U.S. Invasion of Libya Set for October!!

Invasion ? October ? What are the airplanes of UK, France , UK doing now ? dropping cookies ?what is the invasion ? this ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Libya will be kept in a destabilized state until Mr. Khadaffi realizes he cannot play with real money on the monopoly board.

Originally posted by Nspekta

Originally posted by camaro68ss
I dont think its going to happen. see attacked, the congress is sueing Obama over libya

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 16-6-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Right... but now Obama and the white house are saying "Obama has legal authority for Libya mission without congressional authorization"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He (Obama) doesn't give a rats a$$ about congress... he's doing it regardless of what they say.. sick!

That's true he does have legal authorization, however in order to use the defence budget to fund the operation he needs congressional approval which they declined, therefor within the next 30 days the mission will need to find some other form of funding. Remember the Iran-Contra scandal. Ronald Reagan did not have congressional approval to fund the Contra's, although it was not illegal for him to find other means to do so.

Although I do believe it will be very easy for Obama to find funding to contrinue the operation. He just needs to find some greedy construction companies, defence companies, intellegence companies, private contractors, oil companies and so forth and they will surely give money to continue the operation.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


I would wonder if Gadaffi would be quite the same as Sadam to defeat? The Libyans are not made up of so many different groups all fighting each other as the Iraqis were.

The Arabs seem to be changing a lot and having seen or at least heard of what happened in Iraq, I doubt many of them will want people they perceive as invaders, stamping through their country and destroying it. They could well take exception to letting 'foreigners' stay on merely to make money repairing the damage they have done to Libya's infrastructure. Particularly when those foreigners intend paying themselves by creating a Central bank, enforcing the US$ on them and utilising Libya's oil, gas and money to pay themselves with.

In fact one wonders why anyone is in Libya apart from the Libyans?

to make money after they hav destroyed Libya's infrastructure by rebuilding it and billing the Libyan's gas, oil and financial wealth..

Originally posted by projectvxn
Yeah...This probably won't happen.

SF guys on the ground? Sure.

30,000 troops? Probably not.

I would think that after pulling most of our troupe out of Iraq, we would have some residual bodies to throw into Libya, or anywhere else we needed them. The question of approval, is a non existent one as we do whatever we damn well please. The people will either support, or sit idly by while we send their nation's defenses to occupy another country for our purposes. This is a U.N. matter, not a U.S. congressional matter. As long as we do not declare 'war' on Libya, congress has nothing to do with it.

reply to post by projectvxn


30,000 also sounds pretty small to me. Unlike Iraq and Afganistan, Libya looks like it could be the most conventional war the US would be involved with since vietnam. Which is why 30,000 troops sounds pretty small to me...

This is a laugh. I think Alex Jones just throws stuff at the wall to what sticks and never thinks about what he says. Hate to rain on everyones parade that thinks this is going to happen and that he has inside info but this is a crock. The first Cavalry Div is made up of 4 Brigade Combat Teams and 1 Air Cav Brigade. BCT's 2, 3 and 4 have deployed to Iraq in support of Operation New Dawn. The 1srt Brigade Combat Team is leaving just now for Iraq, the ceremony was June 14th to see them off. The Air Cav Brigade is in train up for a deployment to Afgahnistan.

PS, for the one post going around about seeing tanks on trains passing through New Orleans, it was the equipment for 1st BCT heading to ships for deployment.

Yea, right...we're going in to HELP Libya on a humanitarian mission...what about other nations that needed our help long before Libya? U.S. is a joke, it is all a facade.

reply to post by Birddog26


Why are you acting like in an emergency those units can't be moved somewhere else? The way I see it, that fits into the timeline perfectly. Your clearly having trouble seeing how semi-fascist government works. The Chess pieces are being moved into place before the flurry

reply to post by Skerrako


I worked for that goverment and military for over 20 years and your fear mongering and making wild accusations that are so far from the truth baffle me. You fail to realize that pulling almost 18000 troops from one war zone then trying to seend them to another war zone is a logistical nightmare. This would not even be the units of choice in Lybia, it makes no logical sense from a tactical perspective at all.

reply to post by Birddog26


You won't be believed mate. Gone are the days when useful and sensible information was valued here. In fact, you have a post already calling you out, despite that poster not considering that if the 1 Cav Div was diverted to Libya from Afghan or Iraq, that would,leave the forces there woefully undermanned and would mean the deployment of more troops to backfill, which would be obvious to see as other divisions would be prepping already.

But, like I said, logic isn't welcome here chap.

Infowars as a source, hahaha... Alex Jones is never right on anything. Acoording to him, we should have been through WW3 about 9 times by now, invaded Iran several times, gone to war with China and HAARP'd ourselves to death a dozen times, not to mention martial law, the FEMA death camps and the coffins ordered for them..

The guy is a total nutjob. I would like to see any of his claims being proven true.

As someone said on the 1st page, if the US is taking a backseat already, what on earth makes people think the US is suddenly going to send a whole Army Corps worth of troops to Libya?

As for the poster who claimed UK, French and US amphibious assault ships are in place, I think you will wind, at least in the case of the UK and France anyway, that these are for the attack helicopters recently deployed.

reply to post by stumason


Does not seem that infowars or the poster applied any common sense to the plan they say is laid out. As I said, all 4 of 1st Cavs BCT's are in Iraq (technically 3 are with 1 in Kuwait moving into Iraq) and 1st Cav's Air Brigade is set to relieve the 25th ID's Aviation Brigade in Afghanistan. Not sure currently what the French or the UK have in the Med at this time but I know the US normaly keeps 1 amphib assualt ship with a battle group in the Med. This has been the norm for about 25 years.

Had infowars and the poster said that they would use the Marine MEU from this battle group along with the the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team out of Italy mixed with UK and French heavy armor then this plan may have been at least plausable.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Yeah...This probably won't happen.

SF guys on the ground? Sure.

30,000 troops? Probably not.

It's happened before.

If they can't find another way to control Libyan resources, of course they will.

In the modern world a dictator swap requires U.S. troops and bases in-country.

The good old days of funding an indigenous rebel group to Coup d'eta in a dictator more friendly to U.S. corporations are gone.

Drones and air wars don't chew up enough expensive-to-replace military hardware. Microsoft and Lockheed need boots on the ground to make this Lybia thing profitable enough to fool with. There needs to be bases with Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets and giant air conditioned datacenters.

reply to post by Nspekta


Why are you comparing the US role in the Iraq to it's role in Libya? The two are so incredibly different, on so many levels.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Nspekta

 

Why are you comparing the US role in the Iraq to it's role in Libya? The two are so incredibly different, on so many levels.

I was talking about the authorization of wars. Bush at least asked congress, this time Obama has just done it, dictator style, and if you check the original post, I included a link to an ATS thread that discusses that issue. Obivously, the two roles are different. For one thing, its two different operations in two very different countries (obvi), this one sanctioned under UN, the other was a coalition of the willing, at least to start with.

Originally posted by Nspekta

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Nspekta

 

Why are you comparing the US role in the Iraq to it's role in Libya? The two are so incredibly different, on so many levels.

I was talking about the authorization of wars. Bush at least asked congress, this time Obama has just done it, dictator style, and if you check the original post, I included a link to an ATS thread that discusses that issue. Obivously, the two roles are different. For one thing, its two different operations in two very different countries (obvi), this one sanctioned under UN, the other was a coalition of the willing, at least to start with.

Yes, Bush did ask Congress. Of course, at the time, the majority of the people upset by the invasion of Iraq were upset that Bush did so in DIRECT VIOLATION of a UN resolution. He initiated a full-scale multi-trillion dollar, boots on the ground invasion of a country against international law, as basically a rogue nation (with a bit of support from the UK and a few other token nations). Conversely, Obama authorized us aid in a multi-national enforcement of a UN resolution. To compare the two is absurd. I certainly have my problems with our involvement in Libya, but they are in way comparable to my or most peoples issues with the initial invasion of iraq in direct defiance of international law.