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.

 

Hillary Clinton off to Paris to discuss Libya's future

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


See these guys woulda let Saddam have kuwait because it's none of our business. Then suppose Saddam joins up with Iran to take Saudi Arabia, we won't get involved because it's none of our business. Then maybe they move and take over another oil rich country but we don't get involved cause it's none of our business.

Now they quit selling oil to America. Now it's our business but now we would have to have a major war to get it back This is what these anti-war people don't realize.


I dunno, Kro32. I'm not "anti-war" by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm "Anti-USELESS war". The situation in Libya, and even in Iraq when we went in there, were not situations of external aggression or power projection by either of those countries, they were internal squabbles.

If my neighbor decides to take over the neighbor hood, he'd better not go out after dark, 'cause I own the night. At the same time, I'm not going into his house and start re-arranging HIS furniture if he's leaving the rest of the hood alone.




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Phantom
Your right nuclear Weapons are going to be all over the place soon, and guess what's going to happen when a nation that we have peeved off gets them?


They will be erased, in near real-time, at the first hint of an ICBM launch.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
That little announcement sounded just a bit self-congratulatory didn't it? And just exactly what was Ms. Hillary patting herself on the back for? Interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, bombing it into submission and aiding "rebels" - who count many of our supposed Islamist enemies among their ranks - with intel, supplies, an "air force," and some say boots on the ground.

Why?

Qaddafi was an A-hole, but from what I've learned Libya was actually quite prosperous under his rule. Say what you want about the man, but the Libyans have the highest standard of living in Africa so he must be (excuse me, must have been) doing something right.

Regardless of whatever internal reasons there may have been for a revolt, the US had absolutely no business supporting one side or the other. There was no humanitarian crisis to address, there was no threat to the US homeland or any of our overseas facilities, nor was there a threat to any of our citizens at home or abroad.

I'm getting sick and tired of bombs falling on people who have done absolutely nothing to me, mine, or my country. I'm sick and tired of my tax dollars being used to kill innocent people. I'm sick and tired of our leadership wasting whatever goodwill we might have left in the world after 10 years of war in order to advance the agendas of banks and oil companies.

One day, in this life or the next, there will be a reckoning; if there is any justice in the universe, the people in charge of this, and many other murderous fiascoes, will be held to account. I hope I'm there to see it.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide

Wonderful insight there, which is why supporting Saddam and Osama in the soviet cold war era gave you such benefits in the future....


There was no US support for Osama in the Soviet Cold War era.



and perhaps a fourth grader would have been able to spell arguing properly.


That was just a cheap shot with no redeeming value and below the level of intelligent discourse. Since we're going there, however, that same 4th grader would likely have been able to capitalize "Soviet Cold War era" properly.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp

One day, in this life or the next, there will be a reckoning; if there is any justice in the universe, the people in charge of this, and many other murderous fiascoes, will be held to account. I hope I'm there to see it.


Judging by your avatar, I'm willing to bet dollars against donuts that you will be there to see it.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 


Well said and alot what you said its the sad truth, i wonder when these drug addicts rebels come out of there trance i wonder will they look back and see the harsh sad reality on what they have done? the rebels were nothing more then pawns to the west and as always the west and america act as if they didnt know or dont have any roles but in truth they do.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You need to quit being so logical, makes it very hard to argue with you and I know my spelling sucks but oh well. Anyways very good points you bring up.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjjtir
Emerson heads to Paris for Libya talks
AAP | August 31, 2011 | 7:28AM


www.news.com.au/breaking-news/emerson-heads-to-paris-for-libya-talks/story-e6frfku0-1226126146401


(...)

Dr Emerson said the meeting would discuss Libya's transition to democracy.

"The Government urges Muammar Gaddafi to give himself up and for his forces to put down their weapons and stop the senseless bloodshed," he said.

Australia is the third largest humanitarian donor to Libya.


Guy's nuts. First, this is Libya we're talking about. Western-style "democracy" just ain't gonna happen there. Ever. It doesn't matter WHO is in charge of the joint.

Second, if the want to find Gaddafi, Quadaffi, Khaddaffi, Duck Daffy, or whatever the spelling of the day is, they'd best start kitting out troops for an invasion of Venezuela. Flipping over rocks in Libya ain't going to bring anything but sweat. I'm sure he saw the results of Saddam trying to gut it out in place, and however evil or weird he may or may not be, he ain't stupid.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





. Western-style "democracy" just ain't gonna happen there. Ever. It doesn't matter WHO is in charge of the joint.


It wont? what kind on reality do you live on nenothtu
Western-style democracy already happend in iraq, and elsewhere in europe, it will happen, this what the new modern nazis have been pushing for, whatever you believe it or not.






they'd best start kitting out troops for an invasion of Venezuela


ok now thats a closet minded person with kind of thinking of calling for war in Venezuela






Guy's nuts.


Says who? you and the Western Idoits who want Oil and More wars? and The mainstream express lying press?


edit on 30-8-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You need to quit being so logical, makes it very hard to argue with you and I know my spelling sucks but oh well. Anyways very good points you bring up.


I don't know about logic, but it's my own peculiar brand of common sense, just my weird way of seeing things. If something works, don't fix it, and if it's someone else's problem, let THEM fix it.

Kuwait was an itty bitty place being picked on by a bigger bully. The Saudis were impotent enough to be unable to deal with it, and were feeling the heat of a potential invasion themselves. Those places asked for help, and it was prudent to provide it, given the potential destabilization and reorganization of the whole region - all the countries external to Iraq. It was an exported problem. I had a friend on a SpecOps team doing intel and recon work inside Kuwait during the build up, and there were hair raising things being visited upon that little country under Saddam. Iraqi things, not Kuwaiti things.

In contrast, Iraq's "problems" during the second Gulf War were internal. We had them buttoned up in their own skins already, and there were large parts of their own country, north and south, that they couldn't fly over. No reason to go in - they were utterly incapable of exporting trouble.

Libya was subjected to an internal squabble, and capable or not were not exporting their trouble. Again, no reason to go in.

Afghanistan is a different matter. They were providing safe harbor to a group hell bent on exporting trouble, and utterly unrepentant and unwilling to stop that problem. Plenty enough reason to go in and lay waste the entire place.

Spelling wasn't an issue with me, it irked me that anyone was low class enough to point that out in an attempt to get nothing more than a cheap shot in, so I returned the favor for them. I can get as low as anyone if I think the situation warrants it.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


My goodeness it seems to me the moment the thread started you went on the defense of the rebels it seems you are pro rebel then eh? not surpised your pretty aggressive at other users, and also your a war monger by the last post you made.
edit on 30-8-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


See these guys woulda let Saddam have kuwait because it's none of our business. Then suppose Saddam joins up with Iran to take Saudi Arabia, we won't get involved because it's none of our business. Then maybe they move and take over another oil rich country but we don't get involved cause it's none of our business.

Now they quit selling oil to America. Now it's our business but now we would have to have a major war to get it back This is what these anti-war people don't realize.


I dunno, Kro32. I'm not "anti-war" by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm "Anti-USELESS war". The situation in Libya, and even in Iraq when we went in there, were not situations of external aggression or power projection by either of those countries, they were internal squabbles.

If my neighbor decides to take over the neighbor hood, he'd better not go out after dark, 'cause I own the night. At the same time, I'm not going into his house and start re-arranging HIS furniture if he's leaving the rest of the hood alone.



I love the analogy! Star for that, because it is exactly how I feel. There is a time to use the mightiest military machine in the world - it's something we need to be proud of - but it needs to be used correctly. It was used correctly in Afghanistan, but Iraq was a total lie. Somalia could have been something to be proud of, but Rwanda was a dismal failure (because we did nothing, 800,000 people were butchered.) In fact, most of the instances in which our military has been called upon since the end of WWII were contrary to common sense, if not the Constitution.

As loathe as I am to add to an already bloated bureaucracy, I would support the creation of a new cabinet post: The Office Of Constitutional Conscience. The sole responsibility for this post would be to determine if the US was threatened, or if a true humanitarian crisis could be averted by the involvement of the US military, BEFORE committing troops.

I disagree with the whole War Powers Act - apparently Obama does too, because he just ignored its reporting requirements - because it gives one man 90 days to use the full might of the US military in any way he sees fit before he has to justify his actions before Congress. Our military can do a LOT of damage in 90 days, and I'm sorry but I feel that this is just too much power for one man to hold. He could literally destroy the world single-handedly and no one would be able to stop him; and I'm not talking just about Obama, but ANY President.


edit on 8/30/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


One more thing
Under gaddafi libyans enjoyed

* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* Unemployment benefit - $ 730.
* Each family member subsidized by the state gets annually $ 1.000
* Salary for nurses - $ 1.000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7.000.
* The bride and groom receive a $ 64 thousand to purchase flats.
* Major taxes and levies prohibited.
* To open a personal business a one-time financial assistance of $ 20.000
* Education and medicine are free.
* Educ.Internships abroad - at government expense.
* Stores for large families with symbolic prices for basic foodstuffs.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* Loans for buying a car and an apartment - no interest.
* Real estate services are prohibited.,
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the State.
* No Payment for electricity for the population.
* Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited.
* Petrol is cheaper than water. 1 liter of gasoline - $ 0.14.

and that fact Libya was ranked

World Rank
Link 2

all this under gaddafi, it seems to me you have an agenda on here defending either the rebels or nato for that matter at and some posts you were very aggressive on those members who are anti rebels.





Crime trend: Up 10% in 1999

10% crime rate hm that doesnt sound like a madman now doesnt it?
Just saying thats all.
edit on 30-8-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I appreciate your point of view and it is a very reasonable and valid position to take. I am a bit more extreme in my world views where I tend to look at preventing problems or securing interests for America as more important than a nations sovereignty. I basically believie in this:

Bush Doctrine


The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of former United States president George W. Bush. The phrase was first used by Charles Krauthammer in June 2001[1] to describe the Bush Administration's unilateral withdrawals from the ABM treaty and the Kyoto Protocol. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan

Different pundits would attribute different meanings to "the Bush Doctrine", as it came to describe other elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. military interests.[3][4][5] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002


en.wikipedia.org...

I've certainly no respect for Bush and thought he was overall not very good but I do like this strategy.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by nenothtu
 





. Western-style "democracy" just ain't gonna happen there. Ever. It doesn't matter WHO is in charge of the joint.


It wont? what kind on reality do you live on nenothtu
Western-style democracy already happend in iraq, and elsewhere in europe, it will happen, this what the new modern nazis have been pushing for, whatever you believe it or not.


Look at the map again. Iraq is not IN Europe. Most European countries have been under the thumb of "democracy" for some time now, but not Iraq, The only Middle eastern countries even approaching "democracy" are Israel and Turkey. No, it has NOT "happened in Iraq".

To answer your question, I live in the kind of reality found in the real world, what actually IS on the ground, not internet pipe dreams of the expansion of some illusory "democracy" to places that want nothing to do with it, and which are entirely unsuited to it culturally. You seem to have the same problem as the neocons, thinking that's some sort of possibility. Dream on.






they'd best start kitting out troops for an invasion of Venezuela


ok now thats a closet minded person with kind of thinking of calling for war in Venezuela



Bull crap. I didn't call for war in Venezuela, I said that if THEY EXPECT TO FIND GADDAFI that's where they need to go. I don't care if they find him or not, and would be opposed to war in Venezuela on such a flimsy pretense as trying to get him.

There are far better reasons for erasing Chavez.






Guy's nuts.


Says who? you and the Western Idoits who want Oil and More wars? and The mainstream express lying press?


edit on 30-8-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


More oil and more wars? ME? I'm not IN Libya, and am opposed to ANY action there. Dr. Emerson can't say the same. so maybe you want to re-evaluate just who is the "western idiot who wants more oil and more wars" in that statement. Think with your brain, rather than whatever it is you're using for a thinker.

If I wanted "more oil", Libya would be the LAST place I would invade. I'd go where the oil is. 2% or so of world production just doesn't meet the threshold.

Thanks for "foe-ing" me. that's the second one in two DAYS, and only the sixth in 3 YEARS. I'm on a roll!



edit on 2011/8/31 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88

I think I forgot, please help me out. Who was it again that provided Saddam with guns, tanks and WMDs?


Tanks were ancient Soviet T-72's and older, and the guns were locally made clones of Soviet AK's, made on Soviet provided equipment. The Iraqi versions were called "Tabuk" and "al Quds" assault rifles.

Their WMD program (Nuclear) was a local development, using raw materials from Africa. Slayer has already addressed the chem and bio more thoroughly than I.

What I find odd is for folks to scream "where are the WMD's" in one breath, and scream "who gave them WMD's" in the next. Which is it? Were they there, or not?

Hope that jogs your memory.








edit on 2011/8/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

edit on 2011/8/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.


This is a fortune?


* Unemployment benefit - $ 730.


Per what? a month,,, year?


* Salary for nurses - $ 1.000.


Which equals about $5.00 an hour.
You'de make more working at McDonalds flippin burgers in Los Angeles...


* The bride and groom receive a $ 64 thousand to purchase flats.


If one is available...


* To open a personal business a one-time financial assistance of $ 20.000


If you qualify for the loan..



* Education and medicine are free.


So are they in many western countries...


* Educ.Internships abroad - at government expense.


Again if you're accepted for such programs


* Stores for large families with symbolic prices for basic foodstuffs.


What is that?
Double talk?




* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.


Double talk again...


* Loans for buying a car and an apartment - no interest.


If you qualify and if they decide you can proceed...


* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the State.


If one is available



* Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited.



Well hell, no wonder they revolted!
I would too!


edit on 31-8-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69




* Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited.



Well hell no wonder they revolted!
I would too!



Count me in also...........


Its funny though,I saw the video where rebels were in Gaddafi's mansion,and the crystal champagne was ready to be drank !! Figures...........
edit on 30-8-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Why shouldn't we have bases in Libya? Makes it easier to deal with conflicts in the region and last time I checked Libya wasn't a superpower.

America is.


Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me...
After reading your post about the bush doctrine, Im almost feeling pity, the fool...

OT: why is this "woman", to be polite, doing dealing with other countries resources-land-people? Is she somewhat entitled to anything there? Is she owning anything there? Is the US government for that matter?


edit on 30-8-2011 by Juanxlink because: Add odds and ends.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Juanxlink
 


How about because she is the Secretary of State and that's kinda her job?

And you call me the fool?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join