• 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!

Doubts Mount on Libya War

ksu_aviator said:
Only faster. I think every President would have reacted when the protestors began getting shot and bombed. This only turned into a civil war because of the bombings and shootings. It could have easily ended peacefully.
Click to expand...

When has that every hapened? Not Iraq, Saddam was killing his own people for years and years. Not Rwanada, we never went. Not the Yugoslavian break up, that took years as well.
 
ksu_aviator said:
First, name calling isn't needed. We all know that Moore's opinion isn't worth what we pay for it...even if it is free.

Second, when good people see evil and do nothing they are accomplices of evil.
Click to expand...

What Moore is doing is speaking out. What he and others like myself are doing in speaking out against the war. For example, when I talk to my friends about politics, I go and tell them why we shouldn't be in Libya. We are speaking out, not because we dislike Obama (some are against the war in Libya only because of that), but rather because we truly think that Libya should not be bombed.
 
VanceMack said:
Are you advocating that we should have launched air attacks against Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain? Should we be imposing no fly zones and pressing for more severe UN sanctions against China and North Korea? It just seems rather selective were we are justifying the use of force.

I dont know about how this could have ended 'peacefully'. Those 'rebels' we are supporting actually seem pretty well armed.
Click to expand...

There are actually terrorist elements among the Libyan rebels.
 
Why is Obama STILL refusing to articulate our mission in Libya to the American people? Why can't he bring himself to say that our goal is the removal of Gaddafi's regime? No one believes him when he says that we aren't after Gaddafi, and Obama knows this perfectly well. The US can bomb Gaddafi's troops, provide military support to the rebels, publicly call for Gaddafi to leave, attack his compound, and state that Libya needs a democratic transition...but is Obama trying to remove Gaddafi from power? Why no, nothing could be further from his mind! :roll:
 
VanceMack said:
Are you advocating that we should have launched air attacks against Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain? Should we be imposing no fly zones and pressing for more severe UN sanctions against China and North Korea? It just seems rather selective were we are justifying the use of force.

I dont know about how this could have ended 'peacefully'. Those 'rebels' we are supporting actually seem pretty well armed.
Click to expand...

BP has billions invested in Libya. Maybe that has something to do with selection?
 
VanceMack said:
Are you advocating that we should have launched air attacks against Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain? Should we be imposing no fly zones and pressing for more severe UN sanctions against China and North Korea? It just seems rather selective were we are justifying the use of force.

I dont know about how this could have ended 'peacefully'. Those 'rebels' we are supporting actually seem pretty well armed.
Click to expand...

If we're going to do it in Libya, then yes, or not at all.
 
apdst said:
If we're going to do it in Libya, then yes, or not at all.
Click to expand...

That is aboslutely idiotic policy. Should we have invaded the UK because they had WMDs? Foreign policy should always be based on the specific circumstances of any event. It is practical to get involved with Libya because there is both a substantial interntal movement against Qadaffi in addition to international support. Other nations don't have said cirumstances and thus it isn't practical to intervene.
 
iamitter said:
Wow, such a big war we have so far. How many troops exactly do we have there?

I didn't support going into Libya, but I really don't like Moore =/

Also, hillary probably would have done the same thing he did.
Click to expand...

Frankly I think Hillary could have handled this whole Libya thing herself, personally. :lol:
 
VanceMack said:
Are you advocating that we should have launched air attacks against Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain? Should we be imposing no fly zones and pressing for more severe UN sanctions against China and North Korea? It just seems rather selective were we are justifying the use of force.

I dont know about how this could have ended 'peacefully'. Those 'rebels' we are supporting actually seem pretty well armed.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
So any time there's a protest and somebody gets shot, we should bomb that country?

Doesn't it say somewhere that violence begets violence?
Click to expand...

Kandahar said:
So you're in favor of intervening in every country in the world that has human rights problems? Or should I interpret that in the more literal sense, that as long as you don't "see evil" on television, it's out of sight and out of mind?
Click to expand...

iamitter said:
We are not the world's police. We can't stop every tragedy from occurring and we can't afford to try.
Click to expand...

What the hell?! When did the choice become do nothing or go to world war III? All I'm saying is that in this case under these circumstances, enforcing a no fly zone and bombing strategic targets seems to be a good choice. Good lord people, let's not jump from one extreme to another.
 
Kandahar said:
That's a cop-out answer. Obama knows damn well that the UN wouldn't have requested such a thing unless the US supported it.
Click to expand...
So you believe the US supported putting Libya on the UN Human Rights Coucil?

Only Democrats even care what the massively corrupt UN thinks.
 
ksu_aviator said:
What the hell?! When did the choice become do nothing or go to world war III? All I'm saying is that in this case under these circumstances, enforcing a no fly zone and bombing strategic targets seems to be a good choice. Good lord people, let's not jump from one extreme to another.
Click to expand...

You said that people who see evil and don't stop it are complicit, so I assumed you meant that as a general principle rather than something specific to this conflict. If you only meant to apply it to Libya, why does Libya get that distinction? What sets it apart from South Sudan or Cote d'Ivoire?

And what is it about this particular set of circumstances makes you think that enforcing a no fly zone and bombing strategic targets is a good choice? When has that particular strategy EVER succeeded in producing the desired changes? Even our greatest "success" story of intervention - Kosovo - was a humanitarian catastrophe and in the long term a political regret, even though we had short-term tactical successes.
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
So you believe the US supported putting Libya on the UN Human Rights Coucil?
Click to expand...

What?

Erod said:
Only Democrats even care what the massively corrupt UN thinks.
Click to expand...

My point is that Obama can't hide behind the "Just doing what the UN resolution says" excuse, because he's the one that put the UN up to this in the first place.
 
Erod said:
So you believe the US supported putting Libya on the UN Human Rights Coucil?

Only Democrats even care what the massively corrupt UN thinks.
Click to expand...

Ya no Republican would send the Secretary of State for example to the UN in order to get a resolution and UN approval to invade a country



Ohh....

But not a true blood like Reagan

Cannot swords be turned to plowshares? Can we and all nations not live in peace? In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask you, is not an alien force already among us? What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?
~President Reagan in 1987 in the UN General Assembly
Click to expand...

Ohh.. Oh my
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
Socialists don't like Obama and never did... he isn't as extreme or radical as the right pretends he is.
Click to expand...

It would be calamitous for the country if BHO was mainstream. Right now he's radical enough that very few trust him. Do you trust him?
 
Grant said:
It would be calamitous for the country if BHO was mainstream. Right now he's radical enough that very few trust him. Do you trust him?
Click to expand...

Really? More approve of him than disapprove, according to Fox News.
 
SheWolf said:
Socialists don't like Obama and never did... he isn't as extreme or radical as the right pretends he is.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with how he handled Libya?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom