• 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

spud_meister said:
Well, no American jets have dropped bombs, and all the missiles were at military targets, so there's nothing yet to indicate that civilian casualties have happened.
Click to expand...
Start the Disney theme music...

:lol: And if you think it'll do anything you're quite mislead, you've never changed your mind about anything, regardless of the evidence to the contrary, and leftist hacks are the same, if anything you're doing just as much disservice to the troops as they did.
Click to expand...
I have changed my mind a lot. I used to be a Commi-Lib.

.
Click to expand...
 
Serenity said:
you are bringing it up in a ridiculous partisan hack way. if you brought it up like you actually cared, instead of bringing it up to take a blow at liberals, people may just take you seriously. your lack of giving a **** about anything but attacking liberals is pretty disgusting. you care more about that than you do the plight of the Libyan people.
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL... You're obviously very new here. I've brought rational arguments up relentlessly using the words of folks on the ground; Blix and Kay to name two... but it does not register. So this is a perfect outlet and opportunity to bring it up in a different manner using the words and deeds of the left. That history isn't that old, though the left does have a memory of a tsi-tsi fly.

Tashah and others might not like it, but tough ****. If it's an offense... then thread ban me or give points. You'll have fun consistently keeping order with that line in the sand. You might as well close 99% of contentious threads.

.
 
Last edited:
Ignoring the hyper partisan masturbation party here.

Does this action of helping the protestors remind anyone of the time we helped the Taliban fight Russia?
 
zimmer said:
ROTFLOL... You're obviously very new here. I've brought rational arguments up relentlessly using the words of folks on the ground; Blix and Kay to name two... but it does not register. So this is a perfect outlet and opportunity to bring it up in a different manner using the words and deeds of the left. That history isn't that old, though the left does have a memory of a tsi-tsi fly.

Tashah and others might not like it, but tough ****. If it's an offense... then thread ban me or give points. You'll have fun consistently keeping order with that line in the sand. You might as well close 99% of contentious threads.

.
Click to expand...

Well we won't have to close your last thread on US debt, lord knows you won't go back in there after the beating you got.
 
Wiseone said:
Well we won't have to close your last thread on US debt, lord knows you won't go back in there after the beating you got.
Click to expand...

Send link, I'll be there later today.

.
 
zimmer said:
Tashah and others might not like it, but tough ****.
Click to expand...
Moderator's Warning:
You wanna be a jerk and play games? Okay then. Stop your partisan derailment of this thread.
 
The Gods have spoken. Did anyone else hear Her? Let that be the proof the atheists are always clamouring about.
 
Last edited:
I just gotta say that Obama has no easy task navigating the ME/NA situations. We don't want to damage relationships with our allies, so we are very cautious. We do want to see democracy flower, but are concerned that Islamists will take the opportunity to hijack the revolutions (see Iraq '79). Several countries are using force against their people (Egypt - a little, Tunisia - a little, Yemen - getting stronger, Iraq - very sad to see, Bahrain - with the help of the Saudis given the Shiite Question, Libya - full on assault). In the case of Libya, its full on and we must put a stop to the unequal footing between the govt and the rebels. Europe needed to take the lead on this.

Therefor, Obama has been fairly quiet, not being the first to express concern or demand change. He has said those things though, so his position is fairly clear. But what is he willing to do about it?

He let France and Britain take the lead on the response to Libya. I think this is the best thing he has done since being in office. Instead of trying to steamroll it, he let our allies take the lead, express their foreign policy in their backyard (Mediterranean), and play a supporting role. Even the Arab League got their toes wet and that's supposed to be the dictators club (or was that the human rights council?).

I am applauding Obama.

EDIT - I gotta add that I do NOT think that going the route of UN Security Council resolution was necessary, and I lot has been lost as a result. On the other hand, the Europeans probably wanted to go this way to reinforce the idea that that is the only way to gain legitimacy. I disagree with that, but I can see where they would want it to be. It also allowed negotiation which resulted in the Arab League stepping up, so its good and bad. Like all things.
 
Last edited:
Tashah said:
Moderator's Warning:
You wanna be a jerk and play games? Okay then. Stop your partisan derailment of this thread.
Click to expand...

Is this going to be consistent behavior on your part, or a one off special edition posting?

ROTFLOL... Just love the name of the group.


.
 
reefedjib said:
I just gotta say that Obama has no easy task navigating the ME/NA situations. We don't want to damage relationships with our allies, so we are very cautious. We do want to see democracy flower, but are concerned that Islamists will take the opportunity to hijack the revolutions (see Iraq '79). Several countries are using force against their people (Egypt - a little, Tunisia - a little, Yemen - getting stronger, Iraq - very sad to see, Bahrain - with the help of the Saudis given the Shiite Question, Libya - full on assault). In the case of Libya, its full on and we must put a stop to the unequal footing between the govt and the rebels. Europe needed to take the lead on this.

Therefor, Obama has been fairly quiet, not being the first to express concern or demand change. He has said those things though, so his position is fairly clear. But what is he willing to do about it?

He let France and Britain take the lead on the response to Libya. I think this is the best thing he has done since being in office. Instead of trying to steamroll it, he let our allies take the lead, express their foreign policy in their backyard (Mediterranean), and play a supporting role. Even the Arab League got their toes wet and that's supposed to be the dictators club (or was that the human rights council?).

I am applauding Obama.
Click to expand...

Problem is it was weeks too late. Rebels were making gains, and had the airspace been cut it is fair to say the groundswell would have continued, and Gaddafi Duck might be toast as we type.

Instead there was too much spectating, and Gaddafi began smashed the insurgents.

Once again we see Obama exhibit indecision in crisis. It has become an MO with him. Not good, as other idiots are watching and seeing weakness.

A further error was telling Gaddafi Duck we would not be sending in ground troops. Since when do you broadcast intentions and take elements off the table while at war?

.
 
zimmer said:
Problem is it was weeks too late. Rebels were making gains, and had the airspace been cut it is fair to say the groundswell would have continued, and Gaddafi Duck might be toast as we type.

Instead there was too much spectating, and Gaddafi began smashed the insurgents.

Once again we see Obama exhibit indecision in crisis. It has become an MO with him. Not good, as other idiots are watching and seeing weakness.

A further error was telling Gaddafi Duck we would not be sending in ground troops. Since when do you broadcast intentions and take elements off the table while at war?

.
Click to expand...

I added the following to my post before seeing you comment. I think this was driven by the Europeans and Obama likes the UN. I won't criticize him too heavily for it.


EDIT - I gotta add that I do NOT think that going the route of UN Security Council resolution was necessary, and a lot has been lost as a result. On the other hand, the Europeans probably wanted to go this way to reinforce the idea that that is the only way to gain legitimacy. I disagree with that, but I can see where they would want it to be. It also allowed negotiation which resulted in the Arab League stepping up, so its good and bad. Like all things.
 
zimmer said:
Problem is it was weeks too late. Rebels were making gains, and had the airspace been cut it is fair to say the groundswell would have continued, and Gaddafi Duck might be toast as we type.

Instead there was too much spectating, and Gaddafi began smashed the insurgents.

Once again we see Obama exhibit indecision in crisis. It has become an MO with him. Not good, as other idiots are watching and seeing weakness.

A further error was telling Gaddafi Duck we would not be sending in ground troops. Since when do you broadcast intentions and take elements off the table while at war?

.
Click to expand...

In the past there have been 'contingency plans' as to what can be done in certain situations, and national representatives can discuss these plans while enjoying their fois grois and a bottle or two of good wine. But more than three weeks ago the politicians had to come up with a new plan, despite Gadaffi being a problem to the United States and the world for 40 or so years. Were they really caught by surprise? And, if so, why??

The announcement that there would be no ground troops was to satisfy the Left that no one would be hurt, that they will only shoot from a safe distance and there will be no images of soldiers arriving home in body bags.

Of course Gadaffi would be pleased to hear this but this is more a political war than a military war. At one time it would have been unthinkable to tell the enemy what your plans might be but when we elect people for reasons other than their competence and experience, this is what we can come to expect.
 
Grant said:
In the past there have been 'contingency plans' as to what can be done in certain situations, and national representatives can discuss these plans while enjoying their fois grois and a bottle or two of good wine. But more than three weeks ago the politicians had to come up with a new plan, despite Gadaffi being a problem to the United States and the world for 40 or so years. Were they really caught by surprise? And, if so, why??

The announcement that there would be no ground troops was to satisfy the Left that no one would be hurt, that they will only shoot from a safe distance and there will be no images of soldiers arriving home in body bags.

Of course Gadaffi would be pleased to hear this but this is more a political war than a military war. At one time it would have been unthinkable to tell the enemy what your plans might be but when we elect people for reasons other than their competence and experience, this is what we can come to expect.
Click to expand...

I agree with your post.

I'd also point out that Obama's telegraphed plan (or lack thereof) can change in a heartbeat. Depending on what Daffy does, there's no doubt in my mind that we could have boots on the ground. I don't kid myself. Those plans are already on the table.
 
MaggieD said:
I agree with your post.

I'd also point out that Obama's telegraphed plan (or lack thereof) can change in a heartbeat. Depending on what Daffy does, there's no doubt in my mind that we could have boots on the ground. I don't kid myself. Those plans are already on the table.
Click to expand...

That's why there are at least two US Marine Amphibious Assault Ships and two French Assault Ships.

Med_Sea_800_110318.jpg
 
**** YOU, GHADDAFI!!

"I LOVE YA..."

"BUT SOMEONE HAD TO PAY THE PRICE.."

"IT'S OVER!"

 
Last edited:
Hmmmm!

So Hillary was only deceiving Gadaffi when she said there would be no grounds troops. It was all just a trick to lull him into complacency!!

The first casualty of war.
 
There is an idea floating around of an opera based on the story of a blond woman of a certain age whose husband was the leader of a powerful nation, and when he was no longer able to serve his wife decided to take his place. The tentative title is "Hillary!" and Madonna is apparently in talks to play the title role.
 
Manc Skipper said:
He's assisting the UN forces humanitarian effort in protecting civilians, not making war.
Click to expand...


USA_1 said:
We are implementing a no fly zone. First Libya's air defenses have to be destroyed. We are not getting into another unnecessary war. Obama isn't that stupid.
Click to expand...


I try not to be too partisan very often, but this has me not knowing whether to LOL or scream. :lamo

If someone sent 112 flying bombs into the USA, would you call it war? :lamo

So, it is moral and wise to bomb, but evil and stupid to use ground troops? :doh

Iraq was all about oil, you say (despite the fact that oil was flowing just fine at the time), and this IS NOT about oil, even though we're experiencing bad price hikes due to the conflicts currently ongoing in the MidEast? :wassat1:




Deuce said:
The UN has authorized and enforced the no-fly zone, I don't see a problem with the US participating.

If ground troops go, I'd oppose that.
Click to expand...


The UN authorized all kinds of things against Saddam, which he ignored, and authorized the use of force, which apparently didn't matter a fig to the Left THEN.


The hypocrisy of some just amazes me.

I support this action, btw.... should've been done three weeks ago without waiting for that corrupt and nearly useless body known as the United (cough cough!) Nations.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
So because others where wrong, you have to rush out and be wrong too? Playground antics for political debate, it's wonderful.
Click to expand...

Just making a point. Are you going to live by a double standard, too, or just make personal attacks?
 
Goshin said:
I support this action, btw.... should've been done three weeks ago without waiting for that corrupt and nearly useless body known as the United (cough cough!) Nations.
Click to expand...

But do you support having the US rush into Bahrain to fight off Saudi Sunni troops who have come in to support the Sunni government against the protestors?

Really don't understand how we pick and choose where to send our money.
Perhaps we are in Libya due to Gaddafi being a more well known infamous celeb.

This may be more about hating Gaddafi than really having any love for the protestors who months ago probably celebrated the Lockerbie bomber's release from prison.
 
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”
Click to expand...

Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action - John Bresnahan and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

the pusher of impeachment, for your information, is the only member of congress KNOWN to own a tinfoil hat

Kucinich: I saw a UFO – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

party on, peeps
 
Goshin said:
I try not to be too partisan very often, but this has me not knowing whether to LOL or scream. :lamo

If someone sent 112 flying bombs into the USA, would you call it war? :lamo

So, it is moral and wise to bomb, but evil and stupid to use ground troops? :doh

Iraq was all about oil, you say (despite the fact that oil was flowing just fine at the time), and this IS NOT about oil, even though we're experiencing bad price hikes due to the conflicts currently ongoing in the MidEast? :wassat1:







The UN authorized all kinds of things against Saddam, which he ignored, and authorized the use of force, which apparently didn't matter a fig to the Left THEN.


The hypocrisy of some just amazes me.

I support this action, btw.... should've been done three weeks ago without waiting for that corrupt and nearly useless body known as the United (cough cough!) Nations.
Click to expand...

Thankyou Goshin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom