• 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!

Libyan rebels round up black Africans

Μολὼν λαβέ;1059791070 said:
You've missed the point. After all the opposition from democrats/liberals regarding the last two wars, or military conflicts in the Middle East, the irony, or hypocrisy, is that it's now OK to intervene in another Middle Eastern country's affairs. Why? Because your political party deemed it necessary.

My political party didn't deem anything necessary. I don't like the involvement, never did. Though if we're asking such questions, why after all the "rah rah, invade Baghdad" and "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" (remember McCain -- to the tune of "Barbara Ann.") is it now bad?

Here's "dixiesolutions" (whom I'm now convinced is not real), saying that it's horrible that all these Muslims are involved. What kind of democracy in the Middle East wasn't going to involve Muslims??? You wanted democracy in the Middle East, and now it's arriving. Bush was right (to an extent), but now you guys are all unhappy because....???
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059791070 said:
You've missed the point. After all the opposition from democrats/liberals regarding the last two wars, or military conflicts in the Middle East, the irony, or hypocrisy, is that it's now OK to intervene in another Middle Eastern country's affairs. Why? Because your political party deemed it necessary.

It appears that you haven't been paying attention. There was no opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan because it served a legitimate national interest. There was opposition to Iraq because it did not. Libya did involve a national interest, as Ghaddafi was a known sponsor of terrorism against U.S. citizens. It was also a much smaller commitment.
 
It appears that you haven't been paying attention. There was no opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan because it served a legitimate national interest. There was opposition to Iraq because it did not. Libya did involve a national interest, as Ghaddafi was a known sponsor of terrorism against U.S. citizens. It was also a much smaller commitment.

Saddam supported anti-American terrorism.
 
No, he didn't. Or if you think he did, let's see the evidence.


Former President George Bush visited Kuwait between April 14 and April 16, 1993, to commemorate the allied victory in the Persian Gulf War. Accompanying Bush were his wife, two of his sons, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, former Chief of Staff John Sununu, and former Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady.

In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. The Kuwaitis recovered the Landcruiser, which contained between 80 and 90 kilograms of plastic explosives connected to a detonator ( the Bush device or Bush explosive device ). The Kuwaitis also recovered ten cube-shaped plastic explosive devices with detonators (the cube-bombs ) from the Landcruiser. Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt.

On April 29, 1993, CIA bomb technicians compared the Bush explosive device to two known Iraqi explosive devices found in different Middle-Eastern countries in 1990 and 1991 (the Middle-East devices ) . The technicians reported that the remote control firing mechanism in the Bush device was identical to those in the Middle-East devices. Additionally, the technicians reported that blasting caps from the Bush device appeared to be identical to those found in one of the Middle-East devices. The technicians later concluded that the circuit board from the Bush device also closely resembled circuit boards from the Middle-East devices.

In early-May 1993, the FBI sent personnel to Kuwait to interview the suspects and examine the physical evidence. FBI Special Agents, along with representatives of the Secret Service and State Department, interviewed 16 suspects, some more than once. Two of the suspects, Wali 'Abd Al-Hadi 'Abd Al-Hasan Al-Ghazali ( Al-Ghazali ) and Ra'd 'Abd Al-Amir 'Abbud Al-Asadi ( Al-Asadi ), admitted during the FBI interviews that they had participated in the plot at the direction of the IIS.​
 
GaddafyDuck was a major supplier of those GanjaWeed vermin who raped the Sudan, the ones whom we are assured by PC Orthodoxy are 'mostly moderate Muslims' , of course, '98%' being the usual percentage of 'moderates' in the ME, yet there isn't a single 'moderate' Islamic government on the entire planet for some reason, despite such overwhelming 'statistics' cited for them. At least the non-Muslims in Libya were massacred and driven out a long time ago, so we won't see many brief reports buried on page 92of the NYT about massacres of Xians as we did from the 'freedom fighters' of Egypt's 'Arab Spring', anyway; they'll focus on how Israel is a big threat to Libya's 'national security', even though it's about a thousand miles or so away and has no armored divisions on the way to steal Arab Land, as part of their imperialist plan.
 
Last edited:
It appears that you haven't been paying attention. There was no opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan because it served a legitimate national interest. There was opposition to Iraq because it did not. Libya did involve a national interest, as Ghaddafi was a known sponsor of terrorism against U.S. citizens. It was also a much smaller commitment.

Here's the problem with doing something "because it should be done". When we assume the role of global policeman without the capability, militarily and financially, to intervene anywhere and everywhere, we then start picking and choosing for purely arbitrary and capricious reasons. Why intervene in Libya and not in Syria, or Yemen? Why not Myanmar? Why not Sudan, Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, etc?
 
Here's the problem with doing something "because it should be done". When we assume the role of global policeman without the capability, militarily and financially, to intervene anywhere and everywhere, we then start picking and choosing for purely arbitrary and capricious reasons. Why intervene in Libya and not in Syria, or Yemen? Why not Myanmar? Why not Sudan, Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, etc?

This is where knowledge of a subject like, say, geography, comes in handy, along with an idea of which countries are backed by wealthier countries. Do you go after 5 or 6 countries at the same time, or do you just take out the primary supporter of those 5 or 6? Which is the better strategic decision?
 
There was opposition to Iraq because it did not.

Nonsense. We had defense agreements with several countries in the area, and of course only the not very bright thought we really were going to hang around until Saddam died of old age or something.
 
Former President George Bush visited Kuwait between April 14 and April 16, 1993, to commemorate the allied victory in the Persian Gulf War. Accompanying Bush were his wife, two of his sons, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, former Chief of Staff John Sununu, and former Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady.

In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. The Kuwaitis recovered the Landcruiser, which contained between 80 and 90 kilograms of plastic explosives connected to a detonator ( the Bush device or Bush explosive device ). The Kuwaitis also recovered ten cube-shaped plastic explosive devices with detonators (the cube-bombs ) from the Landcruiser. Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt.

On April 29, 1993, CIA bomb technicians compared the Bush explosive device to two known Iraqi explosive devices found in different Middle-Eastern countries in 1990 and 1991 (the Middle-East devices ) . The technicians reported that the remote control firing mechanism in the Bush device was identical to those in the Middle-East devices. Additionally, the technicians reported that blasting caps from the Bush device appeared to be identical to those found in one of the Middle-East devices. The technicians later concluded that the circuit board from the Bush device also closely resembled circuit boards from the Middle-East devices.

In early-May 1993, the FBI sent personnel to Kuwait to interview the suspects and examine the physical evidence. FBI Special Agents, along with representatives of the Secret Service and State Department, interviewed 16 suspects, some more than once. Two of the suspects, Wali 'Abd Al-Hadi 'Abd Al-Hasan Al-Ghazali ( Al-Ghazali ) and Ra'd 'Abd Al-Amir 'Abbud Al-Asadi ( Al-Asadi ), admitted during the FBI interviews that they had participated in the plot at the direction of the IIS.​

What your quote doesn't mention is that the alleged confessions implicating the Iraqi government were elicited under torture by the Kuwaitis (who were little better than Saddam). And of course it was in Kuwait's interest to have the U.S. believe the Saddam had hatched such a plot. In other words, the evidence is at best inconclusive.
 

Please, do not cite the bull**** "intelligence" that the Bush administration faked up to make a case for the war. There is no evidence that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda.

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

"The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)
 
Last edited:
Please, do not cite the bull**** "intelligence" that the Bush administration faked up to make a case for the war. There is no evidence that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda.

You can refute the evidence I provided? Let's see it.
 
Leon Klinghoffer was an American citizen.

What exactly is your point here?

The US had plenty of reasons to engage in the Iraqi War. The decision Bush made was pretty stupid, by my reckoning, but there were plenty of valid reasons to justify it. It comes down to a judgment call. If I were in Bush's place I wouldn't have launched the war in the way he did - I would have just blown the **** out of Saddam and let some other henchman take over on the condition that the terrorism and threats to American interests had to stop. Bush felt otherwise.

I have no clue what leftists like you believe should have been done in your were in Bush's place. Tell us, what would you have done?
 
What your quote doesn't mention is that the alleged confessions implicating the Iraqi government were elicited under torture by the Kuwaitis (who were little better than Saddam). And of course it was in Kuwait's interest to have the U.S. believe the Saddam had hatched such a plot. In other words, the evidence is at best inconclusive.

And how many wars with its neighbors did Kuwait start?
 
Leon Klinghoffer was an American citizen.

What exactly is your point here?

The US had plenty of reasons to engage in the Iraqi War. The decision Bush made was pretty stupid, by my reckoning, but there were plenty of valid reasons to justify it. It comes down to a judgment call. If I were in Bush's place I wouldn't have launched the war in the way he did - I would have just blown the **** out of Saddam and let some other henchman take over on the condition that the terrorism and threats to American interests had to stop. Bush felt otherwise.

I have no clue what leftists like you believe should have been done in your were in Bush's place. Tell us, what would you have done?

The answer is completely obvious to anyone with a functioning brain stem -- whether it hangs to the right or the left. There were IAEA inspectors in place in Iraq. The filed a report shortly before the invasion stating that they were receiving sufficient cooperation and that they expected they would be able to certify Iraq WMD-free in a matter of months. Bush ordered them out of the country so he could launch his idiotic invasion. Plainly the smart thing to do would have been to allow the inspections to follow their course. Then, once we were assured beyond all doubt that Iraq had no WMDs we could maintain sanctions whatever level of involvement necessary to insure that Saddam didn't pose a threat to his neighbors.
 
And how many wars with its neighbors did Kuwait start?

Why would the Kuwaitis start any wars? They were filthy rich and maintained their status using the same means that Saddam employed.
 
The answer is completely obvious to anyone with a functioning brain stem -- whether it hangs to the right or the left. There were IAEA inspectors in place in Iraq. The filed a report shortly before the invasion stating that they were receiving sufficient cooperation and that they expected they would be able to certify Iraq WMD-free in a matter of months. Bush ordered them out of the country so he could launch his idiotic invasion. Plainly the smart thing to do would have been to allow the inspections to follow their course. Then, once we were assured beyond all doubt that Iraq had no WMDs we could maintain sanctions whatever level of involvement necessary to insure that Saddam didn't pose a threat to his neighbors.

Don't be so cocksure about this plan because it's based on little more than wishful thinking. The sanctions regime was disintegrating before our eyes. That's the reality that you have to address. Removing the immediate WMD infrastructure but leaving the knowledge base intact, leaving the political base intact, and leaving the financing base intact doesn't look like a viable solution.

Would President AdamT be willing to shoulder the entire burden of blocking the entire Iraqi border for as long as Saddam remained in power? How much damage to US international prestige would you be willing to shoulder in maintain this embargo in the face of world opinion which delegitimized the imposition of sanctions and especially an embargo against Iraq because they wanted their oil and wanted to sell them wares and services?

If you had a functioning brain stem you'd recognize the deus ex machina nature of "your plan."
 
I have seen some posts by people I think rather well of them, so I say don't get sucked into thinking is primarily a race based round up. It just happens that Qaddafi, picked am group willing to kill civilians was available yo exploit.

When we see what kind of treatment the Rebels carry out upon these new prisoners and we will be able to see what is what.

It would do us well to encourage the rebels to fair and magnanimous treatment. Dangling a fewer small carrots to encourage them to be more like us.

I am not in favor of massive amounts and foreign relief, just as I am not in favor of Welfare for life.

Give and hand up not a hand out.

Always remember to do unto others as you would have others do unto you, and you will be a better person, and your rewards will be real and meaningful.
 
Don't be so cocksure about this plan because it's based on little more than wishful thinking. The sanctions regime was disintegrating before our eyes. That's the reality that you have to address. Removing the immediate WMD infrastructure but leaving the knowledge base intact, leaving the political base intact, and leaving the financing base intact doesn't look like a viable solution.

Would President AdamT be willing to shoulder the entire burden of blocking the entire Iraqi border for as long as Saddam remained in power? How much damage to US international prestige would you be willing to shoulder in maintain this embargo in the face of world opinion which delegitimized the imposition of sanctions and especially an embargo against Iraq because they wanted their oil and wanted to sell them wares and services?

If you had a functioning brain stem you'd recognize the deus ex machina nature of "your plan."

There was no need for a total embargo or border fence. We were more secure with Saddam in place and serving as a buffer to Iran they we are without him, with our new Iraqi "friends" cozying up to the Iranians and providing no military counterbalance. The irony, of course, is that Saddam's real reason for not being completely forthcoming about his lack of WMD was his fear of the Iranians -- rather than any desire to play games with the U.S.
 
There was no need for a total embargo or border fence.

I agree. Clinton should have just finished them off the very first time they violated the cease fire agreements and been done with it. Instead, we just dragged it out for no purpose whatsoever. Bush's mistake was in letting some idiots convince him on the idea of 'nation building', being too stupid to grasp that these people are basically still living in 600 A.D. and still just barbarian tribes, and no 'nation building' is possible with them.

We were more secure with Saddam in place and serving as a buffer to Iran they we are without him, with our new Iraqi "friends" cozying up to the Iranians and providing no military counterbalance.

Nonsense. Obviously people who think this aren't aware that Iran's 'army' is barely on a par with Mexico's. You seem to think they are some sort of super power. They aren't, and they would be even easier to crush within hours than Saddam's military, which at the time of Bush I's war was somewhere in the top 10.

The irony, of course, is that Saddam's real reason for not being completely forthcoming about his lack of WMD was his fear of the Iranians -- rather than any desire to play games with the U.S.

Who dreamed up this weirdness? If he was afraid of Iran, he would never have risked going to war over some marshes. He merely miscalculated the weaknesses in surrounding alliances and sought to exploit them. He failed.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Clinton should have just finished them off the very first time they violated the cease fire agreements and been done with it. Instead, we just dragged it out for no purpose whatsoever. Bush's mistake was in letting some idiots convince him on the idea of 'nation building', being too stupid to grasp that these people are basically still living in 600 A.D. and still just barbarian tribes, and no 'nation building' is possible with them.



Nonsense. Obviously people who think this aren't aware that Iran's 'army' is barely on a par with Mexico's. You seem to think they are some sort of super power. They aren't, and they would be even easier to crush within hours than Saddam's military, which at the time of Bush I's war was somewhere in the top 10.



Who dreamed up this weirdness? If he was afraid of Iran, he would never have risked going to war over some marshes. He merely miscalculated the weaknesses in surrounding alliances and sought to exploit them. He failed.

Not sure where you get your information, but you seem to be badly misinformed. Iran's military is far more formidable than Saddam's was. General Abizaid has said that Iran has the most powerful military in the ME, outside of Israel. The Iranian Republican Guard trained the Hamas fighters who essentially fought Israel to a standstill in their last conflict. Of course Iran also sits in a key strategic location from which it could bring worldwide oil shimpments from the ME to a standstill if it was ever attacked.
 
Not sure where you get your information, but you seem to be badly misinformed.

I have no doubts you're not sure. I get mine from military sources, and they aren't misinformed, unlike those who get theirs from propaganda sites and talking points trees.

Iran's military is far more formidable than Saddam's was.

Yes, that's why they won that huge victory over Saddam in their war with Iraq.

General Abizaid has said that Iran has the most powerful military in the ME, outside of Israel.

I see you know nothing about the militaries in the ME at all. That was already obvious. Here's a hint: They are tiny, and generally poorly trained.

The Iranian Republican Guard trained the Hamas fighters who essentially fought Israel to a standstill in their last conflict.

I see you also know nothing about Israeli tactics and capabilities, either. Here's another hint: Israel is concerned about civilian casualties. Hamas specializes in maximizing civilian casualties, and hides behind children as a standard tactic. They do this because faux 'Peace Leftists' enthusiastically encourage them to get as many civilians, especially children, killed as possible. Neo-liberal antisemites love pics of dead babies and children in their info war scams.

Of course Iran also sits in a key strategic location from which it could bring worldwide oil shimpments from the ME to a standstill if it was ever attacked.

Yes, for maybe a week tops, and only from a tiny Gulf. If you read your own post, you might see the absurdity of Israel, with some 4 or 5 million people, out gunning an oil rich country with a far larger population, but then you don't seem to be interested in the obvious.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubts you're not sure. I get mine from military sources, and they aren't misinformed, unlike those who get theirs from propaganda sites and talking points trees.



Yes, that's why they won that huge victory over Saddam in their war with Iraq, and



I see you know nothing about the militaries in the ME at all. That was already obvious. Here's a hint: They are tiny, and generally poorly trained.



I see you also know nothing about Israeli tactics and capabilities, either. Here's another hint: Israel is concerned about civilian casualties. Hamas specializes in maximizing civilian casualties, and hides behind children as a standard tactic. They do this because faux 'Peace Leftists' enthusiastically encourage them to get as many civilians, especially children, killed as possible. Neo-liberal antisemites love pics of dead babies and children in their info war scams.



Yes, for maybe a week tops, and only from a tiny Gulf. If you read your own post, you might see the absurdity of Israel, with some 4 or 5 million people, out gunning an oil rich country with a far larger population, but then you don't seem to be interested in the obvious.

Iraq's army in 2003 was a pale shadow its army during the Iran/Iraq war. Even then Iran got the better of Iraq in the end, notwithstanding the fact that Iraq started the war with a surprise invasion. Iran today has a far stronger military than they did in the 80s and 90s. They could shut down the Suez Canal for quite a long time. They have a large number of long and medium range missiles. They have a much better air defense system than Iraq ever had.

There is a reason that Israel hasn't gone there.
 
Back
Top Bottom