Posted on 05/09/2011 10:07:51 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Nato has denied claims that its naval units left dozens of migrants to die aboard another boat in distress.
It said it was unaware of the plight of the boat, which reportedly was adrift for more than two weeks.
The Guardian newspaper said 61 of the 72 people on board the boat died of hunger or thirst, despite being spotted by a military helicopter and Nato ship.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Robert A. Heinlein ~ Time Enough For Love
Very sad. And another proof that a military op without a clear and pressing mission becomes a deadly joke.
As Libya gets cemented in this stalemate, NATO bombs will increasingly be seen for just what they are—clumsy and indiscriminate bringers of death.
By any objective standard the general populace is worse off than they were before the “rebellion” started. Even the rebels are running out of funds, their economy is in a shambles, and the aid that they used to get from Tripoli is, of course, gone now.
Mike
All refugees are migrants; some migrants are refugees.
(I see your point though — it goes to motivation.)
At least they are not
"Undocumented Workers"
As they would be here.
a) when it suits NATO to skirt international refugee treaties. Chances are that those poor sould were indeed migrants, either from other African countries or foreign workers escaping NATO terror bombing.
Saving lives COST money, and NATO is not in business of saving lives.
The boats making the journey to Europe are often overloaded and unseaworthy
And that's not just the boat chartered by out State Department to remove US Embassy Personnel!
Most of these people are not refugees.
They are Islamic migrants from all over Africa, who are passing through Libya on their way to Europe as they have done for decades.
Much the way South and Central American illegals pass through Mexico on their way to the U.S. and Canada.
Note this quote from the full article: The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) said it had spoken to one Somali woman who had been on board the ship with her four-month-old baby.
Not a Lybian, and not caused in any way, shape, or form by NATO.
Unless you are a liberal, that means it is not NATO's responsibility to abandon their military operation and save these reckless people from the danger they put themselves in.
First of all, the numbers coming out of Libya are much higher than they were before the civil war that Obama formulated. Italy is under immense strains to deal with the flood of people. That means that many are refugees.
Second, just what is NATO’s responsibility?
NATO was originally created to protect members from being attacked. Obama turned NATO into a UN led organization with a mission to protect civilians from harm.
If NATO was at least doing what Obama said they would be doing, they actually would be helping these people instead of allowing Qaddafi to make them look like useless fools.
Recognizing the sad truth of the situation that Obama created, doesn't make one a Liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.