• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NATO Uses Attack Helicopters for First Time in Libya

VanceMack said:
I do love a good liberal spin...

Saddam NEVER STOPPED brutalizing his people.
Click to expand...

You really want to go down that road? You do realize that justification calls for invading and occupying Russia, Iran, Burma, China and even Turkey to a degree no?

there were three reasons given to attack Iraq, global ties to terrorism
Click to expand...

Which pale in comparison to US ties but let's ignore that for now.

refussal to comply with UN resolutions regarding the disposition of his known WMD programs
Click to expand...

You mean like the fact he didn't have anything?

and genocide. Genocide has been a common theme. His republican guard made people disappear on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

You appear to be unaware of what "genocide" means.

We are involved in regime change in Libya. Their country represents aboslutely no threat to the American people. We stepped in it and its up to our knees. Funny tho that even though we as the president says, dont stand for povernments killing their citizens, we havent said **** in Syria, Saudi, Bahrain, Yemen...the hit list goes on. And face it...it doesnt MATTER. He could launch an attack on a girl scout cookie stand and his true believers would find a reason to justify it.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you arguing? You defend Iraq on the basis of its leader brutalizing people, but at the same time you aren't for invading others on the same rational?
 
xpiher said:
Are there elements of Al-Qaeda in Libya of course they are every there is a Jihad to be had. Are they in any way influencing polices from the transitional government or actually organized. No. They are a non-entity that is contributing bodies, just like in Iraq.
Click to expand...

I believe your analogy to be significantly flawed. Al Qaeda in Iraq was a non-player in why we were involved there to begin with, and never politically significant.

However, in Libya, the fighting started without us. With Al Qaeda and other jihadist influence already amongst the rebels. I have read here and elsewhere about these bonds of democracy etc. that we have put our hope in. To be honest, the only reason these jihadists are welcoming us now is the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" link. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing for us to bank on with regard to future allegiance. This would be one place where Al Qaeda actually has oil to bankroll itself. They are not in this so we can all be friends.
 
ecofarm said:
Obama has explained the US mission very clearly: Support our NATO allies as minimally as possible, so that the UN resolution can be realized according to UN and NATO goals. We have not recognized the transitional government, put people on the ground or made any other major move like Euros have.

He is doing precisely what he said he would do, and what he has consistently explained was the US mission.
Click to expand...

The US is NATO.

Without the US NATO would be nada.
 
PeteEU said:
Sorry but that is bs.

The Obama administration has explained the current mission. To aid NATO in its mission in Libya by providing logistical support and some command and control functions. What has not been clear is the over all mission of NATO and how far they are willing to go, but that has nothing to do with what the US is providing.

As for the War Powers Resolution.. does that War Powers Resolution not require an actual war that the US is participating in?... like shooting **** and stuff on a consistent basis? I mean.. is there a requirement to use the War Powers Resolution each time when Bush (and now Obama) used cruise missiles in Pakistan? Or sending in CIA operatives to kidnap/rendition people in Italy, Gambia and other places... yes that is an act of war also.
Click to expand...

If you use examples you should the 60 day rule, which any US President is legally obliged to follow. He gets a pass for the first 60 days but no longer.
 
Grant said:
The US is NATO.

Without the US NATO would be nada.
Click to expand...

Then how is NATO capable of daily bombings, interceptions and otherwise all actual combat roles since the US is doing little more then surveillance and refueling?

Despite the alliance's early failure to cope with the withdraw of US combat assets, it has stepped up.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I believe your analogy to be significantly flawed. Al Qaeda in Iraq was a non-player in why we were involved there to begin with, and never politically significant.

However, in Libya, the fighting started without us. With Al Qaeda and other jihadist influence already amongst the rebels. I have read here and elsewhere about these bonds of democracy etc. that we have put our hope in. To be honest, the only reason these jihadists are welcoming us now is the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" link. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing for us to bank on with regard to future allegiance. This would be one place where Al Qaeda actually has oil to bankroll itself. They are not in this so we can all be friends.
Click to expand...

They said the same thing about Iran when they were getting rid of the Shah, and look what happened.

Of course I hope I'm wrong but this looks like the same thing to me. The US is breaking their own laws in an unexplained war and, as well, little fuss is being made by the international community over the entire illegality of this war. At least not in the same way we witnessed in the case of the worst ME dictator of his day, Saddam Hussein.

I know of no UN Resolutions Libya has defied and, as well, there were worse cases of genocide, in Darfur for example, where the world did nothing.

I certainly have no sympathy for Gadaffi, but this thing stinks.
 
obvious Child said:
Then how is NATO capable of daily bombings, interceptions and otherwise all actual combat roles since the US is doing little more then surveillance and refueling?

Despite the alliance's early failure to cope with the withdraw of US combat assets, it has stepped up.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that.
 
Grant said:
I don't buy that.
Click to expand...

Care to point out what assets the US is providing to run combat operations? The bombings are being done by a variety of aircraft, virtually none of which the US operates. Tornados? Nope. Rafales? Nope. Eurofighters? Nope.

The best airframe for the Libya engagement is exclusively US. And it's not being used. The Libyan engagement is basically what the A-10 was designed for. Have those been used?
 
obvious Child said:
Care to point out what assets the US is providing to run combat operations? The bombings are being done by a variety of aircraft, virtually none of which the US operates. Tornados? Nope. Rafales? Nope. Eurofighters? Nope.

The best airframe for the Libya engagement is exclusively US. And it's not being used. The Libyan engagement is basically what the A-10 was designed for. Have those been used?
Click to expand...

The fact is that this war is, from an American point of view, illegal. That is a fact.

We've also had little information about what's going on as well as direct lies, i.e. 'boots on the ground'.

Maybe you are right. Maybe what they are saying is true. But we also know of war's first causality.

I withhold judgment and remain very skeptical,
 
Grant said:
The fact is that this war is, from an American point of view, illegal. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

And that's relevant to my post how? Or are you just hoping I won't notice you don't actually have a rebuttal? Whoops. :)


We've also had little information about what's going on as well as direct lies, i.e. 'boots on the ground'.
Click to expand...

Well it has come out that the CIA does have assets on the ground. But that's not the same as the US military. And honestly, the CIA has assets on the ground everywhere. After all, that is their job.

Maybe you are right. Maybe what they are saying is true. But we also know of war's first causality.

I withhold judgment and remain very skeptical,
Click to expand...

Well, I would accept that the US isn't doing much simply because we don't have the money for it. The GOP is finally finding their closet fiscal conservatism after a decade of rampant sailor spending. It's amusing to me how they are now embracing a trait that they systematically purged from their politicians during the Bush years. NATO needed the US for the initial salvo to neutralize defenses. After that they could take over. If the US was really into this, we would have flown the A-10s over months ago. That is the best airframe for this conflict. Excellent close air support and exceptionally hardy.
 
Andalublue said:
No, they're British Apaches.
Click to expand...

Does the US even have navalized apaches? I know the marine corp was interested in the British tests but I don't know if anything more came about it. Last I checked, it was just the Cobra that was navalized as an primary attack helo.
 
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Syrian forces killed at least 63 civilians in attacks to crush pro-democracy demonstrations on Friday, the Syrian human rights organization Sawasiah said on Saturday. Sawasiah said 53 demonstrators were killed in the city of Hama, one in Damascus and two in the northwestern province of Idlib.
Seven people were also killed in the town of Rastan in central Syria, which has been under a military assault and a siege by tanks since Sunday.


Outrage I tellya...this just goes against American morality and values, and an American president CANNOT not respond...

well...
 
obvious Child said:
Does the US even have navalized apaches? I know the marine corp was interested in the British tests but I don't know if anything more came about it. Last I checked, it was just the Cobra that was navalized as an primary attack helo.
Click to expand...

The Marines use the Cobra and the Huey. No navalized Apaches.
 
Councilman said:
The non-War has moved ahead as Obama is lies about our mission.

Is it remotely possible that Obama has been less than forthright in the degree of our involvement in the Libyan theater. Say it's not so.


Looks like a war to me.
apachej.jpg

I wnever want to see these monster pointed at me.
Click to expand...

It is war and even Obama called it unconstitutional.
 
Grant said:
I know of no UN Resolutions Libya has defied and, as well, there were worse cases of genocide, in Darfur for example, where the world did nothing.

I certainly have no sympathy for Gadaffi, but this thing stinks.
Click to expand...
Dafur should of had international involvement. Clinton even says thats his biggest regret.


Grant said:
The fact is that this war is, from an American point of view, illegal. That is a fact.

We've also had little information about what's going on as well as direct lies, i.e. 'boots on the ground'.

Maybe you are right. Maybe what they are saying is true. But we also know of war's first causality.

I withhold judgment and remain very skeptical,
Click to expand...

There aren't any American boots on the ground, just sneakers ;)
 
A little something borrowed by RT from last night's UK news.

 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Syrian forces killed at least 63 civilians in attacks to crush pro-democracy demonstrations on Friday, the Syrian human rights organization Sawasiah said on Saturday. Sawasiah said 53 demonstrators were killed in the city of Hama, one in Damascus and two in the northwestern province of Idlib.
Seven people were also killed in the town of Rastan in central Syria, which has been under a military assault and a siege by tanks since Sunday.


Outrage I tellya...this just goes against American morality and values, and an American president CANNOT not respond...

well...
Click to expand...

Right. This thing with Libya doesn't make sense.
 
obvious Child said:
And that's relevant to my post how? Or are you just hoping I won't notice you don't actually have a rebuttal? Whoops. :)
Click to expand...
If you did make a point it certainly wasn't obvious. Are you claiming that the US is not involved in the attacks on Libya? Or only a little bit?



Well it has come out that the CIA does have assets on the ground. But that's not the same as the US military. And honestly, the CIA has assets on the ground everywhere. After all, that is their job.
Click to expand...

"Boots on the ground" was the term used and it was a lie.
Well, I would accept that the US isn't doing much simply because we don't have the money for it. The GOP is finally finding their closet fiscal conservatism after a decade of rampant sailor spending. It's amusing to me how they are now embracing a trait that they systematically purged from their politicians during the Bush years. NATO needed the US for the initial salvo to neutralize defenses. After that they could take over. If the US was really into this, we would have flown the A-10s over months ago. That is the best airframe for this conflict. Excellent close air support and exceptionally hardy.
Click to expand...

Neither breaking the law of the land, or war, is "amusing".
Click to expand...
 
xpiher said:
Dafur should of had international involvement. Clinton even says thats his biggest regret.




There aren't any American boots on the ground, just sneakers ;)
Click to expand...

That's according to the sneaker in chief.
 
The Russians, of all folks, take the words right out of my mouth:

SINGAPORE – Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov says NATO is "one step" from sending troops into Libya in a bid to help rebels remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.

Ivanov said Sunday at an Asian security conference in Singapore that Russia didn't know that a United Nations resolution it supported to protect civilians and shut down Libyan air space would lead to a land operation.

more ; Russia: NATO 'one step' from land war in Libya - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

Welcome to "WTF" Ruskies :roll:
 
PeteEU said:
Listening to the usual suspects on these boards it would seem that the US was doing everything in Libya.... now my question is .... what is the US exactly doing there? I know they are providing logistics for NATO and some command and control functions, but as far as I understand US planes are not in the fight any more or rarely at best... not that many bombing raids any more. Is it the cruise missiles the US are using that people are pissed over?

The attack copters were British and French. Any "advisor's" on the ground are British former SAS working for a private contractor.. aka mercenaries.

So what exactly is the US doing in the conflict at the moment?
Click to expand...

According to US law, if our forces are operating on foreign soil, airspace, or water, they need Congress's approval within 60 days. They could be launching a blitzkrieg or just doing reconnaissance, but the President is not allowed to act on his own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom