• 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!

Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

GPS_Flex said:
It only took a complete violation of the Constitution of the United States, a violation of the War powers resolution and about 6 months longer than it took to capture Baghdad but the US commander in chief took us to war without congressional consent and promised us it would take weeks rather than months.

Now that rebel forces are in the Libyan capital do we pretend we didn’t kill civilians and that everyone will live happily ever after in Libya while pretending the wars that congress approved were an evil blight on America’s reputation while this war is just and good?
Click to expand...

Did Clinton violate the constitution when he bombed Serbia and Kosovo? Did Reagan violate the constitution when he bombed Libya?
 
Next up: Syria.

That now makes it Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya................

In the offing: Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, etc, and one day, China and Russia.

This part of the world just needs to start over.
 
If someone had suggested this two years ago I'd have said they were crazy.

libyasquare.jpg
 
That's an amazing picture. All those people celebrating and waving the flag, and there isn't an actual resistance leader leading them.
 
Wow, some of the posts in this thread are... surprisingly obtuse and revisionistic. First, this is not "America's" war. It's the Libyan rebels' war. America isn't supporting the rebels. NATO is supporting the rebels. The charge to get NATO involved was led by France, Italy and Spain. Europe gets a big hunk of its oil from Libya, after all. America has conducted no trade whatsoever with Libya since the mid-80's. America is, however, a part of NATO, and agreed to lend its aid. This isn't "Obama's war" and it's a pretty damned desperate sign of partisian hackery on those who imply otherwise.

I'm pretty damned sick of reading all the "America killed Libyan civilians" crap. Were civilians possibly killed by NATO armaments? Yes. Were civilians being slaughtered by the thousands by Khadafi's troops? Most definitely. I hope Khadafi goes down, just like the 3 sons who have already been captured. I hope that the coming power vacuum isn't filled by yet another tyranical dictator. I hope Libyans get the freedoms they are seeking, but if they do, America will have had little to do with it. We didn't bleed for their freedoms. They did.
 
DiAnna said:
Wow, some of the posts in this thread are... surprisingly obtuse and revisionistic. First, this is not "America's" war. It's the Libyan rebels' war. America isn't supporting the rebels. NATO is supporting the rebels. The charge to get NATO involved was led by France, Italy and Spain. Europe gets a big hunk of its oil from Libya, after all. America has conducted no trade whatsoever with Libya since the mid-80's. America is, however, a part of NATO, and agreed to lend its aid. This isn't "Obama's war" and it's a pretty damned desperate sign of partisian hackery on those who imply otherwise.

I'm pretty damned sick of reading all the "America killed Libyan civilians" crap. Were civilians possibly killed by NATO armaments? Yes. Were civilians being slaughtered by the thousands by Khadafi's troops? Most definitely. I hope Khadafi goes down, just like the 3 sons who have already been captured. I hope that the coming power vacuum isn't filled by yet another tyranical dictator. I hope Libyans get the freedoms they are seeking, but if they do, America will have had little to do with it. We didn't bleed for their freedoms. They did.
Click to expand...

NATOs no fly zone was a response to Qudaffi breaking international law by killing his own people. I am having a difficult problem in seeing how this is an American War.
 
DiAnna said:
Wow, some of the posts in this thread are... surprisingly obtuse and revisionistic. First, this is not "America's" war. It's the Libyan rebels' war. America isn't supporting the rebels. NATO is supporting the rebels. The charge to get NATO involved was led by France, Italy and Spain. Europe gets a big hunk of its oil from Libya, after all. America has conducted no trade whatsoever with Libya since the mid-80's. America is, however, a part of NATO, and agreed to lend its aid. This isn't "Obama's war" and it's a pretty damned desperate sign of partisian hackery on those who imply otherwise.

I'm pretty damned sick of reading all the "America killed Libyan civilians" crap. Were civilians possibly killed by NATO armaments? Yes. Were civilians being slaughtered by the thousands by Khadafi's troops? Most definitely. I hope Khadafi goes down, just like the 3 sons who have already been captured. I hope that the coming power vacuum isn't filled by yet another tyranical dictator. I hope Libyans get the freedoms they are seeking, but if they do, America will have had little to do with it. We didn't bleed for their freedoms. They did.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you said. It's been proven that NATO has killed both civilians and rebels with its armaments (Libya: coalition air strike 'kills seven civilians' - Telegraph) ('Libyan rebels killed in NATO air strike' - Africa - Al Jazeera English).

Also it doesn't seem that there will be democracy in Libya, at least not right now. Many rebels have terrorist and radical Islamic links (Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph), so I am worried about this greatly.
 
One thing is certain, and that is that they won't have LESS democracy than they had under Gaddafi.
 
SheWolf said:
NATOs no fly zone was a response to Qudaffi breaking international law by killing his own people. I am having a difficult problem in seeing how this is an American War.
Click to expand...

What makes Gaddafi's actions so much worse than the rebel's actions? People getting killed is what happens during war. That doesn't excuse it, but let's not pretend that this was entirely one-sided. For that matter, NATO killed plenty of Libyans too, despite ostensibly having no stake in the conflict itself...and unlike either Gaddafi OR the rebels, NATO doesn't have the excuse of self-defense.
 
Last edited:
After the bombings and color revolution tried in Iran by the U.S. trying to over turn the govmnt there, Obama the ingrate thinks he has the moral authority to call for Assad to resign.:roll:

Yuppies and their scorched earth policies, what nerve!

And that Hillary Clinton is a Nazi.
 
Kandahar said:
What makes Gaddafi's actions so much worse than the rebel's actions?
Click to expand...

Gaddafi is a dictator who has prohibited free speech and political opposition. The choice was his. If he had created democratic institutions there would have been no need for violence.
 
spud_meister said:
6 months to violently overthrow a dictator? How many civil wars can you name that went quicker?
Click to expand...
It did drag on longer than it had to had they been helped significantly internationally. The NATO strikes at least were probably important in making a difference in the conflict.

jfuh said:
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusion that this would lead to a democratic government or necessarily better lives for Libyan people. I agree no one would miss Gaddafi, except for perhaps those who benefited the most under him.
Libya is still very much tribal, and women are still disproportionately shunned out from society as objects to men's discretion.
So whether or not this is good news is relative.

The undeniable case here is that the international coalition was a success - this should be the model of how countries intervene - balancing the military power in favor of popular stance rather than go it alone cowboy silliness.
Click to expand...
I'm so far making that jump that Libya will be pretty democratic. So far the rebels haven't executed the Gaddafi family, which is good, and they have shown their commitment to democratic ideals, the people seem to be educated and a lot of youth seem to be involved. Yeah, international action should take place when there is a popular uprising.
 
AdamT said:
Gaddafi is a dictator who has prohibited free speech and political opposition. The choice was his. If he had created democratic institutions there would have been no need for violence.
Click to expand...

Who elected the rebels again?
 
Kandahar said:
What makes Gaddafi's actions so much worse than the rebel's actions? People getting killed is what happens during war. That doesn't excuse it, but let's not pretend that this was entirely one-sided. For that matter, NATO killed plenty of Libyans too, despite ostensibly having no stake in the conflict itself...and unlike either Gaddafi OR the rebels, NATO doesn't have the excuse of self-defense.
Click to expand...
Actually there is a difference, the rebel forces didn't give Viagra to their soldiers to rape women in the conflict, that was the reports coming out of the region, and also the rebels didn't target civilians intentionally. In fact, the rebels haven't murdered Gaddafi's sons, if it was the other way around for sure the rebels would be killed in an instant.
 
Kandahar said:
Who elected the rebels again?
Click to expand...

They elected themselves, which was the only choice Gaddafi gave them.

What would your suggestion be, assuming that the people of Lebanon opposed Gaddafi's rule? Should they have made a wish and thrown a coin in a fountain?
 
Opteron said:
Actually there is a difference, the rebel forces didn't give Viagra to their soldiers to rape women in the conflict, that was the reports coming out of the region,
Click to expand...

Any evidence that it was true? If not, why should I give it any more credence than I give Gaddafi's absurd claim that the rebels were all under the influence of hallucinogens?

and also the rebels didn't target civilians intentionally.
Click to expand...

Says who? The idea that when Gaddafi's forces killed civilians it was intentional, and when the rebels killed civilians it was accidental, is based on nothing more than your preconceived notion of who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are supposed to be.

In fact, the rebels haven't murdered Gaddafi's sons, if it was the other way around for sure the rebels would be killed in an instant.
Click to expand...

It's been all of, what, 12 hours since they were captured?
 
AdamT said:
They elected themselves, which was the only choice Gaddafi gave them.
Click to expand...

Somehow I don't think you would accept "Gaddafi elected himself" as a reason why his regime was legitimate. :roll:

What would your suggestion be, assuming that the people of Lebanon opposed Gaddafi's rule? Should they have made a wish and thrown a coin in a fountain?
Click to expand...

No. They can rebel all they want if they are dissatisfied. But NATO shouldn't have gotten involved and picked sides. We have no stake in this fight, no reason to think we can steer Libya in a positive direction given our atrocious track record of intervention in the Arab world, and no reason to think that dropping bombs on people is "saving lives."
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Somehow I don't think you would accept "Gaddafi elected himself" as a reason why his regime was legitimate. :roll:



No. They can rebel all they want if they are dissatisfied. But NATO shouldn't have gotten involved and picked sides. We have no stake in this fight, no reason to think we can steer Libya in a positive direction given our atrocious track record of intervention in the Arab world, and no reason to think that dropping bombs on people is "saving lives."
Click to expand...

We have no stake? Gaddafi financed terrorism all over the world, including terrorism against Americans.
 
Kandahar said:
What makes Gaddafi's actions so much worse than the rebel's actions? People getting killed is what happens during war. That doesn't excuse it, but let's not pretend that this was entirely one-sided. For that matter, NATO killed plenty of Libyans too, despite ostensibly having no stake in the conflict itself...and unlike either Gaddafi OR the rebels, NATO doesn't have the excuse of self-defense.
Click to expand...

There wasn't a war at first. Gaddafi simply killed people for protesting, and then murdered people for uprising against his brutal government. He didn't murder his own people in an act of war. It was an act of government coercion and violence. Collateral damage is entirely different from a government actively murdering it's people.
 
Among the false reports by the Lamestream media to support the U.S. invasion (think Saddam/WMD)

1. Quaddafi used snipers on civillians
2. Quadaffi used jet strikes on civillians
3. Quadffi used viagra rapes on civillians

And this is a United States invasion. The token assistance from France and the UK is window dressing. Obama is using the NATO cover to deflect criticism of more war by making it appear as "international" as possible.
 
Facebook is so influential considering that only 25% of Egyptians had access to the internet, and only half are reported to be literate. I heard that the U.S. backed "revolutionaries" were busing in protesters in Syria.:roll:

Throw in some phony demonstration pictures of people who support Quaddafi as the west labels them "opposition" and poof - instant color revolution ...
 
Kandahar said:
Any evidence that it was true? If not, why should I give it any more credence than I give Gaddafi's absurd claim that the rebels were all under the influence of hallucinogens?
Click to expand...
BBC News - Libya: Clinton condemns rape as weapon of war
She praised the courage of Iman al-Obeidi, whose accusations of rape against soldiers loyal to Col Gaddafi drew worldwide attention when she stormed into a Tripoli hotel in Tripoli and shouted her experience to a group of journalists.
Click to expand...

One major in the Libyan army who has now deserted has told the BBC that reports of shipments of Viagra were widely known about, but said they were given to foreign mercenaries rather than the regular army.
Click to expand...
Col. Gaddafi's claim wasn't supported by credible reports and credible news agencies.

Kandahar said:
Says who? The idea that when Gaddafi's forces killed civilians it was intentional, and when the rebels killed civilians it was accidental, is based on nothing more than your preconceived notion of who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are supposed to be.
Click to expand...
Show me reports of the atrocities committed by the rebels and then I will believe you. There are many reports for the other side. I know you want to condescend the 'good guys and bad guys' notion, but that's how its looking to be based on the facts.

Kandahar said:
It's been all of, what, 12 hours since they were captured?
Click to expand...
Still, its remarkable they weren't shot instantly. Do you think Gaddafi would have given them the same privilege? I highly doubt it.
 
DiAnna said:
Wow, some of the posts in this thread are... surprisingly obtuse and revisionistic. First, this is not "America's" war. It's the Libyan rebels' war. America isn't supporting the rebels. NATO is supporting the rebels. The charge to get NATO involved was led by France, Italy and Spain. Europe gets a big hunk of its oil from Libya, after all. America has conducted no trade whatsoever with Libya since the mid-80's. America is, however, a part of NATO, and agreed to lend its aid. This isn't "Obama's war" and it's a pretty damned desperate sign of partisian hackery on those who imply otherwise.

I'm pretty damned sick of reading all the "America killed Libyan civilians" crap. Were civilians possibly killed by NATO armaments? Yes. Were civilians being slaughtered by the thousands by Khadafi's troops? Most definitely. I hope Khadafi goes down, just like the 3 sons who have already been captured. I hope that the coming power vacuum isn't filled by yet another tyranical dictator. I hope Libyans get the freedoms they are seeking, but if they do, America will have had little to do with it. We didn't bleed for their freedoms. They did.
Click to expand...

and people please don't forget NATO was not the catalyst of the Libyan uprising. it was the Tunisian protest which sparked the Egyptian revolution which gave the entire arab world the balls to finally stand up to their repressive leaders and demand to be heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom