• 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!

UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

kaya'08

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The U.N. Security Council cleared the legal path for international air strikes on Moammar Gadhafi's forces by authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians from attacks by his advancing forces.
Click to expand...

The Thursday night vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China, which have veto power in the council. India, Germany and Brazil also expressed misgivings about approving military action by outside forces.

The United States, France and Britain indicated they were quickly making plans to prevent attacks on civilians and enforce a no-fly zone in Libya with the help of Arab countries.

UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review
 
kaya'08 said:
The Thursday night vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China, which have veto power in the council. India, Germany and Brazil also expressed misgivings about approving military action by outside forces.

The United States, France and Britain indicated they were quickly making plans to prevent attacks on civilians and enforce a no-fly zone in Libya with the help of Arab countries.

UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review
Click to expand...

The US needs to stay the hell out of this business.
 
kaya'08 said:
The Thursday night vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China, which have veto power in the council. India, Germany and Brazil also expressed misgivings about approving military action by outside forces.

The United States, France and Britain indicated they were quickly making plans to prevent attacks on civilians and enforce a no-fly zone in Libya with the help of Arab countries.

UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review
Click to expand...

too little too late :(
 
Just tons of Jew cloak and dagger stuff going on in the shadows.

THings will get nasty
 
yesterday, we saw hillary's camp leaking that she was OUT because she just couldn't take the presiden't "indecision" anymore

DAILY: Obama’s indecision on Libya has pushed Clinton over the edge « InvestmentWatch

"unprofessional," "amatuer:" these were the clintonistas' words

today, fp reports that our eu allies are "completely puzzled" by the president's pretzel-like posture

European governments

another p-u-n-t

and THIS TIME it's to the utterly ineffectual un

whether you favor united states action above tripoli or oppose, and admittedly it's a very difficult question, one would hope that all agree they expect their president to LEAD

americans expect their commander in chief to HAVE a position, y'know, on geopolitcal events

he still hasn't articulated any semblance of an answer, for instance, to the mexican drug cartels

as for iran, he still hasn't forsworn his completely preposterous pledge to pow-wow with persia's poohbahs---sans preconditions

when it comes to china, he's a chump, allows himself to be choreographed by the champion chairman

i'm not talking about libya, here

i'm talking about OBAMA

i'm painting the picture of THE MAN---as seen by the likes of HILLARY CLINTON

by the likes of CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (former dccc) and ANTHONY WEINER and STENY HOYER and STEVE ISRAEL (current dccc)

Democrats wonder: What's our plan? - Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

today, 64 senators, 32 from each aisle, wrote a letter calling upon the president TO LEAD

Sixty-four senators call on Obama to take up tax and entitlement reform - The Hill's On The Money

that's KERRY and KLOBUCHAR and DURBIN (the whip) and WYDEN (progressive public option proponent) and CARPER and DIFI (one of the few adults in the party) and BOTH nelsons (in big trouble in 12) and COONS (the ex college marxist who whacked the witch in delaware) and KOHL (in wisconsin) and CONRAD (the budget chair who quit) and MANCHIN (who won west virginia by planting a bullet in cap and trade) and MCCASKILL (maybe the most tell tale democrat today in upper house)...

can YOU deny what ALL THESE PEOPLE are saying?

it's right in front of you

america, even in good times, has never seen such a LEADERSHIP VOID

it's embarrassing
 
Last edited:
My advice to Obama - come the **** out and say what you really think. Stop trying to pass it off with the "concerned citizen with a voice" act, or the morally nuetral/objective, brotherhood of man, etc. Come out and say where you really stand.
 
The key in my mind is where it says:
all necessary measures" to protect civilians from attacks by his advancing forces.
Click to expand...

This is an open invitation to do just about what ever you can think of to stop Gaddafi's forces. This could as I suggested before on another thread include striking all military targets and I would include a direct targeting of Gaddafi as well.
 
Don't you guys see it? When we saw the rebels had the upper hand, we officially stopped supporting Gaddafi as a means to acquire oil and recognized that he had lossed his mandate. Now he is hitting back and it looks like he might win, we have to support the rebels and we have to make sure he looses, otherwise when he returns to power and acquires once again his position of statesmen, he is going to be more anti-west than ever, and he is going to be a bigger thorn in our side than Iran. We picked our side and if we don't make sure that side wins then we are going to have a big problem on our hands.
 
kaya'08 said:
Don't you guys see it? When we saw the rebels had the upper hand, we officially stopped supporting Gaddafi as a means to acquire oil and recognized that he had lossed his mandate. Now he is hitting back and it looks like he might win, we have to support the rebels and we have to make sure he looses, otherwise when he returns to power and acquires once again his position of statesmen, he is going to be more anti-west than ever, and he is going to be a bigger thorn in our side than Iran. We picked our side and if we don't make sure that side wins then we are going to have a big problem on our hands.
Click to expand...

So you agree this is for oil, same way it was when Bush did it in Iraq?
 
Ockham said:
So you agree this is for oil, same way it was when Bush did it in Iraq?
Click to expand...

Not nessecarily.

One cannot ignore that Gaddafi has openly supported terrorists in the past against the west.

One cannot ignore that if he wins, he will again support terrorist enterprises against the west given what they have done to him. The last thing we need, is a nations resources helping a terrorist organization.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Not nessecarily.

One cannot ignore that Gaddafi has openly supported terrorists in the past against the west.

One cannot ignore that if he wins, he will again support terrorist enterprises against the west given what they have done to him. The last thing we need, is a nations resources helping a terrorist organization.
Click to expand...

So then Iraq and Afghanistan are justified then.
 
cpgrad08 said:
So then Iraq and Afghanistan are justified then.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan yes.

Iraq no.

There is no evidence that Saddam was helping Al Queada.

In fact he had a great disdain for Islamic organizations because they threatened his relatively secular dictatorship.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Not nessecarily.

One cannot ignore that Gaddafi has openly supported terrorists in the past against the west.

One cannot ignore that if he wins, he will again support terrorist enterprises against the west given what they have done to him. The last thing we need, is a nations resources helping a terrorist organization.
Click to expand...

At the time, the U.S. said the same thing about Iraq, and Saddam had already killed his own people with both gas and helicopters when there was an uprising against him. I'm not seeing the difference here.
 
Maybe the no-fly zone will succeed in quickly ushering Gaddafi out of power and result in the establishment of a democracy, but I'm highly skeptical. History would indicate that these sort of interventions seldom go as smoothly as advertised. It won't turn into another Iraq War unless things go REALLY badly, but I could easily see this turning into a Black Hawk Down type of situation, where mission creep ruins the campaign. Another possibility is something like post-Desert Storm Iraq, where the air strikes succeed in producing a stalemate but Gaddafi is able to hang onto power for years. I think the best case scenario is something like Kosovo...but even Kosovo doesn't look like a great success story after 12 years.

For Western intervention in Libya, the risks significantly outweigh the rewards.
 
Kandahar said:
For Western intervention in Libya, the risks significantly outweigh the rewards.
Click to expand...


Good point. I would have thought better sense from such a learned and intelligent President who's entire first election was trashing actions such as these from his predicessor.
 
Ockham said:
Good point. I would have thought better sense from such a learned and intelligent President who's entire first election was trashing actions such as these from his predicessor.
Click to expand...

So far, Obama has mainly taken a back seat and let the British and French take the lead. He seems very reluctant about activist foreign policy approaches in general, which I think is appropriate. I'm not a big fan of the extent to which he's given the Europeans political cover for this, but hopefully that's the extent of American involvement in this conflict.
 
Kandahar said:
So far, Obama has mainly taken a back seat and let the British and French take the lead. He seems very reluctant about activist foreign policy approaches in general, which I think is appropriate. I'm not a big fan of the extent to which he's given the Europeans political cover for this, but hopefully that's the extent of American involvement in this conflict.
Click to expand...

But with that statement.

How do you also say you support intervention in the Ivory Coast?
 
Jetboogieman said:
But with that statement.

How do you also say you support intervention in the Ivory Coast?
Click to expand...

The humanitarian rewards considerably outweigh the minor risks in Cote d'Ivoire (or at least they did at the time...it might be too late now). That isn't the case in Libya. I have no problem with peacekeeping missions as a rule, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support intervention everywhere, regardless of circumstance. Every country is different and should be treated as such.
 
Last edited:
President Obama is diplomatically rehabilitating America's tarnished warmongering image abroad and especially in the ME. There can be no doubt of the US working behind the scenes, but the frontmen are the UN and the Arab league, as well as the Europeans. I'm hearing as I type that the British airstrikes have started with a few Tomahawks into the Libyan air defences.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
So far, Obama has mainly taken a back seat and let the British and French take the lead. He seems very reluctant about activist foreign policy approaches in general, which I think is appropriate. I'm not a big fan of the extent to which he's given the Europeans political cover for this, but hopefully that's the extent of American involvement in this conflict.
Click to expand...

Was it or was it not the U.S. who pushed this through the Security Council? So because it's not U.S. planes in the air first, it makes it all okay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom