Page 62 of 75 FirstFirst ... 1252606162636472 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 743

Thread: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

  1. #611
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    A little perspective goes a long way...
    So does a little transparency. And so does common sense. If we're going to enforce a NFZ, then that's all we should be doing. If we're going to bomb strongholds and military installations, then that's a whole new ballgame. And that's what we're doing. And if we're going to bomb "strongholds" and military installations, then tell Daffy what the UN expects from him, give him a deadline, tell him the UN's consequences if he doesn't comply; then, if he doesn't comply, bomb all of their military installations and get it over with.

    Neither the War in Iraq nor the invasion of the island nation of Granada were declared by Congress as "acts of war". Both were perceived as "liberation" acts or actions taken for "humanitarian" reasons. Moreover, when Reagan invaded Granada he received neither U.N. support nor did he inform Congress until the day of the invasion.
    Bush had Congress' okay to go into Iraq based on credible evidence later found to be false. The invasion was carefully planned and had gotten prior approval from Congress. That was a totally different operation. As to Granada, I don't know the details and trust you that you're right. The fact that another president did something similar is not, repeat not, justification for President Obama.

    1) It was okay for Reagan to invade Granada on false pretenses claiming "national security" out of fear that Cuba and Russia were constructing of military airport when the evidence proved false.
    If Reagan used intelligence that told him that our national security was in danger, whether it was later proved false or not, that's a different story. Our national security is not in danger from Libya. The American people (I know I sure did) looked at helping Libya as a humanitarian mission -- a NFZ. That's not what we've got here.

    2) It was okay for GW Bush NOT to receive a legitimate U.N. resolution authorizing not only the use of military force but also to remove Saddam from power, thereby, in his opinion continuing the "war effort" against Iraq by virtue of the previous U.N. resolution granting the U.S. the lead in combat operations again for reasons of "national security". i.e., WND, that later also proved false.
    First, we don't need no stinkin' UN resolution to use military force when we (or our allies) are in imminent danger. And that's what intelligence showed at the time.

    But when Pres. Obama, a Democrat who Republicans have been claiming is so anti-military and soft on using U.S. military force when prudent, actually goes to the U.N., receives U.N. approval in a 10-0 vote w/the Arab League also being onboard for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya on "humanitarian" grounds and with it also establishing a U.N. coalition force that limits our military involvement to "no ground troops", suddently the pundits are pissed about it?
    It's not just pundits. It's Congress. It's American citizens. Only military people knew what this NFZ meant. If indeed that's what a NFZ customarily means. The American people had no idea we'd be bombing military installations and strongholds. That's where that transparency thingie comes in. And, of course, Obama specifically criticized Bush for not getting Congressional approval, said it was gross over-reach...and we have Biden telling us it's an impeachable offense.

    This is just one more quagmire, in my opinion. Congress: Fail. Again.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  2. #612
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Alittle perspective goes a long way...
    Nice post but the objective in Grenada was to rescue US citizens and prevent the island from becoming a Cuban military bastion.

    The Cuban government knew the value of Grenada's location when it decided to utilize the former British colony as a holding place for arms and military equipment, complete with a major airport. Eastern Caribbean nations fully understood the implication of the communist threat and called upon the United States for help. The response was Urgent Fury, a multinational, multiservice effort.
    Operation Urgent Fury
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  3. #613
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post

    Neither the War in Iraq nor the invasion of the island nation of Granada were declared by Congress as "acts of war". Both were perceived as "liberation" acts or actions taken for "humanitarian" reasons. Moreover, when Reagan invaded Granada he received neither U.N. support nor did he inform Congress until the day of the invasion.
    And it was over in less than 90 days, which is what BHO is relying on.

    The Iraq War was never a declared war by Congress. Instead, what we got was an "internal resolution" by Congress that for all practical purposes trumped the U.N. resolution that provided our government "legitimate support" by Congress to invade Iraq. It was NOT a declaration of war; merely a continuation of the last U.N. resolution that authorized the U.S. to use military force to oust Saddem from Kuwait subsequent to the cease-fire that issued afterwards.
    You can actually read the Resolution passed by Congress here. The Title alone gives the game away.

    Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikisource


    1) It was okay for Reagan to invade Granada on false pretenses claiming "national security" out of fear that Cuba and Russia were constructing of military airport when the evidence proved false.
    It did not prove false and you can see from your own link that the Cubans were there. Surely you must be familiar with some aspects of the Cold War,

    2) It was okay for GW Bush NOT to receive a legitimate U.N. resolution authorizing not only the use of military force but also to remove Saddam from power, thereby, in his opinion continuing the "war effort" against Iraq by virtue of the previous U.N. resolution granting the U.S. the lead in combat operations again for reasons of "national security". i.e., WND, that later also proved false.
    The UN had already passed several resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein but the key was 1441.

    United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    But when Pres. Obama, a Democrat who Republicans have been claiming is so anti-military and soft on using U.S. military force when prudent, actually goes to the U.N., receives U.N. approval in a 10-0 vote w/the Arab League also being onboard for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya on "humanitarian" grounds and with it also establishing a U.N. coalition force that limits our military involvement to "no ground troops", suddently the pundits are pissed about it?
    Neither the Arab League nor the UN should be determining the actions of the United States. That would be giving up national sovereignty to a foreign body, which is probably not Constitutional. In point of fact both the Democrats and Republicans are split on how BHO is handling the Libyan war.

  4. #614
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    MaggieD,

    The point is Pres. Obama isn't hidding behind "national security" to provide "humanitarian aid" and "protection" to the Libyan people, nor is he relying on false intel to "justify" providing military support. Yes, right now the U.S. is the lead military agent in this humanitarian effort, but in case those on the Right (or Left) have forgotten, we have the most mobile naval force in the world operating in all bodies of open water, specifically the Mediterranian Sea, the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean. The U.S. Navy can send a carrier fleet pretty much anywhere in the world and can be on station within days if not hours. There's a reason we're the lead in this no-fly zone. We were likely already on station when U.N. Resolution 1973 was passed just awaiting word from our CinC.

    But as the President has stated on a number of occasions, we're looking to relinquish command to another coalition force and takeup a support role, a decision I can live with. Why?

    Because we're part of a "world-body", the United Nations. Furthermore as many have already stated, the U.S. really doesn't have a "national security interest" in Libya. (Did I mention this was a humanitarian issue? Just in case some people missed it the first time...) If you have a problem with U.S. involvement in helping to give a nation's people a fighting chance at bringing about their own democracy, you should also be pissed off over the Iran Contra Affair. Better yet, start asking yourself where this nation would be if it hadn't been for France getting involved in our little rebellion some 235 years ago. Still further, if you really don't think America should be part of the U.N., I suggest you write your Congressman/woman and ask him/her to vote against U.S. membership in this world-body.

  5. #615
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    Nice post but the objective in Grenada was to rescue US citizens and prevent the island from becoming a Cuban military bastion.

    The Cuban government knew the value of Grenada's location when it decided to utilize the former British colony as a holding place for arms and military equipment, complete with a major airport. Eastern Caribbean nations fully understood the implication of the communist threat and called upon the United States for help. The response was Urgent Fury, a multinational, multiservice effort.
    Operation Urgent Fury
    That was the stated purpose by the Reagan Administration, but that turned out to be a smoke screen. And when it was discovered (or shall I say "revealled") that the air field in question was being constructed as one for commercial use years later (that "revealled" part I was being sarcastic about earlier), it was too late for any American outcry. Of course, why would there have been? All the "hostages" came home alive and America quickly forgave Reagan for his indescretion.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-24-11 at 05:05 PM.

  6. #616
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post

    Because we're part of a "world-body", the United Nations.
    As well as many other countries, but because the US is a member of the UN it does not follow that they have to be the ones to right all the world's wrongs. The UN has its own troops and if countries like China were to get involved the world would certainly take notice. American involvement in issues like Libya will weaken it immeasurably.
    Furthermore as many have already stated, the U.S. really doesn't have a "national security interest" in Libya. (Did I mention this was a humanitarian issue? Just in case some people missed it the first time...)
    Is it a humanitarian issue? Who made this claim and why now? And why have other far more serious humanitarian issues been ignored? Rwanda and Darfur are two examples, but there are certainly others.

    If you have a problem with U.S. involvement in helping to give a nation's people a fighting chance at bringing about their own democracy, you should also be pissed off over the Iran Contra Affair.
    I've spent about 15 years in Central America and am quite familiar with Nicaragua and its history. Which side of the democracy issue do you think the Contras and the Sandinistas were on? Do you believe the Sandinistas were fighting for democracy?
    Better yet, start asking yourself where this nation would be if it hadn't been for France getting involved in our little rebellion some 235 years ago.
    Remembering of course that France was no democracy themselves at the time and were at war with Britain. But what happened 235 years ago should not effect decisions being made today.

    Still further, if you really don't think America should be part of the U.N., I suggest you write your Congressman/woman and ask him/her to vote against U.S. membership in this world-body.
    We could all do that but it would undermine the purpose of a debate forum.

  7. #617
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    That was the stated purpose by the Reagan Administration, but that turned out to be a smoke screen. And when it was discovered (or shall I say "revealled") that the air field in question was being constructed as one for commercial use years later (that "revealled" part I was being sarcastic about earlier), it was too late for any American outcry. Of course, why would there have been? All the "hostages" came home alive and America quickly forgave Reagan for his indescretion.
    Our soldiers were fighting Cuban troops. It was a little more than a stated purpose. If memory serves we found lots of Russian style weapons and military equipment.

    Most of your post was good to excellent OV. There were just a few things I disagreed with but Greneda needed to be further explained imo.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  8. #618
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,148

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    My memory serves that the bullet holes in the walls of the student's dorms were on the seaward side. No such weapon caches were found.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  9. #619
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    MaggieD,

    The point is Pres. Obama isn't hidding behind "national security" to provide "humanitarian aid" and "protection" to the Libyan people, nor is he relying on false intel to "justify" providing military support. Yes, right now the U.S. is the lead military agent in this humanitarian effort, but in case those on the Right (or Left) have forgotten, we have the most mobile naval force in the world operating in all bodies of open water, specifically the Mediterranian Sea, the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean. The U.S. Navy can send a carrier fleet pretty much anywhere in the world and can be on station within days if not hours. There's a reason we're the lead in this no-fly zone. We were likely already on station when U.N. Resolution 1973 was passed just awaiting word from our CinC.

    But as the President has stated on a number of occasions, we're looking to relinquish command to another coalition force and takeup a support role, a decision I can live with. Why?

    Because we're part of a "world-body", the United Nations. Furthermore as many have already stated, the U.S. really doesn't have a "national security interest" in Libya. (Did I mention this was a humanitarian issue? Just in case some people missed it the first time...) If you have a problem with U.S. involvement in helping to give a nation's people a fighting chance at bringing about their own democracy, you should also be pissed off over the Iran Contra Affair. Better yet, start asking yourself where this nation would be if it hadn't been for France getting involved in our little rebellion some 235 years ago. Still further, if you really don't think America should be part of the U.N., I suggest you write your Congressman/woman and ask him/her to vote against U.S. membership in this world-body.
    Look, I supported a NFZ -- I just didn't understand its scope. I firmly believe that Congress needs to take a stand on this issue: Can the President deploy troops/assets when the neither the US nor its allies are not in imminent danger?

    It's that simple.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  10. #620
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Look, I supported a NFZ -- I just didn't understand its scope. I firmly believe that Congress needs to take a stand on this issue: Can the President deploy troops/assets when the neither the US nor its allies are not in imminent danger?

    It's that simple.
    Double negative kinda confused me there, but I know what you mean. There have been numerous times throughout history when troops have been deployed when America has not been in imminent danger (in fact I would probably go as far as to say the vast majority of America's military interventions are in this category.) I do agree that the bigger issue is Congressional approval, why are they not taking a stand?
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 62 of 75 FirstFirst ... 1252606162636472 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •