• 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

Catawba said:
Germany's government can stand against its own people without military support. Iraq's cannot. And our invasion and occupation of Germany was due to a country attacking its neighbors. This was not the case with Iraq. They haven't had that capability since the Persian Gulf War.
Click to expand...

Then who is it who is attacking the government of Iraq and murdering the Iraqi people?

Is it the same ones who were killing them before, at bus stops, police stations, etc.?

Do you think Germany needs the help of US troops moreso than the people of Iraq?
 
ric27 said:
U.S. deploys low-flying attack planes in Libya
Click to expand...

nicely noticed, the use of low flying fighters is a major ESCALATION

it's pretty hard to argue that obama's interpretation of whatever it is mission he's invented for himself and gotten us all into is anything less than plastic and rubbery allowing him and his coalition partners to do---or NOT DO---just about anything in the short term they want

except NATION BUILDING, there's bottom line NO AVOIDING that---if gadaffi goes, that is

and if gadaffi doesn't go american prestige will be in the crapper at a time when the entire region, profound in its geopolitically pivotal position, is falling apart

and if gadaffi doesn't go obama will be severely damaged as his as-of-monday "clarification" of what the heck we're doing over there is all about the protection of civilian life

which can't possibly be accomplished with that mad murderer remaining in tripoli

obama has not even STARTED to think this thru

and he and we are all STUCK THERE

no spin, wynn

stay up
 
Catawba said:
But unlike with Libya, they never gave their vote of approval. And who remains the lone foreign military force in Iraq today?
Click to expand...

I think their vote of approval melted away when they begged NATO to take over.

Of course the US has the largest number of foreign military forces in Iraq.
 
The Washington Post

U.S. deploys low-flying attack planes in Libya The U.S. military dramatically stepped up its assault on Libyan government ground forces over the weekend, launching its first missions with AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft designed to strike enemy ground troops and supply convoys.


Well it's about time. A-10's and AC-130's are just the weapons systems for this kind of conflict. The AC-130 is an awsome aircraft. Now, when do the carriers show up?

If you're going to jump in then you have to go in to prevail. Obviously more air power is needed for the rebels to resume the offensive and capture Tripoli.

ric27 said:
Its not only Tomahawks....US involvement will get more pronounced and the consequences of these trends will be more treacherous

Lord! What a big mess
Click to expand...

There are definately reasons to believe this is getting out of control. I'm counting on the President and his advisors to be working through the problems and find solutions to defeat Gaddafi's butchers. IMO we should be chasing his a** around the desert.

If Gaddafi remains in power we have failed and this will be for nothing. I hope the President understands that.
 
Grant said:
Then who is it who is attacking the government of Iraq and murdering the Iraqi people?

Is it the same ones who were killing them before, at bus stops, police stations, etc.?

Do you think Germany needs the help of US troops moreso than the people of Iraq?
Click to expand...


No, I think it is huge waste of taxpayers monet to have troops occupying the rest of the world. We spend almost as the rest of the world combined on the military and wonder why we are going broke!

Most of the suicide bombers were Saudi, just like the ones that attacked us on 9/11. Most of the rest was a civil war we unleashed by unseating the one person that was keeping it at bay without American taxpayer funding.
 
Ron Mars said:
Of course the US has the largest number of foreign military forces in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Here, I corrected your statement to read, The US has the only foreign military forces in Iraq today.
 
Ron Mars said:
Well it's about time. A-10's and AC-130's are just the weapons systems for this kind of conflict.
Click to expand...



There are definately reasons to believe this is getting out of control.
Click to expand...


I'm having a hard time figuring out if you are for or against our participation in this NATO action.
 
Ron Mars said:
The Washington Post

U.S. deploys low-flying attack planes in Libya The U.S. military dramatically stepped up its assault on Libyan government ground forces over the weekend, launching its first missions with AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft designed to strike enemy ground troops and supply convoys.


Well it's about time. A-10's and AC-130's are just the weapons systems for this kind of conflict. The AC-130 is an awsome aircraft. Now, when do the carriers show up?

If you're going to jump in then you have to go in to prevail. Obviously more air power is needed for the rebels to resume the offensive and capture Tripoli.



There are definately reasons to believe this is getting out of control. I'm counting on the President and his advisors to be working through the problems and find solutions to defeat Gaddafi's butchers. IMO we should be chasing his a** around the desert.

If Gaddafi remains in power we have failed and this will be for nothing. I hope the President understands that.
Click to expand...

The US to maintain the no-fly zone will come at a hefty price (between $100 million and $300 million a week)

Another Q.... If we are doing Libya why not Syria? Lebanon? North Korea? They all kill civilians.
 
Catawba said:
I'm having a hard time figuring out if you are for or against our participation in this NATO action.
Click to expand...

I support the President but have lots of problems with it.

Why is NATO enforcing UN resolutions?
 
ric27 said:
The US to maintain the no-fly zone will come at a hefty price (between $100 million and $300 million a week)

Another Q.... If we are doing Libya why not Syria? Lebanon? North Korea? They all kill civilians.
Click to expand...

I don't think the NFZ is a good idea. Destroy Gaddafi's aircraft and air defense and that eliminates the need for one.

If the people of N. Korea rise up against Kimmy and start fighting him then I absolutely think we should help. I hope I live to see the liberation of the North Korean people. I was stationed in S. Korea and they are very decent and kind people. IMO the people of N. Koreans are as well.

Each nation has it's own internal problems and military intervention will not change a thing in some cases. I do agree that this can legitimately be argued as a double standard.
 
Ron Mars said:
I support the President but have lots of problems with it.

Why is NATO enforcing UN resolutions?
Click to expand...

"From 1949 to the present day, the formal link between the United Nations and the North Atlantic Alliance has remained constant and has manifested itself first and foremost in the relationship between their respective founding documents. However, for most of this period, working relations between the institutions of the United Nations and those of the Alliance remained limited. In 1992, the situation changed.

In July 1992, against the background of growing conflict, NATO ships belonging to the Alliance's Standing Naval Force Mediterranean, assisted by NATO Maritime Patrol Aircraft, began monitoring operations in the Adriatic in support of a United Nations arms embargo against all republics of the former Yugoslavia. In November 1992, NATO and the Western European Union (WEU) began enforcement operations in support of UN Security Council resolutions aimed at preventing the escalation of the conflict.

The readiness of the Alliance to support peacekeeping operations under the authority of the UN Security Council was formally stated by NATO Foreign Ministers in December 1992. The measures already being taken by NATO countries, individually and as an Alliance, were reviewed and the Alliance indicated that it was ready to respond positively to further initiatives that the UN Secretary General might take in seeking Alliance assistance in this field.

A number of measures were subsequently taken, including joint maritime operations under the authority of the NATO and WEU Councils; NATO air operations; close air support for the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR); air strikes to protect UN "Safe Areas"; and contingency planning for other options which the UN might take. These measures are described in Chapter 5.

In December 1995, following the signature of the Bosnian Peace Agreement in Paris on 14 December, NATO was given a mandate by the UN, on the basis of Security Council Resolution 1031, to implement the military aspects of the Peace Agreement. A NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) began operations to fulfil this mandate on 16 December. Details of the work of IFOR and its subsequent replacement by a NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in December 1996, are also described in Chapter 5. Throughout their mandates both multinational forces have worked closely on the ground in Bosnia and Herzegovina with other international organisations and humanitarian agencies, including those of the United Nations, such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the UN International Police Task Force (IPTF).

In February 1998, after discussions with non-NATO contributors to SFOR, the North Atlantic Council announced that, subject to the necessary mandate from the UN Security Council, NATO was prepared to organise and lead a multinational force to continue the work in Bosnia and Herzegovina following the end of SFOR's mandate in June 1998. The new force retains the name "SFOR", reflecting the continuing need for stabilisation of the Bosnian situation and for laying the foundations for permanent peace in the region.

From the onset of the conflict in Kosovo in 1998 and throughout the crisis, close contacts were maintained between the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Secretary General of NATO. Actions taken by the Alliance in support of UN Security Council resolutions both during and after the conflict and the role of the Kosovo Force (KFOR) established on the basis of UN Security Council resolution 1244 of 12 June 1999 to provide an international security presence as the prerequisite for peace and reconstruction of Kosovo, are described in Chapter 5.

NATO's role in crisis management in the Balkans has led to an intensification of cooperation with the UN. The Secretary General of NATO reports regularly to the UN Secretary General on progress in NATO-led operations and on other key decisions of the North Atlantic Council in the area of crisis management. Increased sharing of information between NATO and the UN also takes place in the context of the international campaign against terrorism, following the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. In general, working contacts between the two organisations have become more frequent and a number of high level visits take place between the UN and NATO every year. The UN remains at the core of the wider institutional framework within which the Alliance operates. Other institutional relationships contributing to this framework are described below."
NATO Handbook: The United Nations (UN)
 
Even in the early 90's the UN was begging off their responsibility to enforce their own resolutions.
 
Ron Mars said:
Even in the early 90's the UN was begging off their responsibility to enforce their own resolutions.
Click to expand...

Even more reason to encourage and support them in this instance. The US can no longer afford to be the world's policeman.
 
Catawba said:
Even more reason to encourage and support them in this instance. The US can no longer afford to be the world's policeman.
Click to expand...

How do we support an organization that gave Gaddafi a seat on the UNHRC?

I would very much like to see the UN regain it's legitimacy. The world needs an organization like the UN used to be.
 
Ron Mars said:
How do we support an organization that gave Gaddafi a seat on the UNHRC?

I would very much like to see the UN regain it's legitimacy. The world needs an organization like the UN used to be.
Click to expand...

They said that about the League of Nations too didn't they? I guess large, all encompassing bodies like the UN have no recourse other than corruption over time.

j-mac
 
Catawba said:
Even more reason to encourage and support them in this instance. The US can no longer afford to be the world's policeman.
Click to expand...



I don't support organizations that turn a blind eye to the war crimes of its peace keepers.
 
The US has a long record of supporting corrupt institutions they set up. Why not the UN?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom