• 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

I don't, I've never thought Bush was a murderer, you're the one being hypocritical.

Not being hypocritical, just sarcastic as hell, in an attempt to see if the Bush bashers are going to hold Obama to the same standards, or did the standards suddenly change.
 
Oh btw, Gadafi is using human shields. Human shields made up civilians. Human shields of innocent women and children.
 
"We", the west, armed the mother****er, so we have the moral obligation to take care of our own trash. It's an act of war, so be it.

Is there a murderous dictator anywhere the US hasn't supported to get our oil fix???
 
Is there a murderous dictator anywhere the US hasn't supported to get our oil fix???

Qadaffi, Armadenijad, Mosadeg. I'm sure the lost goes on.
 
You said, "we", armed Qadaffi.

I said, " no we didn't".

You used French aircraft sales to Libya to backup your comment.

My point is, we didn't arm Qadaffi.

I see the confusion. I said "we", the west, armed Libya. We, the US, were starting to export to him. My point is that the first world nations have a duty to prevent our arm sales to dictators, and there are plenty of other dictators we, the US, have actually armed, from being used against their own people, when those people rise up for democracy. That's my first point.

On a different subject entirely, as I was not responding to the previous thread, I used French and US aircraft sales to the UEA and Qatar as examples of Arab involvement in the war of Libya.
 
Last edited:
I see the confusion. I said "we", the west, armed Libya. [/We, the US, were starting to export to him. My point is that the first world nations have a duty to prevent our arm sales to dictators, and there are plenty of other dictators we, the US, have actually armed, from being used against their own people, when whose people rise up for democracy. That's my first point.

On a different subject entirely, as I was not responding to the previous thread, I used French and US aircraft sales to the UEA and Qatar as examples of Arab involvement in the war of Libya.

All we did was sell him some parts for his fleet of C-130's.

It's true, enough that we've armed more than a couple assholes over the years, but Qadaffi isn't one of them.
 
It's murder. I know, because it's all I've heard for the past 9 years.

So because others where wrong, you have to rush out and be wrong too? Playground antics for political debate, it's wonderful.
 
All we did was sell him some parts for his fleet of C-130's.

It's true, enough that we've armed more than a couple assholes over the years, but Qadaffi isn't one of them.

The moral calculation doesn't require that the dictator under question has been explicitly armed by the US.

Consider that we are playing more of a supporting role in the coalition to an action led by France and Britain, with France in the lead, with support from the Arab League. This is very, very good, for the future, that Europe is taking the lead in its backyard.
 

“He ought to understand our ways,” says an American intelligence officer who dealt with him in the 1990s. And he does. It’s Kusa’s grasp of Western ways that has made him so effective in his primary role as Gaddafi’s enabler, aiding and abetting the Libyan leader’s pathological behavior. Kusa concocts excuses, fends off consequences, comes up with compromises, and thus far has managed to keep his kinsman in power no matter what crimes the Libyan leader has committed against his own people or against the world. But what’s really disturbing is the roster of world leaders he helped to enlist as his fellow enablers: men like Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy, Silvio Berlusconi, Gordon Brown, and even George W. Bush."

How Gaddafi Friended Bush, Blair, and Berlusconi - Newsweek

Armadenijad,

No, but the Shah of Iran yes:

"Western governments, like the US, UK and West Germany, have continued to express support for the Shah."
BBC ON THIS DAY | 16 | 1979: Shah of Iran flees into exile


Mosadeg. I'm sure the lost goes on.

Do you mean Mossadegh? He was Democratically elected and we helped orchestrate his removal:

"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (known as the 28 Mordad coup[1] in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States."
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
**** you, Ghaddafi

 
The moral calculation doesn't require that the dictator under question has been explicitly armed by the US.

Consider that we are playing more of a supporting role in the coalition to an action led by France and Britain, with France in the lead, with support from the Arab League. This is very, very good, for the future, that Europe is taking the lead in its backyard.

It'll be good, if they don't screw the pooch, like they usually do.
 
I'm not so sure I buy the cover story of this being done for "humanitarian" reasons.

The country has oil, supporting the new government, who will have control over the oil, is good for your economy.
In my opinion, that seems more likely to be the reason.
 
It'll be good, if they don't screw the pooch, like they usually do.

I do wish Deutschland would wake up from its 65 year slumber and start kicking some ass again. The Teutonic Knights were always ones to put a good "Oh, ****!" into their enemy.
 
I'm not so sure I buy the cover story of this being done for "humanitarian" reasons.

The country has oil, supporting the new government, who will have control over the oil, is good for your economy.
In my opinion, that seems more likely to be the reason.

As usual, in these situations, like with Iraq, there is more than one good reason - political and economic.
 
I'm not so sure I buy the cover story of this being done for "humanitarian" reasons.

The country has oil, supporting the new government, who will have control over the oil, is good for your economy.
In my opinion, that seems more likely to be the reason.

You make the usual mistake of assuming that actions can only have one motivation. The world is more complex than that.
 
As usual, in these situations, like with Iraq, there is more than one good reason - political and economic.

Seconds...you beat my post by seconds...


Bastard! ;)
 
As usual, in these situations, like with Iraq, there is more than one good reason - political and economic.

You make the usual mistake of assuming that actions can only have one motivation. The world is more complex than that.

Wars and military actions, in general are done for national interests, not because people like to be good guys.
 
Wars and military actions, in general are done for national interests, not because people like to be good guys.

It is in our national interests to see democracy spread through the Middle East and North Africa (and sub-Saharan Africa).
 
I do wish Deutschland would wake up from its 65 year slumber and start kicking some ass again. The Teutonic Knights were always ones to put a good "Oh, ****!" into their enemy.

More like 600 years.
 
Wars and military actions, in general are done for national interests, not because people like to be good guys.

Generally, I think there is much truth to that, but I think it is also possible that sometimes we do act for the right reasons. Libya is no huge oil producer, they have a little over 3% of the world's known oil reserves, so I don't think oil is a big motivator in this instance.
 
Back
Top Bottom