• 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

Moderator's Warning:
reefedjib is now thread banned.
 
Ron Mars said:
Then take it up with 0bama, France, Italy etc. as well. They disagree with you. So do I.



According to 0bama the end game is regime change in Libya.

The US has the assets and money to destroy Gaddafi's ground forces and air defense. It wouldn't take long.

You will find lots of posts where I criticize 0bama for wasting trillions of tax dollars and deficit spending. Two separate issues. Nice try though.

simply went in with guns ablazin'? Nobody ever suggested such a thing.
Click to expand...

1) Asserting the no-fly zone will cost the US $100M per week... and its totally elective spending. Here is a place we don't need to spend the money. While I have no problem with you arguing we need to spend money on guns, but the cost to you is that you have lost all credibility in arguing that balancing the budget is imperative, as clearly with you, it is not.

2) The "it will be over quick" theory worked really well in Iraq, now didn't it. Cheney should have read his 1992 diary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT7Ik_X1HU0
(still looking for his Meet the Press assertion that it would be over in a matter of weeks and we would be greeted as liberators). Nothing worse than American arrogance thinking we can pretty much do what we want militarily.. you would think Iraq and Afghanistan would refute that fantasy (it certainly has for Arab resistance).
 
this war is retarded. first of all if we are wanting a better economy thenn yes first step first we need to cut prices. So oil is an issue, but there is this weird place called alaska which has enough oil for america to last 100 years. then if we say we are fighting this for the sake of the 2 british ships that were attacked then we are bigger idiots than ever. i love britain it is my favorite country but if britain is attacked then britain should be the one defending itself and fighting a war not the usa.
 
i completely agree with you rigg
 
Yes a very limited one currently but canescalate on new Levels with the slightest mistakes.
 
how is it very limited its 112 rockets onto libya . that is not limited all the usa can do now is pray that the libyan presidant does not have nuclear warfare missiles because he is just crazy enough to use that stuff
 
kwanawk said:
how is it very limited its 112 rockets onto libya . that is not limited all the usa can do now is pray that the libyan presidant does not have nuclear warfare missiles because he is just crazy enough to use that stuff
Click to expand...

He doesn't have nuclear weapons, chicken little. He only has mustard gas. While that is definitely bad stuff, it's nothing compared to a 200kt warhead.
 
Catawba said:
Could have fooled me, since he knew to go about this the right way, getting approval from the UN and providing a supporting role so as not to continue to propagate the Arab view of the US as the great Satan, which only fuels creation of more terrorists and strenghens hardliner's case against the US.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to hear about the support from Congress. Where's the Declaration of War?
 
American said:
I'm still waiting to hear about the support from Congress. Where's the Declaration of War?
Click to expand...

I want to know why he didn't follow the Farrakhan/Obama Doctrine and speak with this despot without preconditions before air raiding cities and killing civilians?

With this action, certainly no unique situation in the world where despots rule...my questions is where next? It is hilarious to visit the Lib DG's, and watch the folks there suffering from Pretzilitis Politicus. Now on to the show:

From President "Words, Just Words"​

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war....What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income." B-O 2 October 2002
Click to expand...

I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Click to expand...

Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected...
Click to expand...

The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it’s real--and we’ve got finite resources. We don’t have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That’s the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That’s what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Click to expand...

As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007
Click to expand...

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. The world, and the Iraqi people would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p.143 Mar 27, 2007
Click to expand...

.
 
Last edited:
American said:
I'm still waiting to hear about the support from Congress. Where's the Declaration of War?
Click to expand...

I don't remember NATO declaring war, but I do think Congress should be required to vote as to whether we continue to provide support to the NATO mission to protect the Libyan people.
 
Catawba said:
I don't remember NATO declaring war, but I do think Congress should be required to vote as to whether we continue to provide support to the NATO mission to protect the Libyan people.
Click to expand...

Well, aside from Obama saying this while campaigning....

In a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, Obama was asked about the president's constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking authorization from Congress. "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama said four years ago. "As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."
Click to expand...

As President, he says this:

In a letter to Congress on Monday, Obama said he authorized the involvement of the U.S. military as part of a "multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973."

"I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive," he said.
Click to expand...

Huh. Saying something as a candidate, then acting differently when elected. Unheard of.
 
I haven't really been keeping up with Libya, but I'm curious as to why this issue hasn't been brought before Congress yet?
 
here is my problem i just cannot understand how dropping bombs on libya and killing civilians is helping them out.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, aside from Obama saying this while campaigning....



As President, he says this:



Huh. Saying something as a candidate, then acting differently when elected. Unheard of.
Click to expand...


Do you think that liberals are surprised that Obama is not the liberal that those on the right thought he was? We've known since his campaign when he made the speech below that he was not liberal when it came to war. However, our choice was between a candidate who was a moderate war hawk or a candidate who was an extreme war hawk. We chose the moderate.

I've already stated that I think Congress should take a vote as to whether we continue to support this NATO action.

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."


Read more at the Washington Examiner: Flashback: Obama's 2002 anti-war speech | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
 
Last edited:
im pretty sure obama just bit off more than he can chew. its not that he is a moderate war hawk it is just that he is a confused person. He doesnt know what to do so he made a rash decision. In my opinion a bad decision.
 
kwanawk said:
im pretty sure obama just bit off more than he can chew. its not that he is a moderate war hawk it is just that he is a confused person. He doesnt know what to do so he made a rash decision. In my opinion a bad decision.
Click to expand...

It was a NATO decision that even the Arab League signed on to. Congress has the option to defund our participation in the NATO action. I think they should vote on it.
 
Catawba said:
It was a NATO decision that even the Arab League signed on to. Congress has the option to defund our participation in the NATO action. I think they should vote on it.
Click to expand...

You mean a UN security council decision don't you? I guess we are getting our marching orders from them in the end now anyway....Not congress.

Where are you Mr. Madison?


j-mac
 
Catawba said:
Do you think that liberals are surprised that Obama is not the liberal that those on the right thought he was? We've known since his campaign when he made the speech below that he was not liberal when it came to war. However, our choice was between a candidate who was a moderate war hawk or a candidate who was an extreme war hawk. We chose the moderate.

I've already stated that I think Congress should take a vote as to whether we continue to support this NATO action.

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."


Read more at the Washington Examiner: Flashback: Obama's 2002 anti-war speech | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
Click to expand...

Man...what a great ****ing speech. It's too bad being President and giving great speeches are two different skill sets.
 
Catawba said:
It was a NATO decision that even the Arab League signed on to. Congress has the option to defund our participation in the NATO action. I think they should vote on it.
Click to expand...

I thought they where for a no-fly zone? As in shoot down any plane that takes to the skies. This was a bombing mission and elites simply used "No-Fly Zone" to get it started. Any "accidental" civilian deaths from our planes should be considered terrorism and whoever marked the site for bombing needs to be brought into justice.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Man...what a great ****ing speech. It's too bad being President and giving great speeches are two different skill sets.
Click to expand...

And you are thinking McCain would have done better???
 
dirtpoorchris said:
I thought they where for a no-fly zone? As in shoot down any plane that takes to the skies. This was a bombing mission and elites simply used "No-Fly Zone" to get it started. Any "accidental" civilian deaths from our planes should be considered terrorism and whoever marked the site for bombing needs to be brought into justice.
Click to expand...

Everyone was informed as to what would be involved in establishing a no-fly zone. I am not saying it was the right decision for NATO to take, but you can't claim anyone, that has been paying attention, didn't know what it would involve. If Congress is opposed to our support in the NATO action, I think they should defund it.
 
Catawba said:
And you are thinking McCain would have done better???
Click to expand...

Nope, not at all. Just noting that I have been rather disappointed with the President I voted for in recent months, compared to when I was nodding my head at every great speech he made.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I haven't really been keeping up with Libya, but I'm curious as to why this issue hasn't been brought before Congress yet?
Click to expand...

King Hussein Obama was on vacation and thought it would be nice if our forces dropped in on Wright & Farrakhan's buddy Gadaffi Duck.

No biggy. Only cost us a few hundred million for the first day's firework show.

Just think, he didn't have to lie or nutt'in. Congress? What's that? Vote? ROTFLOL.

It's great to be the King. (How do you like my hat? see photo left)

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
King Hussein Obama was on vacation and thought it would be nice if our forces dropped in on Wright & Farrakhan's buddy Gadaffi Duck.

No biggy. Only cost us a few hundred million for the first day's firework show.

It's great to be the King.

.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really explain to me why CONGRESS hasn't brought the issue up...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom