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: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
some very good replies keep em rolling




posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skittle

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.


I believe "Illegal Occupation" is the term.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I believe "Illegal Occupation" is the term. I believe that if it were illegal than we would have had governments stand up and try and kick us out or sanction us nothing has happened yet.. nothing will.. its in the past now and the u.s will be there for a long time no matter what any body says.. find some thing new already



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortlitantiFMMJ
I'd be happy for NATO to go in and overthrow Gadaffi, he's attacking his own people.


Obama is attacking his own people too, just in a differnet way.

Maybe nato will "go into " Washington and Overthrow the opressor?

Wadda ya reckon... EH?



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Libyan oil costs about 1.00$ a barrel to produce!
Imean if oil is 100$ a barrel they make 99$ profit on it!
This may be a small percent of the worlds oil but it is many billion barrells.
There is natural gas as well....
The stakes are enormous beyond imagining.The country under occupation would be a natural bridgehead to the interior of africa....
Its too ripe a plum for them not to make a big deal of the whole thing....
I am sure well be supplying the rebels with everything we can sell them for the 30 billion we took from gadhafi.....
That sould buy enough arms and ammo to ensure victory for the west.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FPB214
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.


No Nation has the right to dictate to another over their own sovereign air space .To impose and enforce a no-fly zone requires the physical destruction of airfields,inferstructure and planes to achieve this objective .Sounds like a fully blown war to me friend .Do you think they would just ask nicely ? They do this and it is beyound the point of talk and no return ! If this was done to your country would you just sit back and allow it .No you would defend your country from a unwelcome foreign invader and be labelled a terrorist .Gotta love that label just for defending your home .



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FPB214
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.

Excuse me, you don't write very well, so it's hard to tell, but are you saying that Iraq is better off than it was before the USA invaded?
That's utter bollocks!



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by FPB214
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.

Excuse me, you don't write very well, so it's hard to tell, but are you saying that Iraq is better off than it was before the USA invaded?
That's utter bollocks!


from some one who has been to Iraq and worked with their fine people.. I know first hand how that country is doing it is doing better and than on the other hand its worse.

problem with a country like that is that they spent so long under a dictatorship that they don't know how to be free. The problems facing the country today are not the U.S or N.A.T.O forces but rather their own people.

I was their toward the end of what you would call the U.S forces holding Iraq just before the pull out. They are still in the middle of a civil War that may not end unless one part of the country is destroyed.

I think Iraq will be better on in the long run if they can keep from killing each other and learn the long and hard way how to deal with each other with out outside help.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Reaper2137
 


"problem with a country like that is that they spent so long under a dictatorship that they don't know how to be free. "

Being occupied by armed illegal aliens who prop up a puppet isn't "free"..

I'll bet the Green Zone is the envy of the Mid East right along with Six Flags Abu Ghraib.. Americans would violently reject occupation living conditions Iraqis are expected to embrace while waiving a US flag.

It's beyond laughable to think Libyans want to become the next Iraqis... why in the f would ANYONE welcome US party leaders "help"??.. because republicans & democrats are so "good" at what they do?? lmao.. and so full of virtue too!! lol..

Dumb Americans might believe their party leaders who insist, despite that fact pee-pee is gushing from DC, the Govt isn't urinating in their face.. "Oh no!!, that's golden & delicious apple pie rain!!.. taste you can believe in".. but I suspect the Libyan people know better than to trust the morally & financially bankrupt sociopath liars in DC.

Of course select other nations like China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea et al will play Americas game of arming "the enemy of our enemy"... fomenting "Anti US sentiment" would be good for war profiteers on the other team.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
reply to post by Reaper2137
 


"problem with a country like that is that they spent so long under a dictatorship that they don't know how to be free. "

Being occupied by armed illegal aliens who prop up a puppet isn't "free"..

I'll bet the Green Zone is the envy of the Mid East right along with Six Flags Abu Ghraib.. Americans would violently reject occupation living conditions Iraqis are expected to embrace while waiving a US flag.

It's beyond laughable to think Libyans want to become the next Iraqis... why in the f would ANYONE welcome US party leaders "help"??.. because republicans & democrats are so "good" at what they do?? lmao.. and so full of virtue too!! lol..

Dumb Americans might believe their party leaders who insist, despite that fact pee-pee is gushing from DC, the Govt isn't urinating in their face.. "Oh no!!, that's golden & delicious apple pie rain!!.. taste you can believe in".. but I suspect the Libyan people know better than to trust the morally & financially bankrupt sociopath liars in DC.

Of course select other nations like China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea et al will play Americas game of arming "the enemy of our enemy"... fomenting "Anti US sentiment" would be good for war profiteers on the other team.


NO matter who would have invaded you would still have the same problem. They are in a civil war right now. has very little to do with U.S intervention. Yes they are free right now They can do what ever they wish.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137




Yes they are free right now They can do what ever they wish.

That is manifestly untrue.
I don't know how you can possibly believe it!
V.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Reaper2137




Yes they are free right now They can do what ever they wish.

That is manifestly untrue.
I don't know how you can possibly believe it!
V.


I don't know I WAS THERE? I've hung out with the people had dinner with them? been all over the country no matter who you talk to over there. Common people will tell you that U.S is a hell of a lot better than life under Sadam.


I think this war could have been finished a long long time ago if U.S and N.A.T.O troops were allowed to spend there hard earned money in the local provinces instead of the P.X

The country's people would be a- lot better off, their country damn near fully rebuilt by their own people by now if our military would spend money on the local for goods.

food for thought.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by FPB214
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.

Excuse me, you don't write very well, so it's hard to tell, but are you saying that Iraq is better off than it was before the USA invaded?
That's utter bollocks!


Well, you obviously don't comprehend to well lol. My statement was very clear, I was saying Iraq is better off right now (without Hussein). I said Iraq right now is better off then it was, which means its now better than it was because of the invasion.
edit on 13-3-2011 by FPB214 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I guess they realize now that having a lunatic in power who used to fund and support terrorist groups worldwide, who just got done slaughtering his own people, and who is freshly pissed off at the west for seizing his money, might be worse than having rebels who just wanted some sort of political voice and representation.

It's too bad it took them this long to get to that conclusion. In my opinion it's too late but hey! At least we didn't piss off China and Russia by potentially causing political unrest in their countries by fanning the flames from the spark of a global revolution.

Long live Qaddafi and authoritarians worldwide!
edit on 13-3-2011 by Albastion because: fixed a typo: added the word "fund"



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac

Originally posted by FPB214
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.


No Nation has the right to dictate to another over their own sovereign air space .To impose and enforce a no-fly zone requires the physical destruction of airfields,inferstructure and planes to achieve this objective .Sounds like a fully blown war to me friend .Do you think they would just ask nicely ? They do this and it is beyound the point of talk and no return ! If this was done to your country would you just sit back and allow it .No you would defend your country from a unwelcome foreign invader and be labelled a terrorist .Gotta love that label just for defending your home .


I understand what a no fly zone means in terms of actions. I agree with your statement, the thing is (from what we are hearing) they are asking for the international community to help. You see Libyan's with signs saying they want a no fly zone, so why would they all of a sudden turn on the force that is giving them what they need/want?

"We can handle the troops on foot, but we want help from the world to take out Ghaddafi's air power"

"Oh wait, your giving us what we want, now we are going to shoot you down from the sky for helping us"

Doesn't make sense.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by wongy
 


Here's a new video discussion on this matter:




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
You guys who speak of "illegal occupations" and present the idea that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam really have no idea what you are talking about. If you'd said anything similar as an Iraqi citizen of Iraqi government policies while in Iraq, you'd likely be dead now. They had an interesting way of executing you so you could serve as an example to anyone else who might be thinking of opening his mouth. In each village they had a commercial grade heavy-duty shredder. They were blue in color. Normally they'd stick you in feet first so you could watch yourself be consumed before the shredder hit your vital organs. By that time you likely would be unconscious, fortunately for you, but witnesses could and were forced to see the entire thing.

Saddam's sons, in particular Uday, were known as psycopathic killers. Once Uday killed his father's food taster at a party, bludgeoning him to death before finishing him off with an electric knife. Uday also was famous for torturing Olympic atheltes for failing to win games, dragging them through a gravel pit and immersing them is sewage to induce infection. The younger son, Qusay, had a novel approach to prison over-crowding. He'd just summarily execute the inmates to make room for more. Saddam himself rose through the ranks as a contract killer for the previous regime. Of course, he is well known for his genocidal attack against the Kurds with poison gas. All told Saddam was responsible for the murder of several hundred thousand Iraqis.

Of course, here, you can say anything you want from the safety of your college dorm rooms and know that the Republican Guards are not going to visit you in the middle of the night to drag you off for an appointment with a blue shredding machine. Lucky you.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FPB214


Well, you obviously don't comprehend to well lol. My statement was very clear, I was saying Iraq is better off right now (without Hussein). I said Iraq right now is better off then it was, which means its now better than it was because of the invasion.
edit on 13-3-2011 by FPB214 because: (no reason given)

Let's see... Before the invasion (and I see now that y'all are admitting it was an invasion, which is progress) Iraq had 97% literacy (comparable to or better than the USA, AFAIK), universal education, was despite popular American belief a secular state, had better infant mortality figures than the USA (not difficult, given your munted health system), full rights for women, a sound infrastructure and was in fact a modern developed country.
Since the invasion there have been an estimated half-million child deaths, there are countless Islamic fundamentalist factions fighting for supremacy, the death penalty has been re-introduced by the puppet government, there is no effective infrastructure, and Iraq resembles an outpost of Hell. Oh, and some Americans have also been killed.
That's better?

There were no WMD.



You people need to realise that.
It's all summed up by photos my conservative sister sent me in 2004. On the left side of the page, Saddam Hussein riding in an open-topped car, standing, holding his hands up. People lined the street, mostly smiling. Hussein evidently had no fear of the people.
On the right side of the page, George Dubya Bush rode in an armoured car, flanked by motorcycle out-riders, and guys in Darth Vader costume - I mean Stormtrooper (Star Wars or Nazi, not much difference.)
The public was held back by masked thugs in uniform. To us here, it looked as if Dubya was terrified of his people! An important point is, that had Hussein been the evil dictator y'all have been told be was, there would have been ample opportunity to assassinate him. No one even tried.
Vicky



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
They had an interesting way of executing you so you could serve as an example to anyone else who might be thinking of opening his mouth. In each village they had a commercial grade heavy-duty shredder. They were blue in color. Normally they'd stick you in feet first so you could watch yourself be consumed before the shredder hit your vital organs. By that time you likely would be unconscious, fortunately for you, but witnesses could and were forced to see the entire thing.


Ah, another gem from Hill Knowlton, the guys who brought you the Saudi princess who pretended to be a sweet innocent teenage Kuwaiti girl who witnessed Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators back in 1990...
I first heard the shredder story on talkback radio in 2002, but here in NZ, we knew the story was propaganda by 2003, when the invasion was happening. Y'all are just much more gullible than we are.
Iraq didn't even have the death penalty! You guys had to get the puppet government to re-introduce it so you could kill Saddam Hussein and retrospectively legalise the murder of his family.
Oh, yeah, the blue colour is a nice touch! Almost makes it seem really real...

edit on 14/3/11 by Vicky32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Who is saying they had WMD? I haven't said that. WMD or not, Iraq is better off without Saddam as long as they prosper within the next decade or two and get a fair government that does it's job with respect to its people. Im not saying the invasion was, in the end, the right thing to do. Yet, what's done is done, the only thing to do now is to move forward. Iraq will hopefully do that and in the coming years may become a better country than it ever was under Saddam.

Nearly every leader, especially dictators, have had assassination attempts. Even Saddam.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join