• 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]

majora$$hole said:
i'll believe it when i see it.
Click to expand...

Why this nation tolerates an energy policy that relies on foreign oil is something I will never understand.

Until there is a practical alternative to oil, and there will be someday, the US must develop its own oil resources.

It's in our national security interest to do so. We should have agressively done this after the last oil market swing.
 
It's really funny to watch lefties explain away a report they only learned about yesterday.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, Iraq was a very clear threat. Political posturing has hidden a lot of facts.

Coupla facts...

Saddam Hussein had previously possessed and used chemical and biological weapons.

He kicked out inspectors and refused to allow the UN to complete their inspections and verify that his NBC program and materials had been destroyed.

British and Russian intelligence services, in addition to American all stated that without a doubt, he possessed chemical, biological and nuclear materials in violation of 17 separate UN declarations.

Fact: Saddam was a large supporter of international terrorism. He funded terrorist activities in the Palestinian territories and paid (I think the number was $25,000 to the family of a suicide bomber).

He tried to hire the assassination of President Bush's father, the former President.

After 9/11, I believe that President Bush correctly concluded that based upon his past programs, his refusal to verify that his NBC program had been dismantled and the danger those materials would present in the hands of terrorists, Iraq was an imminent threat and needed to be made safe.

While no large stocks have been found, it was a fact that large numbers of Iraqi troops were issued gas masks and NBC protective gear, traces of chemical weapons were found, rockets with a range that exceeded the UN allowed limits were launched against Kuwait, and convoys of trucks were observed traveling from known weapons storage facilities to Syria.

So, wtf Saddam is dead and thats the end of it
 
ric27 said:
Actually, Iraq was a very clear threat. Political posturing has hidden a lot of facts.
Click to expand...

It is well accepted that the Iraq war was a preventive war - meaning that it was started in order to prevent an imminent threat from arising in the absence of an imminent threat. This is a huge reason why it is criticized. As Ikari stated, "nothing you have presented has demonstrated any amount of immediate threat to America itself." Iraq was a preventive war meant to prevent an imminent/immediate threat from developing - this is illegal in international law although Bush pretty much called that law ridiculous.

Preemptive war is declared when an imminent threat is present. Although Saddam Hussein had a history of negative behavior and was a generally violent person - he was not an imminent threat. If he had been an imminent threat we would have seen him preparing for war, which he was not. Bush did not even argue that he was preparing for war - he argued that he had weapons that could be used in the future for war (i.e. that he could become an imminent threat in the future).
 
theplaydrive said:
It is well accepted that the Iraq war was a preventive war - meaning that it was started in order to prevent an imminent threat from arising in the absence of an imminent threat. This is a huge reason why it is criticized. As Ikari stated, "nothing you have presented has demonstrated any amount of immediate threat to America itself." Iraq was a preventive war meant to prevent an imminent/immediate threat from developing - this is illegal in international law although Bush pretty much called that law ridiculous.

Preemptive war is declared when an imminent threat is present. Although Saddam Hussein had a history of negative behavior and was a generally violent person - he was not an imminent threat. If he had been an imminent threat we would have seen him preparing for war, which he was not. Bush did not even argue that he was preparing for war - he argued that he had weapons that could be used in the future for war (i.e. that he could become an imminent threat in the future).
Click to expand...

"Imminent threat" only comes into play if a President wants to start a war on an adversary and he has 60 days thereafter to take it to Congress with another possible 30 day extension.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with "imminent threat" as the President of the day already had approval and, technically, the US was still at war with Iraq from the previous Gulf War. Peace had never been declared and Saddam had to follow some strict provisions, which we should know he ignored.

This 'imminent threat" thing is a red herring and there is no real reason why it was ever introduced to this thread.
 
Iraq is coming back to mind ....

Is US next going to pull out the classic WMD's story?
They'll probably switch it up and say there is Islamists there.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
This 'imminent threat" thing is a red herring and there is no real reason why it was ever introduced to this thread.
Click to expand...

Because lefties really believe Saddam was being a good boy and was "contained".

The ISG report proves Saddam had not given up his desire to develop WMD and missiles.

The IPP report proves Saddam used terror as state policy and had ties to international terrorist groups including al Qaeda.

There are people who simply cannot admit they were wrong about Iraq and Bush was right.
 
Grant said:
"Imminent threat" only comes into play if a President wants to start a war on an adversary and he has 60 days thereafter to take it to Congress with another possible 30 day extension.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with "imminent threat" as the President of the day already had approval and, technically, the US was still at war with Iraq from the previous Gulf War. Peace had never been declared and Saddam had to follow some strict provisions, which we should know he ignored.

This 'imminent threat" thing is a red herring and there is no real reason why it was ever introduced to this thread.
Click to expand...

Contrary to what you believe, the phrase "imminent threat" is used outside of the United States - your information about Congress has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

If understood the difference between preventive and preemptive war, the reason why the Iraq was was preventive and the reason why preventive war is illegal under international law and Bush was criticized for starting one - then you would understand why "imminent threat" is being talked about. You obviously aren't familiar with either.

The presence of an imminent threat is the condition for preemptive war, a legal and generally accepted war. The absence of an imminent threat is the condition for a preventive war, an illegal and controversial war. The Iraq War was a preventive war because Iraq did not pose an imminent threat.
 
Ron Mars said:
Because lefties really believe Saddam was being a good boy and was "contained".

The ISG report proves Saddam had not given up his desire to develop WMD and missiles.

The IPP report proves Saddam used terror as state policy and had ties to international terrorist groups including al Qaeda.

There are people who simply cannot admit they were wrong about Iraq and Bush was right.
Click to expand...

1. That is ridiculous that you believe we actually think Bush was right - I do NOT support preventive war under any conditions.
2. The Iraq was preventive as opposed to preemptive - it was therefore illegal under international law and therefore reasonably opposed by many people.
 
Ron Mars said:
Yes, of course. All about oil.

When do we start getting that free Iraqi oil?
Click to expand...

It is the Corporate Distribution Networks that get the OIL and they are getting theirs. Corporatism! Trickle Down is what you get. Little round brown balls. Got yours?
 
MaggieD said:
Swear to God. If we put our troops in there, I'll be in the streets protesting. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

It's coming. They are already there (humanitarian ya know) and it will take one order to put then in the streets.
 
Laila said:
Iraq is coming back to mind ....

Is US next going to pull out the classic WMD's story?
They'll probably switch it up and say there is Islamists there.
Click to expand...

Somebody is killing Muslims in Iraq and it has tended to be other Muslims.

Call them Terrorists, Jihadists or Islamists, it really doesn't matter all that much. But they do like to kill, and who their victims are matters not a bit.
 
Ron Mars said:
Because lefties really believe Saddam was being a good boy and was "contained".

The ISG report proves Saddam had not given up his desire to develop WMD and missiles.

The IPP report proves Saddam used terror as state policy and had ties to international terrorist groups including al Qaeda.

There are people who simply cannot admit they were wrong about Iraq and Bush was right.
Click to expand...

He was also in bed with many members of the corrupt UN. He was one of the worst tyrants of his day and the Iraqi people were grateful he was gone. But yes, the left wing revisionists, with help from the Islamists, will paint the Americans as the villains, and lies and ignorance will never be a deterrent to them.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
He was also in bed with many members of the corrupt UN. He was one of the worst tyrants of his day and the Iraqi people were grateful he was gone. But yes, the left wing revisionists, with help from the Islamists, will paint the Americans as the villains, and lies and ignorance will never be a deterrent to them.
Click to expand...


Sadly you are correct here. I do however love watching them spin Libya though. Telling themselves that it is somehow noble and stuff because 'the One' is now doing it....hahaha. Hell, Obama is so damned weak that he has to rely on Bush's playbook to take his own actions....

j-mac
 
Grant said:
"Imminent threat" only comes into play if a President wants to start a war on an adversary and he has 60 days thereafter to take it to Congress with another possible 30 day extension.
Click to expand...
It's also related tom something called Just War Theory. It's been kind of famous for centuries.

Grant said:
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with "imminent threat" as the President of the day already had approval and, technically, the US was still at war with Iraq from the previous Gulf War. Peace had never been declared and Saddam had to follow some strict provisions, which we should know he ignored. This 'imminent threat" thing is a red herring and there is no real reason why it was ever introduced to this thread.
Click to expand...
So, you concede that Iraq was "drawing a line short of" attacking the US and that Iraq was not likely to initiate an attack on the US directly or via proxy?


In your view of things, which of the following was/were superfluous?
  • Formulation of the Bush Doctrine
  • Congressional approval to use force
  • Seeking a UN resolution authorizing the use force
 
theplaydrive said:
1. That is ridiculous that you believe we actually think Bush was right - I do NOT support preventive war under any conditions.
Click to expand...

Like I've said many times. There are those who wish to stick their heads in the sand hoping it will all go away.

I have no doubt lefties do not think, feel or believe Bush was right despite the overwhelming evidence that he was.

I fully expect lefties to go to their graves still believing the "Bush Lied" hoax.

Even 7 years after the guy who started the hoax admitted he made it all up they still refuse to admit what they know is true.


theplaydrive said:
2. The Iraq was preventive as opposed to preemptive - it was therefore illegal under international law and therefore reasonably opposed by many people.
Click to expand...

Illegal war?!? …….. Yet another hoax by those driven 100% by politics instead of facts.
 
j-mac said:
Sadly you are correct here. I do however love watching them spin Libya though. Telling themselves that it is somehow noble and stuff because 'the One' is now doing it....hahaha. Hell, Obama is so damned weak that he has to rely on Bush's playbook to take his own actions....

j-mac
Click to expand...

With the exception that Bush received approval from Congress while BHO attacked Libya on the "imminent threat" waiver.

What's he up to now? Can anyone follow his plan?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It's also related tom something called Just War Theory. It's been kind of famous for centuries.
Click to expand...

With the onset of the "war on terror," a growing number of political scientists, theologians and philosophers now contend that classic just-war theory fails to account for the challenges of 21st-century warfare – challenges that include terrorism, child soldiers, torture and violence by independent militia.

snip

"The Bush administration didn't pay enough attention to securing the peace," he said. "So, we went in with enough troops to topple the regime, but not enough to prevent the total breakdown of order that followed."

Our Sunday Visitor: Is Catholic Church’s just-war theory just? Critics challenge it as outdated - U.s. - Catholic Online
Click to expand...

Just war theory is a good bench mark for considering warfare, however today, the game is being changed by those looking to destroy an entire civilization, that changes the game.

So, you concede that Iraq was "drawing a line short of" attacking the US and that Iraq was not likely to initiate an attack on the US directly or via proxy?
Click to expand...

Non Sequitur, the US had, and has enormous interests in the region. The Saudis were putting heavy pressure to take out Saddam.

In your view of things, which of the following was/were superfluous?
Formulation of the Bush Doctrine
Congressional approval to use force
Seeking a UN resolution authorizing the use force
Click to expand...

False premise, however I'd say the third one. The US is a sovereign nation, and has the ability to act unilaterally in protecting its interests.

j-mac
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It's also related tom something called Just War Theory. It's been kind of famous for centuries.
Click to expand...

What it's "related to" is not really relevant. And it's not a good analogy anyway.
So, you concede that Iraq was "drawing a line short of" attacking the US and that Iraq was not likely to initiate an attack on the US directly or via proxy?
Click to expand...

That had nothing to do with the Iraq War. Nada.

In your view of things, which of the following was/were superfluous?
  • Formulation of the Bush Doctrine
  • Congressional approval to use force
  • Seeking a UN resolution authorizing the use force
Click to expand...


None of them were "superfluous".
 
j-mac said:
Just war theory is a good bench mark for considering warfare, however today, the game is being changed by those looking to destroy an entire civilization, that changes the game.
Click to expand...
No one ever set about to destroy a whole people or civilization and that's why things are different today?

Grant said:
What it's "related to" is not really relevant. And it's not a good analogy anyway.
Click to expand...
There is no analogy.
Grant said:
That had nothing to do with the Iraq War. Nada.
Click to expand...
The threat to the US from Iraq had "nothing to do with the Iraq war?"
Do you concede it as fact that Iraq was unlikely to initiate an attack on the US directly or via proxy for the purposes of this debate, or no?
Grant said:
None of them were "superfluous".
Click to expand...
Then they were all necessary to the Iraq war?
j-mac said:
Non Sequitur, the US had, and has enormous interests in the region. The Saudis were putting heavy pressure to take out Saddam.
Click to expand...
The threat to the US from Iraq was unrelated to the Iraq war?
j-mac said:
False premise...
Click to expand...
It's a question seeking clarification from Grant, not a premise.
j-mac said:
... however I'd say the third one. The US is a sovereign nation, and has the ability to act unilaterally in protecting its interests.
Click to expand...
And our interests were not about protecting ourselves from the threat from Iraq, but were rather about how "[t]he Saudis were putting heavy pressure" on us?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Sadly you are correct here. I do however love watching them spin Libya though. Telling themselves that it is somehow noble and stuff because 'the One' is now doing it....hahaha. Hell, Obama is so damned weak that he has to rely on Bush's playbook to take his own actions....

j-mac
Click to expand...

You might try listening to what is actually said. It's more hoenst that way. :coffeepap
 
j-mac said:
Just war theory is a good bench mark for considering warfare, however today, the game is being changed by those looking to destroy an entire civilization, that changes the game.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Do we have core values or don't we? If we're too selective with those values, they are not really values at all.

But, to your comment. Things have not changed so much that we can't live to our values. It's really just a matter of actually having values and standards.
 
Ron Mars said:
Like I've said many times. There are those who wish to stick their heads in the sand hoping it will all go away.

I have no doubt lefties do not think, feel or believe Bush was right despite the overwhelming evidence that he was.

I fully expect lefties to go to their graves still believing the "Bush Lied" hoax.

Even 7 years after the guy who started the hoax admitted he made it all up they still refuse to admit what they know is true.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if Bush lied but he certainly operated irresponsibly on poor intelligence. Also, "overwhelming evidence" is a ridiculous thing to say. If there was overwhelming evidence, then we would have found weapons. There was crappy evidence.

It was a preventive war and in my mind preventive war is irresponsible.

Illegal war?!? …….. Yet another hoax by those driven 100% by politics instead of facts.
Click to expand...
If by hoax, you mean that the use of force in Iraq was not supported under UN provisions for what constitutes a legal, acceptable war...Ask Kofi Annan. You can debate about the legality of the war, but to call it a "hoax" denies that international law exists and that its application to the Iraq War can be debated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom