Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Nato strike 'kills Saif al-Arab Gaddafi', Libya says

page: 31
51
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Why not an Atlantic Union?

A European and American economic union makes more sense. It almost happened after World War 2, we got NATO, the military part, but failed to get the Atlantic Economic Community.

A North American Union wouldn't change much, especially with the US being far more dominant than Canada or Mexico. An NAU would be basically the US annexing Mexico and Canada.

An Atlantic Union on the other hand would have the economic and military might that China could only ever dream of.




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Canadianpride420
 


Yes. It seems you are correct.

nymag.com...


The CIA has placed covert operatives on the ground in Libya to gather intelligence for air strikes and reach out to rebels fighting Muammar Qaddafi's loyalists. Yesterday Reuters reported that President Obama had signed a secret order called a "finding" — the first step in authorizing a clandestine CIA mission. But officials now say it's been underway for weeks.





The Obama administration discounted speculation Thursday that U.S. forces had taken on a heightened role in the Libyan conflict, even as CIA officials were dispatched to aid rebel forces amid swirling debate about arming the opposition against President Moammar Gadhafi.

Speaking on Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Robert Gates vowed the United States would not send ground troops to Libya "as long as I am in this job," a declaration made against the backdrop of handing the military operation over to NATO command Thursday.

Though White House officials refused to comment publicly on any CIA presence in Libya, administration sources argued that an intelligence presence should hardly be equated with deploying combat troops since CIA personnel are stationed in virtually every country worldwide.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacebot
I see people defending the actions of their leaders and calling everyone else, Qaddafi's or Mubarak's or what have you "fanboys". Probably the same would be happening if we were back in 1939's, they would be calling people arguing about the bombings and the rochestrated revolutions as Churchill's fanboys for instance.

WELL GUESS WHAT FOLKS?

HITLER LOST!

WHAT IF?


What then?]


Hitler came close to winning the war. I guess the answer is we'd all be speaking German. We can bet the Arab Confederacies wont be speaking English anytime soon.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


I suspect they will do it in increments. It makes it easier to swallow. Americans can be sold on the idea that Canada and Mexico will in fact be swallowed up by the US. We are arrogant and stupid on the whole. But if they try to merge us with Europe we would readily discern that it meant the end of the US as a real power.

Just my take on it. It will be easier to convince Americans to give them the key to our own destruction if they can spin it in such a way that we think we are swallowing the two "less important" countries. All the globalists need to do is get us to agree to let go of our own Constitution and its game over for us, without them firing a shot.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by TheMaverick
 


There will never be peace.

There will always be violence. Humans are violent. Animals are violent. The Earth is violent. Nature is violent.

Violence and destruction are constants in this universe.

That may well be true, but it doesn't mean we have to like it, or even accept it
Vicky
Here's an article about some of the reaction.
Uruknet
edit on 1/5/11 by Vicky32 because: To add something...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Why not an Atlantic Union?

A European and American economic union makes more sense. It almost happened after World War 2, we got NATO, the military part, but failed to get the Atlantic Economic Community.

A North American Union wouldn't change much, especially with the US being far more dominant than Canada or Mexico. An NAU would be basically the US annexing Mexico and Canada.

An Atlantic Union on the other hand would have the economic and military might that China could only ever dream of.


your idea of an Atlantic Union got me thinking! I think you are on to something bigger than you expected. Maybe the whole War issues lately are to create the Global Union, that Gordon Brown, and Nicolas Sarkozy have been trying to pull off for a while now. Then France is the first to shoot. This could get weird!



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
We already have a globalist community under the name of capitalism folks....

Opposition, IF ANY, comes from north korea/cuba/venezuela

Iran and israel are part of the sick status quo imo because they are religious fundamentalists and religion+capitalism=conspiracy!

To be left(and I mean WAY LEFT) means you hate both.

Think about that...and please no russia&china BS either because they DEFECTED a decade ago.

As for the muslim uprissings I remain undecided for the moment but I am leaning towards them being ACTUAL REVOLUTIONS from fed up people(al queda or not) against 40 year tyrants. If we had george bush for 40 years we would probably be revolting right now as well. Think about it!!!!!!!



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld

your idea of an Atlantic Union got me thinking! I think you are on to something bigger than you expected. Maybe the whole War issues lately are to create the Global Union, that Gordon Brown, and Nicolas Sarkozy have been trying to pull off for a while now. Then France is the first to shoot. This could get weird!


Well of course this is about globalization.
Why do you think I keep pointing to the multinational bankers and corporatists.

This isnt about "America" or "France." The member nations of the EU are already sold out in many ways. Although I dont recall if Britain kept an "out" for itself.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


I suspect they will do it in increments. It makes it easier to swallow. Americans can be sold on the idea that Canada and Mexico will in fact be swallowed up by the US. We are arrogant and stupid on the whole. But if they try to merge us with Europe we would readily discern that it meant the end of the US as a real power.

Just my take on it. It will be easier to convince Americans to give them the key to our own destruction if they can spin it in such a way that we think we are swallowing the two "less important" countries. All the globalists need to do is get us to agree to let go of our own Constitution and its game over for us, without them firing a shot.


It makes me uneasy to think of merging with the EU, even though Britain is our Mother Country. The problems with Ireland, Germany, and bankruptcy situations gives me the heebie jeebies. They also put out 4.4 billion bailout contribution to save Portugal, not to mention Greece. The US is on the verge of bankruptcy and combining all this together is a recipe for disaster. After they did away with their constitution in 2005 it has been a mere test, that would have been a grand plan had the economy been sustainable. It's the trickle down effect that isnt over yet.

It would be a good strategic Military move though but not welcomed by much of the world, I wouldnt think.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 



He does not claim that the toppling of Saddam Hussein helped to trigger the fall of the other Arab domino-dictatorships. But it did help to make Gaddafi less dangerous than he otherwise would now be. Gaddafi was confronted with painstaking (and accurate) intelligence developed by our Secret Intelligence Service and the CIA about his WMD programmes. I have no doubt that what convinced him peacefully to abandon these programmes was Iraq. But don’t take that from me. Just three days after Libya had agreed to have its WMD programmes dismantled under international supervision, CNN reported that “Gaddafi acknowledged that the Iraq war may have influenced him” in his decision.


I'm not too sure about this one wonderworld. From what I understand, Gadhafi wanted to normalize relations with the west way before the Iraq war that Bush Junior or Senior initiated.

Anyone can see the purpose behind these Bush supportive articles. They needed support for a very unpopular and deceitfully initiated war and used a stooge for it.


Philadelphia Inquirer - January 22, 1989 - Col. Moammar Gadhafi, disillusioned with the Soviet Union and eager to reap the benefits of increased trade with the West, appears ready to settle his differences with the United States and re-establish diplomatic and economic ties. The Libyan leader has spoken repeatedly in recent months of his desire to open a new chapter in U.S.-Libyan relations once Ronald Reagan left office. On Jan. 13, in the latest in a series of conciliatory gestures, Libya released the remains of a U.S. pilot


Link

They even knew about his WMD programs well before the Bush's fascination with Iraq.


Jan 14, 1989 - The Reagan Administration has hinted at the possibility of using military force against what it charges is a factory that Libya is building to manufacture chemical weapons. Libya says the plant is for producing ordinary chemicals and medicines, but the United States pursued a high-profile rhetorical and diplomatic campaign to pressure Moammar Kadafi into dismantling the plant.


Link


March 20, 1991 - Libya Building New Chemical Weapons Plant - "There is convincing evidence that Libya is continuing its chemical weapon program and may have begun construction of a second chemical warfare agent production plant in addition to the one operating at Rabta," said Rear Adm. Thomas A. Brooks, director of naval intelligence.



LIBYA BUILDING 2ND POISON-GAS PLANT - CHINA AIDING GADHAFI, U.S. INTELLIGENCE SAYS Published on June 19, 1990, Libya is building a second poison-gas plant in underground chambers at a remote desert site with help from China after activating production at its first facility near Rabta, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.


Link

You could find more articles on Libya's desire for normal relations with the West before the heroic Bush Junior's fiasco. So that coupled with the fact that they knew about WMD's over there already leads me to believe that it was a publicity stunt.

edit on 1-5-2011 by jackflap because: Link



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
We already have a globalist community under the name of capitalism folks....

Opposition, IF ANY, comes from north korea/cuba/venezuela

Iran and israel are part of the sick status quo imo because they are religious fundamentalists and religion+capitalism=conspiracy!

To be left(and I mean WAY LEFT) means you hate both.

Think about that...and please no russia&china BS either because they DEFECTED a decade ago.

As for the muslim uprissings I remain undecided for the moment but I am leaning towards them being ACTUAL REVOLUTIONS from fed up people(al queda or not) against 40 year tyrants. If we had george bush for 40 years we would probably be revolting right now as well. Think about it!!!!!!!


This may sway your opinion; Muslim Demographics



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by wonderworld

your idea of an Atlantic Union got me thinking! I think you are on to something bigger than you expected. Maybe the whole War issues lately are to create the Global Union, that Gordon Brown, and Nicolas Sarkozy have been trying to pull off for a while now. Then France is the first to shoot. This could get weird!


Well of course this is about globalization.
Why do you think I keep pointing to the multinational bankers and corporatists.

This isnt about "America" or "France." The member nations of the EU are already sold out in many ways. Although I dont recall if Britain kept an "out" for itself.


wow, this is getting funny. I just read this before your comment. Bankruptcy Assist - Bankruptcy and Debt Advice for EU Nationals



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


I appreciate that well thought out explanation and I do agree. My motto is usually never believe what you hear and half of what you see. There is always a sinister motive in politics and War.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canadianpride420
reply to post by Soshh
 


What are you talking about? Eastern Libya sends more foreign fighters to Iraq than any other country per capita. That is a fact that is undisputable. Of course I haven't been there but even on cnn I've heard their terrorist experts say if this was any other country they would be calling these rebels the Mugahadem(or however you spell it) or Al Qaeda. Have you been there and talked with the locals?


It's an 'undisputable (sic) fact', eh?

Then where is the 'indisputable' evidence?
edit on 1-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


. I think the struggle for socialism and/or communism is dead as the first has been discredited by hitler and the second by stalin.

I think it's vital to point out that Hitler was not a socialist! I know Nazi stands for National Socialist, but that doesn't mean it actually was socialist any more than the word 'democratic' in the names of North Korea and the Congo means those places actually are democratic!
So no, socialism has not been discredited by Hitler...
Vicky



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld
reply to post by Soshh
 

I'm interested in what your friend knows, since he is in Benghazi. Is there more?

Do the Libyan rebels have radical Islamist fervor.

Why does Hillary Clinton say We can present evidence that the Benghazi rebels have links to Al Qaeda?

What is know about this?


When people talk about “rebels” I don't know whether they are talking about fighters specifically or include everyone who is caught inbetween. Sometimes they appear to imply that the only people who oppose Gaddafi are the ones that are fighting. The average civvie in Benghazi or anywhere else has no links to al-Qaeda in any way, nor would they ever want to. The impression that I get is that Salafists are few and far between and are almost universally hated, now more than ever because the opposition is relying on NATO support and fear that we will become cautious to offer that support if jihadists gain influence.

The people who I believe Clinton is talking about are LIFG, they would certainly be the vehicle for any al-Qaeda presence in the opposition, but the organisation as a whole isn't in agreement as to how much they should cooperate with AQIM or the international "franchise" if you like. They drew up a document in prison formally severing their ties with al-Qaeda but I don't know how seriously that should be taken. Following the release of the aforementioned document Gaddafi began to free LIFG members en masse, right up until conflict began in the hope that it would calm the situation down - clearly it wouldn't have done. Clinton most likely said it because it was a genuine concern and no-one had a good idea of who the rebels were at that point, but it is now pretty clear that the Transitional Council would cooperate with any rooting-out of what little al-Qaeda elements there are.

It is important to note that LIFG are now fighting alongside or under the direction of people who they would've jumped at the chance to kill a few months ago. You can't really define the opposition as anything but a group of people united by their hatred of Gaddafi - as you might expect, being the opposition and all that. If they ever get what they want, I'm sure that cracks will begin to become more obvious and therefore the true extent of the al-Qaeda presence may not be clear for a long time, but the rebels in Misrata couldn't be further from radical Islamists in general and the early impression of the people living in Benghazi is the same.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Soshh
 


I have a question for you. Does your friend agree with the western media that this uprising is a popular one? Or is it a small group of people who have long held a grudge against Gaddafi?

And actually another, does he suspect it is being instigated from without?


To be quite honest mate, I haven't asked him that so I don't want to speak for him. I would have thought that he would have mentioned it, if he did. I've only been interested in what is going on around him and the people that he is interacting with, but the impression that I get is that the situation in the East is far too calm to be an unpopular uprising; you'd think that there would be an awful lot of conflict if that were the case.

In Misrata, whoever supported Gaddafi before will either have left or changed their mind because of what is happening there. Many of the families of the fighters there have left as well, to live with tribes who are claimed (by Gaddafi) to be loyal to Gaddafi, which suggests that they don't support Gaddafi as much as he claims. But I'm eagerly anticipating an update on that.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


I suspect they will do it in increments. It makes it easier to swallow. Americans can be sold on the idea that Canada and Mexico will in fact be swallowed up by the US. We are arrogant and stupid on the whole. But if they try to merge us with Europe we would readily discern that it meant the end of the US as a real power.

Just my take on it. It will be easier to convince Americans to give them the key to our own destruction if they can spin it in such a way that we think we are swallowing the two "less important" countries. All the globalists need to do is get us to agree to let go of our own Constitution and its game over for us, without them firing a shot.


I would have loved to have been on ATS in 2005 when the UK lost their constitution. We arent ready for a drastic change like that. We have came close to losing our Constitution with the Copenhagen Treaty. Actually and sneaking wording in a 4000 page document could set the wheels in motion.

We already sold out to the G-20 signing in blood, with both Bush and Obama. A global treaty was already signed but all the pieces are not in place yet. It's only a matter of time. Something big will happen first.

Enacting Martial law and executive orders is the same as having no Constitution. Not even Congress could stop that. It's a scary world we live in.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
US-led?

By what standard?

Was it a US missile? a French one?

You seem to have access to inside info. Care to share?

Of course US led! As if NATO or any of its constituent countries would ever dare do anything the US hadn't previously ordered.. no way Jose!
Vicky



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
For those of you not following the news right now, they announced that Osama bin Laden has been killed in Pakistan.

Obama will be on the news soonish.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
They got the most dangerous son amoungst the lot.





new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join