• 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!

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

Ron Mars said:
I'm sorry but you will have to try this on someone else.

My memory isn't that bad yet. I haven't forgotten the first decade of this century.
Click to expand...

Both parties believe in spreading democracy in the interests of U.S...that's not difficult to remember. The conservative (in the literal sense of the word) foreign policy that I want is no where to be found, which is why I was, as I said, "not surprised". Thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Simon W. Moon said:
You forgot the main reason, the reason that really sold the war--the threat to the US that had to be dealt with immediately.
Click to expand...
Well...ya know...if you ask every elected democrat official from 1992 til after Bush declared war (or at least read their comments) on Iraq, Hussein, and their possession and use of WMDs you would certainly find that every democrat supported that notion...right up until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. Thats why I hate politicians and mindless ideologues.
Click to expand...
So, for a decade or so "every elected democrat official" thought that Saddam had to be dealt with immediately? Are you sure?
Perhaps they just recognized the danger but didn't think of Hussein as an imminent threat that had to be dealt with immediately.
I don't know if such a distinction can be made. Can it?
Is it possible to recognize a potential threat and at the same time to recognize that the threat is not an immediate, imminent one that needs to be dealt with posthaste? Is that even possible?
 
Ron Mars said:
I don't care if the Libyan people like us or not. As long as the new government is free and peaceful it's a win-win for the US and the free world.
Click to expand...

To assume that everyone else would naturally want to give up their chains to be like us. Well they don't. They like doing things their way for the most part and those differences make it difficult to impossible to run a country the way we do. UNLESS WE DESTROY THEIR CULTURE AND REPLACE IT WITH OUR OWN. And that is something we will never do. We don't have the will to start it or to carry it out over the generations necessary to achieve it. Hell, we've stopped making immigrants to this country adopt the American culture, so what makes anyone think we'd do it to someone else in another country!!

Waht will happen is one of those false rebel presidents will just keep getting elected. And they'll ask for monetary support from the US and forgiveness of debts by the European countries. That will be the worst case scenario.

Who will pay for that? Take a guess
 
ric27 said:
What we're doing now is just gambling that the false rebels will win with our support. What we're putting on the gambling table are American lives that will be lost if a successful Gadafi/Kaddafi retaliates against us with a terror attack.

If Gaddafi wants to weather the storm he needs to pull his forces into civ territory and wait until the "false" rebels make their move. We end up with a divided country and have another Somalia.

That’s what you want, right?
Click to expand...

That's certainly a possible outcome.

The "false" rebels might win, chase out Gaddafi, and establish a free and peaceful government. IMO that's always been the best outcome since this started a month ago and we should do everything short of thousands of US Marines to see it through.
 
theplaydrive said:
Both parties believe in spreading democracy in the interests of U.S...that's not difficult to remember. The conservative (in the literal sense of the word) foreign policy that I want is no where to be found, which is why I was, as I said, "not surprised". Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge.

We're talking about 0bama's blatant hypocricy on the issue of the President using military force. Not what past Presidents have done.
 
Whovian said:
considering the 1st post in this thread, I'm not sure how he'd be able to say that with a straight face.
Click to expand...
Considering the actual quote, one has to wave away the more obvious meaning of the words to reach the conclusion that the WH is "installing a democratic system" instead of the what the sentence structure actually dictates—the Libyan people are the installers of the "democratic system".

Sentence diagramming FTW.
 
Ron Mars said:
Nice dodge.

We're talking about 0bama's blatant hypocricy on the issue of the President using military force. Not what past Presidents have done.
Click to expand...

You brought up hypocrisy. This (democracy) has been my point the entire time. Gettin' caught up on your own straw man, I see.
 
ric27 said:
To assume that everyone else would naturally want to give up their chains to be like us. Well they don't. They like doing things their way for the most part and those differences make it difficult to impossible to run a country the way we do. UNLESS WE DESTROY THEIR CULTURE AND REPLACE IT WITH OUR OWN. And that is something we will never do. We don't have the will to start it or to carry it out over the generations necessary to achieve it. Hell, we've stopped making immigrants to this country adopt the American culture, so what makes anyone think we'd do it to someone else in another country!!

Waht will happen is one of those false rebel presidents will just keep getting elected. And they'll ask for monetary support from the US and forgiveness of debts by the European countries. That will be the worst case scenario.

Who will pay for that? Take a guess
Click to expand...

Nobody is suggesting that we want to change the Libyan's culture or establish a US style democracy there.

That will be up to the Libyan people and as long as they are free and peaceful it's a very positive thing for the free world.

Tyrants around the world with itchy trigger fingers are paying attention to the resolve of the free world and especially the US.
 
theplaydrive said:
You brought up hypocrisy. This (democracy) has been my point the entire time. Gettin' caught up on your own straw man, I see.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh.......no, 0bama's own statements require no clairification.

Senator/Candidate 0bama would be opposed to what President 0bama is doing today.
 
MaggieD said:
I was one of those who didn't understand what it took to establish a NFZ. Naive', I guess. What's going on now? IMO, we're fighting an undeclared war. Again. Afreakin'gain!

Congress owes it to the people of the USA to go after a President's authority -- clarify it/limit it -- to commit our billions/resources/soldiers' lives w/o their approval.
Click to expand...
you got it now maggieD another undeclared war where's the CHANGE?
 
VanceMack said:
Setting the over-the-top rhetotric aside...

Exactly where do you get the notion we dont care about the homeless or starving in this country? There are countless private organizations as well as local state and federal that work daily to feed and house people. And no...we didnt 'defeat' global terrorism, that doesnt make the reality that Saddam supported global terrorism less true. And the claim re WMDS was that Iraq refused to comply with UN resolutions demanding an accounting of their WMDs...something we still dont have. The UN passed 17 separate resolutions demanding Iraq state where the chemical weapons are that were cataloged post GW1. Weapons everyone knew or at least believed he posessed...EVERYONE...including every elected democrat long before Bush2. Three primary reasons...agree with them or disagree...but thats what was given. Genocide was used by Clinton and now Obama as their primary motivation for staking us to war against the Serbs and now Libya. Its apparently a relevant reason...when it is a democrat taking us to war.
Click to expand...
genocide was also the reason bush gave us. and not EVERYONE not me.
 
Ron Mars said:
Ahhhh.......no, 0bama's own statements require no clairification.

Senator/Candidate 0bama would be opposed to what President 0bama is doing today.
Click to expand...
yeah i'm with you and "let me be clear" this is the most CLEAR admin. ever.
 
Ron Mars said:
Ahhhh.......no, 0bama's own statements require no clairification.

Senator/Candidate 0bama would be opposed to what President 0bama is doing today.
Click to expand...

My point was that my original comment that you responded to here:

theplaydrive said:
I'm so sick of this ****...but it's not like I didn't expect it.
Click to expand...

had nothing to with hypocrisy...but the foreign policy of both parties, which I had already explained earlier in the thread, here:

theplaydrive said:
I expected it because the United States, under every party, has a history of undertaking the difficult task of nation-building even when its on the brink of military and economic overstretch.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I made no comments about hypocrisy. Your straw man. Again, thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
Ron Mars said:
Nice dodge.

We're talking about 0bama's blatant hypocricy on the issue of the President using military force. Not what past Presidents have done.
Click to expand...
no we ARE talking about the blatant hyprocricy of past presidents too bush comes to mind as well as the current one.
 
Ron Mars said:
The **** sandwich isn't very good is it?
Click to expand...

I can't answer a question about a type of food that I've never had. Remember, I'm a liberal elitist, we only eat the very best.
 
Ron Mars said:
Then you're either functionally illiterate or driven 100% by politics.

I'll take door #2.
Click to expand...

That's you way of ignoring the truth. I understand. But it doesn't change the facts.
 
Ron Mars said:
The guy who started the hoax admits he made it up.
Click to expand...

Meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. The issue is about the facts, and has nothing to do with any person whatsoever.
 
Boo Radley said:
Meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. The issue is about the facts, and has nothing to do with any person whatsoever.
Click to expand...

It's meaningless that the guy who started the "Bush Lied" hoax admits he made it up?

Fake but true? Is that it?

Dan Rather tried that and it didn’t work for him either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom