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.

 

VIDEO: Obama trying to limit military involvement in Libya

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

VIDEO: Obama trying to limit military involvement in Libya


www.cnn.com

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama is trying to limit the United States' role in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to support aircraft only and is very reluctant to commit any offensive U.S. firepower, a senior U.S. official familiar with the military planning discussions said Friday.
"We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone," the president said in a nationally televised statement about U.S. military action.
"The presiden
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I don't believe he is being "weak" at all. McCain and/or Bush would have had to prove a point a.s.a.p. Sure that is speculation, however...

I applaude Mr. Obama for not jumping the gun, no pun, and launching strikes as soon as approval was deemed. The people of NATO countries do not want to see any of their soldiers killed... Libya does have the ability to strike back, even if they don't last overnight. Glad to see we scared Gadhaffi into making a public ceasefire statement.



Clearly strikes will take place, for even Canada is sending a dozen fighters to the region. Mobilized cost money. People want action.

I believe he will go down in flames very shortly.
No trial for him.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 19-3-2011 by CanadianDream420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


I agree..
it would be good to see the Arab world take an active role..
The US should merely assist in the background..



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
why is no one assisting the palestinians. where's the no-fly zone over the west bank and gaza so when israel targets "militants" with their apache helicopters, 24 civilians don't get blown to bits in the process.

why is no one encouraging peaceful palestinian protests to end the military occupation.

why aren't a million palestinians marching peacefully into jerusalem and demanding to free.

i'll tell you why, because they'll be meet with depleted uranium bullets and tanks. it'll be a massacre of epic proportions, were they'll all be labeled terrorists and israeli action justified for it's peace and security.

and you'll see that two faced snake, hillary clinton come out "condeming israels action" while they veto every possible solution for this crisis.

not that obama is much better, but he can't afford having steven spielberg publicly disapprove.

well, atleast the libyans are lucky enough to get international help overthrowing an oppressive military regime.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


Mate, there's no oil in Palestine..
Get with the program..



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Good, I know the U.S. likes to police the world and everything, but why do we have to do everything?


A revolt happens all the way across the world in a country we have NOTHING to do with and the world looks to the U.S. to do something about it. wtf lol.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I dont agree.
Why should we be the moral police?
How many battle fronts do our government want to fight.
Anyone realised that these wars have been based on lies? Anyone?

I bet this end up being great for the western war machine and its backers and i dont see this helping out the average Lybian. Western governments will flatten all of the peoples utilities, then the western companies contracted to rebuild will charge our governments an arm and a leg to replace them. This means your tax dollars.
Anyone here wanting to pay more tax?
NO?
Thats what i thought.
We are paying for wars based on lies already, so i feel it is wrong to go in, whether it is for support or not.

Have a look around the world if you want to play moral police.
If we were invading countries on murder statistics alone well we all know which country would be one of the first to invade.But thats another thread.


edit on 19-3-2011 by meathed because: they made me change it, You know who, we were just talking about them. be careful


Edit to add.
And he who has never hated their government and its ways may cast the first stone,
or launch the first bomb.

Ps 300 thugs one the streets does not constintute a uprising.
edit on 19-3-2011 by meathed because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2011 by meathed because: My computer is crap

edit on 19-3-2011 by meathed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Yeah this is a case of trying not to steal your buddies thunder. I was fighting a fire once, when I felt sorry for my brother , and let him fight the fire so he could feel important as well. That is what this is like. It is letting your buddy feel important to.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Of coarse they didn't strike straight away ! They had to wait for the stock market to close for the weekend , So they had everybodies money locked up tight .So all those dumbasses who gamble would loose it all when the markets free falls .Wasn't there a time when kings and leaders lead their men in to battle rather than guttlessly murdering people by the stroke of a pen while hiding behind a desk ?


edit on 19-3-2011 by 13th Zodiac because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Agreed... I see nothing wrong with the Us supporting the UN resolution and offering logisitical support to our European / Middle East allies to enforce the no fly.

The Europeans have complained for too long the US acts unilaterally. About time they take the elad in some of this stuff.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 

Agreed... I see nothing wrong with the Us supporting the UN resolution and offering logisitical support to our European / Middle East allies to enforce the no fly.
The Europeans have complained for too long the US acts unilaterally. About time they take the elad in some of this stuff.


Although I agree, I think the US jumped into Iraq and Afghanistan because they wanted to..
No outside pressure...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Afghanistan was because of 9/11

As far as Iraq goes, lets not go down that road since we will derail the thread. Lets jsut agree to disagree on that one.

As far as the no fly goes, it looks like Jordan and the UAE will be sending aircraft.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Un-named sources made "blah blah" noises..:

Sources are: "a senior U.S. official", "Defense officials", and "They".. or and to make this propaganda appear as an insider leak of juicy inside info.. "White House officials declined comment."

Soo.. unknown people declined to comment on what other unknown people supposedly said.. all of whom are political hacks and professional liars.... and this is the so called "news".

Looks to me like nothing more than plausible deniability.. zerobama knows it's total manure, but he gets to say it without belching out a single word.

Anyone paying attention knows to laugh at the idea DC mafia oligarchs have any intention of limiting themselves... hilarious!!.. they'll make Baghdad look like Beverly Hills compared to Tripoli if that is what it takes to shoot, loot & steal in defense of freedom.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I love how the anti-Obama camp will jump on him regardless of what he does. He has pressure from outside nations to do something so he is forced to make a judgment call. If he launches a full scale attack this group of anti-Obama people will say he is spreading US forces too thin or that it is another blood quest for money or oil or that it is Team America being the big bad policemen again. But if he does nothing or does too little the same group paints him as a coward or someone who is too selective in choosing who to help out.

These are the same type of people that mercilessly attacked former President Bush on every.single.thing.he.did...

I'm not trying to turn this into a comparison of Bush vs. Obama or Democran vs. Republicrat, what I am getting at is that these ad hominem attacks are completely superfluous. If you truly think you can make the better judgment calls on what to do, why don't you run for president of the United States or whatever nation you hail from?

As far as the outcries of why aid here vs. why not there go, look how spread thin the United States already is. We are already *trying* to mend up things in a broken Iraq (again, lets please not derail into what we think the reasons for entering there were) while continuing full scale operations in Afghanistan. Add on the fact that we are giving humanitarian aid across the world especially Japan and what more do you want done? You think that just your nation is suffering from the global recession? I love how often times the first to spew garbage at my nation are also the first to stand in line for a handout from my nation and are also the first complain and spew more garbage out when that hand out is gone or we decided not to give it to you.

No, I am not trying to say that the United States is this altruistic force that gives and gives asking for nothing in return, but we aren't these blood thirsty heathen that are selective about who to help.

I've given up on understanding the mentality of those who will scream insults at my nation regardless of who is in charge or regardless of what choices are being made. If it wasn't Reagan it was Bush Sr. you cried about. If it wasn't Bush Sr. then you cried about Clinton. Then W. Now Obama.

Notice a trend...?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Mate-there is no Palestine. Only a Gaza and West Bank but no such country of Palestine exists.


Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by randomname
 


Mate, there's no oil in Palestine..
Get with the program..



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Partially incorrect. More then 3/5 of the sovereign nations of the world recognize an independent nation Palestine (including Russia, China, Saudi, India, Paki, Brazil, Cuba ect ect). There are embassies in Ramallah/E.Jerusalem, and likewise in foreign capitals (Moscow, Tehran, Havana, Beijing, ect). And there are diplomatic missions from countries including : Canada, Mexico Australia, ect. The United States (along with other NATO countries) have a consulate-general status with Palestine.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 19-3-2011 by BiGGz because: links



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Complete bs. Gadhafi accepted the ceasefire offered by Chavez and the rebels declined.

UN will allow the rebels to attack Gadhafi but Gadhafi can't attack back. Like I said, the west has an agenda for Libya.
edit on 19-3-2011 by BiGGz because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
7

log in

join