• 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]

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.

Yup. We have no rightful say in anyone else's government. The people of the land lend their consent to their government, and that's where their government draws power. Unless you are part of the governed, you have no rightful say in the make up and function of that government. We are responsible to our government alone. Other people have to fight for theirs.
 
Or close to that mark at least. Our military should be defensive (our defense) only.
It's well established that if a country is going to attack you, it's just to attack them first. This has been the case for at least centuries. We don't have to wait until missiles are launched or shots fired or a navy arrives on our shores. We just have to have cause to believe that we will be attacked.
 
It's well established that if a country is going to attack you, it's just to attack them first. This has been the case for at least centuries. We don't have to wait until missiles are launched or shots fired or a navy arrives on our shores. We just have to have cause to believe that we will be attacked.

That's why I said "or close to that mark at least".
 
president obama, if mr khadafi is not removed from libya, how can the coalition's purported mission of protecting civilian lives succeed?

president obama, if khadafi is ousted, what will replace him?

president obama, are you sure you've thought these things thru?

how, sir, could you commit our military to a mission of overseas VIOLENCE without first considering these inevitable eventualities?

especially in times like these, mr president, when we as a nation are BROKE?

president obama, are the answers or non-responses to any of these questions responsible for hillary clinton's being "pushed over the edge?"

in other words, why have blair, jones, mcchrystal, crowley and now hillary all left or announced their departure from your administration?

are you sure you know what you're doing, president obama?
 
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.
So the US should abandon its commitments to its Allies? That's a very big step, and one that should be debated publicly before it ever happens. But in any case we do know he tried to assassinate a US President.
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"?

We do know that everyone believed he had WMD and although you appear to be willing to not believe every world leader and intelligence expert, others are not so willing to take the chance with the lives of innocent people. Particularly given Saddam's wars, bombings, as well as his genocides, etc. You feel he should have been left there doing his mad dictatorial thing, huh?


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.

How do you know he was not a threat?

The US Government has the authority to do pretty much whatever it wants to do and Saddam Hussein had agreed to follow commitments he had made when the first Gulf War ended. He didn't honor those commitments despite given plenty of opportunity to do so. He also ignored the UN Resolutions. He deserved his fate.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes the best defense is an excellent defense.

That's quite profound. Send it on up to West Point and see what they have to say about your theory.

You might want to read the IPP report before you do that however:

From the beginning of his rise to power, one of Saddam's major
objectives was to shift the regional balance of power favorably towards Iraq. After
the 1991 Gulf War, pursuing this objective motivated Saddam and his regime to
increase their cooperation with-and attempts to manipulate-Islamic fundamentalists
and related terrorist organizations. Documents indicate that the regime's use
of terrorism was standard practice, although not always successful. From 1991
through 2003, the Saddam regime regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing, and
executing acts of terrorism as an element of state power.
 
More from the IPP report:

Secret Islamic Palestinian Organization established after the war. It believes
in armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests. They
also believe our leader [Saddam Hussein], may God protect him, is the true
leader in the war against the infidels. The organization's leaders live in
Jordan... when they visited Iraq two months ago they demonstrated a willingness
to carry out operations against American interests at any time.

In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US
humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed
the council member of Saddam's decision to "form a group to
start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia."

When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel
came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the
regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al
Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's longterm
vision. A directive (Extract 24) from the Director for International Intelligence
in the IIS to an Iraqi operative in Bahrain orders him to investigate a particular
terrorist group there, The Army of Muhammad.

Extract 24.
[July 2001]
We have learned of a group calling themselves The Army ofMuhammad... has
threatened Kuwaiti authorities and plans to attack American and Western interests
...We need detailed information about this group, their activities, their objectives,
and their most distinguished leaders. We need to know [to] whom
they belong to and with whom they are connected. Give this subject your utmost attention.

The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is
working with Osama bin Laden.

Extract 25.
[9 July 200 1]
Information available to us is that the group is under the wings of bin
Laden. They receive their directions from Yemen. Their objectives are the same as bin Laden...
A later note84 lists the group's objectives, among them:
• Jihad in the name of God.
• Striking the embassies and other Jewish and American interests anywhere
in the world.
• Attacking the American and British military bases in the Arab land.
• Striking American embassies and interests unless the Americans pull
out their forces from the Arab lands and discontinue their support for
Israel.
• Disrupting oil exports [to] the Americans from Arab countries and
threatening tankers carrying oil to them.

A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director
of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance
[from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has
been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established.
The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that "this organization is an offshoot
of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can
be a way of camouflaging the organization."

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously,
operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely.
Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some
ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.
 
Last edited:
That's quite profound. Send it on up to West Point and see what they have to say about your theory.

You might want to read the IPP report before you do that however:

From the beginning of his rise to power, one of Saddam's major
objectives was to shift the regional balance of power favorably towards Iraq. After
the 1991 Gulf War, pursuing this objective motivated Saddam and his regime to
increase their cooperation with-and attempts to manipulate-Islamic fundamentalists
and related terrorist organizations. Documents indicate that the regime's use
of terrorism was standard practice, although not always successful. From 1991
through 2003, the Saddam regime regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing, and
executing acts of terrorism as an element of state power.

I didn't see anything there that said that Saddam had not only the ability to strike the 50 States proper but also the intent to do so. You got maybe that? Or is this just more deflection?
 
More from the IPP report:

Secret Islamic Palestinian Organization established after the war. It believes
in armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests. They
also believe our leader [Saddam Hussein], may God protect him, is the true
leader in the war against the infidels. The organization's leaders live in
Jordan... when they visited Iraq two months ago they demonstrated a willingness
to carry out operations against American interests at any time.

In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US
humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed
the council member of Saddam's decision to "form a group to
start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia."

When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel
came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the
regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al
Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's longterm
vision. A directive (Extract 24) from the Director for International Intelligence
in the IIS to an Iraqi operative in Bahrain orders him to investigate a particular
terrorist group there, The Army of Muhammad.

Extract 24.
[July 2001]
We have learned of a group calling themselves The Army ofMuhammad... has
threatened Kuwaiti authorities and plans to attack American and Western interests
...We need detailed information about this group, their activities, their objectives,
and their most distinguished leaders. We need to know [to] whom
they belong to and with whom they are connected. Give this subject your utmost attention.

The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is
working with Osama bin Laden.

Extract 25.
[9 July 200 1]
Information available to us is that the group is under the wings of bin
Laden. They receive their directions from Yemen. Their objectives are the same as bin Laden...
A later note84 lists the group's objectives, among them:
• Jihad in the name of God.
• Striking the embassies and other Jewish and American interests anywhere
in the world.
• Attacking the American and British military bases in the Arab land.
• Striking American embassies and interests unless the Americans pull
out their forces from the Arab lands and discontinue their support for
Israel.
• Disrupting oil exports [to] the Americans from Arab countries and
threatening tankers carrying oil to them.

A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director
of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance
[from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has
been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established.
The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that "this organization is an offshoot
of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can
be a way of camouflaging the organization."

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously,
operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely.
Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some
ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Mmmmhmmmm, And all that said that Saddam could hit the US and intended to do so? Or did it say he'd maybe work sometimes with terrorist organizations to achieve his goals so long as he remained in charge? I think maybe something of that nature. Saddam didn't allow large scale operation of terrorist organizations in Iraq (it's not Saudi Arabia), he had some and he tried to irk people by offering money to families of suicide bombers; but he was absolute rule in Iraq, not Al-Queda.

Again, nothing you have presented has deminstrated any amount of immediate threat to America itself. In the end, we probably shouldn't have worked for regeim change in Iraq in the first place which helped promote the Ba'athist party to power from which Saddam rose up. Again, our interventionist policies (like those being championed by some for Libya) ultimately started the problem. We need to stop. It's not our job, our government is not empowered with this ability, it's a waste of our money, and more importantly it isn't worth the cost of American blood. Other people must fight for their governments and choose which types of governments they want to create.
 
I didn't see anything there that said that Saddam had not only the ability to strike the 50 States proper but also the intent to do so. You got maybe that? Or is this just more deflection?
Cut him some slack. I don't think it's intentional deflection.
 
You'll have to explain to me how it is we went into Iraq for their oil and now we're profiting from it.

Where are, we getting the cheap gas made from looted Iraqi oil?
it's not just oil it's the military machine. i still hold our young men and women should be brought home (saving a lot of $) and do what they pleged to do which is defend THIS country.
 
yeah i know. We spent all this money, ran an occupational war to "bring iraq freedom" and blah blah blah and didn't get **** to show for it. Great use of our military.
exactly!!!!
 
The day we leave Iraq? Iraqi troops are doing virtually all of the secutity and fighting.

I know people are still upset Iraq was a victory. Many of them were hoping for a Vietnam style defeat.
we won? well then bring them home!
 
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?




You're overlooking US commitments to their Allies, the UN , agreements from the previous Gulf War, and so on.



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?
our seventh fleet could sit outside our boarders and let nothing through. he was NO threat to us.
 
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.
nuclear is GREAT when it's working but when it's not working it IS the polar opposite of great it's a catostraphic event.
 
Mmmmhmmmm, And all that said that Saddam could hit the US and intended to do so? Or did it say he'd maybe work sometimes with terrorist organizations to achieve his goals so long as he remained in charge? I think maybe something of that nature. Saddam didn't allow large scale operation of terrorist organizations in Iraq (it's not Saudi Arabia), he had some and he tried to irk people by offering money to families of suicide bombers; but he was absolute rule in Iraq, not Al-Queda.

Again, nothing you have presented has deminstrated any amount of immediate threat to America itself. In the end, we probably shouldn't have worked for regeim change in Iraq in the first place which helped promote the Ba'athist party to power from which Saddam rose up. Again, our interventionist policies (like those being championed by some for Libya) ultimately started the problem. We need to stop. It's not our job, our government is not empowered with this ability, it's a waste of our money, and more importantly it isn't worth the cost of American blood. Other people must fight for their governments and choose which types of governments they want to create.
yes but if we did that then the military machine could not make it's money.
 
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.
i'll believe it when i see it.
 
I didn't see anything there that said that Saddam had not only the ability to strike the 50 States proper but also the intent to do so. You got maybe that? Or is this just more deflection?
Mmmmhmmmm, And all that said that Saddam could hit the US and intended to do so? Or did it say he'd maybe work sometimes with terrorist organizations to achieve his goals so long as he remained in charge?

Yeah, it really did. If you had read the report you would know that Saddam intended to send suicide bombers to America to kill a former President.

We know it was al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. It’s irrefutable that Saddam was willing “willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda”.

No deflection needed. The IPP report speaks for itself.

Saddam didn't allow large scale operation of terrorist organizations in Iraq,
he had some and he tried to irk people by offering money to families of suicide bombers; but he was absolute rule in Iraq, not Al-Queda.

Well of course he didn’t allow large scale terrorist organizations within Iraq. He didn’t want them attacking him. Seriously, you should read that statement again.

Saddam just trained, armed, fed and supplied thousands of jihadis within Iraq. But that’s just another big “so what” right. And never mind the small al Qaeda camp in NE Iraq that Saddam wasn’t supposedly able to get to. So that’s no big deal either.

Again, nothing you have presented has deminstrated any amount of immediate threat to America itself.

Just that Saddam was willing to work with “operatives affiliated with al Qaeda” whose stated goal was:

• Striking the embassies and other Jewish and American interests anywhere
in the world.

• Attacking the American and British military bases in the Arab land.
• Striking American embassies and interests unless the Americans pull
out their forces from the Arab lands and discontinue their support for
Israel.

Mmmmhmmmm…….. indeed.
 
tell me what else they have worth risking our young men and women's lives over?

The Iraqi people and those of other countries. The Iraqi people have demonstrated in the past they can live in peace with their neighbors. They are worth the effort and sacrifice.

The liberation of the Iraqi people wasn’t the primary stated mission in Iraq. It was to remove Saddam first so that Iraqi’s may join the free and peaceful nations once again.

There are many crap holes in the world where the people simply are not worth the effort. Nothing will change.
 
There are many crap holes in the world where the people simply are not worth the effort. Nothing will change.

Who are these "crap holes", why are they not worth the effort and why are you qualified to make that decision?
 
our seventh fleet could sit outside our boarders and let nothing through. he was NO threat to us.

And I can just imagine the chuckle the terrorist must have gotten as he flew out of Iraq on a commercial aircraft to kill President Bush leaving all those US ships behind.
 
Back
Top Bottom