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.

 

Liberal America is now put to the test

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Vizzle
Russia, China, India, Germany, and Brazil do not support this.


That goes to prove the ridiculousness, of the UN. Oh, the games people play.

If they, truly, didn't support the action, they should have actually taken a stand and voted against it. All this did was give them the opportunity to, once again, point fingers at the US, and turn even more worldwide public opinion against the US.


I don't think other countries pointing fingers make a tinkers damn in world wide opinion concerning the US.

We pretty much solidified the worlds opinion of us when we invaded countries that posed no threat to steal their resources.

edit on 20-3-2011 by whaaa because: truth hurts




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


So I call out Obama's illegal actions and immediately I must be a supporter of George W. Bush and his actions? Talk about only seeing black and white, get a clue.


The UN has no authority over this country, no authority appropriated to it in the United States Constitution, and the Congress has the say in all military actions NOT the President, not NATO, and not the UN. Criminals think they can walk into government and trick the masses into believing they wield the power and final say, well they damn sure do not, and the sooner people awake to this fact the sooner we can get our house back in order.

You want to be a supporter of the international cabal of criminals who hide inside the halls of international organizations? Good go to your beloved criminals, wrap your arms around them, but unlike you internationalists who support war and illegal actions I shall remain loyal to the real laws and the real authorities not some supranational organization run by criminal bankers and businessmen for their own benefit at the expense of myself and my country.


I am not defending the actions of 43 so quit right there.

When you have a multinational force the Congress here only has authourity over our troops and that is it and has no authourity over that of others. When multinationals are involved the UN is deputized to oversee the operation so that one nation cannot do whatever it wants.

This entire operation is being conducted under the authourity of the European Union hence why US involvement will be suspended in a couple of weeks.

You on the uber right should be thrilled about this conflict, it's what you've been wanting for a minute now!

Not one idiot and moron on the right complained when the lies about the Iraq invasion came out and would suggest to shut your traps on this event. You wouldn't complain then forfiets your right to complain now. Inaction on your part has led to the deaths directly of approximately 4,758 American Servicemen and Servicewomen so in reality the right does not really support the tropps as y'all on the right backed the bankers play fully and said nothing so continue to remain quiet as no one cares or wants to hear from the Nazi right now. Everyone not on that right during that era was called every name in the book like "Anti American", "Traitor", "Terrorist Sympathizer", "Muslims" so do not dare say a thing now. Now that the shoe is on the other foot you must take it.
edit on 20-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Vizzle
Russia, China, India, Germany, and Brazil do not support this.


That goes to prove the ridiculousness, of the UN. Oh, the games people play.

If they, truly, didn't support the action, they should have actually taken a stand and voted against it. All this did was give them the opportunity to, once again, point fingers at the US, and turn even more worldwide public opinion against the US.


I don't think other countries pointing fingers make a tinkers damn in world wide opinion concerning the US.

We pretty much solidified the worlds opinion of us when we invaded countries that posed no threat to steal their resources.

edit on 20-3-2011 by whaaa because: truth hurts


This time around Libya is a threat to Europe as they are a considerably more capable foe then Taliban era Afghanistan and Hussien era Iraq combined.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This time around Libya is a threat to Europe as they are a considerably more capable foe then Taliban era Afghanistan and Hussien era Iraq combined.


So Libya has made recent threats against Europe, or is this just hypothesis?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This time around Libya is a threat to Europe as they are a considerably more capable foe then Taliban era Afghanistan and Hussien era Iraq combined.


So Libya has made recent threats against Europe, or is this just hypothesis?


Ghadaffi has gone on tv confirming his nation as the direct financier, supporter and backer of the bombing of Pan Am Flt. 103 over Scotland which makes Libya a "State That Sponsors Terrorism" which justifies the invasion.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
This isn't a war though.

I see no American Air Force jets or bombers flying over the country.


I do not see them either, not living in Libya; however, firing missiles into and running bombing campaigns over a sovereign nation that has not attacked one pretty much IS an act of war.


The U.S. claimed initial success two days into an assault on Libya that included some of the heaviest firepower in the American arsenal — long-range bombers designed for the Cold War —



A second wave of attacks, mainly from American fighters and bombers, targeted Libyan ground forces and air defenses, following an opening barrage Saturday of sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles.


Source

We are bombing a sovereign nation that is no treat to us. This is wrong. End of story.

ETA: As a liberal, i oppose this decision and these actions just as i opposed the others, regardless of who is president, and i vocalize said beliefs just as loudly.
edit on 20-3-2011 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquesence

Originally posted by links234
This isn't a war though.

I see no American Air Force jets or bombers flying over the country.


I do not see them either, not living in Libya; however, firing missiles into and running bombing campaigns over a sovereign nation that has not attacked one pretty much IS an act of war.


The U.S. claimed initial success two days into an assault on Libya that included some of the heaviest firepower in the American arsenal — long-range bombers designed for the Cold War —



A second wave of attacks, mainly from American fighters and bombers, targeted Libyan ground forces and air defenses, following an opening barrage Saturday of sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles.


Source

We are bombing a sovereign nation that is no treat to us. This is wrong. End of story.

ETA: As a liberal, i oppose this decision and these actions just as i opposed the others, regardless of who is president, and i vocalize said beliefs just as loudly.
edit on 20-3-2011 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)


Britian who is a co Director of this conflict is in the defender stance as this is a response for Pan Am 103 in 1988.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This time around Libya is a threat to Europe as they are a considerably more capable foe then Taliban era Afghanistan and Hussien era Iraq combined.


So Libya has made recent threats against Europe, or is this just hypothesis?


Ghadaffi has gone on tv confirming his nation as the direct financier, supporter and backer of the bombing of Pan Am Flt. 103 over Scotland which makes Libya a "State That Sponsors Terrorism" which justifies the invasion.


Was this before or after Scotland released the Pan Am 103 bomber, Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, back to Libya in 2009?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Speaking as a liberal American...

I was for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan when they occurred. I was caught up, like most of us, in 9/11 fever and was drinking the Kool Aid. I later learned that I'd been misled and felt very betrayed. In fact... This is the reason why I know identify as "liberal" and not "Republican", my previous self imposed label.

If Ghaddafi is killing his own people, as the news suggests he is, then I support this action. But I am reticent to accept anything the media tells me at face value. So I am on the fence right now. If Obama is doing this for the right reasons, then good. If not, well then I'll call him a war criminal just as eagerly as I call George W. Bush one.

~Heff


I could have written this myself. I supported Bush's action in Iraq until I learned that he had lied about his reasons for going there. The reasons I supported it turned out to be fantasy, so that's why I withdrew my support for that war and have since been strongly against it. NOT because I'm a peace-nik or against war, but because we invaded a country under false pretenses.

Gadhafi is killing innocent people and he seems to be a "very bad man" just like Saddam. So, I ask myself, "what is the difference"? The answer is that, as far as I know, Libya's people have been peacefully protesting, and being killed for it by this very bad man. The reasons we're having military actions in Libya is humanitarian. They are HAPPY we're there. If this turns out to be false as well, then I will disagree with it as strongly as I disagree with Iraq and Afghanistan. But for us to stand by and do nothing would be like walking by someone being mugged or murdered and not trying to stop it. If we have the power to step in and help to stop it, then I think we should.

I am on the fence with you, Heff.


I believe that having an organization that has the power to impose sanctions and even take military action to stop people in the world from doing what Gadhafi is doing is a good thing. It can be abused, for sure and may be being abused as we speak. But we are on on this planet together and we should take care of each other.

Keeping an open mind about this...



Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi have all shot and killed protestors......Where's the "No fly Zone"?


Excellent point!
.
edit on 3/20/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


I'm a liberal and I don't support the no fly zone being implemented on Libya, and I disagree with others here on the notion that this attack on Libya is not an act of war, it is. So yes, you are incorrect to complain about the hypocrisy of liberals in general, feel free to view my posts in the past.

Now as another member stated here so clearly, this is not a test for liberal american, this is a test to America as a whole. When the tea parties occured, any comments about their silence over the iraq war was either brushed off or denied. So where are the tea parties? Why is it that liberal americans must be tested if tea parties and conservatives are largely silent on the streets and in public? There were a number of protesters against the Libyan war:


More than 100 anti-war protesters, including the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, were arrested outside the White House in demonstrations marking the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

www.usatoday.com...

So where are the conservatives? And don't tell me all this BS about tea partiers on this forum, where are their leaders rallying against this in public? What happened to fiscal conservatism? Americans for prosperity?
www.americansforprosperity.org...
ah yes, its about global warming and teachers stealing your tax payer money


Instead of playing the partisan card and focusing on one group, why not focus on americans in general from both sides??



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe that having an organization that has the power to impose sanctions and even take military action to stop people in the world from doing what Gadhafi is doing is a good thing.
That is a good point, and is in fact one of the main purposes of the United Nations.

We the peoples of the United Nations determined ... to regain faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and ... to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained... And for these ends... to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security” (United Nations Charter)


It can be abused, for sure and may be being abused as we speak. But we are on on this planet together and we should take care of each other.
All human organizations can be abused. Despite all its flaws, it’s still the best we have to deal with these situations.

If one thinks the UN can be abused, surely they recognize it’s much easier for an individual country’s military power to be abused. And the fact that most of the UN opposed and were unconvinced by the arguments of the United States for the Iraq invasion in 2003, and a majority of the American people were in favor of it, is a good and recent example of that.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
What I wonder is, why does the OP want to cow car liberals into one specific anti-war mindset?

Up till the point Obama joined with the idea of setting up a no fly zone, conseratives were complaining that Obama wasn't being presidential, because he diddn't make a unilateral decision to start military action against Gadhafi. Now that we have joined with our allies in a UN action, conservatives are complaining that we are doing something, exactly the thing THEY were demanding we do.

Personally I don't believe we should get involved beyond humanitarian aid, I believe that it's up to the people of Libya to determine their own course, and we shouldn't be spending tax dollars and military resources on fighting Gadhafi.

But, the fact remains that conservatives wanted this until Obama went along with them. Truth is, Obama could completely destroy the conservative movement, by simply doing what they want and watch as they fall all over themselves contradicting their own ideology.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 
There is nothing in Liberal-Progressive philosophy that is inherently anti-war. The gist of their philosophy centers around the power of a centralized govt to solve problems - that includes the use of violence to promote their worldview. Liberals only play the "peace" card when it is politically opportunistic. Hence, Liberals are now cheerleaders for Obama's illegal war in Libya.

Our nation's founders believed in "classical liberalism" - the freedom and power of the individual rather than the authority of church and state. With the advent of the phony left/right paradigm Liberals now have more in common with fascists than do so-called "conservatives".

True conservatives believe as the founders did. Each nation has the right to self determination without outside intervention. They knew that 'humanitarianism' often comes with strings attached. And, as in the present case, liberals are once again being used as dupes for transnational corporations and the globalist agenda.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sparky11
reply to post by Wolf321
 
There is nothing in Liberal-Progressive philosophy that is inherently anti-war. The gist of their philosophy centers around the power of a centralized govt to solve problems - that includes the use of violence to promote their worldview. Liberals only play the "peace" card when it is politically opportunistic. Hence, Liberals are now cheerleaders for Obama's illegal war in Libya.

Our nation's founders believed in "classical liberalism" - the freedom and power of the individual rather than the authority of church and state. With the advent of the phony left/right paradigm Liberals now have more in common with fascists than do so-called "conservatives".

True conservatives believe as the founders did. Each nation has the right to self determination without outside intervention. They knew that 'humanitarianism' often comes with strings attached. And, as in the present case, liberals are once again being used as dupes for transnational corporations and the globalist agenda.



The entire right has been salivating and foaming at the mouth for the last decade in hopes of going to war with Iran and Syria yet both events will not occur.

The right also wanted and pushed through an illegal war in Iraq but have the audacity to complain now as the right remained quiet then and should remain quiet now. Can you say double standard?

As stateed previously that US involvement in this case will only be temporary and not permanent and we will be out by mid April.
edit on 20-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I really cant believe how stupid some people are and how they get so many stars writing stupid things. Really, no matter what it is, to some of you people theres some backwards meaning behind it always, all the time. If you payed any attention to the news in the past three months you wouldnt be so dense to whats going on.

Lets get real with the situation and stop with the stupid smear campaigns against the U.S.

This is nothing like Iraq. Pay attention.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Secularist
I really cant believe how stupid some people are and how they get so many stars writing stupid things. Really, no matter what it is, to some of you people theres some backwards meaning behind it always, all the time. If you payed any attention to the news in the past three months you wouldnt be so dense to whats going on.

Lets get real with the situation and stop with the stupid smear campaigns against the U.S.

This is nothing like Iraq. Pay attention.


They won't because all they see is A BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH MEANS ITS DRIVEN BY RACISM.

The right will use any oppourtunity to attack the nation it is sickening and not to mention shades of Anti Americanism.

Star for you for being for being firmly grounded in reality, logic and common sense!!
edit on 20-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by restlessbrainsyndrome
This is not for the financial gain of the oil companies. This has the backing of U.N.



While Libya sells most of its crude and fuel across the Mediterranean to Europe, exports have fallen to a trickle and may be halted for “many months,” because of damage to oil facilities and international sanctions on Libya prompted by Qaddafi’s military assault on opponents, the International Energy Agency said March 15.
...
Qaddafi declared on state-run television March 15 he had “lost trust” in Western nations and companies and would grant future oil contracts only to China, India and Russia. Germany, whose leaders have publicly opposed a military intervention in Libya, has acted differently from other western states, Qaddafi said, and German companies might still be allowed to invest or get contracts.


Source


Yeah. No financial gain for the oil companies here. Move along folks.

And Saddam violated the UN terms that ended the gulf war so we had every right to go in any time we wanted.


I just want you to know that Libya supplies the U.S. with 2% of its oil...

When the U.S. has said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that were not putting boots on the ground and that 1/3 of our military is already dispatched outside of the mainland and all this with an economy thats less then optimistic, what on earth makes you think the U.S. wants a third hassle to deal with? This is obviously the United Nations and Arab League pulling our arm to lead the initial attack as to provide a perfect entry into the rest of the campaign. The French are the ones really pushing this, and of course as we all know the French need the U.S. and U.K. to back them up or else people would just laugh and say, "haha, the French..."

Whats your next conspiracy theory? That we invaded Nazi Germany for its beer?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by Secularist
I really cant believe how stupid some people are and how they get so many stars writing stupid things. Really, no matter what it is, to some of you people theres some backwards meaning behind it always, all the time. If you payed any attention to the news in the past three months you wouldnt be so dense to whats going on.

Lets get real with the situation and stop with the stupid smear campaigns against the U.S.

This is nothing like Iraq. Pay attention.


They won't because all they see is A BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH MEANS ITS DRIVEN BY RACISM.

The right will use any oppourtunity to attack the nation it is sickening and not to mention shades of Anti Americanism.

Star for you for being for being firmly grounded in reality, logic and common sense!!
edit on 20-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


If they just turned on the TV and watched Obama address the nation 1 out of every 4 times he does a week then it would be obvious that not only he but EVERYBODY in the U.S. wants really nothing to do with this but what most of these people have no clue about is that ignoring things like this, even if the perpetrator is a shi.t country like Libya, that it opens the doors to 'every man for itself'. Its that freight of thought that leads to hell on earth. If the United Nations doesnt make a stand here and now with the genocide starting in Libya, then other countrys will begin slaughtering their protesters by the thousands, and then NATO would have multiple countries to suppress.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Folks, we really need to stop with all this liberal/democrat vs conservative/republican crap it solves nothing.

With that being said I want to make a few points.

1. Qaddafi poses no threat to the US or anyone else but the People in Libya. It is their civil war let them fight it.
It is none of our business.

2, I don't think Obama would dare try to send troops on the ground.
Our troops are tired, disgruntled, and pissed off because they see we are not accomplishing anything with the wars we are already in. And if the President tried to just send them to another war they would probably tell him where he could stick it. Then how would that make him look?

Even if TPTB got Congress to vote to send troops in, Our Boys might tell them to go fight their own war.

I don't think anyone realizes how close things are to reaching that point.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by sparky11
reply to post by Wolf321
 


The entire right has been salivating and foaming at the mouth for the last decade in hopes of going to war with Iran and Syria yet both events will not occur.

The right also wanted and pushed through an illegal war in Iraq but have the audacity to complain now as the right remained quiet then and should remain quiet now. Can you say double standard?


To be fair, I should have pointed out that Neocons (fake conservatives), what you mistakenly call "the right", are just as bad as fascist minded, pro-war Liberals. Yes, I can say, "double standard" for sure!




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join