It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Boots on the Ground in Libya: Hell NO!

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

OMG, where will this all end? I am with you on this one 100000%!!!

AND, once they get whatever it is they are sick enough to fall for, Syria will be next!

I once had a vision back during the height of the Afghanistan movement that when this war on terror reaches Syria we will begin to see some real resistance to our American presence in the form of terror attacks on US soil. The real problem will be that we will be so damn spread out by then and completley tapped out economically, we will be in serious trouble like Americans have not seen since the Buffalo.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:36 AM
Also I am so finished with watching our solidiers being used instead of the UN troops in these economic wars.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by wcitizen

Do you read at all, this is not a US war. It is a UN / NATO war. This is how these things work. This was all voted on.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by wcitizen

Its a civil war on Lybia yes. This is their deal. And yes, the UN/NATO is watching over and providing support. And as far as public knowledge, the extent of US presence their is a few DRONES flying around. Let me ask you this, if we as American citizens wanted change in our country, and we legally and peacefully protested, and our military started shooting at us, would you not want help?

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by loneranger26
reply to post by wcitizen

Its a civil war on Lybia yes. This is their deal. And yes, the UN/NATO is watching over and providing support. And as far as public knowledge, the extent of US presence their is a few DRONES flying around. Let me ask you this, if we as American citizens wanted change in our country, and we legally and peacefully protested, and our military started shooting at us, would you not want help?

It's kind of a no win situation isn't it? I remember, after the massacres in Rawanda, many people were howling about why we in the West had not intervened to stop the slaughter.

So, here was a situation where the Libyan Government was violently turning on its own people...and the Arab League appealed to the international community to do something...and we did. But we end up being the "bad guys" again.

Meanwhile, not far away in Syria the Government is gunning down thousands of its citizens for the same reasons that Ghadafi had...we, in this case, do nothing.

It would seem that the human consequences, or innocent lives being lost, are not the real deciding factors in whether or not we lend a helping hand...

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

"From the Halls of Montezuma ...To the Shores of Tripoli .....We will fight our Country's battles ... "

USMC Major General Smedley Butler said that WAR IS A RACKET almost 100 years ago.

What Libya provides is more cheap OIL for British Petroleum( Rothschilds) and EXXON (Rockefellers) to extract at some of the lowest prices in the world...due to it being so near the a cost of only around $1. per barrel.

Let's face it...

The US has an addiction to OIL that needs to be fulfilled. And US boots on the ground are there to go and assure that this addiction is fulfilled.

The Rothshilds and Rockefellers naturally become richer....of course.

The US Military Boots on the ground also keeps the Military Industrial Complex and their lobbyists and senators and state representatives happy too !

IT'S A WIN WIN FOR EVERYBODY ! Well at least for most everybody....for thanks to the economy, the poor are lucky to have a job these days ....even a job fighting the Rockefeller's wars....

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 12:33 PM
I am sick and tired of this #.

Our country is a complete disaster, yet we feel obligated to overthrow governments when we can't even take care of our own problems.

Anyone know how many soldiers have died since 9/11? The last I heard was 6000, and that was 2 years ago. You never hear about it anymore.

If we out doing something like humanitarian aid to feed the hungry, then my opinion is different...but this # is getting ridiculous.

(offtopic: When did ats add a censor system on profanities? i usually don't do it but was angry when i first read this...noticed pound signs were added over them.)
edit on 27-8-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 12:58 PM

Originally posted by wcitizen

It's an illegal war. They should all be forced to pull out and those responsible charged with mass murder.

US has been active in this so far, they are just trying to keep a low profile....and there are already boots on the ground.

"Illegal war" my ass. I get so tired of hearing people toss that phrase around as if it had some sort of truth or relevance that I could nearly puke. They leave it hanging around everywhere you turn, like nylons on the shower rod - and it's about as useful. Here's a tip: if you think it's "illegal", call a cop and have somebody arrested, instead of flinging meaningless phrases on the intertoobs. When I see someone's butt in jail over it, I'll consider that someone, somewhere with some kind of authority thought it was "illegal" too. Until then, not so much.

What it IS is "dumbassed". It was dumbassed to open war on a third front when you hadn't even gotten the first two resolved, it was dumbassed to meddle in the internal affairs of Libya when they weren't bothering any one externally, and it was dumbassed for them to claim there would be "no boots on the ground" and expect anyone to believe that mess.

If anyone recalls, when this Libyan debacle got started, I raised hell about it, said it was dumbassed then, unnecessary and uncalled-for, and would not have the results everyone was claiming it would when the "doves" were screaming for Libyan blood to help their friggin' "brothers" gain "democracy". I further said the day would come when I would say "I told ya so!"

Goddammit, I TOLD ya so!

If the Chump in Chief tries to send any of our boys into that meatgrinder, I won't blame them a bit if they mutiny en masse. matter of fact, I'll be right there helping them. Enough stupidity is enough. Our nation is run by dumbasses. It's high time the military stood up and said "YOU go. we're sitting this one out, dumbass!"

Let Libya stabilize it's damn self, or fall off the edge of the Earth. I don't give a damn which they do, as long as me or mine ain't getting shot at over it.

Jeezuz! Where's my blood pressure meds?

edit on 2011/8/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:00 PM
The US has absolutely no business being in Libya. Bombing the government facilities and arming rebels was bad enough - it's a civil war and we have no right to interfere - but putting boots on the ground would be a tragic error. In case no one has noticed, the rebels include Islamists who would just as soon attack us as the Libyan government.

At some point in the near future, there will be a power struggle between the rebel leaders. Nationalists and Islamists are going to go head to head to determine who will control Libya, and we don't need to have our boys spilling their blood because they were caught in a sectarian crossfire.

Let them sort out their own mess. We've already spent billions of dollars, but I'm not willing to allow a single drop of American blood to be shed to help anyone fight a civil war.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:05 PM
How many of the Elitists children will be patrolling the streets of Libya?

Very much like Iraq and Afghanistan you bet the number will be zero.

I hear a number of you calling this a NATO/U.N mission, well the U.S is part of both organisations, so will be obliged surely?

Do you really think you are the only ones in Afghanistan? Were you the only ones in Iraq? I think it is a bit arrogant to suggest it is just the U.S who are made to look the bad guys. The U.K doesn't actually cover itself in glory.

NATO is nothing more than the foundations of a World army. All this has been planned for years and yet here we are debating whether the U.S should put boots on the ground. Should any foreign force have the right to put boots on the ground in Libya? We were led to believe that we were enforcing a 'no fly zone', not a U.N peace keeping mission. If that was the case then you would see soldiers from countries outside of NATO getting involved.

You can bet that the Arab League were thrown a few sweetners to call for intervention in the first instance. The Bankers, The Arms Industry and The Oil Companies no doubt lined their pockets.

edit on 27/8/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

Stop that. It pains me to have to give you a star!

At least we can disagree on the NATO issue. NATO's day is done. The threat they were initiated to counter is gone. Let's isolate for 10 or 20 or 50 years, AND get the hell out of NATO and the UN - include them in the isolation exclusion, too.

The UN can relocate to Brussels or Bonn or somewhere.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 02:20 PM

Originally posted by kro32
Read some history about the times when America practiced isolationism and nothing but bad things happen in the world.

...the core problem with your idea is that written history is full of half-truths and outright lies... its always biased by the facade the victor wants to project... for your concept of what happened globally while the usofa "practiced" isolationism - "bad things" were happening right here at home during that period too... theres never been an era in the usofa when "bad things" were not happening here, much of which was condoned by the federal government (if not instigated by same) and ignored by the middle-class, which is why its so shocking to so many of them now that they too are targets...

...directed @ no one in particular - - - the libya deal is the same old standard operating procedure... send in the cia to instigate crap - have the media spin it to justify sticking our nose in someone else's biz - send in our troops to "help the helpless" - ramp up the cheerleaders - and continue to ignore the reality that most usofa vets at home who require medical attention are not treated properly by the va and are a huge chunk of the homeless population...

Originally posted by queenofsheba
I suppose I thought Obama was smarter than that.

...hey, sheba...
...ya know, if intellect had anything to do with being potus, gwb wouldve never got into office - and - thats all i gotta say about that...

...uh, one more thing directed @ no one in particular - - - isolationism is a great idea but its also a very dangerous one considering our REAL history of human rights violations within our own borders... its common to hear people approve of the idea of building a wall around our country and, i reckon, it never dawns on them that a wall can be used against them just as easily as it can be used to protect them...

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:01 PM
What we are talking about is a third front at a time when we are in a shooting war in one location and haven't finished mopping up in the other while simultaneously been negotiating to stay longer in both.

edit on 27-8-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

I actually think that's what Obama is doing. He damn well knows he can win this thing without any US troops on the ground, and he damn well knows that it's a massive political gain for his reelection.

God willing this nation will stand by to give aid, but not in the form of brave men needed at home to help rebuild confidence between common man and elected man.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:33 PM

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by OmegaLogos

Get the hell out of the UN and NATO. Bring our boys and equipment home and start looking out for the US interests ONLY when needed.

We can't afford this type of crap anymore IMO

this i totally 100% agree with and every one knows that the un and nato are synomous with the us they are one in the same and since this country foots the bills they should be abolished or pulled out of completely.

i didnt support the libya action ghaffi was a non issue and had been for quite sometime the biggest thing that irks me in the span of 10 years we went from fighting radical islamic extremism to aiding them in libya thats who the rebels are.

we have learned nothing from history and created yet another iran.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by kro32

Come on Kro32 I think we've proven our capabilities long enough. I think it's time we stop showing off our muscles and get back to our needs here in the states. It's only a matter of time that the past will come back and bite us in the ass for all the times we laid foot on foreign soil just to make an extra buck. Karma is a Mofo.
edit on 27-8-2011 by KonquestAbySS because: Karma is a Mofo

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by KonquestAbySS

Setting the idea of Karma aside starting a third front is bad Joojoo

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:24 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

I agree with you 100%. The rest of the world needs to get off their lazy asses and stop relying on the U.S. to stabilize everything. Instead they rather sit back and let us do all the work for them and then they can criticize us and be hypocrits after they do nothing but sit back and drink chardoney and talk about how bad we are.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Sorry to say it SLAYER69 but this is yet another sham by Washington D.C.

N.A.T.O. has always been a paper tiger.

Just as much as Qaddafi Duck has always been in our control.

The illusion of "bad" verses "good" to stabilize and de-stabilize the region is ongoing.

Nothing but a game of puppetmaster and puppet to enter-train the populace.

I use the word "enter-train" there because it is just another method of indoctrination.

Or if perhaps you prefer mass hypnosis.

It all comes down to making the populace believe one thing while doing another.

For The Love Of Money - The O'Jays (1973)

Follow the money.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by loneranger26
reply to post by wcitizen

Do you read at all, this is not a US war. It is a UN / NATO war. This is how these things work. This was all voted on.

Yes, I did read it all.

Here are some of the articles which support my view:

Amnesty Questions Claim that Ghadaffi Ordered Rape As Weapon of War:

International campaign to Stop the War in Libya

By now the information coming out of Libya is clear for all to see, except western news agencies which continue to spread lies, but by now they are half-hearted key-words uttered without any conviction. The Libyan people, the Libyan youth, are, by and large, with Muammar al-Qathafi and they have the final say, not Obama, Sarkozy or Cameron.

UNSC 1970 and 1973 (2011) flawed and void

It is clear that UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) were based upon wrong information, that the Libyan Government was not attacking civilians but rather, armed terrorists, armed by the friends of those NATO countries attacking Libya today. It is clear that the Government of Colonel Gaddafi is taking all reasonable measures to limit civilian casualties and even taking measures to reduce casualties among the terrorists, it is clear the Libyan Government is following international law to the letter. Given that the “civilians” were the legal foundation behind UNSC 1970 and 1973 (2011) and given that no such civilians existed, then the foundation for these Resolutions is void.

NATO violation of international law on several counts

It is clear that NATO has violated, time and time again, International Law (UN Charter, Geneva Conventions and the UNSC Resolutions) in not having the consensus of the UN Military Council necessary for such an action, and also in attacking civilian structures with military hardware (since when is a water supply and an electricity grid a command and control facility?). NATO has also armed the terrorist forces (many of them foreigners) against Resolution 1973 and has supplied troops on the ground in the form of mercenaries, while conducting campaigns of lies through the media. NATO wantonly targeted a family home of the Gaddafi family, slaughtering Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi and three of the grandchildren of the Colonel. Under what rules of engagement was this act of murder carried out? None. This is a war crime.

Unarmed civiliansI hereby present evidence of NATO war crimes in Libya against international legally binding agreements, presenting the facts and allegations open for investigation by the competent bodies; in the name of humanity I request those with powers to take this one stage further, confirming that Humankind has reached an acceptable level of civilization.

I allege that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has once again breached international law and has committed war crimes in Libya. The international community has the duty to take this matter seriously, investigate the allegations and begin legal proceedings to bring those accused before due legal process and justice.

I hereby present a report of several instances of war crimes and breach of international law by NATO in the current conflict in Libya in 2011.

SharePrint version Font Size Send to friend 1. Article 3 of the Statute of The Hague International Penal Court states clearly that one criterion for indictment for war crimes is:

"Attack or bombardment, by whatever means, against undefended cities, towns, villages, buildings or houses".

NATO's continuous use of civilian targets for military purposes, a scenario which this military organization wantonly and callously calls "collateral damage", fits this clause exactly and would be the cornerstone of a case accusing this organisation of being guilty of war crimes;

2. Another clause of the same Article 3 could also be used:

"Massive destruction of cities, towns or villages or destruction not justified by military necessity".

The attack on Libya's water supply network on Friday July 22 and the attack on the factory making pipes for the supply system on Saturday July 23 in al-Brega were not covered under "military necessity" in which case, under Article 3, this was an act of wanton destruction of civilian structures with military hardware. This renders NATO liable for trial by its own court, the ICC at The Hague;

3. UNSC Resolution 2131 (XX) of 21 December 1965, containing the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States was backed up by Resolutions 31/91 of 14 December 1976, 32/153 of 19 December 1977, 33/74 of 15 December 1978, 34/101 of 14 December 1979 and 35/159 of 12 December 1980 on non-interference in the internal affairs of States;

NATO is hereby accused of taking sides in a civil war inside Libya, moreover there are indications that this is a civil war started by NATO member states:

3.1 There is evidence that armed groups fighting inside Libya include the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which according to the British Government: "The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa'ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu'ammar Qadhafi" and for which reason is on the Home Office list of proscribed terrorist groups (1);

Why then is NATO supporting this terrorist group and others in an internal conflict?

4. Under the UN Charter, Chapter VI, Article 33, member states must "seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".

Did NATO do this in the case of Libya? No, it used a false flag event, namely the massacre of civilians by "rebel" forces (the allegations must be investigated) (2) (3);

5. Under the UN Charter, Chapter VII, Article 46: "Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee". Such committee was never convened.

This is a violation of the UN Charter rendering Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) void, as indeed rendered also the reaction from NATO after the above-mentioned false flag events;

6. Chapter VII, Article 51 refers to the right of States to defend themselves against armed insurgency:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security"

in which case NATO had no reason to attack the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;

7. NATO's remit in Libya comes under UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) which, summarised, concentrated on no boots on the ground in Libya among NATO forces and this is not the case - in the recent battle of Al-Brega, hundreds of French and British troops are alleged to have been caught (pending investigation);

8. Without any formal declaration of war, NATO's strikes against civilian structures come outside any possible conditions imposed by rules of engagement, in which case the armed attack against a civilian residence occasioning the murder of Muammar al-Qathafi's son Saif al-Arab al-Qathafi and three of his grandchildren would occasion a case for prosecution; furthermore other strikes against structures where Muammar al-Qathafi was alleged to have been would constitute cases for prosecution for attempted murder;

9. Violation of the Geneva Conventions by NATO: Under the Geneva Convention IV, Article 3 (a): "To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds:"

Armed attacks with military hardware against civilian structures occasioning murder, grievous bodily harm of actual bodily harm render NATO liable under this clause.

10. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) prohibits the use of chemical weapons. Therefore it is imperative to investigate the allegations that NATO used phosphorous in the battle of al-Brega between July 17 and July 24 2011.

For these ten (10) cases of violation or possible violation of international law, I hereby request that the competent authorities, upholders of international law perform their duty in investigating these allegations through due legal process and bring to a court of justice the perpetrators of these crimes;

For which I also call upon the UNO and the Member States party to its Charter to end the current conflict in Libya immediately as of July 24 2011 and for the proper institutions for crisis management to be used, as it was intended in the UN Charter.

In the name of Humankind, I subscribe,

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey


Al-Qaeda Asset Leading Rebels in Tripoli

Libya Rebels Release 600 Al Qaeda Terrorists

25 March 2011. Libyan Rebel Commander Admits His Fighters Have Al Qaeda Links

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in