It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


My thoughts on Libya - Am I the only one thinking this?

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 04:24 AM

Originally posted by vagabond50
I heard a good point brought up. the UN and NATO are freaking out about getting rid of Gaddafi because of human rights but NOT ONE airstrike in Darfur. Why? NO OIL.

Similarly, Angola, Sierra Leone, Congo, Nigeria, Zimbabwe...or anywhere else in Africa. Not just because there is no oil, because there is plenty of mineral wealth and even some oil in some of those countries...they don't get involved because 'Private Security' firms protect those concerns and the 'peace'. Civil war provides the ideal conditions for those concerns to maximise profit. Civil war limits supply of key minerals and therefore raises prices on those more accessible but less rich deposits. The end of civil war in those nations, or the institution of 'democratic structures' which would lead to the lifting of embargoes, would cause prices to fall.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:56 AM
You can't say we stand with all the peoples seeking liberty and freedom and then turn around and say it depends on the situation. I believe it was Mr.Ponser(?) that said we act when there's a genuine desire by the people of that country for change. People protesting under the threat of death doesn't constitute a genuine desire for change? There's no way to justify, at least with the reason(protecting civilians) we have been given, for acting in Libya and not in the other places. The situation is this: We didn't like Gadaffi, an opportunity presented itself and we jumped on it. It's what we did in Iraq and it's what we are doing now. Yes, a massacre was probably avoided by intervention but don't be fooled. The rhetoric began before Gaddafi ever began advancing on Benghazi. We would have done the exact same thing we are doing now sooner but they wanted a coalition so they could say "hey it's not just us, look at all these other guys, some are even Arab".

The reason it doesn't make sense is because he's lying about why we are there. It's not because we just couldn't sit on the sidelines while innocent people are killed. We have done just that many times and are still doing it now. Also, we can't afford to intervene everywhere even if we truly wanted to. We only act when there is a benefit for us or under intense pressure by either the national or international community. I'm not saying what the rebels have done is wrong but the rebels being targeted are not "innocent civilians", they are people who decided to take up arms because they were upset about their situation. We pretend to all be all righteous and say it's to protect innocent civilians but the rebels and the people that supported them will never safe as long as Gaddaffi remains in power. Therefore regime change is a must to accomplish the goals set fourth by the UN resolution, regardless of what they are saying publicly. We call them rebels and protesters when people take up arms against a government we don't like. When it's a government we do like, we call them terrorist

It is not my belief that America should police the world or that we shouldn't have acted. All I'm saying is they are not telling the truth about our reasons for acting. They(US) are hoping that he will either step down or be killed without us having to actually admit that our true goal is regime change. If they said that it would give credibility to the regime when they say this is an effort by Western powers to dictate the affairs of other nations. It is a civil war, we picked a side because it was beneficial for us. Has anyone heard how many people have been killed on the government side? Have you seen videos and photos of soldiers who were hurt or killed by the rebels? No you haven't. You have seen the burned out tanks and buildings but that's it. They won't show that because that's not the side they want you to see. They think we are ignorant and for the most part they are right!
edit on 30-3-2011 by infiniteobserver because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:25 AM
reply to post by rebeldog

May I ask about the comment about the Zionist regime Iran must be tired of by now? Excuse me ? I'm "tired of" Iran stoning people to death, treating women less then not even a prize winning goat, terror in a primitive middle ages terror police state and torture for the glory of some god, burying people to the neck and letting them die, I could go on but if I may ask What the **** are you bitching about, the Zionist for Christ sake, whats wrong with you! I am so sick of people who can't tell any hell, vile terror, and brutal totalitarian ***** any different from missing a sale at Macy's, or forgetting your dry cleaning. You and those like scare me to death because I really hope no, its just being out of touch, go back and get engrossed in American Idol. You don't have a problem with Israel being wiped off the map. Oh thats just great, you talk about policy and political issues you can, guess what you get to and live. People in Iran? Why waste my breath, why not take a vacation, see the sights, an execution. What the hell. You seem board but much more; divorced from the real world my friend. At least hope not that you feel so much displaced hate. And buy the way I don't like the way the Palestinians are treated, and Israel constructing more settlements on Arab land is stupid, counter productive to everyone and JUST PlAIN WRONG. But we have a zillion miles of difference in issues here, I hope to god you see and care about that.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:58 AM

Originally posted by new_here
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
OMG, you're right. Why is Congress not screaming bloody murder? (oh what a horrible, accidental pun.) Who re-wrote the definition of fundamental acts which constitute war against another? Whoever wrote this story, it's playing out like a stupid, predictable B movie. Only, it's real. (At least they tell us it is. Who knows... )
Well, who knows anything really, except what we're privy to.

But you're right, in my opinion. He is sending people to a battle. To say it's 'reinforcing a no-fly zone' is semantics-- simple word play-- when it still results in soldiers dropping bombs out of fighter jets. The UN gave its blessing. Did our Congress?

I really don't think Congress can prosecute any-kind of impeachable offense, because of the exclusion of any "Air Power," which is plainly NOT in the U.S. Constitution, thusly could be considered an explicit-power (discretionary,) of the POTUS.

Referenced section is as follows:


The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Note there isn't any mention of ANY "Air Force or Power;" perhaps there should be an amendment to include it?

But, the lack of any "Air Force or Power," of Congress could validate the Executive argument to the converse?

I defer to interpret the U.S. Constitution literally, at this point, since the only avenues of war, at the time of its genesis, were indeed land or water. If one were to literally read-into the great document, the necessity of amending it to include "Air" would seem very important. This would make "No-Fly" zones very convenient to enforce if the argument weren't taken into consideration, at the very least.

Even the "War Powers Act of 1973" probably would not apply, since any air forces could deploy and return before 48 hours is reached, thus negating the requirement to give notice to Congress. It would seem with the current "status-quo," the "zone of concurrent" powers remains intact, with possibly one side being unable to act or be viewed as "expressly limiting" the powers of the Executive Branch.

Neither side would be at fault, but any litigation could prove unfruitful by intention alone and force neither to act.

Comments are welcome and appreciated if any-part of the above is inaccurate or not factual. Please correct, if you like to engage-in vigorous discussion about government and its powers.


And this, as it has been for decades, is indeed in the hands of the politicians and bureaucrats.

posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:24 PM
Who agrees with me that the West is doing nothing but occupying countries all around the globe, triggering false revolutions and civil wars and arming both sides while sneakily stealing their natural resources, false flag trigger to go to war, human rights violations, international law violations, human genocide, depopulation, prohibited weapon testing, and next is Libya, syria, jordan, iran. Africa is already fallen in civil war funded by the West, mid-east is their next target and now they are being really successful, they already grabbed eastern europe, south asia, east asia, almost everything but russia and china

its a modern crusade in disguise of "doing good"

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 12:48 AM

Originally posted by ruffagii
Who agrees with me that the West is doing nothing but occupying countries all around the globe, triggering false revolutions and civil wars and arming both sides while sneakily stealing their natural resources, false flag trigger to go to war, human rights violations, international law violations, human genocide, depopulation, prohibited weapon testing, and next is Libya, syria, jordan, iran. Africa is already fallen in civil war funded by the West, mid-east is their next target and now they are being really successful, they already grabbed eastern europe, south asia, east asia, almost everything but russia and china

its a modern crusade in disguise of "doing good"

I agree 99% !

I would add a change however: "the West is" should read "TPTB are".......

TPTB are The Vatican/City of London connections with all the "members" that control the central banks.

the central bank "system" is how they are achieving the NWO.

it has been too easy for most "leaderships" to "fall" without hardly a shot fired !!!!! ....just a few stone throwing crowds bring down big-time dictators !?!??

I have posted much about this ......

TPTB are probably planning some kind of new "Union" like the EU ......

possibly with a "new" currency based on gold and oil to replace the $US.

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:32 PM
LIBYAN forces just hit Nato warship maybe ground troops now?????

Not looking good at all.

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
This whole Libyan situation stinks to high heaven.

At first when we (U.S.) were just advocating him not killing protestors, I was all for it. Now, it just feels like this thing has morphed into something entirely different. It doesn't feel like a protest situation anymore. It feels uncomfortably like the West has manufactured this whole scenario for it's own purposes. Since when does the President have the authority to wage war on another country without Congress' approval? There will be those who say that this is not war but, really, how can a thinking person say that bombing 10s of targets in a foreign country isn't WAR??

edit on 20/3/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

The rebels are part of the 'Libyan Nation Army' (LNA) whose leader was/is 'Khalifah Haftar'.

The rebel movement has been supported by CIA for decades as UNHCR reports. The main suspect behind the orchestration of this deadly and destructive conflict is CIA, as it was CIA who trained and financially supported the rebels long before any protests.

Whether this was opportunistic, or not is hard to tell, but the connection is easy to see.

For those who are asking why would the West attempt a regime change when Qaddafi is so cheaply selling them oil, the reason is broad, Qaddafi had many policies implemented which would easily irritate the world powers.

Some Examples are posted in a long Article written by Middle East analyst "Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya". He points out that Libya although was doing trade with the West, he was not fully on board "with the program".

Here is a list of what Qaddafi was not fully one board with:
- The "AFRICOM", he refused to join, he was one of only 4 countries in Africa who didn't join, the rest being Sudan, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, and Ivory Coast. To add things to perspective, Sudan is cut in half, Eritrea can't survive without Libya, Libya is being attacked from inside and outside, Zimbabwe (no idea), and Ivory Coast is being attacked.

- Qaddafi's calls to nationalize oil, and call for other nations to follow this idea, so that nations producing the oil control the price, rather than the companies pumping them out. He proposed this idea in 2009. This has been the cause of many regime changes implemented by the West in the past (ie Iran).

- The 'Great Libyan Man Made River', which is nationally owned under the current Libyan regime (has a potential of ending water shortages for about 1000 years). If this is privatized, huge money could be made out of it, this could be another motive.

- The 'Libya's Central bank' is 100% national owned, there is no private entity. This means Libya prints its own money, and also without any interest making it impossible for foreign bankers to make any type of profit. The Libyan banking system. This could have been a major issue with bankers, hence one of the first few things Libyan rebels did was to create a private bank, Western bankers run things, rather than Libyans, and interest is already back on.

I don't know where to find the article again, but a thorough search in Google should bring it up. This is just in my words, just an out line of what I read in the article, showing the reasoning behind this intervention (if you want to call it that), or a more provocative term would be "another regime change".

edit on 18-5-2011 by confreak because: typo

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:04 AM
reply to post by confreak

All those reasons you posted are correct. But I believe the strongest reason, the log that broke the camel’s back, is the proposed African currency gold dinar.

“…he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars."

This would have rivaled all fiat currencies eventually making Africa poised to challenge the global financial oligarchs. Something that brown people are not supposed to do and would require that they be bombed immediately.

Saving the world economy from Gaddafi

edit on 18-5-2011 by soleprobe because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in