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.

 

Allied Forces Begin Military Action Against Libya - Live Updates

page: 42
72
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Australiana
 


As far as I am aware, Australia isn't involved. They might support it, but they're not involved in operations.

Seems they have some sense.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
What I suggest, is that the Imperalists put their money where their mouth is and actively starts a huge campaign to rid the world of dictators.

Start with Libya, then let's go with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (because aren't they using lethal force against protesters?), then Zimbabwe, then the big one North Korea and also Myanmar and China.

I think that's fair enough personally, if we are so concerned about human rights.


Yes we are soooo concerned with human rights as our government orders torture and kills 1 million iraqis to justify the deaths of 3000 americans.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
“Congress shall have power to declare War.”

This is highly unconstitutional. For the people by the people no longer holds any weight. We the people no longer have a voice in our country.


Just incase you missed it the 1st time.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
What I suggest, is that the Imperalists put their money where their mouth is and actively starts a huge campaign to rid the world of dictators.

Start with Libya, then let's go with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (because aren't they using lethal force against protesters?), then Zimbabwe, then the big one North Korea and also Myanmar and China.

I think that's fair enough personally, if we are so concerned about human rights.


That's what we've been saying. It's a massive double-standard.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
Quite right, quite right.

However this was fairly recent.

2007 I believe?


Yup. Blair did the deal with Gaddafi that in return for renouncing terrorism and giving up his WMD programmes, which actually surprised most in the West as to their extent, sanctions were lifted and Libya had lots of cash to splash. At the time, there was no real reason to do anything about him, at least not enough to launch attacks.

Even now, he was given plentiful warning and chances to avoid this action and, had he made concessions and relaxed his grip, he could still be in power now and be on moderately friendly terms with us. He ignored these warnings, time and again, threatening "no mercy" on all those who opposed him, while shelling Benghazi despite his own declared ceasefire. It's his own damned fault.


Originally posted by Kram09
So, it's not like it was 20 years ago. They knew he was a mad dictator then, yet it didn't really matter did it?


Yup, but as you have seen, one cannot just arbitrarily take action against a country without a reasonably solid justification. It has taken a long time just to get to this point, all the while Libya has seen heavy fighting and people dying. Without a pretext to intervene, it seems they would rather just let him be and not stir the pot. Don't forget, it was Gaddafi that forced our hand, not the other way around. He had many chances, all of which he blew.

edit on 20/3/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 





Yup, but as you have seen, one cannot just arbitrarily take action against a country without a reasonably solid justification.


Considering the debacle which was Iraq, I beg to differ,



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
woah i just noticed im in a thread with a bunch of english people... how interesting.

yes, well, I shall take my leave and let you have your turn to play war. we've had enough of it.
edit on 20-3-2011 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


What?

The United States is leading this whole thing in Libya!

They're involved! (As usual)
edit on 20/3/11 by Kram09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


What?

The United States is leading this whole thing Libya!

They're involved! (As usual)


orly? our mainstream media is telling us that the uk + france are leading it.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


France fired the first shots (no doubt deliberately, so as not to show it as America being the aggressor again).

But I believe America is now leading the operation.

At least....I was watching BBC News last night and it said the United States had taken over lead of the operation from France.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Why Libya?


edit on 20-3-2011 by kindred because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Australiana
Could someone please clarify for me if Australian troops are being deployed as I only heard USA, UK, Canada and France are involved.


Canada has troops?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


France fired the first shots (no doubt deliberately, so as not to show it as America being the aggressor again).

But I believe America is now leading the operation.

At least....I was watching BBC News last night and it said the United States had taken over lead of the operation from France.


I see. So nobody really knows whos leading what and of course France fired the first shot and then immediately surrendered.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





and of course France fired the first shot and then immediately surrendered.


How original....



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





and of course France fired the first shot and then immediately surrendered.


How original....


eh what can I say? the opportunity presented itself.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Kram09
Quite right, quite right.

However this was fairly recent.

2007 I believe?


Yup. Blair did the deal with Gaddafi that in return for renouncing terrorism and giving up his WMD programmes, which actually surprised most in the West as to their extent, sanctions were lifted and Libya had lots of cash to splash. At the time, there was no real reason to do anything about him, at least not enough to launch attacks.

Even now, he was given plentiful warning and chances to avoid this action and, had he made concessions and relaxed his grip, he could still be in power now and be on moderately friendly terms with us. He ignored these warnings, time and again, threatening "no mercy" on all those who opposed him, while shelling Benghazi despite his own declared ceasefire. It's his own damned fault.


Originally posted by Kram09
So, it's not like it was 20 years ago. They knew he was a mad dictator then, yet it didn't really matter did it?


Yup, but as you have seen, one cannot just arbitrarily take action against a country without a reasonably solid justification. It has taken a long time just to get to this point, all the while Libya has seen heavy fighting and people dying. Without a pretext to intervene, it seems they would rather just let him be and not stir the pot. Don't forget, it was Gaddafi that forced our hand, not the other way around. He had many chances, all of which he blew.

edit on 20/3/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



Spoken like a true MASON
This is all occult organised to give blood sacrifice to the earth.
Organised by BELIEVERS in such.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by stumason
 





Yup, but as you have seen, one cannot just arbitrarily take action against a country without a reasonably solid justification.


Considering the debacle which was Iraq, I beg to differ,



Haha, I was thinking that as I typed!

Although, technically, the invasions was "legal" under previous UNSC resolutions. That said, the reasons given were bogus which soured the whole thing. Had the US/UK just said "We want Saddam out" instead of the WMD crap, I think alot less people would be aggrieved, including me. I didn't support the invasion mainly due to being lied too.


Originally posted by AndrewJay
woah i just noticed im in a thread with a bunch of english people... how interesting.

yes, well, I shall take my leave and let you have your turn to play war. we've had enough of it.
edit on 20-3-2011 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)


Not sure of the relevance there!


Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


France fired the first shots (no doubt deliberately, so as not to show it as America being the aggressor again).

But I believe America is now leading the operation.

At least....I was watching BBC News last night and it said the United States had taken over lead of the operation from France.


I believe the situation is this...

France led the first attack as the situation in Beghazi required immediate action. The US is the initial command due to having the set up in place under Africa Command. The intention is, once the HQ is up and running for the campaign, that other partners will take over the Command role.

That said, the US command has Allied nation officers embedded into it's structure anyway, so while nominally led by a US officer, his underlings are likely to be as much French and British as anyone else.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitor
 


A true mason? It would appear you're making a huge assumption based on my user name. It should be apparent that assumptions are the mother of all fudge ups.

Oh, AndrewJay, can you stop trolling? Really tired old jokes about Canada and France are not very welcome.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Reply to post by AndrewJay
 


This morning the news is doing a doublespeak thing.

They started in with how the UK and France are running the whole thing and how they're responsible for all the action and said the US was only firing missiles from sea and refueling French fighters then went on to say the US had hundreds of planes to enforce the no fly zone and that the world has two militaries "the US military and the rest of the world" as though implying the US was running the show.

It's like the globalists are trying to balance appeasing everyone from the "leave us out of it" crowd to the gun ho scorched earth "patriot" types to the false bleeding heart types who think bombing a nation is liberating a nation.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Tareq, in Tripoli, Libya, writes: "This is another oil war. I'm no Gaddafi loyalist but we are not stupid"


BBC News

Just thought I'd post this from the BBC News, live feed.



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join