• 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]

Last edited:
Libya is a caculated move to help President Obama get another humanitarian award from the U.N. (Don't think about the fact we ARE the U.N.), free press coverage and distract Americans that our country is broken. This will allow the presidents little minions to spin how he ousted an evil DICKtator and hopefully sit cumfy in the white house for another four years. So, Americans voted for change in Libya??
 
Simon W. Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Potential future?

You didn't read the stuff I posted in the WMD thread.

Saddam was developing missiles that could hit almost anywhere in Europe. Including US bases.

You have no excuse for not knowing this other than your own refusal to read.
 
Ron Mars said:
There is nothing wrong with oil companies buying oil from Libya if the money actually goes to address the needs of the Libyan people. Oil money in the ME has helped increase the standard of living for many people. It has also helped fuel (pun intended) jihadis and that point should not be overlooked. It's also making lots of despotic tyrants like Gaddafi very rich men.

It would be better if the US aggressively produced our own oil to be sold to legitimate public or private companies on the open market. Refining oil into dozens of products is not evil and neither are the companies and people who profit from that industry.
Click to expand...

As T. Boone Pickens said, we are not going to be able to drill our way out of this. We are going to need the equivalent of a Manhattan Project to develop alternative energy sources.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
To say "no threat" is an exaggeration. It's more accurate to say that Iraq was unlikely to attack us directly or by proxy in the foreseeable future. That's how the NIE testimony from the US intel community went anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, no threat would not be accurate. However, it would also be inaccurate to say they were a great threat, or an serious threat, or a growing threat, or imminent threat.

And with the NIE testimoney taken into account, how could the threat be seen as something that required invasion?
 
danarhea said:
As T. Boone Pickens said, we are not going to be able to drill our way out of this. We are going to need the equivalent of a Manhattan Project to develop alternative energy sources.
Click to expand...

For the time being producing more oil to be sold on the world market will decrease oil prices and thus the price of gasoline.

I'm all in favor of developing alternative means of energy if they work.

Besides nuclear, none of them show promise of replacing the coal and diesel burned to produce energy today.
 
Ron Mars said:
Potential future?
You didn't read the stuff I posted in the WMD thread.
Saddam was developing missiles that could hit almost anywhere in Europe. Including US bases.
You have no excuse for not knowing this other than your own refusal to read.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you're using the phrase "was developing" in a new and unusual sense. Usually, the phrase is thought to be somewhat different in meaning and tone that a word like "have," "had," or "has".

Examine these two example sentences to get a gist of how I am used to seeing the word used.
The missiles Saddam had could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME.
The missiles Saddam was developing could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME.​
Now, the first sentence, "The missiles Saddam had could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME," actually DOES contradict what Ikari wrote because it also talks about what actually existed at the time.

The second sentence, "The missiles Saddam was developing could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME," refers to developing missiles. Developing is different than having.

I hope you can see now that what my post is describing is not a contention of fact as you seem to think. Rather it is a contention that developing something that you don't have different than having that something.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Perhaps you're using the phrase "was developing" in a new and unusual sense. Usually, the phrase is thought to be somewhat different in meaning and tone that a word like "have," "had," or "has".

Examine these two example sentences to get a gist of how I am used to seeing the word used.
The missiles Saddam had could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME.
The missiles Saddam was developing could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME.​
Now, the first sentence, "The missiles Saddam had could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME," actually DOES contradict what Ikari wrote because it also talks about what actually existed at the time.

The second sentence, "The missiles Saddam was developing could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME," refers to developing missiles. Developing is different than having.

I hope you can see now that what my post is describing is not a contention of fact as you seem to think. Rather it is a contention that developing something that you don't have different than having that something.
Click to expand...

By all means. Let's wait until the missiles start raining down before we do something.
 
Ron Mars said:
By all means. Let's wait until the missiles start raining down before we do something.
Click to expand...
That's a very, very large leap from me pointing out that one of your statements didn't contradict one of Ikari's statements.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
That's a very, very large leap from me pointing out that one of your statements didn't contradict one of Ikari's statements.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't.

They are directly related.

You can sit by and wait for the attacks. Most of us would rather prevent them.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Actually, it is a huge and erroneous leap.
Click to expand...

So Saddam developing missiles that could reach our bases in Europe was an erroneous leap?

Sure Moon, whatever you say.

You can keep your head in the sand. You have lots of company.
 
So....apparently...

After doing nothing for about 4 weeks, we launched attacks...gave a few speeches...and...

Hows that Libya thing going on?
 
Ron Mars said:
So Saddam developing missiles that could reach our bases in Europe was an erroneous leap?
Click to expand...
Nope. That's not it at all.
I pointed out that what you said did not contradict what Ikari said. From there, you made an erroneous leap to reach the conclusion that I wanted to wait for Hussien's missile to rain down. That's the erroneous leap.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Nope. That's not it at all.
I pointed out that what you said did not contradict what Ikari said. From there, you made an erroneous leap to reach the conclusion that I wanted to wait for Hussien's missile to rain down. That's the erroneous leap.
Click to expand...

Keep saying that while clicking your heels three times. Maybe it will come true.

What is this thread about again?
 
Libyia is nto a US effort. It is a world effort. The US shold not be in the business of regime change or invading countries. We have, however, agreed to provide support to UN missions.
 
Ron Mars said:
Not well. 0bama punted to NATO.
Click to expand...

And that whole...we must act because innocent people being killed goes against our very nature as Americans thing...wahappun there??? Man we gots us a lot of fixin' to do in the world.
 
VanceMack said:
And that whole...we must act because innocent people being killed goes against our very nature as Americans thing...wahappun there??? Man we gots us a lot of fixin' to do in the world.
Click to expand...

The mission of helping people fight for their freedom is a worthwhile one.

I do not favor going into every ****hole in the world. Some here seem to be suggesting that it's everywhere or nowhere. I don't see it that way.

There are nations, like Somalia, Ivory Coast, Darfur and others where intervention would not solve anything and frankly the people are not worth the effort.

If you put Libya in the "not worth it" category I can understand that opinion but disagree.
 
yesterday: Robert Gates: U.S. Troops could stay in Iraq past end date - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

“So if folks here are going to want us to have a presence, we’re going to need to get on with it pretty quickly in terms of our planning,” [gates] said. “I think there is interest in having a continuing presence. The politics are such that we’ll just have to wait and see because the initiative ultimately has to come from the Iraqis.”
Click to expand...

disappointed?

again?

But since then, plenty of progress has been made, he said. Countries throughout the Middle East “would be happy if they could get where to Iraq is today — it isn’t perfect, but it’s new, and it is a democracy and people do have rights.”
Click to expand...

do you disagree with obama's secty of defense?
 
Ron Mars said:
By all means. Let's wait until the missiles start raining down before we do something.
Click to expand...

Or close to that mark at least. Our military should be defensive (our defense) only.
 
Ikari said:
Or close to that mark at least. Our military should be defensive (our defense) only.
Click to expand...

I largely agree. We should not invade on maybes or migth be's or could be's. We do not change regimes or militarily spread any ideaology no matter how positive that ideaoloogy might be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom