If America was Libya.. Let me ask you this..

In the light of recent moves by the world body and instigated by the oobama regime, Libya is being "told" how to conduct it's internal affairs. In trying to put down a rebellion, the world got in the conflict to decide what is right for Libya. So I ask this question.


If Texas decided to break away from the American regime led by Boroc oobama, and mr. oobama decided to quell the rebellion with the military, should the world step in to help slice and dice the nation and side with the rebellion ? What if it were France and the Islams wanted a Sharia State of their own, Or England and the Muslims wanted a free state and to break away from England. Should the world get involved and prevent the parant nation from excercising it's right to put down rebellions ? What do you think ?

OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL
etc

Hmmm..... well let me ask this. Is it different than something that would happen on a neighborhood level if there were no cops?

Consider this..

You see the drunk guy next door smacking his wife around. Then he turns on his kids. Then he grabs a club and starts using that. Except the only "cops" are you and the other neighbors.

Do you let him him seriously injure or kll his wife and kids - or do you take steps to stop him and protect them?

In the world the only "cops" are other countries. Basically they have to decide what they allow to go down in their neighborhood (the world) and what they let slide. Sometimes they step in.. sometimes the drunk guy gets to do what he wants.

Originally posted by Frogs
Hmmm..... well let me ask this. Is it different than something that would happen on a neighborhood level if there were no cops?

Consider this..

You see the drunk guy next door smacking his wife around. Then he turns on his kids. Then he grabs a club and starts using that. Except the only "cops" are you and the other neighbors.

Do you let him him seriously injure or kids his wife and kids - or do you take steps to stop him and protect them?

In the world the only "cops" are other countries. Basically they have to decide what they allow to go down in their neighborhood (the world) and what they let slide. Sometimes they step in.. sometimes the drunk guy gets to do what he wants.

edit on 18-3-2011 by Frogs because: I'm sleepy

What an excellent observation. Only the neighbors choose to stop the one guy down the street from beating his wife and kids, and then they go home and do the same thing to their own wives and kids.

If I were Texas, I would secede while the going is good. Or any state for that matter.

Originally posted by Fromabove
If Texas decided to break away from the American regime led by Boroc oobama, and mr. oobama decided to quell the rebellion with the military, should the world step in to help slice and dice the nation and side with the rebellion ? What if it were France and the Islams wanted a Sharia State of their own, Or England and the Muslims wanted a free state and to break away from England. Should the world get involved and prevent the parant nation from excercising it's right to put down rebellions ? What do you think ?

That is a difficult question. I think it depends on who the other nations are and what the outcome goal is. Ultimately if a state decides to secede from the Union then that is their right and the people of America (and everyone on this planet) have the right to be free regardless of their leaders. If they have the wherewithal to rally support from foreign nations then that nation should help in the express interest of the people. If America tries to quell a rebellion in the same manner as Gadhafi i think there will be much larger issues for him to deal with as the people have a right to over throw their government and the majority (speaking) rules.

I asked a similar question in this thread: "UN is saying Gadaffi can't attack 'his people'. Aren't his people attacking him?"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

People within Libya are using military force to over-throw Gadaffi. And understandably so, from what I know of the situation. But it does seem odd to me that he gets told by the un that he can't use military force to respond.

reply to post by Fromabove


..and an excellent point from you as well. Yes, sometimes the neighbors (countries) do step in stop something and then go back home and beat their own family.

Its not a fair world at all by any stretch of the imagination...

reply to post by HelionPrime


I think i side with this ones comment.
If the no fly zone were about humanitarian blah blah blah,.....
There would be a no fly zone in Bahrain, where they used Saudi troops to put down the protesting citizens.
Yemen would be a no fly zone,....
You all are getting where i'm going with this, Right?
All those that wear blue helmets MUST die, no matter what country they are in or from.
I will certainly start my own collection if they ever come to the US.

While I hope the people of Libia overthrow him................

No country has the right to interfere in anothers internal affairs........troop wise. I would not be against arming the rebels

reply to post by Frogs


You have a valuable argument here but, what about the rest of the world that has been suffering waaaay before the Lybians rose up?
What if said neighbors wife needed a beating along with the kids?
Yes there are folks out there like that.
Now even if this was legitimate, how is the US track record on doing the world police thing?
DROP THE OIL!!!!, Dont taze me bro!

America was once Libya, albeit a less violent one, remember the Revolutionary war? We wouldn't even be here if France didn't help us.

I remember reading something about "Alien and Sidition Act">? and I think Congress declared us
enemies way back in the 30's or it got changed in the 90's anyway - I'm almost positive I read it right
here on ATS.. might want to look that thread up... or ask Skeptic Overloard... the smartest cyborg alive

Originally posted by binomialtheorem
Ameerica was once lLibya, albeit a less violent one, remember the Revolutionary war? We wouldn't even be here if France didn't help us.

Good point. But in that war you had those who openly stated their position and had a part in it. It's different in what oobama and the NWO called the UN is doing. Here they are deciding who is good and who is evil, who gets what and when. In the revolutionary war France helped the colonies out against England for what England did to them in the Caribbean with Hispaniola. Otherwise, the colonies would have been on it's own.

In Libya, it's a strict internal dispute. No one has declared independence. It's an uprising and that nation has the sovereign right to crush the rebellion if it can. But the world says no cause they said so.

Originally posted by binomialtheorem
Ameerica was once lLibya, albeit a less violent one, remember the Revolutionary war? We wouldn't even be here if France didn't help us.

That's a good point. Americans aren't really taught it was French Rochambeau who basically sealed the Brits fate at Cornwalis.

reply to post by Frogs


Your scenario does not compare to the current situation in Libya, Bahrain or even Yemen. You're comparing domestic violence to revolution. In your scenario, the same citizens are policing each other. In Libya, foreign governments are attacking the Libyan government thru a third party.

Let me just state that, Libya has a legitimate government in place and it is being attacked internally by a rebel force. Sound familiar? USA v. CSA. The USA brutally put down this uprising. We were more brutal than Gadhafi...don't believe me? Read about Sherman's March to the Sea. Thank goodness the UN hadn't been formed or life would've been a lot different.

Who are we to decide how the Libyans or anyone else for that matter runs their country?

Originally posted by ISRAELdid911
I remember reading something about "Alien and Sidition Act">? and I think Congress declared us
enemies way back in the 30's or it got changed in the 90's anyway - I'm almost positive I read it right
here on ATS.. might want to look that thread up... or ask Skeptic Overloard... the smartest cyborg alive

It was back when the country was new. Most likely late 1700's or early 1800's.

I'm sure that the federalist party hated having to compete with the democratic republicans, so they passed an act called the Alien act. This act would allow the government to deport you back from your country of origin,if you were an immigrant of course, if they felt you had been any threat to the country. Basically it was going to be used to deport many immigrants back to their countries. Why? Because the federalists wanted the elite rich people to rule, whereas the democratic republicans wanted the majority to rule, and since the majority of immigrants wanted to be farmers they would vote democratic republican.

Whereas the Sedition act would allow the government to suspend habeas corpus, and put you in jail if you criticized the government,

This is all from memory.

Saudi Arabia. Worst human rights record on the planet, but they've got oil. They are good..(for now).
Libya. Ruled by a madman, but a controllable madman, but they've got oil. We have to get involved...
Iraq. Tsk. WMD's or something..ruled by a madman, but he pushed it too far. Oil? Oh yeah. Involved....
Afghanistan. Ruled by religious people who were a bit mad, but wouldn't protect the oil pipelines. Tsk. Wrong....
Sudan. Not much oil. Not our problem.
Congo. Lacking oil. We've...erm....got this, like...thing....sorry...
Iran. We're watching you!! Have you got oil? Oh, I see you do. You're probably BAD people.
Eritrea? Who? Quick, bring me a map of everything? Geological maps....minerals?
Somalia. Nasty pirates who seem to threaten a lot of oil tankers....Hmmmm.....
Darfur. Um? No really oil rich, are they? Let's leave 'em be.
Bosnia? UN....keep up appearances. But not really, 'cos they are not an oil country.

Pol Pot, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Idi Amin? Lacking the ol' black stuff. Let 'em do what they like.

Texas? Well...they do have oil, so yeah. All hands on deck.

If you scream all day about democracy and the rights of all those born equal (ahem, some 'more equal' than others...), you have to see it through. You can't pick and choose your battles based on the oil production scales. Democracy and oil are two different things.
Unfortunately, that's the path the US has chosen.
When the US actually does stand up for democracy you get Korea and Vietnam.
Remind me how both of those conflicts ended? One didn't and the other was a fiasco.
It's about time people stopped dieing for stupid reasons.
No point having peace while we've still got cluster munitions. No ratifying that particular treaty! Like the rest of the civilized world.

Communists are bad. Except for the Chinese, because we get cheap imports and don't have to pay decent wages.
Cuba? Non-starters, but buying a cigar is anti-American.

A foreign policy that is based on making a few people rich is never a good thing. This is all about money. Not your money, or my money. We're talking BIG money.

When the US foreign policy is based on humanitarian aid rather than warmongering for profit we'll be getting somewhere.

reply to post by Fromabove


Huh? What did I just read?

Another odd topic. Hmm. If America were Libya, Texas would take care of the revolt if all of the militias there didn't chicken out first.

I think along the lines of the op , but Frogs point of view makes perfect sense as well. I am sick to death of being hated by the world becaused I get lumped in as a war monger for simply being an American. At the same time , what do we do when there is a real bully in the school yard ? If we do nothing we'll be monsters for standing by and not "helping " if we jump in WE will be the school bully.

Originally posted by Fromabove
If Texas . . .

. . ., should the world step in to help slice and dice the nation and side with the rebellion ?

I don't know.
How does the UN feel about Texas?


David Grouchy