Countdown to Invasion; Libya's Neighborhoods Prepare for NATO's Boots, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 06:57 PM by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

You believe the western news networks who always lie about every war

.

No, I do not. You might as well claim I worship satan, and molest children. Your claims are baseless, and deflect from my legitimate criticism of the reliability of the 'news' presented in the OP.

Pointing out that RT news is a government run Russian news source with a notably anti-Western bias does not make me a CNN apologist.

I'm merely pointing out that using clearly biased news sources like RT news WITHOUT QUESTION, while dismissing Western sources as 'propaganda' is awfully hypocritical. That doesnt mean I support Western Propaganda.

The problem is, you tend to think that ANYTHING the 'west' says bad about Gaddaffi is immediately a lie, despite the legitimacy/verifiability of such claims. Yes, much of what is being fed to us about Gaddaffi is tinged with propaganda. But to deny that he is a brutal dictator who has a long history of murdering his people is to embrace ignorance, and deny history. You are not a hero for supporting Gaddafi.

edit on 2-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 07:08 PM by Mike_A

reply to post by jude11

All for the news my friend.

People are tired of US invasions so put others in front while being supported by the US from behind and you have a US invasion portrayed as non involvement, Nice huh?

And why did France go along with this?

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 07:19 PM by incrediblelousminds

All for the news my friend.

People are tired of US invasions so put others in front while being supported by the US from behind and you have a US invasion portrayed as non involvement, Nice huh?

Iraq was a US invasion. Libya is not Iraq. Using the same criticisms of Iraq for this NATO led UN mandated 'war' against Libya is not really an accurate or helpful portrayal of events.

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 07:29 PM by jude11

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

All for the news my friend.

People are tired of US invasions so put others in front while being supported by the US from behind and you have a US invasion portrayed as non involvement, Nice huh?

Iraq was a US invasion. Libya is not Iraq. Using the same criticisms of Iraq for this NATO led UN mandated 'war' against Libya is not really an accurate or helpful portrayal of events.

So by your statements, The US and the UN are not one and the same?

The UN is a separate entity that has the right to invade as a Nation unto itself?

No. The UN is a US tool for war. That's it.

Maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation of your post and if I am, I apologize. Please elaborate further.

Jude11

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 07:33 PM by princeofpeace

"Take over the oil fields".

This argument is so LAME. It was used for the Iraq war and as everyone has seen, gas is higher and more of the oil contracts have gone to non -NATO/US entities than to them. Why say thisd again? FAIL.

Libya has oil yes, but its not like they are a top 5 producer.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

You believe the western news networks who always lie about every war

I think CNN would proudly welcome you.

The Invasion in Libya is a clear Regime Change which in the end NATO will take over the oil fields and the water projects Gadaffi has been working on.

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 07:35 PM by Darth_Prime

Be at ease Amerikans, There will be 'No US Ground Troops' In Libya,

And whilst i have your attention, there is a Bridge From Alaska To Russia that i am selling, if anyone is interested

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 07:38 PM by Paulioetc15

Ya and not to mention though that the gas prices is still higher when the US-led forces invaded Iraq in 2003. Not to mention Saddam violations 17 UN resolutions during the Gulf War ceasefire agreement. The UN had 12 years to do something about Saddam UN violated but never did anything about it because UN was too busy with the oil-for-food scandal. They were being bribed by the Saddam so they could make off more money. Plus Saddam used it to build his finest extensive pieces he wanted while rest of his people were dying due to UN sanctions.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
"Take over the oil fields".

This argument is so LAME. It was used for the Iraq war and as everyone has seen, gas is higher and more of the oil contracts have gone to non -NATO/US entities than to them. Why say thisd again? FAIL.

Libya has oil yes, but its not like they are a top 5 producer.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

You believe the western news networks who always lie about every war

I think CNN would proudly welcome you.

The Invasion in Libya is a clear Regime Change which in the end NATO will take over the oil fields and the water projects Gadaffi has been working on.

edit on 2-7-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 07:42 PM by Paulioetc15

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
Ya and not to mention though that the gas prices is still higher when the US-led forces invaded Iraq in 2003. Not to mention Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions during the Gulf War ceasefire agreement. The UN had 12 years to do something about Saddam UN violated but never did anything about it because UN was too busy with the oil-for-food scandal. They were being bribed by the Saddam so they could make off more money. Plus Saddam used it to build his finest extensive pieces he wanted while rest of his people were dying due to UN sanctions.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
"Take over the oil fields".

This argument is so LAME. It was used for the Iraq war and as everyone has seen, gas is higher and more of the oil contracts have gone to non -NATO/US entities than to them. Why say thisd again? FAIL.

Libya has oil yes, but its not like they are a top 5 producer.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

You believe the western news networks who always lie about every war

I think CNN would proudly welcome you.

The Invasion in Libya is a clear Regime Change which in the end NATO will take over the oil fields and the water projects Gadaffi has been working on.

[/quote

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 07:42 PM by Paulioetc15

Ya and not to mention though that the gas prices is still higher when the US-led forces invaded Iraq in 2003. Not to mention Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions during the Gulf War ceasefire agreement. The UN had 12 years to do something about Saddam UN violated but never did anything about it because UN was too busy with the oil-for-food scandal. They were being bribed by the Saddam so they could make off more money. Plus Saddam used it to build his finest extensive pieces he wanted while rest of his people were dying due to UN sanctions.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
"Take over the oil fields".

This argument is so LAME. It was used for the Iraq war and as everyone has seen, gas is higher and more of the oil contracts have gone to non -NATO/US entities than to them. Why say thisd again? FAIL.

Libya has oil yes, but its not like they are a top 5 producer.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

You believe the western news networks who always lie about every war

I think CNN would proudly welcome you.

The Invasion in Libya is a clear Regime Change which in the end NATO will take over the oil fields and the water projects Gadaffi has been working on.

[/quote

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 07:45 PM by mugger

Libya wanted to trade their oil in another currency other the Dinera or a gold standard, everything other than the U.S. dollar? My country has no reason to attack and drop bombs on this nation.
Yeah, they celebrated on the streets during 9/11, I think we should bomb the whole country if that is the case.
My money is on the U.S. money. I see no other reason.

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 07:57 PM by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

All for the news my friend.

People are tired of US invasions so put others in front while being supported by the US from behind and you have a US invasion portrayed as non involvement, Nice huh?

Iraq was a US invasion. Libya is not Iraq. Using the same criticisms of Iraq for this NATO led UN mandated 'war' against Libya is not really an accurate or helpful portrayal of events.

So by your statements, The US and the UN are not one and the same?

By my statements? No, I am not saying The US and the UN are 'the same'.
Are you saying they are the same? It reads like you are, but you wouls be mistaken in that claim. They have similar interests at times, and exert a large amount of influence, but they are not 'the same' by any reasonable measure. The fact that countries like China and Russia have enormous sway in the UN should be more than enough evidence of that.

The UN is a separate entity that has the right to invade as a Nation unto itself?

Didn't say that either.

I said that claiming this NATO-led, UN mandated 'war' with Libya is solely a "US invasion", as you stated, is incorrect.

We have seen many US invasions, notably in Iraq. To compare the US involvement in Libya with the invasion of Iraq is just not accurate. Some may try to interpret this as a defense of the war with libya, but it isn't.

edit on 2-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 08:00 PM by Danbones

According to Webster Tarply who is there and investigating bombed sites
Nato is just murdering famillies and lying about it.
www.gcnlive.com...
The lie That Gahdaffi was murdering protestors and dancing in the streets at 911 are like the viagra lie
or the babies from incubators lie
or the WMD lies
or the Pat Tillman lie
www.smirkingchimp.com...
Only a braindead propagandidst could "believe" NATO
after all the endless lies the ZIONIST enslaved west has been caught telling in the past

click "on demand" button for Tarpley at gcn live to get the Tarpley Interview
the interview will be there till next saturday.

listen to the account of famillies of the bombed
I dare ya
picture your self there
if you are brave

I guess if the west justifies bombing with lies about the Libyans,
while being guilty of these things themselves
somebody should bomb NATO...

I wouldn't be suprised if the russians and the chinese
do put the mad dog down ...
and in the not to distant future too..

sad

enjoy

PS
NATO is just a zioinst bitch
we just saw netanyahoo trash obama
and harper and sarkozy and the british flack are all "Israel firsters"
so yeah,
NATO
and the US and CANADA and france and britian are one and the same under that "F"bomb tard UNbrella of enslaved chickenhawks

edit on 2-7-2011 by Danbones because: PS

edit on 2-7-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2011 by Danbones because: grammer eh?

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 08:06 PM by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Danbones

I guess if the west justifies bombing with lies about the Libyans,
while being guilty of these things themselves
somebody should bomb NATO...

I wouldn't be suprised if the russians and the chinese
do put the mad dog down ...
and in the not to distant future too..

What would make you think they would do that? Both of these countries have a UN veto that could have PREVENTED this 'war' from ever occurring. But they didn't. And now both countries are eager to enjoy the fruits of rebuilding contracts and various mineral extraction contracts after the war.

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 08:14 PM by jude11

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

All for the news my friend.

People are tired of US invasions so put others in front while being supported by the US from behind and you have a US invasion portrayed as non involvement, Nice huh?

Iraq was a US invasion. Libya is not Iraq. Using the same criticisms of Iraq for this NATO led UN mandated 'war' against Libya is not really an accurate or helpful portrayal of events.

So by your statements, The US and the UN are not one and the same?

By my statements? No, I am not saying The US and the UN are 'the same'.
Are you saying they are the same? It reads like you are, but you wouls be mistaken in that claim. They have similar interests at times, and exert a large amount of influence, but they are not 'the same' by any reasonable measure. The fact that countries like China and Russia have enormous sway in the UN should be more than enough evidence of that.

The UN is a separate entity that has the right to invade as a Nation unto itself?

Didn't say that either.

I said that claiming this NATO-led, UN mandated 'war' with Libya is solely a "US invasion", as you stated, is incorrect.

We have seen many US invasions, notably in Iraq. To compare the US involvement in Libya with the invasion of Iraq is just not accurate. Some may try to interpret this as a defense of the war with libya, but it isn't.
edit on 2-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

I am getting lost for words on this subject but I am very curious as to how you would draw the line in comparison?

My main question is: What right does the US have to invade and occupy other Nations for their agenda enforcement?

And also, why do the majority of US citizens support the invasion, suppression, murder and eventually occupation of weaker Nations to further the theft of resources that are in abundance within the US at the current time?

Stocking up? That's not only my thought but the opinion of the entire GLOBE!

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 08:16 PM by Danbones

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

China Vows to Protect Chinese in Libya

online.wsj.com...
they know this a resource war and they are siding currency wise with Russia..they know its only a matter of time before the oligarchs are on their doorsteps....
..........................................................................................................................................
I guess Italy and Germany are out eh?
"Israel firsters" says it all
donit?

go listen to the first person account and pay attention

here is a sample of the way nato members think:

The 28 NATO members gave the Alliance a new Strategic Concept with three core tasks: collective defense, crisis management and cooperative security. Yet, just four months after the historic Lisbon summit, the members disagree considerably on NATO's role in the crisis management concerning Libya....

The Italians want NATO to take over so they can avoid national responsibility (i.e., tell their Arab friends "it's not us, it's NATO, so we don't have a choice").

The French want to keep NATO out because they want to prove that THEY are the true friends of the Arabs, and they'll keep that bad NATO away.

The Germans want to keep NATO out because they don't believe in military action, and NATO having responsibility means Germany would be held to be responsible. (...)

The US wants NATO to take over as a "handoff" -- even though it means a handoff to ourselves. In the American political lexicon, NATO has come to mean "Europe" -- and the Obama team just wants to hand off so it's not an "Obama war." (...)

Apart from that, we've got a consensus

atlanticreview.org...

funny the bishop in Libya:

Bishop Giovanni Martinelli, the apostolic vicar of Tripoli, has questioned the need for allied forces’ bombing strikes on Libya. He warned of a drawn-out conflict and repeated his call for an immediate cease-fire.

“He who encourages this war must understand that Ghadafi will not give up. This risks creating a very lengthy crisis with an uncertain outcome,” Bishop Martinelli told Fides news agency.

“From last night to tonight we heard several very loud explosions, albeit in the distance, with the counter-attack by the Libyan anti-aircraft artillery,” he reported. “I do not see where all this will lead us. Is it possible that people do not understand that bombs do not solve anything?”

Previously, the bishop told Fides that Tripoli is emptying and the population is fleeing for fear of being bombed.

PS
please note the the difference between the bishops quotes and the propaganda BS that follows it
using the bishops credibility to justify the BS..typical crap

edit on 2-7-2011 by Danbones because: PS...fixed quote

edit on 2-7-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 08:21 PM by incrediblelousminds

reply to post by Danbones

I'm at quite a loss as to how your post relates to mine whatsoever.

Your claim was the Russia and China will retaliate against the West for this invasion. They wont. hey could have prevented it in the first place, but they didnt. They allowed it, posturing aside.

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 08:23 PM by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by jude11

I am getting lost for words on this subject but I am very curious as to how you would draw the line in comparison?

My main question is: What right does the US have to invade and occupy other Nations for their agenda enforcement?

And also, why do the majority of US citizens support the invasion, suppression, murder and eventually occupation of weaker Nations to further the theft of resources that are in abundance within the US at the current time?

I am not defending this UN sanctioned 'war'. I've stated that numerous times. I was merely refuting the claim that this was a "US invasion". It's not. your responses appear to be drifting further and further away from my original statement about this.

edit on 2-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 08:27 PM by Danbones

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

sorry IM
i had to edit
yours is the top bar
I hope you will accept my apologies for that

edit on 2-7-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 08:27 PM by Darkrunner

Oh good lord.

There is going to be no land invasion. Just because some people in Libya think there may be, doesn't mean there is going to be. There is going to be no land invasion of Syria either, but that doesn't make for lively debate on here does it?

Although if Turkey has to keep dealing with Syria's nonsense along their border, there may be some fisticuffs to come between those two nations.

edit on 2-7-2011 by Darkrunner because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-7-2011 @ 08:32 PM by Danbones

reply to post by Darkrunner

According to the White House spokesman Jay Carney, “no options” have been taken off the table when it comes to the situation in Libya. “Our job is to give options from the military side, and that is what we are thinking about now,” “We will provide the president with options should he need them.” By saying that “all options” are being considered, that is basically a way for the Obama administration to threaten Gadhafi without actually coming right out and threatening him

noworldsystem.com...

U.S. General Wesley Clark - proof Libyan Invasion was Planned 10 Years in Advance...
..."U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran."

mikephilbin.blogspot.com...

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^