightmare. It's a long way from Germany to Libya. Italy itself is nearly 800 miles long.

For its part the Kearsarge might be able to establish a small beachhhead, but nothing more, and nothing if the Libyan Air Force is still flying. They might be able to defend an oil field, for example. It may be the "biggest baddest amphibious ship out there" (from the article, kinda) but to give you some perspective, it is a third the size of a nuke carrier. It carries helos and harriers and 1500 of its Marines are in....Afghanistan. It's short-staffed.

So, bottom line is some serious logistical issues that have to be solved to make this even a little bit viable.
edit on 3/12/2011 by schuyler because: F-16 vs F-18 sorry. There is a difference



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join