China & Russia call for immediate cease-fire in Libya!, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 82 times

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:35 PM by jude11

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Simple Grandstanding by China and Russia trying to look like the good guys... pffft.
They had their opportunity to say or do something at the UN by blocking the action.
What did they do?
Abstain
Too bad China/Russia.

hey Slayer, thanks for chiming in
but I thought it had already been established
that the plan that the Security Council voted
for and what actually happened in Libya
were 2 different Plans of action.

So, NO, Russia and China did NOT abstain
on what actually occurred in Libya.

That's like you ordering a Pepperoni Pizza
and what was delivered to your door was
a cheese pizza. Would you be happy with that?
me thinks not

Good point!

Kinda like voting for one thing and getting another...

Libya...Obama's Presidential Promises.

Striking similarities.

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:37 PM by Oeden

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings

I was curious as to if you might be onto something regarding their missile capabilities on the Xuzhou. So my small contribution to this interesting thread is . . .

From Deagel.com

It says it's a land based Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) with a 1500 km max range that's still in development.

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:38 PM by Whereweheaded

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Simple Grandstanding by China and Russia trying to look like the good guys... pffft.
They had their opportunity to say or do something at the UN by blocking the action.
What did they do?
Abstain
Too bad China/Russia.

hey Slayer, thanks for chiming in
but I thought it had already been established
that the plan that the Security Council voted
for and what actually happened in Libya
were 2 different Plans of action.

So, NO, Russia and China did NOT abstain
on what actually occurred in Libya.

That's like you ordering a Pepperoni Pizza
and what was delivered to your door was
a cheese pizza. Would you be happy with that?
me thinks not

Actually you are wrong, Russia and China did in fact abstain, they could have vetoed the resolution, but chose not to.

Russia and China, which could have vetoed the resolution, instead merely abstained. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Jiang Yu said Beijing “had serious reservations” about the resolution but did not veto it “in view of the concerns and stance of the Arab countries and African Union and the special circumstances that currently apply in Libya,” the BBC reports.

NATO member Turkey, perhaps the world’s most militarily powerful Muslim nation, said it opposes military intervention in Libya “for the moment.”

morallowground.com...-6721

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:39 PM by Ophiuchus 13

I just hope its not an excuse for ww3 otherwise Libya ruller is in on it. And I cant feel bad if celestial objects come in to stop war or start Armagaddon (with in on its)..........

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:43 PM by pepsi78

reply to post by Whereweheaded

They abstained from a no fly zone, not from droping bombs on Libya, the resolution was on a no fly zone not on boming Libya.

edit on 22-3-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:43 PM by boondock-saint

reply to post by Whereweheaded

dude, u missed the point entirely

Yes Russia and China abstained on the vote
to only engage Libya's air force in the air.

Instead, the allies bombed ground targets
and targeted Gadhaffi's compound.

These are 2 different plans of action

and NO, they did not abstain on the latter.

what they voted on and what they got in
reality were 2 different things.

like I said before: it's like ordering a Pepperoni Pizza
and the delivery guy brings you a cheese pizza instead.
The call for a cease fire would be the equivalent of
calling the pizza place and complaining you got
the wrong pizza.

edit on 3/22/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:43 PM by jude11

reply to post by Whereweheaded

Good find and point.

Wonder what the no-vote was meant to say tho?

As I mentioned earlier, I believe China and Russia were lied to. Plain and simple.

What they were presented with and what they are seeing now are 2 different things.

edit on 22-3-2011 by jude11 because: edit

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:47 PM by Aslpride

It's interesting how people complain on US/France's movement against Libya because of civilization deaths. There are low number of civilization deaths by missiles vise verse Gadhafi has killing many civilizations and nobody complain about Gadhafi's movement? What China and Russia did are abstain their vote and now they enforce the ceasefire. Are they trying to say that it's OK to allow Gadhafi to killing his people simply because they don't agree Gadhafi's dictatorship? It's sad.

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:47 PM by Whereweheaded

Another good find, is this youtube video of Congressman Ron Paul, stating in plain english that any actions towards Libya is a bad idea, he also notes that no matter the outcome, even if its defined as " humanitarian " the US will perceived as the bad guys.

Hope the link works....and we should have listened to him the whole time....

www.youtube.com...

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:52 PM by jude11

And now:

This in effect, puts US troops on the ground regardless of the reason.

So what now?

www.channel4.com...

www.guardian.co.uk...

edit on 22-3-2011 by jude11 because: edit

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:53 PM by SeekerofTruth101

World War 3 on the horizon because of Libya?

Bring it on. the insignificant nobody me says.

The only WAR Russia, China, North Korea and Venuezela will see are their own civil war when their own masses start pointing guns at their throat for freedom! No better chance when they are caught busy with their own pants down.

Things are accelerating at a fast pace for humanity to end tyranny, must more than I had anticipated. Hook, line and sinker did the despots fall.

Gaddafi, well done, you scumbag.

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:53 PM by SLAYER69

reply to post by boondock-saint

Simple math.

They could have blocked it completely they both have a security council vote to do so.

yet they didn't.

Thems are the cold hard facts. No matter how you slice it.

Now the only real reasons Russia is up in arms over this is because of oil/fuel. Their only real source of revenue is fuel sales to the EU and weapons sales to Iran/Libya etc. Both are threatened in the present Libya situation as well as any regime change over in Iran. increased Iran and or Libyan oil sales to the EU threatens Russia's main source of revenue. The Russians or the Chinese for that matter are not a bunch of warm and fuzzy humanitarians. They are just as ruthless and no better than their Western counterparts. It's about money and oil. Plain and simple.

Let them protest, they missed the boat. What will they do? Will Russia try to engage western Naval forces? What happened the last time Russia fought a real Naval battle... Whats China going to send? Their coastal navy all the way to Tripoli? When was the last time they fought a modern navy?

Russia isn't going to attack the US or the EU. It will lose massive amounts of revenue selling the West fuel. China wont attack anybody because they still need western consumers to keep them manufacturing smoke stacks going so they can maintain their drive to become a real global super power.

They aint a Super power YET.

edit on 22-3-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:57 PM by Whereweheaded

Originally posted by boondock-saint
reply to post by Whereweheaded

dude, u missed the point entirely

Yes Russia and China abstained on the vote
to only engage Libya's air force in the air.

Instead, the allies bombed ground targets
and targeted Gadhaffi's compound.

These are 2 different plans of action

and NO, they did not abstain on the latter.

what they voted on and what they got in
reality were 2 different things.

The plans submitted are irrelevant. The UN Articles dictate the actions of its members.

Article 41:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

www.un.org...

We had already implemented sanctions. As well as other countries. They were deemed by its members as inadequate.

Article 42 establishes the framework:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

www.un.org...

Article 42, does not require Congressional approval under the USC 287d:

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein

law.justia.com...

Next we have article 43, that establishes the amount of forces from all responding members countries.

Article 43:

All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

www.un.org...

I understand what you are saying, but the plan, and who knew what, and where is irrelevant. China and Russia abstained regardless, and be that it may, these two countries are members of the UN council, they knew what there actions were going to dictate, that being a " good guy " approach.

edit on 22-3-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:58 PM by boondock-saint

Originally posted by jude11
And now:
This in effect, puts US troops on the ground regardless of the reason.
So what now?
www.channel4.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...

you do realize bro that those 2 articles
contradict each other ???

one says that 6 Libyans were shot while rescue
of one of the downed pilots.

The other article claims the Navy denying 100%
that event happened.

just a heads up

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:59 PM by 1SawSomeThings

reply to post by Oeden

Yes, thanks for refreshing my memory. The Dong Feng 21D with multiple maneuverable re-entry vehichcles.

Range 2000 km and the best info I found so far (as boondock-saint said) is land-based launch.

But I still think they have something up their sleeve with that frigate, maybe kinetic-kill weapons or some other technology we don't know about.

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 01:03 PM by jude11

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
reply to post by Oeden

Yes, thanks for refreshing my memory. The Dong Feng 21D with multiple maneuverable re-entry vehichcles.

Range 2000 km and the best info I found so far (as boondock-saint said) is land-based launch.

But I still think they have something up their sleeve with that frigate, maybe kinetic-kill weapons or some other technology we don't know about.

I don't think it's out there to say that China has more capabilities than we think they do. They are smart, industrious and closed mouthed. A dangerous mix.

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 01:04 PM by boondock-saint

Originally posted by SLAYER69
They could have blocked it completely they both have a security council vote to do so.
yet they didn't.

I have already explained this.

They thought they were voting on
something OTHER than what happened.

what other reason would they have
for wanting a cease fire after the
attacks started ???

and mind you I am not a Gadhaffi supporter.

But I am a staunch supporter of telling the truth.

In which case Russia and China and the Arab League
and the rest of the Security Council were NOT told
the truth in what events were about to happen.
They were lied to, to give the attacks on Libya
justification.

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 01:05 PM by spikey

Originally posted by lewman
i just hope for the people in the uk to turn against those in power as it is the uk who started this bs and now we have to watch this crap on the news and see these cringeworthy front pages of the murdoch owned news papers, while their are much worse atrocities going on in yemen, lebanon,palestine and the ivory coast but we dont get involved there.
its a joke.

I think you'll find it was Gaddafi who 'started it' when he ordered the slaughter of peaceful protesters.

But, i do 100% agree with your last point, regarding the *SO* obvious hypocrisy of frothing at the mouth over Libya and Gaddafi, yet Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and many, many more countries and dictators are doing the same thing every day of the week, and don't even rate a mention in Parliament or on the MSM.

As Galloway said, Libya has oil.

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 01:06 PM by SLAYER69

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings

But I still think they have something up their sleeve with that frigate, maybe kinetic-kill weapons or some other technology we don't know about.

Stated as if their ships are not Susceptible to the same type of weapon system that may or may not be in Western weapons inventory.

reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 01:07 PM by Whereweheaded

Originally posted by spikey

Originally posted by lewman
i just hope for the people in the uk to turn against those in power as it is the uk who started this bs and now we have to watch this crap on the news and see these cringeworthy front pages of the murdoch owned news papers, while their are much worse atrocities going on in yemen, lebanon,palestine and the ivory coast but we dont get involved there.
its a joke.

I think you'll find it was Gaddafi who 'started it' when he ordered the slaughter of peaceful protesters.

But, i do 100% agree with your last point, regarding the *SO* obvious hypocrisy of frothing at the mouth over Libya and Gaddafi, yet Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and many, many more countries and dictators are doing the same thing every day of the week, and don't even rate a mention in Parliament or on the MSM.

As Galloway said, Libya has oil.

yup, and the Democrats even admitted to it:

"Well, we're in Libya because of oil. And I think both Japan and the nuclear technology and Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil have both once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward," Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said on MSNBC.

www.realclearpolitics.com...