• 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!

U.S. Military Repositions Forces in Preparation for Libya Response

Jetboogieman said:
Well, always be a shame if a bomb hit him by accident ;)
Click to expand...

And if some unlucky accident should befall him, if he should be shot in the head by a police officer, or if should hang himself in his jail cell, or if he's struck by a bolt of lightning..
Click to expand...

no one will give a ****:ninja:
 
Whovian said:
no one will give a ****:ninja:
Click to expand...

article-1360940-0D5FED72000005DC-918_634x386.jpg


These people might... :mrgreen:
 
Is it too early to say Obama is a warmonger?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Ask Obama....

I just want that malicious dickhead to stop bombing his own people.
Click to expand...
Oh! So now it's OK to send in forces.

When Saddam had done that, when he started a war, lost it and was supposed to disarm and didn't... it was OK. No need to remove the dolt from power. It was OK that he brutalized his people, killing 100-per day ON AVERAGE and many in sadistic ways. And post 911 when we lost 3,000... (no there was no direct 911 link to Iraq)... gave Saddam a last UN Resolution chance to live up to his post-war agreement and 16 UN Resolutions and disarm, when all allies and even Hans Blix stated he was in violation and had unaccounted for WMD... that wasn't OK.

The consistent inconsistency of you folks is amazing to watch. I mean really... who is/was a grave threat? Kadaffi Duck only killed 1,000, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands and used WMD. He's OK... the other wingnut you think we need to send in forces?

D I S C O N N E C T O F L O G I C.

The following is what happens when you've got an inexperienced windbag with a lack of spine at the helm.
The débacle of Washington’s handling of the Libya issue is symbolic of a wider problem at the heart of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. The fact that it took ten days and at least a thousand dead on the streets of Libya’s cities before President Obama finally mustered the courage to call for Muammar “mad dog” Gaddafi to step down is highly embarrassing for the world’s only superpower, and emblematic of a deer-in-the-headlights approach to world leadership. Washington seems incapable of decisive decision-making on foreign policy at the moment, a far cry from the days when it swept entire regimes from power, and defeated America’s enemies with deep-seated conviction and an unshakeable drive for victory.

Just a few years ago the United States was genuinely feared on the world stage, and dictatorial regimes, strategic adversaries and state sponsors of terror trod carefully in the face of the world’s most powerful nation. Now Washington appears weak, rudderless and frequently confused in its approach.

Do tyrants fear America anymore? President Obama
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I support redeploying to the area. I do not support USA unilateral action against Libya. There are a hell of a lot of countries in NATO that should be involved in any establishment of "no fly" zones, etc. I do not want our military to handle military actions against Libya alone. We are not the world's sole policeman, and I'm tired of us acting as if we were.
 
zimmer said:
Oh! So now it's OK to send in forces.

When Saddam had done that, when he started a war, lost it and was supposed to disarm and didn't... it was OK. No need to remove the dolt from power. It was OK that he brutalized his people, killing 100-per day ON AVERAGE and many in sadistic ways. And post 911 when we lost 3,000... (no there was no direct 911 link to Iraq)... gave Saddam a last UN Resolution chance to live up to his post-war agreement and 16 UN Resolutions and disarm, when all allies and even Hans Blix stated he was in violation and had unaccounted for WMD... that wasn't OK.

The consistent inconsistency of you folks is amazing to watch. I mean really... who is/was a grave threat? Kadaffi Duck only killed 1,000, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands and used WMD. He's OK... the other wingnut you think we need to send in forces?

D I S C O N N E C T O F L O G I C.

The following is what happens when you've got an inexperienced windbag with a lack of spine at the helm.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between responding to a crisis and unilaterally invading, AND SUBSEQUENTLY OCCUPYING FOR HALF A DECADE, another country because you feel like it. For the record I don't think we should do anything more than enforce a no-fly zone. As ugly as things may be on the ground, we don't know how much uglier they might get if you start throwing in a foreign force into the mix.
 
StillBallin75 said:
There's a difference between responding to a crisis and unilaterally invading, AND SUBSEQUENTLY OCCUPYING FOR HALF A DECADE, another country because you feel like it. For the record I don't think we should do anything more than enforce a no-fly zone. As ugly as things may be on the ground, we don't know how much uglier they might get if you start throwing in a foreign force into the mix.
Click to expand...

Thanks for saving me the typing :mrgreen:
 
Enforcing a no-fly zone is reasonable enough. It won't piss anyone off except Qaddafi which is an acceptable sacrifice at this point. More importantly, the costs and risk of casualties are minimal. It also doesn't set any horribly unreasonable precedents if other countries wanted to use the same rationale in the future. Losing oil is problematic, but if their one lesson to be learned from Iraq, it is that invasion wouldn't get us any regardless.
 
StillBallin75 said:
There's a difference between responding to a crisis and unilaterally invading, AND SUBSEQUENTLY OCCUPYING FOR HALF A DECADE, another country because you feel like it. For the record I don't think we should do anything more than enforce a no-fly zone. As ugly as things may be on the ground, we don't know how much uglier they might get if you start throwing in a foreign force into the mix.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if we do nothing, Qhadaffi just might deploy his 400 hundred tons of mustard gas. It'll be Ypres all over again.

Doing nothing has an awesome track record throughout history.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, if we do nothing, Qhadaffi just might deploy his 400 hundred tons of mustard gas. It'll be Ypres all over again.

Doing nothing has an awesome track record throughout history.
Click to expand...

And intervention always has?
 
StillBallin75 said:
And intervention always has?
Click to expand...

By comparison, yes. Just think how many millions of lives wouldn't have been lost, had The United States gotten involved in WW2 in 1938 vice waiting until we were attacked in 1941.

How many people died during WW1, before we came into save the day?

How many people died in Southeast Asia, during the 70's, because we did nothing?
 
DiAnna said:
I support redeploying to the area. I do not support USA unilateral action against Libya. There are a hell of a lot of countries in NATO that should be involved in any establishment of "no fly" zones, etc. I do not want our military to handle military actions against Libya alone. We are not the world's sole policeman, and I'm tired of us acting as if we were.
Click to expand...

They'll just **** things up. They always do.
 
apdst said:
By comparison, yes. Just think how many millions of lives wouldn't have been lost, had The United States gotten involved in WW2 in 1938 vice waiting until we were attacked in 1941.

How many people died during WW1, before we came into save the day?

How many people died in Southeast Asia, during the 70's, because we did nothing?
Click to expand...

There should always be a cost-benefit analysis. How many people died in Southeast Asia because we wouldn't let the Vietnamese choose democracy (albeit a version not to our liking)? There are numerous cases in US history where are involvement in another country's affairs have led to more deaths, not less. In some cases it's absolutely necessary to intervene. In others, you never know when you might make things worse. I'm pro-intervention in cases where it's absolutely necessary, but I admit that such a criteria is rather subjective. So far, little has happened in Libya, in my opinion, to warrant ground forces. Even if they did join the fight, how exactly would they go about their business and what would their objectives be? Should we help an opposition that might turn on us at later date? Should we just take out Gaddafi? Once you decide to get involved, the situation becomes really complicated and you have to ask yourself a lot of tough questions.
 
StillBallin75 said:
There should always be a cost-benefit analysis. How many people died in Southeast Asia because we wouldn't let the Vietnamese choose democracy (albeit a version not to our liking)? There are numerous cases in US history where are involvement in another country's affairs have led to more deaths, not less. In some cases it's absolutely necessary to intervene. In others, you never know when you might make things worse. I'm pro-intervention in cases where it's absolutely necessary, but I admit that such a criteria is rather subjective. So far, little has happened in Libya, in my opinion, to warrant ground forces. Even if they did join the fight, how exactly would they go about their business and what would their objectives be? Should we help an opposition that might turn on us at later date? Should we just take out Gaddafi? Once you decide to get involved, the situation becomes really complicated and you have to ask yourself a lot of tough questions.
Click to expand...

The South Vietnamese did choose democracy.
 
DiAnna said:
I support redeploying to the area. I do not support USA unilateral action against Libya. There are a hell of a lot of countries in NATO that should be involved in any establishment of "no fly" zones, etc. I do not want our military to handle military actions against Libya alone. We are not the world's sole policeman, and I'm tired of us acting as if we were.
Click to expand...

I agree... to an extent. The problem is, as much as people bitch about us trying to be the 'worlds police', no one else ever gets off their ass to do anything. Also, if we don't do somehting, the same people that bitch about us being the 'worlds police' are the ones who whine when we don't do somethign soon enough for them.

It's a lose/lose scenario in most cases for the US.
 
apdst said:
The South Vietnamese did choose democracy.
Click to expand...

If you think Diem was a democratic ruler, then I suggest you revisit your Vietnam history. Part of the reason we got involved in Southeast Asia, and wanted to maintain the partition, was that we knew Ho Chi Minh would have won in a real election.

But that's all water under the bridge. As for your point about the mustard gas, if Gaddafi or a third party makes a move on the mustard gas facility, we'll know about it and we have the option of taking it out with an air strike. Still no real need to get ground forces involved.
 
I'm shocked at how many of you openly support interfering with the internal politics of foreign nations...

Now, how do you support what, in other countries, would be labeled terrorists?

Now, I do NOT support the ghadafi government either...

I'm just saying, how do you guys support this type of interference??
 
Last edited:
BmanMcfly said:
I'm shocked at how many of you openly support interfering with the internal politics of foreign nations...

Now, how do you support what, in other countries, would be labeled terrorists?

Now, I do NOT support the ghadafi government either...

I'm just saying, how do you guys support this type of interference??
Click to expand...

The only interference I support is enforcing a no fly zone to keep his air force from bombing civilians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom