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: 55
72
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 


To compare this to the unilateral invasion of Iraq by UN forces is inaccurate on nearly every level. There is support of this from may, may nations around the world, unlike Iraq., including the Arabs (before they contradicted themselves and said they didn't want it after saying they did want it) This is based on a UN resolution. China and Russia obviously approve, or they would have vetoed. The differences to Iraq are numerous, the similarities only superficial. Iraq was the Bush Admin defying the world opinion, this is a truly international coalition enforcing world opinion.

You can still disagree with it based on your feelings of the UN and issues of national soveriegnty, but to compare it to Iraq is not accurate.

But I also know that many on ATS will always believe opposite of any official story, regardless of facts. It's called being contrary for the sake of being contrary.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Its shameful and horrifying that 90% of the posters here side with a genocidal maniac. And whats even worse is that they believe they are doing it to "fight the powers that be".



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
Its shameful and horrifying that 90% of the posters here side with a genocidal maniac. And whats even worse is that they believe they are doing it to "fight the powers that be".

Its shameful and horrifying that you are ok to bomb people which country you dont know where is on the map



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000

Its shameful and horrifying that you are ok to bomb people which country you dont know where is on the map


You must have missed that the borders to that very country are displayed in my avatar. Im not surprised.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by lea room
 


Im not really nervous. Just curious how this will all be written about in the media.

I know that the media stated that the only reason Bush went into Iraq is because of the oil. This is all we heard for 6 years. I wonder if we will hear the same reports? Because I know for certain Obama isn't going into Libya because March Madness is almost over with.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gin

Originally posted by UKTruth
This is an absolute disgrace. The West attacking another country for reasons we will never be told directly. The uprising after decades and they ability of the 'rebels' organise themselves is just way too convenient. There are other motives here - and you can be sure money will be the root of it. How much oil do Libya have?




Libya is an OPEC member and holds the largest proven oil reserves in Africa. Says wikipedia. And picture here shows the export countries.


An excellent resource. From what I see, most the nations participating in this UN action get a small fraction of their oil from Libya.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Originally posted by zeetroyman
Now im hearing on sky news that the US have fired 120 tomohawk cruise missles??

Let's do the math on this, shall we, Mr. & Mrs. U.S. Taxpayer?

1 Tomahawk Cruise Missile: $569,000.00

120 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles: $68,280,000.00

Looks like business is booming for Raytheon & McDonnell Douglas.

U.S. Taxpayer: That much more into debt.


edit on 19-3-2011 by harrytuttle because: url


LOL. You think they rest in vending machines and they aren't paid for until they are used? Yes, there are costs associated with their deployment, but those missile's actual cost has already been 'paid for'. Just to clarify.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


It's really funny how genocide is a subjective thing. It is fine and dandy for us to blow innocent people up, oops collateral damage. Sorry. It is perfectly fine for isreal to blow innocent people up, hey self defense. Darfur, oh sorry, we were looking the other way..... On and on.



While people dying isn't something I am a big fan of, one has to admit people lining up to stand between bombs and buildings as 'defense' is epically stupid. Were they forced to do so? I have a hard time accepting that a rational person chooses of their own free will to do something like that.

I tend to think they were likely coerced to do so, as how could any person think they could stop a cruise missile by standing in front of it? It's a suicide mission, by choice or coercion, and is not comparable to the bombing of regular civilian infrastructure.

Regardless, this is one of the clearest examples we've seen of using 'human shields' near key military points so that they can say 'see, look at the dead civilians'. I don't buy it, and I say that as someone who has been very active in the anti-war movement in the states for over a decade, including humanitarian aid with Iraq during the sanctions during the clinton years.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I am getting sick of this thread as well. My leadership thinks they are doing something good for humanity, well it better be proven in the next few weeks, as far as I can perceive this has made nothing but trouble for us.. Once again we NATO, has the potential to make the world a better place, and I hope within the aneurysm of this move, their is a hope to make the world a better place. I try not to look into this direction because I can see everything that can go wrong for America, and I hope and pray my leaders care and worry about what can go wrong, because if I can see it I am damn sure they can. Make this right, and make this make sense and worth the millions of dollars it will cost to make what we think is right worth it. Yes this is my last post in this thread as well.

I hope this is a moment made to make the world better, and not more dangerous..



I pray for this as well.....

thank you ats for letting me reflect my intellect.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
In most countries armed people rising against the government would be called criminals or terrorists.

If the west has a vested interest in their country they are labelled "Rebels" and provided military support.

What I'm struggling to understand the most is why the French are so keen to be involved?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
If the international community would act consistently, and immediately in all cases of brutality against innocent people, this whole thing would be much easier to swallow. But if that were the case, we wouldn't even be here because we would have taken Gadhafi's @ss out after Lockerbie. Same with Iraq, we would have taken him out right after he gassed the Kurds. These games of global politics are ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
What is this ultimate goal of these missile strikes and bombing attacks by the US and its Allies? Think of what the outcomes may be.

If Gadhafi lives, he will find a way to keep the rebels out of Tripoli, and to keep fighting. He will also no doubt find new allies among Muslim countries, willing to bankroll his struggle against the US (Iran and Syria for example). He doesn't need aircraft to continue to fight a civil war. Unless the US puts troops on the ground, it will not prevent this conflict from spiralling further out of control. There is only so much you can do from the air - short of bombing the entire country to smitherines. Look at Saddam and Milosevich after the no-fly zones were imposed - they continued to fight their opponents.

If Gadhafi is killed, then there is certain to be some general or one of his sons to take his place in the power vacuum that would develop in Tripoli. You can't kill them all from the air. Again, without troops on the ground your no-fly zone and "shock and awe" bombing games won't accomplish much. And there is no guarantee that whatever despot replaces Gadhafi won't be more ruthless than he is.

So this is what choices are there: 1) continue the bombing missions, killing some civilians and accomplishing very little; 2) stop the bombing missions, again accomplishing little and only prolonging the civil war; 3) Place tens of thousands of troops on the ground.

Ah and here we are - troops on the ground. Mission accomplished! The perpetual cycle of a military industrial complex. Yes there is oil - but it also a breeding ground for Al-Quida sympathizers to gather from all over Africa. Seriously, is that what the US and its allies want? Iraq and Afghanistan are still on a path to nowhere.



So there you have it - short of placing troops on the ground in Libya, this no-fly zone and accompanying fireworks won't accomplish cr*p. They certainly won't end the civil war that is developing any quicker, nor will they minimize the overall civilian casualties. Sure the US and its good old buddies in Europe can stretch their muscles in the Medditeranean. Even the French can play along this time - giving Sarkozy a much needed boost from the political right in France. But all of the bleeding heart, or pretend bleeding heart humanitarians can stop their bleating - the purpose of this intervention is not to save people's lives. It is either a failed effort to influence an outcome of a civil war, or a misguided military training exercise to earn some individuals their political wings.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OzGuy
 


France = vested interests in Chad. Google/wiki or whatever to see the history...and history repeating.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Nothing but more mass murder.

"America has become the World's worst Terrorists"




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
Its shameful and horrifying that 90% of the posters here side with a genocidal maniac. And whats even worse is that they believe they are doing it to "fight the powers that be".


Please get your facts straight. Nobody here is siding with anybody, we're simply stating what blatant hypocrisy this event has turned out to be.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JRCrowley
 


I wouldn't say the worst, but I guess it's just a matter of perspective. There are no "good guys" among the global leaders anymore, IMO. They're all looking out for their own (or their corporate masters) interests, never the interests of the people they supposedly represent. An honest politician is an oxymoron, and the sad thing is we all know that, and just accept it as the way it is.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by JRCrowley
 


I wouldn't say the worst, but I guess it's just a matter of perspective. There are no "good guys" among the global leaders anymore, IMO. They're all looking out for their own (or their corporate masters) interests, never the interests of the people they supposedly represent. An honest politician is an oxymoron, and the sad thing is we all know that, and just accept it as the way it is.


I didn't say that, the YouTuber did. But I will say, he has some good points to make...

As does this YouTuber:




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by lucid eyes
 


Oh care to analyze the people Ghadaffi is fighting against? The Muslim brotherhood? How about the fact that 20% of the foreign al qaeda forces are drawn from eastern libya where the rebels are based.

What do you think they intend towards Israel and the US once they secure their terrorist strongholds?

We don't support Khadaffi, what we are against are unconstitutional wars aimed at driving oil prices up for the benefit of a few very mentally ill shadow government types.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Only BBC Admits Its regime change.
Regime Change By Force Again.



The largest military intervention in the Middle East since the Iraq war is now well under way, and to many the goal looks the same - regime change.


Whats amercias and london true goals?



However much they dislike Col Gaddafi, many Arab leaders worry about the true intentions of Washington and London.



So Libya isn't another Iraq eh? notice the date when they attacked Libya?? March 19 every March 19 for some reason amercia goes to war with that date.




That did not, though, prevent him from bombing Col Gaddafi in 1986 - in the same compound hit this weekend - in retaliation for an attack on US troops at a Berlin disco.

Is history about to repeat itself in another way?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Only BBC Admits Its regime change.

Whats amercias and london true goals?


I don't think that anyone ever hid the fact that they desired Gaddafi gone. In fact, at least from the British and French side, there have been calls for him to go since the whole thing kicked of in Feb.


Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

So Libya isn't another Iraq eh? notice the date when they attacked Libya?? March 19 every March 19 for some reason amercia goes to war with that date.


Every March 19th, hey? The Iraq War started on March 20th, 2003 and what about the susequent 7 March 19ths that have passed since and God knows how many before? Sounds like you're making a claim that sounds good but were hoping no-one would check.







 
72
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join