• 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

Iron Yank said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, so America should be bombing the ever loving hell out of people?

That's the way you like it?
 
Like it or not America will take the leading role....As a General said yesterday on one of the shows, America's military doesn't subordinate itself to anyone.


Period.


j-mac
 
Catawba said:
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?
Click to expand...

You were talking about the British end of things regarding Iraq and that has limited interest for others. The Americans did not have the same problem regarding Iraq.

The British were obvious turncoats on Libya however, were unsteady Allies in Iraq, and its clear that their long term interests lie in Europe.

I don't think we should continue the pretense that we are friends or Allies beyond what we actually are. Britain, France, Germany and the Swiss should act in their own best interest and the Americans in theirs. There is no good reason, historically or otherwise, why the Americans should be in North Africa defending European interests while most of Europe sits on the sidelines. The Mid East should remain a European problem and the Americans would be better off defending their own territory and borders.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

And so you should be.

Americans spend billions getting rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, introduce democracy there for the first time in its violent history, lose thousands of the best people the country has to offer, and are still getting complaints that you did it without any third party's permission??

What the hell is that all about?

Americans should exercise their sovereignty and decide alone whether they are going to get involved in any other country and bugger what the UN or the Europeans say.

I can't believe they have listened to them this far or that they need some sort of 'consensus' to put American lives on the line.
 
j-mac said:
Like it or not America will take the leading role....As a General said yesterday on one of the shows, America's military doesn't subordinate itself to anyone.


Period.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Then what's this 'consensus' thing all about, J-mac?
 
Iron Yank said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've been singing the following song for the past several days with the lyrics "Why can't we be France..."...
and as an aside... it's nice he's got "a laser like focus on the economy."



.
 
Catawba said:
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?
Click to expand...

look i dont mean that it is too late because the war is over i mean it is too late because we already made the first strike. and i would like congress to vote for 2 reasons. one to see the majorities opinion on this and two because i believe NATO is becoming corrupted. i believe that they will do anything for oil. i do want them to vote by the way.
 
kwanawk said:
look i dont mean that it is too late because the war is over i mean it is too late because we already made the first strike. and i would like congress to vote for 2 reasons. one to see the majorities opinion on this and two because i believe NATO is becoming corrupted. i believe that they will do anything for oil. i do want them to vote by the way.
Click to expand...

I agree that Congress should take a vote on whether we continue to support the NATO action. But for me, I want it done because we are committing US lives and money when our budget is already strapped from 2 other wars. I don't really see the oil corruption in NATO that you do. If they had gone along with Bush's invasion of Iraq, I think you would have a better case for that.
 
j-mac said:
Like it or not America will take the leading role....As a General said yesterday on one of the shows, America's military doesn't subordinate itself to anyone.


Period.


j-mac
Click to expand...
Reagan discovered the falacy in that, during the Marine mission in Syria. It was a costly lesson.
 
Catawba said:
I agree that Congress should take a vote on whether we continue to support the NATO action. But for me, I want it done because we are committing US lives and money when our budget is already strapped from 2 other wars. I don't really see the oil corruption in NATO that you do. If they had gone along with Bush's invasion of Iraq, I think you would have a better case for that.
Click to expand...

You feel Iraq has oil but Libya doesn't?
 
Grant said:
You feel Iraq has oil but Libya doesn't?
Click to expand...


Libya has 3% of the world's oil, we have 2%, Iraq has the largest reserves, even bigger than Saudia Arabia. It will be the last place on the planet to run out which is why we put our military there.
 
Catawba said:
Libya has 3% of the world's oil, we have 2%, Iraq has the largest reserves, even bigger than Saudia Arabia. It will be the last place on the planet to run out which is why we put our military there.
Click to expand...

So you feel the French and British are there because they are nice guys and wouldn't involve themselves with any mid East oil shenanigans? Do you feel, historically, that France's interests weren't all about France?

And what difference does oil reserves make? (and judging their quantity is always risky and political anyway}

If France can control a percentage of the world's oil they certainly might go for it. The Oil For Food scandal within the UN certainly involved France and their energy giant, Total, so that should demonstrate their morals where far less oil was involved. The French have tgheir oily fingerprints all over the Middle East. Check it out!

Here's Britain UK wooed Gadhafi before Lockerbie bomber freed - World news - Europe - msnbc.com

Here's France (there are more links) Gadhafi's son used Libya oil profits for personal gain, WikiLeaks reveals - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

And here's speculation on others

Libya Oil Connection With France Italy Germany United States China – Blood For Oil? - Soapbox Michigan

Europeans tend to ignore European skulduggery and instead point their grimy fingers at the US.
 
Grant said:
So you feel the French and British are there because they are nice guys and wouldn't involve themselves with any mid East oil shenanigans? Do you feel, historically, that France's interests weren't all about France?
Click to expand...

I don't presume to know why any of the NATO members are there other than their stated goal of protecting Libyans from being massacred by their leader.

And what difference does oil reserves make?
Click to expand...

I don't think Libya's oil reserves are a factor. You are the one that brought it up.

If France can control a percentage of the world's oil they certainly might go for it.
Click to expand...

You don't know how the world oil market works do you?
 
Grant said:
Then what's this 'consensus' thing all about, J-mac?
Click to expand...


Consensus is merely language for cover. Obama has been dragged into this thing when he had NO intention of doing a darned thing about Gaddafi mowing down civilians in the streets, now he want's to either be able to take the credit, or place the blame when it blows up in his face. Obama is a perennial fence sitter, and academic that is in over his head, and has shown the ME that he is and will continue to be a weak stick when it comes to using muscle to achieve what's in American interests.

A government that governs by consensus is a weak, floundering mess.

j-mac
 
Catawba said:
I agree that Congress should take a vote on whether we continue to support the NATO action. But for me, I want it done because we are committing US lives and money when our budget is already strapped from 2 other wars. I don't really see the oil corruption in NATO that you do. If they had gone along with Bush's invasion of Iraq, I think you would have a better case for that.
Click to expand...

It is not a NATO action, but a war with some NATO forces. It's one thing I'll agree with Pete EU on.

We went in the first time, Gulf War 1, to stop Saddam from wreaking havoc with his neighbors and the world's oil supply. From when that Gulf War 1 ended and 911, we found ourselves with a new enemy that had no country... and Saddam could very well have supplied the idiots with WMD.

Everyone believed Saddam had WMD... Blix, Kay, our allies and even our enemies.

.



.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Like it or not America will take the leading role....As a General said yesterday on one of the shows, America's military doesn't subordinate itself to anyone.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The US military is not at the top of the chain of command. . .

Oil cos/PACs/Hedge Funds/Offense Contractors/AIPAC, other lobbyists -> CINC -> SECDEF -> (US military starts here) -> CCDR -> troops stained within UCC
 
jake tapper, this afternoon:

In an interview with Univision Tuesday, President Obama re-defined the term “exit strategy,” and said our exit strategy in Libya would begin this week.

“The exit strategy will be executed this week,” President Obama said, “in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment. We will still be in a support role. We will be supplying jamming, intelligence and other assets unique to us."

Planes in the air? Ships in the Mediterranean? Intelligence being provided? Doesn’t sound like an exit strategy at all.

What it does recall is Lewis Carroll.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Gates, talking about who would take over for the US and when, said, "this command and control business is complicated. We haven’t done something like this, kind of on the fly before. And so it’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out."
Click to expand...

President Obama Redefines the Term "Exit Strategy" - Political Punch

that's TAPPER talkin

wow!

can you deny it?
 
Catawba said:
I don't presume to know why any of the NATO members are there other than their stated goal of protecting Libyans from being massacred by their leader.
Click to expand...

It's really quite rare that anyone in a free democracy accepts the word of government so easily, and without question. Did you also accept the word of George Bush and the American government when they, along with the Coalition, invaded Iraq?

I don't think Libya's oil reserves are a factor. You are the one that brought it up.
Click to expand...

Actually it was you.

"Libya has 3% of the world's oil, we have 2%, Iraq has the largest reserves, even bigger than Saudia Arabia. It will be the last place on the planet to run out which is why we put our military there".

I never mentioned the reserves at all.
You don't know how the world oil market works do you?
Click to expand...

Why ask that question and how is it germane to what we're discussing?

I do know that there is a lot of money involved, and both the UK and France have done some shady deals with Middle East dictators in the past. In fact France was directly dealing with Saddam Hussein in the UN Oil for Food scandal, which was brought to light in an investigation by the Americans.

What do you know about Europeans dealing with ME dictators for oil deals and various other contracts? You don't, on the face of it, seem to know much about the subject.
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Consensus is merely language for cover. Obama has been dragged into this thing when he had NO intention of doing a darned thing about Gaddafi mowing down civilians in the streets, now he want's to either be able to take the credit, or place the blame when it blows up in his face. Obama is a perennial fence sitter, and academic that is in over his head, and has shown the ME that he is and will continue to be a weak stick when it comes to using muscle to achieve what's in American interests.

A government that governs by consensus is a weak, floundering mess.
Click to expand...

It is a huge precedent that the Americans would be involved in a military action and not be in charge. Is Obama being very clever by deliberately weakening the United States for his own pre-Presidential political philosophies and agenda, or is he just remarkably foolish? And that beggars the question whether he is also deliberately undermining the American economy and weakening the US in that direction as well.

I don't see how anyone can so weaken the United States from both directions unless it is Bill Ayers deliberate.
 
upsideguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Defense and supporting people fighting for their freedom is exactly where we need to spend money. Giving federal money to states so they can pay their employees is not. Providing medial care to every citizen(?) is another.

upsideguy said:
2) The "it will be over quick" theory worked really well in Iraq, now didn't it. Cheney should have read his 1992 diary.

...it would be over in a matter of weeks and we would be greeted as liberators.
Click to expand...

Saddam was ousted in three weeks and Iraqi's did greet us as liberators.

Saddam's fedayeen killed many of those people. Some just for waving at US troops.
 
Catawba said:
..... repeatedly warned Blair of the consequences of invading Iraq without fresh UN authority
Click to expand...

The old authority had expired? Needed to be thrown out?

Even with the chief weapons inspector stating Saddam was in material breach of UN 1441 it still doesn't matter to some people.
 
Grant said:
It's really quite rare that anyone in a free democracy accepts the word of government so easily, and without question. Did you also accept the word of George Bush and the American government when they, along with the Coalition, invaded Iraq?
Click to expand...

No, like the UN, I knew Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors. We completely destroyed their military capability in 1991 followed by ten years of sanctions and 700 inspections. They were no more a threat to the US then Grenada. Anyone frightened of Iraq had serious paranoid fantasies, or an ulterior motive, which was spelled out in a report by Cheney and the oil industry that predated our invasion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom