U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

www.foxnews.com

The Obama administration is pushing hard for a Thursday vote on a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing airstrikes and other measures to stop Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi from killing more civilians and defeating rebel forces in Libya.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya "requires certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems."

(visit the link for the full news article)

So here we go. Team America is at it again. Why must we always intervene? Seriously?

What if, for some odd reason, the United States had a "No Fly Zone" implemented, and our defense systems were bombed? That would be an act of war no? Yet we have the right...er I mean...moral obligation to do it to Libya?

Pshh this place is getting ridiculous.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Also I'd like to add from CBS News:

LEAKED: Copy of UN Draft Resolution

I agree. But the big difference here, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, is that the libyan rebels, the arab league, and a few more organizations are actually in favour of you guys implementing the No-Fly zone. This is a chance for you guys to do the right thing and prove that you do stand for democracy.

Supposedly they are letting the Arab League push for the no-fly zone and military intervention, with the understanding that THEY can pay for the costs of the war. (Arab League members include Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait...)

This is a big difference to the last invasion launched by the US, which was unilateral, we are still paying the price for that one. If the Arab League backs this, and funds it, then it's a win/win situation for the US, we can eliminate a proven terrorist leader through targeted strikes without having to take on another war.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Exactly! I totally agree!

Didn't you hear ???


They have said they will not give any contracts to US companies for sell oil produce oil or anything to do with thier over whelming economic opportunities over there.

And you are wondering why all the sudden Obama wants to get involved ... It's because Obama is a PUPPET and only listens to what others say. Its not about doing the right thing any more.

Unfortunately its about what we can get from what we are doing.

I guess that starts to happen when you get a president where all you hear about is the deficit and what he can do for it .... Who cares about the deficit if you are helping innocents ????? Obviously Dems.

reply to post by Juston


What a farce.

I hope by now american citizens can see through the BS.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic at the average intelligence, or have been on ATS too long where people do see through.

When it's anti-American regimes, we hear from people saying that America should stay away!

But when there is an action against a Pro-Amercan government, we see people gleefully glowing with anticipation concerning the overthrow.

It just goes to show that people aren't for freedom but are just Anti-American.

Or is the OP, pro Ghadaffi?

Originally posted by beezzer
Or is the OP, pro Ghadaffi?

No, I am not pro Ghadaffi.

However, I firmly believe that we should worry about our own problems, rather than trying to police the world.

reply to post by Juston
Were you for/against the protesters in Egypt?
Iran?
Saudi?

When would it be "ok" to intervene?
After the leading government killed everyone, or right before?

Or does the rest of the world mean nothing to you.

reply to post by beezzer


Neither side in this conflict promotes freedom. The rebels in Libya have 'Islamofascists' in their ranks. Gadhafi is a secular tyrant, at least.

I personally beleive that the rebels might have already been supplied with weapons by the west.. that's ok in my opinion, if it is an unfair fight. but that is really as far as it should go.

Many of the people fighting FOR Gadafi, are not doing so because they are evil, but because they are scared, if he defeats the rebels and protesters, they will all be rounded up and slaughtered. would YOU take up fighting your own goverment like this? i wouldnt blame you if you wanted to stay out of it.

Gadaffi is a bastard, and probably insane. but it is not for us to police the world, especially with bombs.

Gee, this doesnt relate to Gadaffi saying the west gets cut off from their oil a couple days ago does it?

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by beezzer

 

Neither side in this conflict promotes freedom. The rebels in Libya have 'Islamofascists' in their ranks. Gadhafi is a secular tyrant, at least.

Now THAT is a great point! I know what a !@%#$! Gadhafi is, but I was unaware of the rebels.

reply to post by Juston


I used to think that too. The superpowers should just stay inside their borders, and not influence the outside world.

But then I thought.

What would happen if the United States or the Soviet Union didn't try to stop Hitler?
What would happen if the United States never went to the rescue of South Korea?
What would happen if Vietnam never was invaded?
What would happen if the United States never went into the Gulf war?
How strong and big would al-qaida now be if we never went into Iraq and Afghanistan?

Imagine all these hypothetical outcomes combined in one reality.

The thing is the world superpowers are responsible for maintaining and ensuring a balance in the world.

Sure there has always been a crazy horse killing innocent people. But that can be solved.

So let me mget this straight, Isreal is backing Qadaffi and hiring mercaneries to smash his opposition and Obama seeks to support the opposition and defy Isreals efforts? Doesn't add up. The UN already voiced opposition to the No Fly Zone and will likely not support it. So unlike the 2003 UN rejection of military action in Iraq when the US said "Screw ya, we'll go it alone" Obama will abide by the UN decision and say " Well we tried but they wouldn't let us" So it will at least look like we tried to do the right thing.

reply to post by Juston


Whilst the U.S and U.K sit idly by and allow the Bahrain regime to kill their citizens, with the aid of Saudi and U.A.E troops.

Oh silly me, no oil there!!

The entire world is watching and waiting for the US decision on this matter and frankly, our western allies are fed up by the indecision that is rampant in the current Obama administration. Hillary's hands have been bound on this issue to the point of rubbing them raw. The woman's plate is full and she is getting no help from the White House. Our president is golfing, partying and vacationing while she is stuck in the trenches by herself.

Our bed was made in the Middle East a long time ago and it is not wise to pick and choose which democracy you want or don't want to back. It has to be all or nothing. Period.

For some reason we have been playing softball with Gahdafi and Libya since we rocked their world in 1986. I can't figure it out. Quaddaffi has not yet fulfilled his entire role yet and neither has Obama. The two are linked via common alliances, Rev. Wright and Farakhan, within the US.

Today's decision should be interesting.

Originally posted by Juston

So here we go. Team America is at it again. Why must we always intervene? Seriously?

What if, for some odd reason, the United States had a "No Fly Zone" implemented, and our defense systems were bombed? That would be an act of war no? Yet we have the right...er I mean...moral obligation to do it to Libya?

*SIGH*..........

If US gov't tried to implement Martial Law or somethin, for example, and US citizens didn't agree and then US miltary aircraft were bombing protestors/rebels in Washington who were against... I'm almost confident American Citizens would LOVE for UN to implement a no fly zone.

Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Juston

 

Were you for/against the protesters in Egypt?
Iran?
Saudi?

When would it be "ok" to intervene?
After the leading government killed everyone, or right before?

Or does the rest of the world mean nothing to you.

I won't be baited into what "I" was for or against, as my personal preferences are irrelevant.

Look at what Ron Paul said, as I think he hit the nail on the head:

When I look at the U.S. assistance plan for Yemen I see that it is primarily focused on nation-building. That is the failed idea that if the United States sends enough money to a foreign government, with which that government purchases U.S.-manufactured weapons and hires U.S.-based consultants and non-governmental organizations, that country will achieve a strong economy and political stability and in gratitude will become eternally friendly to the U.S. and U.S. interests. I have yet to see a single successful example of this strategy.

Source

We tried to help Afghanistan against Communist Russia, a noble cause heralded by many at the time, and look at how that has turned out.

To imply that I think the rest of the world is meaningless is, quite frankly, rude of you. No where have I even hinted at that.