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.

 

Clinton on Syria: 'additional steps in days ahead'

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
We didnt "go in" to Libya. No comparison to Aghanistan OR Iraq. The US lobbed some Tomahawks. BIG difference....that is NOT "going in"


Originally posted by Itop1

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Blah, blah, blah. There wont be any military intervention so everybody keep your panties from wadding.


That's what they said about Libya... before we went in to libya people were saying "theres 0% chance we will go in to libya, just look at our economy"..... "the public want us out of iraq so theres no chance we would go in to libya"..... Blah, blah, blah. ....




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The US isnt doing much at all in Libya. Its mainly Italy and France with Denmark.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 




We didnt "go in" to Libya. No comparison to Aghanistan OR Iraq. The US lobbed some Tomahawks. BIG difference....that is NOT "going in"


Right we "only" are going above it, shooting and bombing with our planes, blockading ports, and giving the islamist rebels supplies like body armor and money (to buy weapons.). Not to mention miltary advisors and CIA operatives on the ground.

No comparison? really?

You make it sound like "lobbing tomahawks" is some mundane everyday exercise. An unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation is an act of war, in every book and by every definition.

By the way, Afghanistan and Iraq were all supposed to be "NATO" operations, but you can see "NATO" really means U.S. forces backed my Britain and France



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
When a leader starts attacking its own civilians it gives up its right as "sovereign nation" and the human rights atrocities committed by said regimes means the attacks were also not "unprovoked". MAJOR FAIL



Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by princeofpeace
 




We didnt "go in" to Libya. No comparison to Aghanistan OR Iraq. The US lobbed some Tomahawks. BIG difference....that is NOT "going in"


Right we "only" are going above it, shooting and bombing with our planes, blockading ports, and giving the islamist rebels supplies like body armor and money (to buy weapons.). Not to mention miltary advisors and CIA operatives on the ground.

No comparison? really?

You make it sound like "lobbing tomahawks" is some mundane everyday exercise. An unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation is an act of war, in every book and by every definition.

By the way, Afghanistan and Iraq were all supposed to be "NATO" operations, but you can see "NATO" really means U.S. forces backed my Britain and France



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
In my eyes, theres not much difference between Iraq and Libya, they are both draining millions of cash from us THAT WE DONT HAVE and thats what its all about at the end of the day, MONEY, the SAS have been in Libya for months and no doubt other undercover military units from other countrys aswell, its all war, all money wrongly spent, all the same #.

Syria next, - Watch this Space -



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


An UPDATE here:




The United States and European Union said Tuesday they are preparing to hit Syria's leadership with new sanctions as it continues a brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters. The pledge came as the Obama administration stepped up its condemnation of the Syrian regime and for the first time suggested that the decades-long repressive rule of the country by the Assad family may have to end.


Link

it looks like new sanctions BUT:




White House press secretary Jay Carney said democratic change had to come to Syria.


The last time the U.S. spoke about democratic change we attempted to spread it with bombs. So the ball is still up in the air about this



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 





When a leader starts attacking its own civilians it gives up its right as "sovereign nation" and the human rights atrocities committed by said regimes means the attacks were also not "unprovoked". MAJOR FAIL


On who's authority? What about capital punishment? In that case nearly every nation in the world kills it's citizens!

Or is there a quota of people you have to kill until (as you say) you are no longer a sovereign nation?

No, a sovereign nation is a sovereign nation always, and if enough people disagree with the leaders, they will deal with them internally. Yes blood will be spilled, and that is regrettable but if you intervene then blood will STILL be spilled, just another nations.

Your argument holds no merit whatsoever, and if you can not see that you either have not truly woken up, or you have a more nefarious reason for being here.

game/set/match



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Capital punishement is not the same thing as dictators killing its citizens to quel an uprising. Not apples to apples. Not even close!


Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by princeofpeace
 





When a leader starts attacking its own civilians it gives up its right as "sovereign nation" and the human rights atrocities committed by said regimes means the attacks were also not "unprovoked". MAJOR FAIL


On who's authority? What about capital punishment? In that case nearly every nation in the world kills it's citizens!

Or is there a quota of people you have to kill until (as you say) you are no longer a sovereign nation?

No, a sovereign nation is a sovereign nation always, and if enough people disagree with the leaders, they will deal with them internally. Yes blood will be spilled, and that is regrettable but if you intervene then blood will STILL be spilled, just another nations.

Your argument holds no merit whatsoever, and if you can not see that you either have not truly woken up, or you have a more nefarious reason for being here.

game/set/match



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
And back to my point, no there wont be military intervention.

Breaking News: www.foxnews.com...

US to impose sanctions on Assad-the first ever on a head of state for human rights violations. What were you guys expecting a no fly zone or something? LOL



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Syria and Iran next in line... Stated here too..

Bildberg planning meeting again



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join