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.

 

Libya is in an Epic Fail and ATS Has Nothing To Say?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by redhorse
reply to post by gncnew
 

"Libya is in an Epic Fail and ATS Has Nothing To Say?"

Plenty has been said. Where have you been? Now everyone is just waiting for the other shoe to drop to see whos' speculation is correct.



edit on 23-3-2011 by redhorse because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-3-2011 by redhorse because: (no reason given)


Look above, I'm really pointing more towards the perspective or response than the physical lack thereof.


Ah... So people are just not agreeing with you, and so you classify any response that does not as "nothing to say" in your thread title.

I see. Carry on then with your own insular existence.

Moving on.
edit on 23-3-2011 by redhorse because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


What a bunch of garbage!

I don't remember being lied into this Libyan conflict as was the case with the Iraq invasion. No one has said that Gaddafi has ties to AlQaeda or that he has WMDs, (other than mustard gas which he actually has) that he is ready to unleash on the world. No mushroom clouds in the headlines. On top of that, Obama actually refused to participate without prior approval from both, the U.N. and the Arab League. I don't remember Bush getting approval from either. Furthermore, our participation in enforcing the current U.N. mandate regarding the Libyan conflict can in no way be compared to our entanglement in a 9 yr. conflict chasing an enemy, (AlQaeda) in a country where they no longer are, like Afghanistan.

I not saying that America has the resources to chase down every repressive dictator worldwide but we do have the ability to stop the massacre of innocent people especially when coupled with the forces represented by the U.N. and the world community. I'm definitely not a proponent of war but if it has to happen, I would prefer that we go to war to prevent genocide and preserve human life & liberty than to gain access to natural resources. IMO, other than repelling and responding to direct attacks, this is the only time that military force should be used. And yes, I think that we should have intervened in Sudan and a few other places in the past.

On the other hand, I am NOT for arming the Libyan rebels in any fashion. If Gaddafi needs to be taken out, I would rather that we just do it ourselves rather than to pass out weapons, that more than likely, will be used against us in some future conflict. I think they call this phenomena, "Blowback."
edit on 23-3-2011 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


S+F Oh great pontificator!


The reason why they have nothing to say is because they are stumped. Shocked. Stunned.

They can't vent their spleen in three sentences or less to express a moral outrage because they don't know what or who to root for/blame.
If they lay the blame on the U.S. then the god-child Obama will be seen as having feet of clay.
If they root for the boy-king Obama, then they will be seen as hypocrites.

Best to stay mum and support a gay universe or something like that.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhorse

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by redhorse
reply to post by gncnew
 

"Libya is in an Epic Fail and ATS Has Nothing To Say?"

Plenty has been said. Where have you been? Now everyone is just waiting for the other shoe to drop to see whos' speculation is correct.



edit on 23-3-2011 by redhorse because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-3-2011 by redhorse because: (no reason given)


Look above, I'm really pointing more towards the perspective or response than the physical lack thereof.


Ah... So people are just not agreeing with you, and so you classify any response that does not as "nothing to say" in your thread title.

I see. Carry on then with your own insular existence.

Moving on.
edit on 23-3-2011 by redhorse because: (no reason given)


Hmm, let me try to clarify for you - plenty of people are talking ABOUT Libya, but where is the moral outrage and social directives?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


My friend, it's not about how much they export, more about how much they have in their control.
Look to the bigger picture.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by gncnew
 


What a bunch of garbage!

I don't remember being lied into this Libyan conflict as was the case with the Iraq invasion. No one has said that Gaddafi has ties to AlQaeda or that he has WMDs, (other than mustard gas which he actually has) that he is ready to unleash on the world. No mushroom clouds in the headlines. On top of that, Obama actually refused to participate without prior approval from both, the U.N. and the Arab League. I don't remember Bush getting approval from either. Furthermore, our participation in enforcing the current U.N. mandate regarding the Libyan conflict can in no way be compared to our entanglement in a 9 yr. conflict chasing an enemy, (AlQaeda) in a country where they no longer are, like Afghanistan.

I not saying that America has the resources to chase down every repressive dictator worldwide but we do have the ability to stop the massacre of innocent people especially when coupled with the forces represented by the U.N. and the world community. I'm definitely not a proponent of war but if it has to happen, I would prefer that we go to war to prevent genocide and preserve human life & liberty than to gain access to natural resources. IMO, other than repelling and responding to direct attacks, this is the only time that military force should be used. And yes, I think that we should have intervened in Sudan and a few other places in the past.

On the other hand, I am NOT for arming the Libyan rebels in any fashion. If Gaddafi needs to be taken out, I would rather that we just do it rather than to pass out weapons that, more than likely, will be used against us in some future conflict. I think they call this phenomena, "Blowback."


You weren't lied into it? Really? Where do you think these "uprisings" started?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by gncnew
 


Best to stay mum and support a gay universe or something like that.


Now that S*** is funny.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 





I don't remember being lied into this Libyan conflict


So who initially started the rumour that he was bombing his own people, only for that to be proven false, but the War went ahead regardless?

If I'm mistaken here I'll gladly be corrected.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
not lied to
good god
hehheh

*sigh*
the western backed rebels are
according to the london telegraph
alquaida
www.telegraph.co.uk...
and thats mainstream...
jeez


EPIC FAIL



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Way to prognosticate yourself.

Where have you been for the last 10 years, if you can't see what has happened?

1. 911 -created emotion and fear
2. Terrorisim agenda-Created the groundwork for Patriot Act US lifestyle changes
3. Bin Laden-Ohh scary scary
4. Afghanistan- Dead soldiers no dead Bin Laden Unwinnable- but we'll stay anyway!
5. Sadam Hussein-Ohh another terrorist harborer-
6. Why are we at war? Please give us valid reasons
7. Iraq- WMD, no a genocidal maniac, no they need democracy, they'll thank us!
8. 6 years of war, but the stock market is gerat!
9. Hmm looks like we overextended ourselves, someone changed the game rules? market crash
10. What do we really manufacture in the states?
11. 1/3 of americans receive govt aid?
12. Still no new jobs, but it's a new world order, it will work itself out
13. Bailouts against the people's will
14. More QE 1. 2. 3?
15. World disasters, stealing our money and attention or lack of attention
16. Does our government even care what the people want or have to say? We all know this answer and have for quite a few years.
17. I have to go to work, or I'd buy a costly plane ticket to Washington and stand outside with a bunch of people and hope that armed guards don't taze me for peacefully standing up for whats right. But the news media will not do my fight justice, only concentrate on the sensationalism of the situation.
18. My Presidents will just do whatever the heck they want apparently, my voice has been incrementally squashed. More war without my permission.
19. Got to move on, pay the bills somehow, but I still have a roof over my head. Guess all I can do is take care of my own. All I have the energy for at this point.

20. Mission Accomplished. They wore me down. For now. When the food on every table and roof on every head is not there, then things will change.

14.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimisticPessimist
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


My friend, it's not about how much they export, more about how much they have in their control.
Look to the bigger picture.


Really?


Apart from regime change, many commentators were convinced the Iraq war was fought to gain access to its huge oil reserves, which it said last year totaled 143 billion barrels.



Libya's reserves are smaller at around 41 billion barrels.


Source: Libya versus Iraq

So, Iraq had more oil than Libya already available. Yes, the potential in Libya is far greater, but it seems to me that we would have taken the low hanging fruit first and raped Iraq of all their oil before tackling Libya's which is still in the ground.

But that didn't happen, did it?
edit on 23-3-2011 by lpowell0627 because: source of course



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by gncnew
 


On top of that, Obama actually refused to participate without prior approval from both, the U.N. and the Arab League.


the un and the arab league are irrelavent.

he requires approval from congress to conduct an act of war.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


I expect that the exact pinpoint of where the "uprisings" started could be debated into eternity. The one thing I can assure you of, is that they did not originate as a result of the situation in Iraq, because they are currently experiencing "uprisings" of their own.

It's what the uprisings are about that I think a lot of people, mostly conservatives, are misinterpreting. What we are witnessing is the birth of a worldwide "uprising" where the people of the world are demanding social and economic justice along with representative governments. Currently, in Wisconsin, we have been witnessing the American version of this "uprising" and I suspect it will soon be showing at a theatre near you. Some will call it "Class Warfare."



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by gncnew
 


I partially agree with and understand the thread title, libya is a fail campaign but, ATS has plenty to say.
Now where you lost me was in the body of the message.
One more time please, but in modern english.


LOL, fine, but I like trying to get all "fancy" words.

Here's the deal - ATS's top headlines... about gays and kids, volcanoes in yellow stone, rumbling sounds in New Zealand or something...

But there is nothing on any "hot" area showing people care. Not too surprising as the U.S. Media is doing their best to keep very still and quiet on this one as well.

There are small discussion boards here and there, but NOTHING comparing to the Iraq/Afgan stuff or the Israel/Palestine stuff.


I think you will find that it is the amount of different threads about the issue in Libya that stops it showing on the front page as "hot" news as there are MANY different discussions about the subject.
So stop being lazy and learn how to use the forum properly instead of being lazy and only checking whats "hot"



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Yes, really.

Considering the arrogance of our "peers", it wouldn't surprise me to find out they think they have enough of a foothold in Iraq [to continue whatever plans they may have, elsewhere].


If I were a Libyan citizen, seeing the mess made in other countries already from such involvments, I'd be worried. Probably why they were so insistant about not having the West involved in the first place...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
not lied to
good god
hehheh

*sigh*
the western backed rebels are
according to the london telegraph
alquaida
www.telegraph.co.uk...
and thats mainstream...
jeez


EPIC FAIL


I can't believe that you're providing that article as proof of anything. Did you even read it in it's entirety? In case you didn't, here's a few excerpts;



But they also agree that the leading roles in the revolution are played by a similar cross-section of society as that in Egypt next door – liberals, nationalists, those with personal experience of regime brutality and Islamists who subscribe to democratic principles.




The rebels' political leadership there says it is secular.
The same goes for the wider leadership, whose membership claims to espouse largely liberal ideals.




The head of the opposition National Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil was Col Gaddafi's justice minister until he defected at the start of the uprising.
That may not be as bad as it sounds – he was a law professor appointed to improve Libya's human rights record by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi when the colonel's son was leading Libya's westernisation drive, and had already clashed with longer-standing regime insiders.


For you to imply that the "uprising" is purely an element of AlQaeda is somewhat of a distortion in itself, especially based on the article you sourced in your post.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimisticPessimist
 


It's not that I disagree with the idea of what you're saying but this oil that we supposedly went into Iraq for has never surfaced as far as I know.

Further, we obviously don't have enough of a foothold in Iraq to prevent the chaos currently taking place there either.

We'll have to agree to disagree.
If any of the oil we are apparently after surfaces somewhere in the US, I will happily concede that you are correct.

I will say that one of the arguments in your favor is Obama's sudden willingness to finance Brazil's energy endeavors. It leads one to think that our problems somehow got fixed. Either that, or Obama isn't content with the speed in which the US is collapsing and wanted to speed it up a bit. Sorry, I meandered a bit off topic...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


I feel like I'm in the movie Rain Man here and listening to you debate who's on first.

WE (the west, and more specifically the United States) instigated the uprisings in Egypt to try and push the Iranians over top.

We have been behind the mid-east uprisings. Obama is no better than bush, Europe is no better than the U.S.

With the western world's current lack of leadership - chaos now reigns supreme.

You've been supporting a paper tiger all along... I know - it's scary.

*edit for bad Engrish
edit on 23-3-2011 by gncnew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


Here was my response to a similar thread:

Your challenge to the left is that they balked at the Iraq invasion and therefore they are hypocrites for supporting the military assistance in Libya. And I'm telling you that context matters. There are wars worthy of fighting and there are wars not worthy of fighting. To say that one is hypocritical for supporting one and not the other completely ignores context.

Bush's war was complete BS and many of us knew it. We come to find later that the basis of the war turned out to be completely false! (WMD).

I see no evidence of foul play with Libya. All I see are people being shot from planes who want freedom. They've asked the world for help and we're going to give it to them. An exciting revolution is taking place in the East and I for one am very happy to see these tyrants taken out of power. Just today (now a few days ago) the Egyptians voted for a new constitution! WOW. We live in amazing and revolutionary progressing times.

I think if we're all honest with ourselves we'll find that many of those who don't like Obama will always have a biased opinion to anything he does. Like many other posters have said already, first the right is pissed because Obama wont act, now they're pissed that he has. Give me break. I don't speak for everyone, but most of the right clearly will not approve of anything Obama does, even if it's in-line with how they feel or if it's good for the world or our country.

Again, context matters.

P.S. While I don't agree with your point of view, I thought your OP was very well written and entertaining.

edit on 23-3-2011 by brianmg5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-3-2011 by brianmg5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by brianmg5
reply to post by gncnew
 


Here was my response to a similar thread:

Your challenge to the left is that they balked at the Iraq invasion and therefore they are hypocrites for supporting the military assistance in Libya. And I'm telling you that context matters. There are wars worthy of fighting and there are wars not worthy of fighting. To say that one is hypocritical for supporting one and not the other completely ignores context.

Bush's war was complete BS and many of us knew it. We come to find later that the basis of the war turned out to be completely false! (WMD).

I see no evidence of foul play with Libya. All I see are people being shot from planes who want freedom. They've asked the world for help and we're going to give it to them. An exciting revolution is taking place in the East and I for one am very happy to see these tyrants taken out of power. Just today (now a few days ago) the Egyptians voted for a new constitution! WOW. We live in amazing and revolutionary progressing times.

I think if we're all honest with ourselves we'll find that many of those who don't like Obama will always have a biased opinion to anything he does. Like many other posters have said already, first the right is pissed because Obama wont act, now they're pissed that he has. Give me break. I don't speak for everyone, but most of the right clearly will not approve of anything Obama does, even if it's in-line with how they feel or if it's good for the world or our country.

Again, context matters.

P.S. While I don't agree with your point of view, I thought your OP was very well written and entertaining.

edit on 23-3-2011 by brianmg5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-3-2011 by brianmg5 because: (no reason given)


I voted for Obama....

And you see no evidence of wrong doing because you choose not to look. You would have supported the war in Iraq if the motivation was instead to free the oppressed people from Sadam?

No, I think not.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join