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.

 

By a rate of 56-40% Americans support Libyan “No-Fly Zone”

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Link

For some reason I was hoping that Americans had awoken from their slumber of thinking we have a moral or constitutional right to bomb another nation’s air defense systems and attack planes which fly in their own airspace. Quite obviously I was wrong.

While the polling for removal of Qaddafi as a major US foreign policy goal was significantly lower than that of the removal of Saddam Hussein:

• 71% say removal of Qaddafi is Very/Somewhat Important; March 11-13, 2011
• 88% said removal of Hussein is Very/Somewhat Important; March 22-24, 2002

The numbers are still far too high. We as a nation have no constitutional right to bomb Libyan ground bases, shoot down planes, or patrol their air space. We also have no right to do so using the “Just War” argument. The Libyan rebels have not formed any unified front asking us directly for assistance (in such an event I would still oppose intervention) so this is merely the United States and the NATO forces being the bully on the block again.

All the while we watch our mainstream media spew absolute garbage at us through our television screens all of them unanimously either supporting the “No-Fly Zone” or not opposing it. Where are the voices that are condemning even such a ridiculous suggestion (besides Ron Paul)? How about a foreign policy where we attack only if we ourselves are attacked, where we do not entangle ourselves in the affairs of other nations, where we respect a nation as a sovereign and independent state regardless of our opinions of it?

It is high time we return to the policy of American non-interventionism which went unchallenged from 1789-1917. Where just because something has “humanitarian effort” slapped on it that does not mean we should be spending our tax dollars on fuel, bombs, and the like to take out a leader of his own nation. If the Europeans want to be the great saviours and humanitarians, let them, but we should have no part in it what-so-ever. Our debt is skyrocketing, Americans are starving and sleeping on the street, child poverty is staggeringly high, all this yet Americans still think we must waste our money as the world’s policeman!

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” – President Dwight D. Eisenhower




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 



We as a nation have no constitutional right to bomb Libyan ground bases, shoot down planes, or patrol their air space.


Even if they ask us to?

In Iraq, we were going in uninvited, but in Libya the rebels are begging for us to put up a no fly zone. It is basically just making the two sides fight fair. Every boy in America knows if you see a bigger boy beating up a smaller boy, you step in and help. Or, if you see 2 or 3 boys kicking 1 boy on the ground, you step in and help. This is no different. The rebels are fighting for their freedom, and they want a no-fly zone, so that they are not massacred by the government in their struggle.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
While I disagree with your isolationist stance, I do have an issue with my fellow Americans blindly supporting these "rebels."
We don't really know who they are. I'm willing to put money on them being worse than Qadaffi from an American National Security standpoint. At least we have a known "bad" guy with Mr. Qadaffi; and he's been working with us these past few years at least.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Misoir
 



We as a nation have no constitutional right to bomb Libyan ground bases, shoot down planes, or patrol their air space.


Even if they ask us to?

In Iraq, we were going in uninvited, but in Libya the rebels are begging for us to put up a no fly zone. It is basically just making the two sides fight fair. Every boy in America knows if you see a bigger boy beating up a smaller boy, you step in and help. Or, if you see 2 or 3 boys kicking 1 boy on the ground, you step in and help. This is no different. The rebels are fighting for their freedom, and they want a no-fly zone, so that they are not massacred by the government in their struggle.


making the two sides fight fairly? what about the pounding of iraq day and night non stop, how was that fair?



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by RizeorDie

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Misoir
 



We as a nation have no constitutional right to bomb Libyan ground bases, shoot down planes, or patrol their air space.


Even if they ask us to?

In Iraq, we were going in uninvited, but in Libya the rebels are begging for us to put up a no fly zone. It is basically just making the two sides fight fair. Every boy in America knows if you see a bigger boy beating up a smaller boy, you step in and help. Or, if you see 2 or 3 boys kicking 1 boy on the ground, you step in and help. This is no different. The rebels are fighting for their freedom, and they want a no-fly zone, so that they are not massacred by the government in their struggle.


making the two sides fight fairly? what about the pounding of iraq day and night non stop, how was that fair?


I think he was contrasting Iraq and the current situation. He says, "In Iraq we were going in uninvited..."

BUt I think I agree with you. War isn't fair. I don't want to be in a fair war. I want to win. To do so, you make sure you can pound the other guy into dust in one way or another; physically, technologically or sheer hard-headedness.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by RizeorDie
 


That is my point. US helping in Libya would be an entirely different scenario than US invading Iraq. In Iraq, there was no call for help, and the Aerial bombardment was in preparation for an invasion. In Libya, we have been asked for help, and enforcing a no-fly zone would just be a way of limiting Ghaddafi's assets, and giving the rebels a fair shot at resisting.

On the other hand, I agree with the other poster, who is to say the rebels are not a worse gamble than Ghaddafi? He has been very agreeable since Reagan blew up all his palaces. So, do we support the rebels just on principle, or do we evaluate and support the lower of the security risks? How would it look if we actually helped Ghaddafi quell the resistance?

I'm glad I am not in charge of these decisions!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Please provide me with a link where the Libyan rebels are “begging for us to put up a no-fly zone”. And no linking to any MSM news sites, they are worthless sources I would never waste my time reading.

And it is not our place to step in, I guess having a $14 trillion dollar national debt and a nation founded upon the principles of “entangling alliances with none” is irrelevant.

If these rebels are true revolutionaries and not CIA paid men then I cheer for them and their success against a tyrant but it should be their success, even with the whole world against them, by winning with their own merits they will prove to themselves they are worthy to be free and respected. This paternal state idea must be stopped now.
edit on 3/14/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Many of those same people who are for this are screaming about the deficit...as if we can afford to get in any more foreign entanglements. This just brings more trouble than we need. If they need help in Libya, well they are surrounded by other Arab states that can do it. Many of them hate Qadoofus anyway.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


So you don't want an MSM source, but if I put up any other source it will just be one individuals perspective and not bonafide or legitimate? So you don't really want a source?

Here is an AP quote....

The Associated Press


BAYDA, Libya —
A rebel leader pleaded Saturday with the international community to approve a no-fly zone over Libya as Moammar Gadhafi's forces gained strength in the east, securing a key port city and oil refinery.

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the head of the opposition's interim governing council, also expressed disappointment over the failure to act by the United States and other Western countries, which have expressed solidarity with the rebels in their fight to oust Gadhafi but stopped short of approving any military action.

"If there is no no-fly zone imposed on Gadhafi's regime, and if his ships are not checked then we will have a catastrophe in Libya,"

Source

If you google "libyan rebels disappointed in lack of help" you can find a few thousand more sources, so take your pick.

ETA: If you add "al jazeera" to the google search, you can find articles and blogs stating similar sentiments.
edit on 14-3-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I think I know how you handle it. like this :

oh look they are begging for our help . look at there oil tanks. they are burning. look over there they are being killed. it is time for us ( American humanity loving people ) to interfere.

NO. this is the way to get into emotions and fooling people. it doesn't matter where this foolishness happens.

it's wrong.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by RizeorDie
 


That is my point. US helping in Libya would be an entirely different scenario than US invading Iraq. In Iraq, there was no call for help, and the Aerial bombardment was in preparation for an invasion. In Libya, we have been asked for help, and enforcing a no-fly zone would just be a way of limiting Ghaddafi's assets, and giving the rebels a fair shot at resisting.

On the other hand, I agree with the other poster, who is to say the rebels are not a worse gamble than Ghaddafi? He has been very agreeable since Reagan blew up all his palaces. So, do we support the rebels just on principle, or do we evaluate and support the lower of the security risks? How would it look if we actually helped Ghaddafi quell the resistance?
I'm glad I am not in charge of these decisions!


Yeah. It's amazing how a cruise missile aimed at your tent can motivate one to be more reasonable....

We wouldn't necessarily have to actively aid Qadaffi, just NOT help the "rebels." He's doing OK now with his own troops and the mercs he hired.

I've been trying to get more info on these rebels but there isn't much out there. Which worries me even more. Qadaffi may be a bad guy; hell, he IS a bad guy. But at least he's a semi-sane bad guy who is willing to work with us (for cash). It's fairly straightforward to forecast his actions/reactions. And, he's Soooo cute (or is that Qute?). And anyone with a staff of hot Ukrainian chicks on call can't be all bad...



edit on 14/3/11 by 35Foxtrot because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/3/11 by 35Foxtrot because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/3/11 by 35Foxtrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


By MSM I meant the news sources such as FOX, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, NYT, BBC, Bloomberg, and JPost, almost any other media source is okay. And I see you have provided one by the Associated Press, thank you for linking that article, but all of my statements still stand.

No intervention, period!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hmdphantom
 


Finally! A voice of reason in a sea of insanity.

Also I see you are from the Islamic Republic of Iran, nice to have you on the boards.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Misoir
 



We as a nation have no constitutional right to bomb Libyan ground bases, shoot down planes, or patrol their air space.


Even if they ask us to?

In Iraq, we were going in uninvited, but in Libya the rebels are begging for us to put up a no fly zone. It is basically just making the two sides fight fair. Every boy in America knows if you see a bigger boy beating up a smaller boy, you step in and help. Or, if you see 2 or 3 boys kicking 1 boy on the ground, you step in and help. This is no different. The rebels are fighting for their freedom, and they want a no-fly zone, so that they are not massacred by the government in their struggle.


Rebels, insurgents, freedom fighters, terrorists, revolutionaries... the label depends on perspective I guess.

The situation in Libya is more of a tribal-based civil war, in contrast to the "uprisings" in Tunisia and Egypt where rising food prices drove the populace to demand a change of a corrupt (and very wealthy) regime.

That said, I agree that it is a pretty unfair fight when pistols combat fighter jets.The thing is, is it right to choose sides? If so, shouldn't it be a constant practice to ensure a "fair fight"?

We know of other situations where sling-shots combat tanks, yet no members of government encourage involvement in those situations.

the Billmeister



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Those Americans are stupid, just like their spender-in-chief.

There is no need for us to get involved, why can't we just mind our business? Seriously, if Obama was bombing us I'm 100% sure that Libya wouldn't set up a no fly zone for us. So why should we help them? We shouldn't! We seriously need to help ourselves, and we can't even do that!

If we bomb Libya that's an act of war, and we cannot afford another illegal war!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
remember these polls are counted as 1,000 sheeps representing america yet i find polls meaningless as amercia is the nation of 500 millions or more so how can 1,000 represent the entire nation?


hey thread op was that polling by a phone polling based?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Yes it is a phone based survey. It stated that at the very top of the .pdf.




top topics



 
1

log in

join