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

Originally posted 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.

Excuse me...

First off you gave your opinion.
It's not a fact.

Second, I was typing out my reply while you posted said opinion.

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

and I think you'll find that the CIA, US State Dept
and George Soros started it by training the protesters
and inciting them to protest and giving them the means.

There is no good guy here. Gadhaffi is not the good guy
and neither is the CIA for instigating a national uprising.

Everybody knew that a "no-fly zone" would have to include the bombing of radar/missile/C&C sites, etc, as part of the deal - that's how it works. I remember a US general WEEKS ago said straight out that's what would be included. You can't have one without the other. Russia and China should have vetoed - they were not ignorant of the facts!

reply to post by Curio


As I have stated on page 3, the very same thing. All members of the UN council knew what a NFZ curtailed.

So now China & Russia want to act like they care. They could of voted NO, instead of not showing up, but like always both countries only care about themselves.

I suspect that the "allies" will suspend operations once they've reached their target for human sacrifice. China and Russia knew what would happen (unless they are complete idiots) and abstained instead of vetoing - have they ever vetoed anything that they disagreed with? They know they get more political capital by handing the rope to the "allies" and letting them hang themselves.

Point being, no one in that council gives a rats ____ about civilians. They aren't their for oil either. They are their for much more sinister reasons.

Originally posted by Echo007
So now China & Russia want to act like they care. They could of voted NO, instead of not showing up, but like always both countries only care about themselves.

They could have done alot more than that...they could have vetoed.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
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...

and I think the Democrat doesn't know his ar$e
from a hole on the ground. The US gets less
than 2% of it's oil from Libya. That is not enough
to go to war in Libya.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
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...

and I think the Democrat doesn't know his ar$e
from a hole on the ground. The US gets less
than 2% of it's oil from Libya. That is not enough
to go to war in Libya.

Small percentage agreed, but remember, he who owns the most in the most valued commodity, rules.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

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

and I think you'll find that the CIA, US State Dept
and George Soros started it by training the protesters
and inciting them to protest and giving them the means.

and the boogieman under the bed...

There is no good guy here. Gadhaffi is not the good guy
and neither is the CIA for instigating a national uprising.

Qaddafi is presently reaping from the decades of horrors he had sewn with his brutal dictatorship. as I've stated elsewhere...

Good to see Obama doing what MUST be done instead of being a wuss and "attempting to consider the thoughts and feelings of Everyone..." as people are dying. Its good to see the man let his suit fall to the side - and have his REAL uniform show. He is the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. My family members and friends who are still in service LIVES depend on GOOD DECISION making by you Mr. Pres.


Don't let them down!

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Curio

 

As I have stated on page 3, the very same thing. All members of the UN council knew what a NFZ curtailed.

please show a link anywhere on the net
that shows a no-fly zone as targeting
a presidential compound which had no
weapons. That was an assassination attempt
on Gadhaffi.

Where does it show this in a no-fly zone ???

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by boondock-saint

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

and I think you'll find that the CIA, US State Dept
and George Soros started it by training the protesters
and inciting them to protest and giving them the means.

and the boogieman under the bed...

There is no good guy here. Gadhaffi is not the good guy
and neither is the CIA for instigating a national uprising.

Qaddafi is presently reaping from the decades of horrors he had sewn with his brutal dictatorship. as I've stated elsewhere...

Good to see Obama doing what MUST be done instead of being a wuss and "attempting to consider the thoughts and feelings of Everyone..." as people are dying. Its good to see the man let his suit fall to the side - and have his REAL uniform show. He is the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. My family members and friends who are still in service LIVES depend on GOOD DECISION making by you Mr. Pres.


Don't let them down!

Less we forget, it wasn't completely Obamas, decision, Congress was the culprit in pushing for the invasion. Obama simply did what the UN articles permit.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded

Originally posted by Echo007
So now China & Russia want to act like they care. They could of voted NO, instead of not showing up, but like always both countries only care about themselves.

They could have done alot more than that...they could have vetoed.

I'm quoting that because no matter how many times some will attempt to bypass it significance that stands as a over the top glaring reality.

reply to post by boondock-saint

That's just not so Boon.

Are you seriously trying to say that nations the likes of Russia and China, well aware of current events transpiring in N. Africa would send their representatives to the UN only to be confused as to the issues being discussed?

Not a snowballs chance mate.

Everything is discussed beforehand. Presentations are presented, speeches are spoken, and motions are tabled. *Then* the members get to vote or veto.

Seriously Boon, if the Russians and Chinese *really* didn't know what they were voting for...1) They are too dumb to be in there with the grown ups, and should have been serving tea and coffee to the others instead and 2) Exactly what did they imagine they were voting on, considering all the turmoil in the area and what was being talked about by the members at the UN?!

It's nonsense to try and convince people they 'were innocent and were led astray' to vote on the resolution by the other members who'd fitted them up. Not a chance.

They abstained, where they could have used their powers of Veto which would have put an end to the action there and then. Now they want to seem like they have no blood on their hands, which of course, they have.

Personally, i think the action is outrageous and profit motivated like the last two wars.

People being murdered isn't on in my book either..so what the solution to not going in guns blazing or ignoring the situation?

Simple, we arm the rebels and let them get on with it. Arm them with comparable weapons and equipment to Gaddafi's troops, and level the field.

Whatever happens after that to either Gaddafi and his crony's or the rebels is up to fate.

It's not our war, it's an internal civil war and our armed forces should *not* be involved.

Supply the rebels weapons and equipment and let them fight their own war.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
please show a link anywhere on the net
that shows a no-fly zone as targeting
a presidential compound which had no
weapons. That was an assassination attempt
on Gadhaffi.

Where does it show this in a no-fly zone ???

Command and Control centers are legitimate targets in that type of action...

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Less we forget, it wasn't completely Obamas, decision, Congress was the culprit in pushing for the invasion. Obama simply did what the UN articles permit.

this right here is simply just disinfo.
congress was totally by-passed on
this issue and there was no vote
or even a discussion.

Please by all means show me a link
where this was even discussed in a
committee. thanks

I can show you a link where congress
was mad as hell they were left out.

www.cnn.com...

reply to post by pirhanna


I think that you are mixing up pro gadaffi people with people who genuinely believe this is the wrong thing for the west to be doing. There are lots of reasons why we in the west should not be using military action in Libya the double standards is the most obvious, but there are other's. It's funny everyone keeps mentioning the Arab League support, but does anyone know which arab countries are supporting this?

And lets not forget the Arab League is comprised of governments of dictators and corrupt kings who have also been putting down protests at the barrel of a gun.

Finally the perception of this action to many around the world, despite what you may think, is that of colonial powers protecting their financial interests in the region and the double standards leads people to believe its mainly about oil and not a humanitarian gesture.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Curio

 

As I have stated on page 3, the very same thing. All members of the UN council knew what a NFZ curtailed.

please show a link anywhere on the net
that shows a no-fly zone as targeting
a presidential compound which had no
weapons. That was an assassination attempt
on Gadhaffi.

Where does it show this in a no-fly zone ???

Clinton: No-fly zone means bombing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Thursday that establishing a United Nations-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya would require bombing targets of Muammar Qadhafi’s regime there.
“A no-fly zone requires certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems,” Clinton said in Tunis, her last stop on a trip that also took her to Cairo and Paris. In all her stops, Clinton’s done a mix of stressing the need for democracy in post-revolution Tunisia and Egypt, and pushing for international cooperation in responding to the crisis in Libya.
On Thursday, her only full day in Tunisia, Clinton promised that the United States “will stand with you as you make the transition to democracy, prosperity and a better future.” Clinton’s remarks came as the United Nations Security Council prepared to vote later Thursday on a resolution to create the no-fly zone.

www.freerepublic.com...


Also review Article 42 of the UN Articles.

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.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Command and Control centers are legitimate targets in that type of action...

Presidential compounds are full of women, children ,servants...

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Less we forget, it wasn't completely Obamas, decision, Congress was the culprit in pushing for the invasion. Obama simply did what the UN articles permit.

this right here is simply just disinfo.
congress was totally by-passed on
this issue and there was no vote
or even a discussion.

Please by all means show me a link
where this was even discussed in a
committee. thanks

I can show you a link where congress
was mad as hell they were left out.

www.cnn.com...

Congress can be mad all they want, because they are referencing Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. But under the USC 287d, Congressional approval need not be given for the president to act. Please reference the UN articles I have submitted on the last couple of pages.

USC 287d defined:

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...