Page 62 of 66 FirstFirst ... 12526061626364 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 657

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

  1. #611
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    I'll listen. I am willing to be convinced. But I am not yet.
    I will try to persuade you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    Is Libya doing something comparable in preparation to invade another country?
    Has Libya invaded another country like Japan invading China?
    The analogy, holds, in those days they Japan and Germany were not in our critical interest, but when not stopped, they became our critical interest in a bad way. Same with Libya, its not in our critical interest now, but it may in the future if it remains under Ghaddafi's control.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    But the interconnectedness of global players in and of itself doesn't inform us of what the best course of action is.
    We know what's right and what's wrong. We know what is good and what is bad. Generally, the correct course of action is the one that is good and right in general terms. For Libya, the UN and the world has condemned Ghaddafi's actions, the right course of action lies in that Ghaddafi's regime comes to an end, as echoed by heads of state of responsible countries around the world. For most situations, we know what's the right thing and what's the wrong thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    Agreed. But the case for war has to be absolutely compelling because it means that we become responsible for the deaths of innocents, it means we start a number of actions whose consequences we can't fully foresee. It's probably one of the most serious issues a nation can possibly face. The case for has to be very compelling.
    Sure. We could. But thinking it would be "easy" and hoping we share sympathies with people fighting a rotten regime is not enough.
    The case for inaction is just the same. More lives will be lost through inaction than through action, and that we know. Don't forget, if they do get a representative democracy, the lives of an entire country will be better off than they are.

  2. #612
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Actually, not entirely true. AQI was started by Iraqis. They lobbied al Qaeda for help against what they saw as an invading army. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not with al Qaeda in the begining. He joined after he was fighting us in Iraq.

    But the point is, destorying AQI is not equal to defeating al Qaeda. We beat Iraqis, or more accurately, Iraqis defeated them. It was the Sunni awakening that turned the tables, and this was largely an Iraqi movement. We wisely picked up on it and helped where we could, but that movement was more than significant.
    Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before OIF. He fled there after he was wounded in Afghanistan and started a terrorist trainning camp in NE Iraq.

    Never let actual facts destroy a perfectly good hoax.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  3. #613
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,927
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    The analogy, holds, in those days they Japan and Germany were not in our critical interest, but when not stopped, they became our critical interest in a bad way. Same with Libya, its not in our critical interest now, but it may in the future if it remains under Ghaddafi's control.
    So the "danger" from Libya isn't that they're invading or preparing to invade another country as in the examples you cited. It's not even that Libya is actually doing anything at the moment. Rather it is instead merely that MomoQ is in power and it may be that at some indefinite point in the future Libya may become a problem. And that potential to be a possible problem at some indefinite point in the future is the reason why we must act now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    We know what's right and what's wrong. We know what is good and what is bad. Generally, the correct course of action is the one that is good and right in general terms.
    Engaging in war without a solid reasons is wrong. That's the crux of the biscuit here. Since we haven't demonstrated a legitimate national interest, engaging in war is the wrong choice.
    War means that people die. Innocents are among those who will die. There are many unforeseeable consequences of our actions. Though they are unforeseeable, we become responsible for them anyway. These two things are not the only reasons why it is unconscionable to go to war when it is not necessary, but they are enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    For Libya, the UN and the world has condemned Ghaddafi's actions, the right course of action lies in that Ghaddafi's regime comes to an end, as echoed by heads of state of responsible countries around the world.
    Even if this is allowed as a given, it still doesn't make the case as to why we should be involved militarily to do so. It doesn't even make the case that military action is the best course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    The case for inaction is just the same. More lives will be lost through inaction than through action, and that we know.
    No, we don't know that at all. That's one of the reasons why we should engage in warfare when we have a reasonable choice not to. Further, it's not clear that establishing safe havens for non-combatants wouldn't prevent some unnecessary loss of life just as well or better w/o running the same risks associated with military intervention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    Don't forget, if they do get a representative democracy, the lives of an entire country will be better off than they are.
    AFAICT, your case for going to war is built upon ifs and maybes and held together with appeals to emotion.
    IMHO, that's not very compelling.

    If you personally want to go kill Libyans, I am sure there's a way. But I don't see the reason why the US military should be involved.
    I may be wrong.

  4. #614
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,927
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not with al Qaeda in the begining.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before OIF. He fled there after he was wounded in Afghanistan and started a terrorist trainning camp in NE Iraq.
    These things do not contradict each other, Ron Mars. FYI
    I may be wrong.

  5. #615
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    These things do not contradict each other, Ron Mars. FYI
    Whatever is known about Iraqi WMDs now, at the time the best intelligence we had available said that Saddam had chemical weapons, he was still trying to develop nuclear weapons, he was supporting terrorists even if there was no strong connection with Al Qaeda, and that if he supplied those weapons to a terrorist organization, not just Al Quaeda, the results could be devastating. 9-11 showed that we couldn't afford to just react to a terrorist attack, we had to be proactive and go after them before the attack. Hence the global war on terror, not a global war on Al Quaeda. AQ may be the most visible terrorist organization, but they are certainly not the only one and they are not the only one that hates the US and has the capability to mount attacks against Americans.

  6. #616
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,927
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    ... if he supplied those weapons to a terrorist organization ...
    And the best info on this at the time was that he wasn't likely to do so.

    The NIE said that Iraq was "drawing a line short of" attacking the US. NIE testimony before congresscritters was that the likelihood of Hussein initiating an attack directly OR BY PROXY in the foreseeable future was low.
    I may be wrong.

  7. #617
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

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

    We know some stuff was moved to Syria before the invasion. But, most of what we were looking for DID NOT EXIST.

    Curious thing though...During the months that Saddam was questioned before his execution, he admitted that he had run a disinformation program to make people think he had stuff hidden away. Primarily to keep the Iranians at bay. Unfortunately for him, he was too convincing.

  8. #618
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    Engaging in war without a solid reasons is wrong. That's the crux of the biscuit here. Since we haven't demonstrated a legitimate national interest, engaging in war is the wrong choice.
    War means that people die. Innocents are among those who will die. There are many unforeseeable consequences of our actions. Though they are unforeseeable, we become responsible for them anyway. These two things are not the only reasons why it is unconscionable to go to war when it is not necessary, but they are enough.
    No, inaction when you have the power to act is wrong. So let me get this straight, if there was a genocide or ethnic cleansing you wouldn't act because going to war is wrong and absent any critical interests, we shouldn't go to war unnecessarily. That is wrong in itself. In fact, international law requires countries to act if there is a genocide or ethnic cleansing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    No, we don't know that at all. That's one of the reasons why we should engage in warfare when we have a reasonable choice not to. Further, it's not clear that establishing safe havens for non-combatants wouldn't prevent some unnecessary loss of life just as well or better w/o running the same risks associated with military intervention.
    Yeah, we do know that. More lives will be saved by ending the war now then letting it prolong on to its own conclusion when Ghaddafi invades Misrata and Benghazi and kills all the rebels opposing him. Don't forget him using snipers in the streets and unleashing munitions on the people in general. The country will be much better off free than under a dictatorship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    So the "danger" from Libya isn't that they're invading or preparing to invade another country as in the examples you cited. It's not even that Libya is actually doing anything at the moment. Rather it is instead merely that MomoQ is in power and it may be that at some indefinite point in the future Libya may become a problem. And that potential to be a possible problem at some indefinite point in the future is the reason why we must act now?
    Let me give you an example: Afghanistan. For decades this country was under civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. People around the world forgot about this country and it became a failed state and a haven for terrorism. We lobbed some cruise missiles into it and then forgot about it again. All the while the Northern Alliance was requesting military assistance and aid. Fast forward to 2001, and it became the source and cause of the largest terrorist attack in American history. Your policy of apathy has led up to this disaster. My policy of intervention would have prevented this disaster in the 1990's. Your policy of only going to war when necessary doesn't work, you have to be proactive globally and involved. Now Libya may not become as dangerous as Afghanistan was, but the policy remains the same, you cannot allow failed states, havens, and dictatorships to develop.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    If you personally want to go kill Libyans, I am sure there's a way. But I don't see the reason why the US military should be involved.
    That's ridiculous, why would I want to kill Libyans? You're the one actually who wants to let them die in the streets and at the hands of African mercenaries and snipers paid to fight because going to war is 'wrong'. Well letting Libyans die is also wrong.

  9. #619
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,927
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    So let me get this straight, if there was a genocide or ethnic cleansing you wouldn't act because going to war is wrong and absent any critical interests, we shouldn't go to war unnecessarily. That is wrong in itself. In fact, international law requires countries to act if there is a genocide or ethnic cleansing.
    Is there genocide or ethnic cleansing going on in Libya?

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    Yeah, we do know that.
    I don't think this is as certain as you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    Let me give you an example: Afghanistan. For decades this country was under civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. People around the world forgot about this country and it became a failed state and a haven for terrorism. We lobbed some cruise missiles into it and then forgot about it again. All the while the Northern Alliance was requesting military assistance and aid. Fast forward to 2001, and it became the source and cause of the largest terrorist attack in American history. Your policy of apathy has led up to this disaster. My policy of intervention would have prevented this disaster in the 1990's. Your policy of only going to war when necessary doesn't work, you have to be proactive globally and involved. Now Libya may not become as dangerous as Afghanistan was, but the policy remains the same, you cannot allow failed states, havens, and dictatorships to develop.
    And is Libya a failed state like Afghanistan?

    Why can't each incident be evaluated on its own merits rather than trying to stretch my comments about Libya into something they are not and applying them situations that are not Libya and then arguing against that?
    I may be wrong.

  10. #620
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,927
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    We know some stuff was moved to Syria before the invasion.
    There is not much evidence underlying this "knowledge"

    http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/Duel.../Addendums.pdf
    Addendums to the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD
    ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent several months examining documents, interviewing former Iraqi officials , examining previous intelligence reports, and conducting some site investigations. The declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when
    circumstances on the ground improve.
    The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq—at least when there was considerable profit for those involved. Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.
    ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
    Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation.
    It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that conclusive information would have been found.
    At best, barring discovery of original documentary evidence of the transfer, reports or sources may have been substantiated or negated, but firm conclusions on actual WMD movements may not be possible.
    Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.
    Note that "WMD-related materials" ≠ WMDs
    I may be wrong.

Page 62 of 66 FirstFirst ... 12526061626364 ... 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
  •