Page 35 of 66 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 657

Thread: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

  1. #341
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,918
    Blog Entries
    5

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Well they really didn't have a delivery system to actually hit us directly, and there was no proof of any proxy type attack. As such we had no reason at all to wage war against Iraq.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    The missiles Saddam was developing could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME.
    I notice that two different time frames being referenced here. The former references what was at the time, the present case and situation. The latter references some indefinite time in what was a potential future.
    Given this discrepancy, the latter doesn't actually seem to contradict the former.
    I may be wrong.

  2. #342
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Yes, but I think what matters is the reality of the world at the time you make the decision, at at the time Saddam was no threat to us. If they had the capabilities of striking the 50 states proper directly and demonstrated the intent to do so, I think you'd have a much stronger case for intervention. But there was none of that. Saddam was more likely to saber rattle to make himself seem like a big man, but with no intent of backing it up than anything else. Dictators tend to like being in charge and Saddam knew that if he were to seriously provoke the US, he wouldn't be dictator much longer. We probably surprised the **** out of him by making the decision for intervention and entering into our decade war in Iraq which still to this day hasn't ended.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #343
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    Who or what would you declare war against?
    Iraq for one. We went up against the sovereign nation and existing government. We should probably have necessitated an actual declaration of war for that one.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #344
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yes, but I think what matters is the reality of the world at the time you make the decision, at at the time Saddam was no threat to us.
    How do you know Saddam was no theat to anyone? Did you have that knowledge prior to the invasion or was your opinion formed much later?


    If they had the capabilities of striking the 50 states proper directly and demonstrated the intent to do so, I think you'd have a much stronger case for intervention. But there was none of that.
    You're overlooking US commitments to their Allies, the UN , agreements from the previous Gulf War, and so on.

    Saddam was more likely to saber rattle to make himself seem like a big man, but with no intent of backing it up than anything else. Dictators tend to like being in charge and Saddam knew that if he were to seriously provoke the US, he wouldn't be dictator much longer. We probably surprised the **** out of him by making the decision for intervention and entering into our decade war in Iraq which still to this day hasn't ended.
    You really don't know that the US military was on his borders for several months prepared to invade and prior to the invasion Saddam was given the opportunity to leave in order to avoid that invasion?

    How do you know Saddam was no theat to anyone? Did you have that knowledge prior to the invasion or was it formed much later?

  5. #345
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,918
    Blog Entries
    5

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yes, but I think what matters is the reality of the world at the time you make the decision, at at the time Saddam was no threat to us. If they had the capabilities of striking the 50 states proper directly and demonstrated the intent to do so, I think you'd have a much stronger case for intervention.
    If this were the case, GBW wouldn't've needed to formulate the Bush Doctrine to try and make pre-emption the equivalent of preventive war in newspeak.

    Also, many, many more people would've wholeheartedly supported the invasion.
    I may be wrong.

  6. #346
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    How do you know Saddam was no theat to anyone? Did you have that knowledge prior to the invasion or was your opinion formed much later?
    All the data at the time said that Saddam did not have the capabilities of hitting the United States proper. Nor did he have any indication of desire to actually do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You're overlooking US commitments to their Allies, the UN , agreements from the previous Gulf War, and so on.
    Who was he going to hit? Do you have actual proof that he was gearing up to actually launch military action? Or is this a "he kinda had something and was totally working on some other stuff over here that could maybe be a threat if you squint"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You really don't know that the US military was on his borders for several months prepared to invade and prior to the invasion Saddam was given the opportunity to leave in order to avoid that invasion?

    How do you know Saddam was no theat to anyone? Did you have that knowledge prior to the invasion or was it formed much later?
    Why should he have left? On what authority did we have to dispose of a sovereign leader? Saddam was in no way a threat to the United States and as such there is no need to involve ourselves militarily on the issue.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #347
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,732

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Repeat after me......

    Mission creep.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  8. #348
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    If this were the case, GBW wouldn't've needed to formulate the Bush Doctrine to try and make pre-emption the equivalent of preventive war in newspeak.

    Also, many, many more people would've wholeheartedly supported the invasion.
    If it could have been proven that Saddam not only had the capability of hitting the 50 States proper but also the intent to do so, then yes it would have become a much simpler solution which could have been supported by well more people.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #349
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Repeat after me......

    Mission creep.
    War is Peace
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #350
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If it could have been proven that Saddam not only had the capability of hitting the 50 States proper but also the intent to do so, then yes it would have become a much simpler solution which could have been supported by well more people.
    Yes, both would be required and it would make a difference. Of course, that was not the case.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 35 of 66 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •