US Boots on the Ground in Libya: Hell NO!

page: 5
42
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Also came across this today.

I think U.S boots are already on the ground.





These are Special covert Ops units not NATO ground invasion troops. They were allowed to covert the rebels as much what the U.S., UK, Israel, Pakistan, People's Republic of China, and Saudi Arabia did with the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. of course the rebels need some help and coordinating.

But they say that no NATO ground invasion troops.




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


What's up with all these whiny threads lately.

Of course were not involved in every country around the world and yes you must have a world presence to be a superpower. Read some history about the times when America practiced isolationism and nothing but bad things happen in the world.

Sorry if you think some people are getting their rights trampled but you know what? The world is not a nice place so put on your tye dye T-shirt throw some Bob Dylan in your stereo and leave world politics up to more logical people.

I wonder if you listened to what gadhafi said at the un in 2011 ironicsurrealism.com... february-2011-full-translated-video/
edit on 28-8-2011 by deadeyedick because: sp



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   


After seeing this video, I have a hard time believing Gaddafi isn't supported by the people of Tripoli. If Obama were to do this in a US city, he would be shot.

If the information in it is true, I definitely understand why the United States of Rothschild would want troops on the ground.
edit on 28-8-2011 by ddaniel because: linky



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
US Special Forces Spotted On Al Jazeera In Libya On The Front


lol

busted

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Sighs!
america is puting troops ever were they can in the world.
Like some king of take over.
geting ready for it any way.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Watch out for the increasing statements that they need to organise 'humanitarian aid'. That's double speak - after de-humanising these poor people's country, and bombing their unique and incredible water supply system, they will say they need to take in humanitarian aid - which in fact is the excuse to get the boots on the ground inside the country.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by confreak
NATO is now openly boasting about breaching the same resolution they wrongly used to start the operations against an independent nation. They now have openly admitted having ground troops, have openly admitted arming militias, and have openly admitted dropping foreign mercenaries from the coast of Tripoli. All of which goes against the same resolution they used to continue the destabilization, division, and now here comes the invasion. African Union will continue resisting this yet another attempt, but up to now they have been powerless against the might of NATO.


I would love it, just love it if this time they got themselves kicked out, humiliated and tried for war crimes.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
What sickens me the most about this whole mess is how easy it has been for the media to completely twist and warp this story to thier agenda.

All they have to do is put up a clip of some sort of armed conflict in Libya and give it a subtitle with a favorable description and make it look like something it isnt.

The way we percieve it is how they present it to us...thats it. I mean after all, theres almost a complete media blackout there and its been that way for a while...so who can we trust?


Certainly not the msm...


Remember Katrina? With the white people "peacefully looking for supplies" and the african americans "looting"?

Same idea here...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anusuia
Why does the US want to get itself involved in any of these invasions in third world countries . Has it improved your economy as is always advertised as the benefits of war ?

Good lets kill people so our economy recovers . Nice one . Anyway I hope that a comet comes and cleans up the place .


How stupid you actually sound? Seriously non-Americans like you don't even learn from the past. History is doomed if you repeat the same actions again. Such as you. Fact is that maybe other non-Americans should die in other conflcits while keeping our sons, daughter, fathers and mothers our in the open. Canadians, Europeans, South Americans, etc has not pulling the damn weight for 60 years because you wanted us to do all the damn work. You guys are like the 1960s Hippies. You acted the same way as in the 60s. Time for you guys to pull your own weight instead of relying on the good ole USA for help. Be glad that you're not ruled by the USSR now because of the USA. I don't think there is such thing as good and bad people in non-Amercans countries I guess thety are 99% bigots against the USA and 5%. Untile you have put more work than the USA, you have no right into saying anything. Go take a hike and stick it.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

...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...



I've already put in all the time being abused across the fence as I'm going to. They'll just have to abuse my human rights right here if they've a mind to (and it appears they do). Because of that, putting up a wall, either figurative or literal, makes no difference to me personally, because I ain't going nowhere else any more. I suppose I could just walk across the border to either Canada or Mexico if it got too rough here, but I didn't loose anything in either of those places, and have no desire to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire, Going anywhere else, a wall wouldn't be all that different from now - just yanking my passport would be as effective as building a wall around the airport to keep me from leaving.

By "isolationism" I don't mean to imply having nothing to do with other nations, but rather that we ought to stop throwing money we don't have at them, stop getting all in other countries' business, stop policing the world, stop intertwining our economy with the world economy and be a bit more selective in trade, as well as put some tariffs with teeth in place for imports to give us a fighting chance at survival. I don't care anything at all about being a "world power" or "leader of the free world", or any of those other cute phrases that generally only bring us grief. I'm all for dropping out of NATO and getting the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.

Putting fences up along the borders from sea to sea wouldn't be all that bad an idea, either. Not to keep everyone out, but to get a handle on immigration control so that we can wrestle it back to within legal limits, and have some idea of who is here - there's more than hispanic workers crossing from the south. There are some problems to the north, too, but not from real Canadians. They are a pretty smart bunch, and I've never heard of a Canadian trying to sneak in to set up house down here.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by nenothtu

Goddammit, I TOLD ya so!


So you were the only one who called it this way?

Another show of arrogance I must say.

Now if you were to have said 'that along with a lot of people we told you so', you would hold more credence.


You're not the first to point out that I'm an arrogant bastard, so you're in good company!


All I can really say about it is that I must have been hanging out in the wrong threads, but I do that a lot. The threads I was in, there were a boatload of progressives, normally doves, screaming at the top of their lungs for us to get in there and kill some Libyans to help out their "brothers" win their "democracy" (as if THAT'S ever gonna happen in Libya!), and I caught a lot of grief for my contrarianism and callous disregard for those "poor Libyan People" in their valiant march towards "democracy" against their oppressive dictator.

I'm nothing if not consistent, and I've managed to be consistently contrary while consistently maintaining the same position whether the doves were hawks or the hawks were doves in the matter of Libya - and they DID switch sides from dove to hawk back to dove and change their tune mighty quick.

I reckon I can be consistently arrogant, too. Look at it this way - at least you can count on me for SOMETHING!



The U.S may well have been the main instigators in the majority of the wars in the M.E, but to claim you are the only ones is an absolute insult to all the service men that have died in the name of 'Freedom'.

I thought the likes of yourself and Slayer would appreciate that you (U.S) are not the only ones involved in trying to Police the world. Yet all I hear is how the U.S shouldn't open up a third front.

In my opinion we (NATO Members) shouldn't have opened up any fronts.


Slayer and I have slightly different blood-spattered backgrounds, but I believe we are both well aware that the US hasn't been the only one toting these bales in the Middle East - and elsewhere. My point isn't that the US is the only one gettin' some over there, it's that the US ought not to be involved at all in that mess, regardless of who else wants to jump into it. The US shouldn't open a third front. If the rest of the world wants to, I don't care. have at it. That's their business, not mine.

I honestly think NATO should be dissolved. The Warsaw Pact is no more, and disbanding NATO would also eliminate the problem of having NATO open any new fronts. That doesn't mean I don't love y'all any more, it just means there comes a time to take off your helmet, prop the rifle in a corner, and grab a cold one to wash the dust and cordite down with. Next round's on me.



edit on 2011/8/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 


That would be a fourth front wouldn't it?

Slayer and co will not support that!!

The absolute arrogance of these people. It's not only U.S servicemen and women losing their lives.


You know, I've been thinking about this "arrogance" thing. I'll still wear the label proudly, because I realize you issued it with the utmost respect, but could you point out for me where either I or Slayer have claimed that it's ONLY the US thrashing around in these little dustups?

Are you mistaking our willingness to speak to US policy and reluctance to speak for others as to what they should do as a claim that only the US is involved?



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

I personally think we should only be dealing and trading with nato countrys frankly. Anyone outside of nato should have mega tariffs slapped on them from all nato countrys. Want to trade with us? sure...become part of nato, which means minimum wage, standards of work, etc etc...make it a trade alliance moreso than a military alliance.



I said stop that! You're killin' me here!


I'd consider that sort of setup, provided that the NATO treaty were renegotiated to reflect the change in focus, and there were firewalls built into it to specify it's a NATO type of treaty between the individual north Atlantic countries, rather than a US - EU treaty.


edit on 2011/8/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Because they are likt Cowards. BTW did toy answer my link i gave you? www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
By "isolationism" I don't mean to imply having nothing to do with other nations, but rather that we ought to stop throwing money we don't have at them, stop getting all in other countries' business, stop policing the world, stop intertwining our economy with the world economy and be a bit more selective in trade, as well as put some tariffs with teeth in place for imports to give us a fighting chance at survival.


...totally agree... thats the good side of isolationism...

...realistically, i think its highly unlikely that any of that will happen in whats left of my lifetime... hate to be a total pessimist and only give credence to the highly unlikely, so lemme credit the lowly likely with something... uhm, okay, heres the best i can do... the lowly likely is that something extraordinarily horrible will force change... gosh, i suck at not being pessimistic...


Originally posted by nenothtu
I don't care anything at all about being a "world power" or "leader of the free world", or any of those other cute phrases that generally only bring us grief.


...a war machine isnt my idea of what a leader should be either...


Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm all for dropping out of NATO and getting the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.


....not sure how i feel about that... i dont believe all the negative hype about the un... i remember the un telling gwb that they wouldnt sanction is bs invasion of iraq and he told them to kiss his ass... the blood thirsty crowd went wild with anticipation and we went to war... based just upon that, the un seems like the good guys... of course theres more than just that and thats why i'm not sure...


Originally posted by nenothtu
Putting fences up along the borders from sea to sea wouldn't be all that bad an idea, either.


...scares me and, yeah, i understood your comments about we're trapped anyway if they take away our passports - but - still, a wall?... gosh, no, i'll never go for that... dont care how purty its wrapped up...


Originally posted by nenothtu
Not to keep everyone out, but to get a handle on immigration control so that we can wrestle it back to within legal limits, and have some idea of who is here - there's more than hispanic workers crossing from the south.


...we dont have a handle on the influx of illegal immigrants coming across our southern border because those who really control our federal government want it that way - and - thats the same reason why the houston ship channel and all of our petro-chemical plants are so shabbily guarded... "wrestling to within legal limits" is a pipe dream... sorry if that sounds cold - just how it is...


Originally posted by nenothtu
There are some problems to the north, too, but not from real Canadians. They are a pretty smart bunch, and I've never heard of a Canadian trying to sneak in to set up house down here.


...intellect has nothing to do with it... the cia isnt running dope smuggling deals or gun running deals via canada or trying to manipulate the canadian government... besides that, theres probably very few canadians living on a dollar a day, which is considered crappin in high cotton for many people below our southern border...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I've managed to be consistently contrary


...i resemble that remark...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by SaturnFX

I personally think we should only be dealing and trading with nato countrys frankly. Anyone outside of nato should have mega tariffs slapped on them from all nato countrys. Want to trade with us? sure...become part of nato, which means minimum wage, standards of work, etc etc...make it a trade alliance moreso than a military alliance.



I said stop that! You're killin' me here!


I'd consider that sort of setup, provided that the NATO treaty were renegotiated to reflect the change in focus, and there were firewalls built into it to specify it's a NATO type of treaty between the individual north Atlantic countries, rather than a US - EU treaty.


edit on 2011/8/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


I think fair trade tends to go across party lines and basically creates new ones...corporatists verses everyone else. The small tiny segment of the population, the billionare corporatists, love the current trade agreement of exporting all jobs to slave labor, importing cheap crap, and maximizing wealth to them and them alone regardless of how many nations burn. This is bad.

Yes, NATO needs to be dissolved as the military alliance it is and turn into a focused trade agreement...any politician making that his/her main platform would do well I bet..well, until corporatists put out ads convincing the people that indian slave labor is somehow desirable and pro-american or whatnot.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by SaturnFX

I personally think we should only be dealing and trading with nato countrys frankly. Anyone outside of nato should have mega tariffs slapped on them from all nato countrys. Want to trade with us? sure...become part of nato, which means minimum wage, standards of work, etc etc...make it a trade alliance moreso than a military alliance.



I said stop that! You're killin' me here!


I'd consider that sort of setup, provided that the NATO treaty were renegotiated to reflect the change in focus, and there were firewalls built into it to specify it's a NATO type of treaty between the individual north Atlantic countries, rather than a US - EU treaty.


edit on 2011/8/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


I think fair trade tends to go across party lines and basically creates new ones...corporatists verses everyone else. The small tiny segment of the population, the billionare corporatists, love the current trade agreement of exporting all jobs to slave labor, importing cheap crap, and maximizing wealth to them and them alone regardless of how many nations burn. This is bad.

Yes, NATO needs to be dissolved as the military alliance it is and turn into a focused trade agreement...any politician making that his/her main platform would do well I bet..well, until corporatists put out ads convincing the people that indian slave labor is somehow desirable and pro-american or whatnot.


I believe that U.S., UK, Israel, Canada, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, and France would be our best ally and have a treaty with each other. Then we would tell the whole world to stick it.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I came to this thread late, my apologies. S&F. Let's end these meaningless wars NOW. I support and respect our troops, I appreciate the sacrifices they make for the greater *good* of the U.S.A. Putting boots on the ground in Libya would do *nothing* for the greater good of our country. Not to mention the fact that the U.S.A. can_not_afford it!

I don't wanna steer this thread into politics, but dammit c'mon! The fact that our troops pay more donations to the Ron Paul campaign than any other is really sending a message that Washington should pay serious attention to! Our armed forces do not WANT to be in these pointless wars.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Canadian Bacon
 


Face the fact is that your country and your fellow Europeans haven't carried any weight that we the United States does. Fact is that you guys has done nothing compare to what we did. you guys whine for what we did when in fact your government asked us to step into most of the conflicts you refuse to participate. Somehow you guys and you brothers in Europe are spoiled rotten global welfare babies. It's time for you to take the matter into your own hands instead of relying on uncle same for help.





top topics
 
42
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join