• 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

They all know that Obama is a *****. When the leader of The Free World is a *****, it invites the assholes of the world to start trouble.
And to think that I'd ever live to see the French leading the way in any military conflict, Oh and Nicolas Sarkozy is the leader of the free world.

Only under Obama would something like this ever be possible.
 
Nice response, cowboy. Nothing better than a guy who's solution to everything is a bullet. Maybe one day you will be welcome to civilization.

Whoa, nice unprovoked PERSONAL ATTACK.
 
Last edited:
Resolution 1441 explicitly authorized the use of military force...oh wait no it didn't. Way to compare apples and oranges.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know what "a final opportunity" means to you when he lost a war, was supposed to disarm, had shot at our planes daily in the NFZ... and UN Resolutions had been passed previously and we just had a terror attack? Perhaps you, like Clinton believed it was a final opportunity before Saddam would get another Final Opportunity at the UN?

Let's see? He lost a war, was supposed to cooperate and disarm and didn't. He had a "final opportunity". Hmmmmmmmmmm... now what would they mean by final opportunity when we had amassed troops on the border... ?

Ahhhh... SNAP! A wet T-shirt contest & BBQ followed by a Hooters Bikini Contest!!! Sorry... wasn't thinking logically.

CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

David Kay
Testimony before the Senate ASC

KAY: In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

KAY: Senator Warner, you're absolutely -- I think -- and I think I've said, but let me be absolutely clear about it -- Iraq was in clear and material violation of 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their program. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal.

CLINTON: And of course, my time has expired, but I think that rightly does raise questions that we should be examining about whether or not the U.N. inspection process pursuant to 1441 might not also have worked without the loss of life that we have confronted both among our own young men and women, as well as Iraqis.

KAY: Well, Senator Clinton, let me just add to that.

We have had a number of Iraqis who have come forward and said, "We did not tell the U.N. about what we were hiding, nor would we have told the U.N. because we would run the risk of our own" -- I think we have learned things that no U.N. inspector would have ever learned given the terror regime of Saddam and the tremendous personal consequences that scientists had to run by speaking the truth.

CORNYN: And indeed, the deception that you've talked about of Saddam's own military and scientists and others who perhaps led him to believe that they were following through on his orders to develop these weapons of mass destruction, would you say that that deception not only convinced perhaps Saddam to some extent, but indeed that contributed to his intransigence before the world community and defiance of the United Nations and, finally, of U.N. Resolution 1441?

KAY: I think that probably did. I'm just hesitant because analyzing the mind of someone who would end up in a spider hole like Saddam requires a skill that I suspect I was not equipped for. But, yes, I think that's a reasonable interpretation.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what "a final opportunity" means to you when he lost a war, was supposed to disarm, had shot at our planes daily in the NFZ... and UN Resolutions had been passed previously and we just had a terror attack? Perhaps you, like Clinton believed it was a final opportunity before Saddam would get another Final Opportunity at the UN?

Let's see? He lost a war, was supposed to cooperate and disarm and didn't. He had a "final opportunity". Hmmmmmmmmmm... now what would they mean by final opportunity when we had amassed troops on the border... ?

Ahhhh... SNAP! A wet T-short contest! Sorry... wasn't thinking logically.

From the same wiki article:

On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:
“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2] ”
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3] ”
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:
“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]
 
From the same wiki article:

Sorry. Wiki-slant. Final Warning was part of the resolution. The other is obviously opinion.

As I stated... "final warning" or what? The troops on the border will come over and rub your belly? We gave him a last chance through the corrupt UN. He chose not to take it. We, and our coalition decided to remove his ass. We didn't need no stinking UN to give a "super-duper Final Final with cream and a cherry on top" resolution.

What is it that people fail to understand about the word "final"?

Bush43 had the votes of Congress... twice from the Senate. That is all that counted in the end.(plus the UN)

King Hussein Obama has the corrupt UN, but nothing from Congress.

.
 
Last edited:
Sorry. Wiki-slant. Final Warning was part of the resolution. The other is obviously opinion.

As I stated... "final warning" or what? The troops on the border will come over and rub your belly? We gave him a last chance through the corrupt UN. He chose not to take it. We, and our coalition decided to remove his ass. We didn't need no stinking UN to give a "super-duper Final Final with cream and a cherry on top" resolution.

What is it that people fail to understand about the word "final"?

Bush4 had the votes of Congress... twice from the Senate. That is all that counted in the end.(plus the UN)

King Hussein Obama has the corrupt UN, but nothing from Congress.

.



.

Sorry, but a "final warning" is not the same as the explicit authorization for the use of force. That was made pretty damn clear. As far as I'm concerned, Congress should have voted on and issued an official declaration of war in the case of both Iraq and Libya.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but a "final warning" is not the same as the explicit authorization for the use of force. That was made pretty damn clear.

Bush43 got authorization where it counts... from Congress.

He had the "Final Solution" UN Resolution for Saddam too, but it seems some folks failed to understand the word "final" after 16 previous resolutions. The same people also failed to understand who The Decider is. I think they understood a little better after Bush43 illustrated what he meant with the word "final". But, some still fail to understand.

Sum peeple yu j'us kaint reech.

Wiseone: Another for the record books.

.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Cease with the personal attacks - final warning.
 

Again...apples and oranges. The nations that have a token number of ground troops that they could potentially dedicate to a ground op far exceeds the number of nations willing and able to contribute parts of their air forces for such an endeavor as enforcing a no-fly zone. None of this takes away from the fact that intervention in Libya enjoys a much wider consensus and support compared to support for an invasion of Iraq.

Again, personally I am not for US involvement in either case. But distinctions need to be pointed out. Still, nobody has told me why Congress hasn't voted on a declaration of war.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but a "final warning" is not the same as the explicit authorization for the use of force. That was made pretty damn clear. As far as I'm concerned, Congress should have voted on and issued an official declaration of war in the case of both Iraq and Libya.

You are correct. This was confirmed again during the Tony Blair Inquiry:

"Tony Blair, summoned back to the inquiry into the Iraq invasion in light of damaging and conflicting evidence revealed since he answered questions a year ago, is to appear before Sir John Chilcot on 21 January, it has been revealed.

A ballot has been held for 60 seats, with a third reserved for family members who lost loved ones in Iraq, the inquiry has announced. All the people who were successful in the ballot will be notified in the next few days, it said.
The former prime minister will attend in light of evidence about the legality of the invasion, and assurances he gave George Bush.

The inquiry is believed to be concerned about the revelation in documents released in June showing that the day before he privately assured Bush he would back US-led military action, Blair was warned by Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal.

Documents reveal how Goldsmith repeatedly warned Blair of the consequences of invading Iraq without fresh UN authority."

Tony Blair to appear before Iraq war inquiry on 21 January | UK news | guardian.co.uk
 
Last edited:
this afternoon:

Libya war: Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart | Mail Online

germany's OUT

"tension" divides the uk and us, a "war of words" over the assassination of gadaffi

italy says france "is motivated by a desire to secure oil contracts with the future libyan govt"

"uk ministers say the war could last 30 years"

russia still paints our barry as richard the lionhearted

china is as harsh

no wonder hillary's camp leaked all that stuff about the "amateurs" in the white house

can you deny it?
 
Again, personally I am not for US involvement in either case. But distinctions need to be pointed out. Still, nobody has told me why Congress hasn't voted on a declaration of war.

If they actually called it a war then the pot would go from simmer to boil. Right now this "Over-Seas Contingency Plan" (attack with war machines) keeps the bough from breaking. (The bough being people's will to allow our government to attack people with militairy)
 
If they actually called it a war then the pot would go from simmer to boil. Right now this "Over-Seas Contingency Plan" (attack with war machines) keeps the bough from breaking. (The bough being people's will to allow our government to attack people with militairy)

They should just call it what it is. Stop with all this doublespeak crap and call a spade a spade.
 
obama: days, not weeks

the uk: 30 years

embarrassed yet?
 
You are correct. This was confirmed again during the Tony Blair Inquiry:

"Tony Blair, summoned back to the inquiry into the Iraq invasion in light of damaging and conflicting evidence revealed since he answered questions a year ago, is to appear before Sir John Chilcot on 21 January, it has been revealed.

A ballot has been held for 60 seats, with a third reserved for family members who lost loved ones in Iraq, the inquiry has announced. All the people who were successful in the ballot will be notified in the next few days, it said.
The former prime minister will attend in light of evidence about the legality of the invasion, and assurances he gave George Bush.

The inquiry is believed to be concerned about the revelation in documents released in June showing that the day before he privately assured Bush he would back US-led military action, Blair was warned by Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal.

Documents reveal how Goldsmith repeatedly warned Blair of the consequences of invading Iraq without fresh UN authority."

Tony Blair to appear before Iraq war inquiry on 21 January | UK news | guardian.co.uk

It's not important what the UK did or does anymore. That 'relationship' is a charade, and with Germany not getting involved and NATO in a shamblles the United States and Canada should withdraw and pursue their own interests. This is Europe's war, not anyone else's.

UK wooed Gadhafi before Lockerbie bomber freed - World news - Europe - msnbc.com
 
It's not important what the UK did or does anymore. That 'relationship' is a charade, and with Germany not getting involved and NATO in a shamblles the United States and Canada should withdraw and pursue their own interests. This is Europe's war, not anyone else's.

UK wooed Gadhafi before Lockerbie bomber freed - World news - Europe - msnbc.com

Its important if we want historical accuracy of what occurred. As for Libya, I think Congress should vote on whether we continue to support the NATO operation.
 
From an interesting article about Libya:
"...Isn't this a rush to war? There were 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq, Bush talked about going to war for a full year before we actually invaded, and he received Congressional approval first. After all that, liberals STILL shouted that it was a "rush to war." Meanwhile, Obama decided to bomb Libya in between making his Final Four picks and planning out a vacation to Brazil, probably because Hillary yelled at him. How about applying the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?"

7 Questions For Liberals About Obama's Libyan War - Page 1 - John Hawkins - Townhall Conservative
 
From an interesting article about Libya:
"...Isn't this a rush to war? There were 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq, Bush talked about going to war for a full year before we actually invaded, and he received Congressional approval first. After all that, liberals STILL shouted that it was a "rush to war." Meanwhile, Obama decided to bomb Libya in between making his Final Four picks and planning out a vacation to Brazil, probably because Hillary yelled at him. How about applying the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?"

7 Questions For Liberals About Obama's Libyan War - Page 1 - John Hawkins - Townhall Conservative

I do... they were both stupid. Libya is a tad less stupid only because of events on the ground in Libya (there is an actual civil war going on and people are getting killed, unlike Iraq, which was obstensively at peace) and the fact there is a real coalition, so this is much more of an international misson. OTH, each of nebulous objectives and lack a clear exit policy, which makes it stupid.
 
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.

in this case my point stays the same. i do agree that we should of voted but it is too late now. and not voting was still a rash decision by not only obama but our whole goverment
 
Its important if we want historical accuracy of what occurred.

This is historical accuracy, perhaps, in a footnote about the British involvement in Iraq. Who really cares except the British?

The British should get along with France and convince the other European countries that their cause is just, if they can, and America can go its own way.

European countries sit on the sidelines getting rich, like the Swiss and Germans, while the American people pick up the tab for policing the world.

For decades the Europeans have been critical of American foreign policy so its well past time they had a little bit more involvement themselves. Americans are deeply in debt, it's getting worse, and still they are expected to handle every two bit dictator the world throws up at them. Let there be a New World Disorder and let each hemisphere sort out its own problems. The American people should be sick of it by now and start looking after their own interests.
 
Last edited:
in this case my point stays the same. i do agree that we should of voted but it is too late now. and not voting was still a rash decision by not only obama but our whole goverment

Is the war over already and I missed it? Why would you not want Congress to vote whether we continue to support the NATO action?
 
This is historical accuracy, perhaps, in a footnote about the British involvement in Iraq. Who really cares except the British?


Those that wish to know the truth, that the coalition did not have authority under the UN for our invasion. But who really cares about the truth in this country, the truth is only important to the British right?
 
And to think that I'd ever live to see the French leading the way in any military conflict, Oh and Nicolas Sarkozy is the leader of the free world.

Only under Obama would something like this ever be possible.

Frankly (no pun intended), I think it's about time. All the bitching about the US the Europeans do, they need to put up or shut up. I'm tired of our military protecting whiners.
 
Back
Top Bottom