• 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. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

That's quite a serious charge. Exactly how did the United States 'aid and abet' Saddam Hussein in genocide?

"On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."

United States support for Iraq during the Iran

"The National Security Archive at George Washington University has published a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980’s. The collection of documents, published on the Web, include briefing materials, diplomatic reports of two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use during the Reagan administration and presidential directives that ensure U.S. access to the region's oil and military expansion."

"the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons."

"I believe that when the U.S. became aware of Iraq's chemical weapons use it should have used what influence it had to stop it. Doing so was actually incumbent upon the U.S. under international law. I believe the U.S. should have used its international influence, which is enormous, to do everything it could to end this war. It was an atrocity, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties."

"The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

Washingtonpost.com: Live Online
 
"On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."

United States support for Iraq during the Iran

"The National Security Archive at George Washington University has published a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980’s. The collection of documents, published on the Web, include briefing materials, diplomatic reports of two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use during the Reagan administration and presidential directives that ensure U.S. access to the region's oil and military expansion."

"the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons."

"I believe that when the U.S. became aware of Iraq's chemical weapons use it should have used what influence it had to stop it. Doing so was actually incumbent upon the U.S. under international law. I believe the U.S. should have used its international influence, which is enormous, to do everything it could to end this war. It was an atrocity, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties."

"The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

Is that how Saddam got all those Soviet weapons? Bought them from the United States?
 
I am torn on this. Maybe firing a few cruise missiles into Libya is OK, but I have a bad feeling that this is going to lead to "advisers", which are really boots on the ground. Why in hell do WE always have to be the world police? Arab nations were begging for us to do this. So why the hell didn't they take care of their own damn problem, and send in their own military? After all, it's THEIR back yard.
 
I am torn on this. Maybe firing a few cruise missiles into Libya is OK, but I have a bad feeling that this is going to lead to "advisers", which are really boots on the ground. Why in hell do WE always have to be the world police? Arab nations were begging for us to do this. So why the hell didn't they take care of their own damn problem, and send in their own military? After all, it's THEIR back yard.

History has shown that if anyone else does it, they'll **** it up 9 ways from sunday.
 
Is that how Saddam got all those Soviet weapons? Bought them from the United States?

You have nothing to say about the US building Saddam's Iraq into the power it became, in full knowledge of their chemical weapon use against Iran and its own people?

The best you can offer in defense is the Russians were doing it too?
 
I am torn on this. Maybe firing a few cruise missiles into Libya is OK, but I have a bad feeling that this is going to lead to "advisers", which are really boots on the ground. Why in hell do WE always have to be the world police? Arab nations were begging for us to do this. So why the hell didn't they take care of their own damn problem, and send in their own military? After all, it's THEIR back yard.

According to several here, Khadafi is just too powerful for the world too handle without the US. :roll:
 
The only time a nuclear bomb was used was when a Democrat ordered it. And of course the Democrats also declared both World Wars.

At least when the Republicans get involved in wars it's all about oil. The Left can't even use that excuse.

That's probably one of the most idiotic comments I have ever read on this board.

It counts that those two individuals used the bomb but does not prove that all current-day liberals like nuclear warfare/weapons.
 
You have nothing to say about the US building Saddam's Iraq into the power it became, in full knowledge of their chemical weapon use against Iran and its own people?

The best you can offer in defense is the Russians were doing it too?

Saddam bought his weaponry from the Soviets. Now, that being a fact, where does it make the most sense as to where he got his chemical weapons? thiiiiink about iiiiiiit!
 
According to several here, Khadafi is just too powerful for the world too handle without the US. :roll:

He's more powerful than the Somali militias and look out that turned out for the UN.
 
Indeed a PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION STARTED by the socialist left and the Internet. Funny this all started as a protest against Capitalism and the Military Industrial Complex....but WHO YOU GONNA CALL ON when the PROTESTING begins to shed blood? The Good old USA and its Mititary Industrial Complex purchased through the doctrine of Capitalism. Do you think that WAR is any different simply because you wish to spin a supposed HUMANITRAIAN sphere of propaganda around it? Its the HYPOCRISY that I am pointing out and the ILLOGICAL EXTREMES that the non critical thinking left will go to in burying themselves simply to prove they know how to use a shovel. It all started from the NET from a place headquartered in NY and funded by the PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT.

I would be the first to agree that this megalomanic should be removed from power, but don't be HYPOCRITIAL in the nature in which ALL DESPOTS must be removed.....there are no PEACEFUL full scale protest movements, i.e., REVOLUTIONS....its VIOLENCE period, Just as we are finding out when push comes to shove. What, did you characters really expect these theolgicial and secular despots alike were going to simply lay down their scepters because of a political movement regardless of the numbers involved? There is NOTHING HUMANE about war.

There is documented evidence that some of these events where planned and executed with the help of certain US GOVERNMENT agencies and with the help of funding by George Soros' "Open Society Foundations".

Have you any proof that "by the socialist left and the Internet""?
 
With no troops on the ground this is a waste of time and money. No one is planning to put troops on the ground in Libya, so we aren't supporting anything. This is just a very expensive exercise in futility.
 
It's not war. There have been no formal declarations of war. They are safeguarding the interests of the civilians of Libya. Again, it's not war.

War was not declared in Iraq or Afghanistan are they not wars? This has nothing to do with safeguarding the intrerests of civilians. It has everything to do with oil. Women and children where killed today in Tripoli by Obama's cruise missiles. The US has no business getting involved in a civil war when we are already stretched thin. Ahmadinejad was killing his own people during the green revolution we didn't help the protestors there. Yeman, and Bahrain killing there own people are we going to launch cruise misseles there next? BTW Sadam was killing the civilians of Iraq. Hell he used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the north of Iraq. Why is what we did in Iraq an unjust war but bombing Libya is fine? I see its only ok when a Democrat President does it. Liberals are such hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
With no troops on the ground this is a waste of time and money. No one is planning to put troops on the ground in Libya, so we aren't supporting anything. This is just a very expensive exercise in futility.

I can't disagree. The rebs can't win the war on the ground and we can't win a war from the air. The reality of the battlefield.
 
"On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."

United States support for Iraq during the Iran

"The National Security Archive at George Washington University has published a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980’s. The collection of documents, published on the Web, include briefing materials, diplomatic reports of two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use during the Reagan administration and presidential directives that ensure U.S. access to the region's oil and military expansion."

"the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons."

"I believe that when the U.S. became aware of Iraq's chemical weapons use it should have used what influence it had to stop it. Doing so was actually incumbent upon the U.S. under international law. I believe the U.S. should have used its international influence, which is enormous, to do everything it could to end this war. It was an atrocity, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties."

"The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

So Wiki claims that Ronald Reagan assisted in the genocide of the Kurds?

What do you think his motive might have been?

In fact what do you feel the motive of any Americans was in committing genocide in Iraq?

But whatever their reason you must have been pleased when George Bush out an end to all of it and finally freed the Iraqi people from the evil that was Saddam Hussein, and compensated in some small way for the sins of his predecessors.
 
I can't disagree. The rebs can't win the war on the ground and we can't win a war from the air. The reality of the battlefield.

I have to disagree, as the rebs have people who are willing and ready to fight, they just don't have the weapons that the government does.
 
I have to disagree, as the rebs have people who are willing and ready to fight, they just don't have the weapons that the government does.

Hence, they can't win the ground war, alone.
 
Saddam bought his weaponry from the Soviets. Now, that being a fact, where does it make the most sense as to where he got his chemical weapons? thiiiiink about iiiiiiit!


Still sticking with the Russia did it too defense I see.

"On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
United States support for Iraq during the Iran
 
Still sticking with the Russia did it too defense I see.

"On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
United States support for Iraq during the Iran

Yeah, yeah, yeah and Bush orchestrated 9/11...whatever.
 
I have to disagree, as the rebs have people who are willing and ready to fight, they just don't have the weapons that the government does.

Very few times, except through extra-ordinary luck, with all other things being equal, does a smaller force beat a larger one on the battlefield.

Again - you lose the political objectives - you lose the war
 
With no troops on the ground this is a waste of time and money. No one is planning to put troops on the ground in Libya, so we aren't supporting anything. This is just a very expensive exercise in futility.

Even if that is there intention is not to put troops on the ground they should not have told Gadaffi. It's safe to say that was a sop to any potential critics who feel that a war should be fought without anyone getting hurt.

Have they announced their 'exit strategy' yet?
 
Even if that is there intention is not to put troops on the ground they should not have told Gadaffi. It's safe to say that was a sop to any potential critics who feel that a war should be fought without anyone getting hurt.

Have they announced their 'exit strategy' yet?

Yes, they have, kind of. Their exit strategy is apparently to lob some missiles at Libya and then go away. A textbook example of how not to conduct a military operation, IMHO.
 
Back
Top Bottom