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.

 

Cameron at UN Promoting More ‘Humanitarian Interventions’

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
source



“This revolution truly belongs to the Libyan people. The United Nations played a vital role authorising international action. But let’s be clear, the United Nations is no more effective than the nation states that come together to enforce its will.




“On this occasion a coalition of nations across the Western and Arab world had the will to act. In so doing, they stopped Benghazi from joining Srebrenica and Rwanda in history’s painful roll call of massacres the world failed to prevent.”



I saw alot of navigatie comments against Cameron message in the article and you know what the comments are correct and the users are right to be angry about Cameron message at the UN, isnt United Nation obligation to prevent wars and not letting them happen? it so far they are failing that obligation which they were set up to do.

And how dare is Cameron to compare Benghazi to Srebrenica and Rwanda in history’s painful roll call of massacres?


Yea i can see how democracy worked in the balkans, alot of huge unemployment rates, people jobless, crime rate up through the roof in most cases, its still not even safe to travel, unless you have a family member or friends there.

Same thing in Croatia,Serbia.

Yeah i can see how democracy has been working out there, it hasnt been working, other then installing pro western leaders into power, making sure the balkans stay with the west.

Makes me wonder then just who owns Cameron? i think the bilderberg does, he is no different from tony bliar, his more of the same,doesnt matter what party you pick they are all the same bags.


So ATS as you can see there is no difference in elections anymore




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I know its shocking but the un helped the serbs commit genocide > they helped separate the men , about 4000 of them , and layed on the buses which delivered them to the place they were put to death.

Cameron and the rest of them deserve a lot worse than negative comments .

You know the media is failing too when they have to film 'fake' events to show the western public .

Its reached a point where the only end possible is 'self-destruct' . I hope the turd faced murdering bstrards rot in


hell.


And I apologise for the other sick individuals like him who work for his regime, who mascarade as being my countrymen.

wake up you idiots



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
It seems this humanitarian Intervention always needs to be delivered by fighter jets and tomahawk missiles. This means committing British Armed forces, which have had their numbers slashed and are also stretched throughout the world. I love the way politicians are so keen to send their countries armies to fight wars, yet would never dream of fighting themselves or having their kids fight, instead they would rather send other peoples kids to dangerous war zones.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Agreed and just like in iraq and afghanistan a lot of the weaponry nato bombs and our own troops face has 'made in britain' stamped on it.

he or they are not the ones picking their way round landmines > anyone would wish diana hadnt bit the bullet , thats how thick they have made our people

there are too few libian s not to accept them though . too much oil for them not to be there .
cameron and sarkozi trying to write history > its like pinky and perky setting terms over the trough



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
It seems this humanitarian Intervention always needs to be delivered by fighter jets and tomahawk missiles.

Not really, it can also be done through heavy sanctions such as the kind being discussed with regards to Syria.


This means committing British Armed forces, which have had their numbers slashed and are also stretched throughout the world.

Despite recent cuts we continue to maintain one of the world's strongest militaries. The situation will only get better as we pull soldiers out of the middle east during the next few years.


I love the way politicians are so keen to send their countries armies to fight wars, yet would never dream of fighting themselves or having their kids fight, instead they would rather send other peoples kids to dangerous war zones.

To me this isn't a problem while we have an entirely voluntary military. If conscription were implemented it would be a different story.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
Agreed and just like in iraq and afghanistan a lot of the weaponry nato bombs and our own troops face has 'made in britain' stamped on it.

It's good to know that our manufacturing industry wasn't completely destroyed isn't it?
edit on 25-9-2011 by UngoodWatermelon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by UngoodWatermelon
 


Sanctions don't work, and end up punishing the innocent citizens rather the the guilty regimes. If you want to remove a regime you are gonna need to use military force, surely the evidence of the last 20 years has proved this.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by UngoodWatermelon
 

Sanctions don't work, and end up punishing the innocent citizens rather the the guilty regimes. If you want to remove a regime you are gonna need to use military force, surely the evidence of the last 20 years has proved this.

True enough, however my point is that world leaders aren't really as bloodthirsty as you imply and generally try to reach a solution through diplomatic means first.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by UngoodWatermelon
 


Yet very few will ever send their own sons or daughters to fight the battles they cheer lead for. They are not blood thirsty , just wreckless with other peoples lives.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by UngoodWatermelon
 


Yet very few will ever send their own sons or daughters to fight the battles they cheer lead for. They are not blood thirsty , just wreckless with other peoples lives.

People join the military on the understanding that they could be sent to fight anyone, anywhere in the world, at any time.

We don't have a draught in this country so it's fairly irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

And why on earth would the children of leading politicians join the military? The pay is #e, you get shot at for a living and they can usually look forward to a much more promising career in government, the civil service or business.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by UngoodWatermelon
 


My view of the military is to defend the UK and Britains interests abroad. I don't see them as a world police force to enforce neo liberal values of democracy around the middle east. Especially when the outcome leaves us with an extremist Islamic government in Libya.

I don't believe we should have sent troops in to Iraq based on a pack of lies.

So although it may be voluntary to join the army, they should not be used to fight in wars that neither defend the UK or our interests abroad.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Yeah right. This would all be a tad more impressive if we displayed some even handedness. Isn't it interesting how we turn a blind eye or even support evil regimes when it suits. Like where did Saddam get his weapons from?
We'll get into bed with anyone and chuck our principles out the window if there is a bit of oil at stake or if there is some political gain. All this self righteous policing the world stuff is just a load of baloney.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by UngoodWatermelon
 


My view of the military is to defend the UK and Britains interests abroad. I don't see them as a world police force to enforce neo liberal values of democracy around the middle east.

As one of the world's strongest militaries I believe we have a duty to do our bit to protect the innocent. If a tyrant and terrorist sponsor threatens to massacre hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, we should try to stand in his way. To do otherwise is akin to watching a mother push her child off a cliff because it's "not our problem".


Especially when the outcome leaves us with an extremist Islamic government in Libya.

We don't really know what sort of government will arise from the situation yet. Whatever it is, it will at least have claim to backing by the Libyan people.


I don't believe we should have sent troops in to Iraq based on a pack of lies.

Me neither, although I'm glad Mr. Hussein is gone.


So although it may be voluntary to join the army, they should not be used to fight in wars that neither defend the UK or our interests abroad.

I tend to disagree.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by starchild10
Yeah right. This would all be a tad more impressive if we displayed some even handedness. Isn't it interesting how we turn a blind eye or even support evil regimes when it suits. Like where did Saddam get his weapons from?
We'll get into bed with anyone and chuck our principles out the window if there is a bit of oil at stake or if there is some political gain. All this self righteous policing the world stuff is just a load of baloney.

Amazingly enough governments (and thus government policies) change. The British government under Labour sought to butter up any middle eastern dictator who would support us in the war on terror - Gaddafi, Mubarak, etc. The current coalition government decided otherwise.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by UngoodWatermelon
 


Why can't we just stay out of other peoples countries, we have enough problems of our own in this country, we have a crumbling economy, pensioners choosing between heating and eating, yet we can always find a few billion to go and fight a war. We have no business wanting to install our way of life on others. We can't afford too and have no right too.

Where do we stop? Libya, Syria, Zimbabwe, Somalia, the Sudan? Obviously keeping Palestine of the list as their right to a free country is not on our agenda. It all smacks of western double standards.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Why can't we just stay out of other peoples countries

Because when it doesn't actually take much (not even any boots on the ground) to prevent the massacre of thousands or even millions of innocent civilians who were begging for our help, I feel we should take the decision to intervene.


we have enough problems of our own in this country, we have a crumbling economy, pensioners choosing between heating and eating,

I would agree, but the problems we face in this country are truly nothing compared to the problems faced in those we are intervening in.


We have no business wanting to install our way of life on others.

I generally agree, but the recent interventions in Libya and potential intervention in Syria is more about letting the people there choose their own way of life.


Where do we stop? Libya, Syria, Zimbabwe, Somalia, the Sudan?

We stop when we no longer have the resources to continue. If there are fifty women dashing their children against the rocks and you can only save one, do you choose to save none because it would show "double standards"?


Obviously keeping Palestine of the list as their right to a free country is not on our agenda. It all smacks of western double standards.

Yes, I see no good reason why Palestine shouldn't have full UN status. In fact I believe that it's necessary for any progress to be made in the region.




top topics



 
1

log in

join