• 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]

This is the first issue in quite a while that I have seen both conservatives and liberals split on in their own parties. People are actually saying what they think instead of just following party lines (except Gingrich and a few others).

I am just glad we waited for a UN Resolution and support from the Arab League.

That's true. I wish he would have led this from the beginning and started a few weeks ago.

I hope he finds his feet. He has a real chance to earn that Peace Prize.
 
No, Bush did. His people did. Look at where the evidence presented came from. The free world did not buy Bush's argument. Most believed he had some left over wmds, not that he was growing and gathering. That silliness came from Chalibi and his heros in error, cruveball, and al Libi. You should read more. It is also why Feith was found to have inaproriately using intel.

If you would only read the report you can see for yourself.
 
Negative. UNSCOM reports are available to anyone.
I have read these things and did not find any such thing as you assert.
If you do not wish to debate, perhaps you are in the wrong forum.
In debate, the person who makes and assertion, such as, "UNSCOM made a case for invading Iraq and used information from Curveball to do so," is obligated to provide backing for their assertion.

If you are not willing to do so, please concede instead.
 
During Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television
shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who
would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President
had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from
Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk"
the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.
http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf
 
During Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television
shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who
would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President
had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from
Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk"
the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.
http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf
And what is it that you are asserting that this text demonstrates?
 
I have read these things and did not find any such thing as you assert.
If you do not wish to debate, perhaps you are in the wrong forum.
In debate, the person who makes and assertion, such as, "UNSCOM made a case for invading Iraq and used information from Curveball to do so," is obligated to provide backing for their assertion.

If you are not willing to do so, please concede instead.

The link for this info no longer works. It's from a Jewish organization and the info was compiled from UNSCOM reports:

“But, there have been no UN-mandated weapons inspections in Iraq since 1998, and the Assessment notes, "Based on the UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council in January 1999 and earlier UNSCOM reports, we assess that when the UN inspectors left Iraq they were unable to account for:
Up to 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tons of VX nerve agent.
Up to 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, including approx. 300 tons, which, in the Iraqi chemical warfare program, were unique to the production of VX.
Growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 liters of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured).
Over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents."
The Assessment adds, "The departure of UNSCOM meant that the international community was unable to establish the truth behind these large discrepancies and greatly diminished its ability to monitor and assess Iraq's continuing attempts to reconstitute its programs."
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/artic...2/documentid/1759/history/3,2359,650,122,1759
 
Last edited:
It does look like chaos right now in Libya. 0bama is hopefully realizing he has to lead the free world on this one.

When the carriers show up I'll know he's finally realized that to remove Gaddafi it will take a bigger effort.

I'm willing to give 0bama a lot of room to find his feet. So far he's been less than encouraging.

We need to get behind him right now. Especially those like myself who previously found much to criticize about his Presidency.

He's getting this one right IMO. He must have the courage and will to see this through. We should support him.

He's not getting this one right. How long have we been in Iraq, how much money have we spent? How many Americans have died for crap that is not our problem? And you want more? Bigger government, bigger war, more spending, higher debt. Really?
 
I have never witnessed a cluster**** of government as I have with Obama and his administration's handling of Libya.

Were you asleep during Bush's handling of Afghanistan and Iraq? Cause it's about the same level of incompetence.
 
That Joe Wilson started the hoax Bush lied about pre-war WMD intelligence.
You should also show that no one else had started this before him and that the things that came after him were the result of his actions.
Until then you have not demonstrated what you think you have demonstrated.
 
He's not getting this one right. How long have we been in Iraq, how much money have we spent? How many Americans have died for crap that is not our problem? And you want more? Bigger government, bigger war, more spending, higher debt. Really?

Good arguments however I believe the free world is right to act on behalf of the Libyan people and I support 0bama on this one.

Hopefully he will realize that a strong show of force will errode support for Gaddafi within his military and force him out of power.
 
I have never witnessed a cluster**** of government as I have with Obama and his administration's handling of Libya.

Did you forget about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Bush and his administration handled those pretty poorly. This Libyan stuff hasn't even gone on long enough to qualify as a "cluster****". Let's talk in 6 months. Nice try though.
 
Good arguments however I believe the free world is right to act on behalf of the Libyan people and I support 0bama on this one.

Hopefully he will realize that a strong show of force will errode support for Gaddafi within his military and force him out of power.

The free world has no right to interfere. Libya is a sovereign nation, the Libyan people are responsible for it. If they want to get rid of their government, they need to make and plan and do it. We are not part of the governed in Libya, thus we have no rightful say in their government. Monkeying around in the governments of others has rarely worked out well for us. People want to sit around and bitch about NPR funding and this and that, yet in one day we pissed through nearly 40 years of NPR funding blowing up bits of Libya. Our soldiers are at risk, our brethren are dying, our debt is skyrocketing, our government is becoming more and more out of control. We can't be wasting time "bringing democracy" to the world. Our government was never authorized to do such thing. We are not the World Police, we are not an imperial force which can go in, occupy, and control areas well. We are the United States of America and our military should act ONLY in defense of the United States of America. I should not have to pay for other people's defense.
 
The entire intelligence community of the free world did not rely on these sources alone as you would know if you read the Senate report. In fact very little.

But who did use these sources to make a case for invading Iraq? Who could that be?

UNSCOM did.

cite please

also cite for UNSCOM making a case for invading Iraq.

Negative. UNSCOM reports are available to anyone.

I have read these things and did not find any such thing as you assert.
If you do not wish to debate, perhaps you are in the wrong forum.
In debate, the person who makes and assertion, such as, "UNSCOM made a case for invading Iraq and used information from Curveball to do so," is obligated to provide backing for their assertion.

If you are not willing to do so, please concede instead.

The link for this info no longer works. It's from a Jewish organization and the info was compiled from UNSCOM reports:

“But, there have been no UN-mandated weapons inspections in Iraq since 1998, and the Assessment notes, "Based on the UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council in January 1999 and earlier UNSCOM reports, we assess that when the UN inspectors left Iraq they were unable to account for:
Up to 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tons of VX nerve agent.
Up to 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, including approx. 300 tons, which, in the Iraqi chemical warfare program, were unique to the production of VX.
Growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 liters of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured).
Over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents."
The Assessment adds, "The departure of UNSCOM meant that the international community was unable to establish the truth behind these large discrepancies and greatly diminished its ability to monitor and assess Iraq's continuing attempts to reconstitute its programs."
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/artic...2/documentid/1759/history/3,2359,650,122,1759
Which part of the above comes from Curveball?
 
The free world has no right to interfere. Libya is a sovereign nation, the Libyan people are responsible for it. If they want to get rid of their government, they need to make and plan and do it. We are not part of the governed in Libya, thus we have no rightful say in their government. Monkeying around in the governments of others has rarely worked out well for us. People want to sit around and bitch about NPR funding and this and that, yet in one day we pissed through nearly 40 years of NPR funding blowing up bits of Libya. Our soldiers are at risk, our brethren are dying, our debt is skyrocketing, our government is becoming more and more out of control. We can't be wasting time "bringing democracy" to the world. Our government was never authorized to do such thing. We are not the World Police, we are not an imperial force which can go in, occupy, and control areas well. We are the United States of America and our military should act ONLY in defense of the United States of America. I should not have to pay for other people's defense.

  1. Libya violated the human rights of its people, therefore it has forfeited the protections of the right of sovereignty.
  2. With the loss of sovereignty, we have the right to intercede in the ongoing enslavement of the Libyan people and promote democracy.
  3. Actively spreading democracy is acting in the defense of the United States of America.
 
The free world has no right to interfere. Libya is a sovereign nation, the Libyan people are responsible for it. If they want to get rid of their government, they need to make and plan and do it.

They did exactly that. They were gunned down in the streets and driven all the way to Benghazi.

Helping to establish free and peaceful governments when possible is in the interest of the US as it is for all free nations IMO.
 
  1. Libya violated the human rights of its people, therefore it has forfeited the protections of the right of sovereignty.
  2. With the loss of sovereignty, we have the right to intercede in the ongoing enslavement of the Libyan people and promote democracy.
  3. Actively spreading democracy is acting in the defense of the United States of America.

That might be the way we would like the world to work, Reefedjib, but it is taking on a lot of responsibility that the American people shouldn't shoulder. Unless other democracies get involved in these humanitarian efforts it is the American people who will suffer, both in financial terms and in terms of lives lost. And as you have probably noticed, the United States is not particularly admired for their efforts, despite many of the complainants being the recipient themselves of American aid and assistance.

It is a pity but the Americans can't save everyone but sometimes we just have to pick our moments and Libya, I don't believe, is one of them.
 
They did exactly that. They were gunned down in the streets and driven all the way to Benghazi.

Helping to establish free and peaceful governments when possible is in the interest of the US as it is for all free nations IMO.

Sure it is, but then all free nationns shoud be participating. Germany, as just one example, is setting on the sidelines, as well as their friends the Swiss. These are the profiteers of war and the humanitarian angle holds no interest for them.
 
  1. Libya violated the human rights of its people, therefore it has forfeited the protections of the right of sovereignty.
  2. With the loss of sovereignty, we have the right to intercede in the ongoing enslavement of the Libyan people and promote democracy.
  3. Actively spreading democracy is acting in the defense of the United States of America.

There's no loss of sovereignty for what they did. There are no laws above a sovereign, that's what it means to be sovereign.

And #3 is complete and utter horse****.
 
They did exactly that. They were gunned down in the streets and driven all the way to Benghazi.

Helping to establish free and peaceful governments when possible is in the interest of the US as it is for all free nations IMO.

Well if they're gunned down, they didn't get rid of their government. While it may be in our "interest" (which I don't buy because rarely have we interfered in foreign governments and have it work out great), it is not in our defense. Thus it is improper use of our military. American lives are not worth Libyan independence. They must fight for themselves. Otherwise we will get another Iraq, which we're still wasting life, time, and money on.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom