• 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]

theplaydrive said:
1. Now that you're using the "The Prof's" infamous "party on" statement, you lose even more credibility.
2. There is no credible evidence of an al-Qaeda/Hussein link. That myth was debunked along time ago.
Click to expand...

Anytime you wish to refute the IPP report with actual facts instead of nonsense please go right ahead.

You can't and you know that. It's the reason for the preventive war BS. You got nothing else.

Here I'll get you started.....

The IPP report based on captured Iraqi documents is wrong and I, theplaydrive, know this because........
 
Ron Mars said:
Anytime you wish to refute the IPP report with actual facts instead of nonsense please go right ahead.

You can't and you know that. It's the reason for the preventive war BS. You got nothing else.

Here I'll get you started.....

The IPP report based on captured Iraqi documents is wrong and I, theplaydrive, know this because........
Click to expand...

You've been provided with ample evidence. You just chose to ignore it.
 
theplaydrive said:
You've been provided with ample evidence. You just chose to ignore it.
Click to expand...

Please point out the exact post where you refuted the excerpts I've posted of the IPP report. Otherwise this debate is over.

This is what evidence looks like TPD. Actual reports from people who reviewed thousands of captured Iraqi documents proving Saddam had few problems supporting terrorist groups "working with Osama bin Laden."




These are direct quotes from the Iraqi Perspectives Project report.


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."
 
Ron Mars said:
Please point out the exact post where you refuted the excerpts I've posted of the IPP report. Otherwise this debate is over.
This is what evidence looks like TPD. Actual reports from people who reviewed thousands of captured Iraqi documents proving Saddam had few problems supporting terrorist groups "working with Osama bin Laden."
Click to expand...

I personally have not provided you with evidence on the al-Qaeda/Saddam link. But I have watched others present it you over and over again and it clearly has not penetrated your mind. Here's an idea, start here and go from there: Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, this debate was over a long time ago. The only thing happening now is you making false claims and being resistant to information.
 
Ron Mars said:
Never mind that Saddam was working with a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda whose mission was to kill Americans anywhere in the world.
Click to expand...
And what work did they do together?
 
theplaydrive said:
I personally have not provided you with evidence on the al-Qaeda/Saddam link. But I have watched others present it you over and over again and it clearly has not penetrated your mind. Here's an idea, start here and go from there: Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, this debate was over a long time ago. The only thing happening now is you making false claims and being resistant to information.
Click to expand...

I didn't see the IPP report even mentioned anywhere in that wiki link.

So you have nothing but a wiki link? If so you're done like the rest.
 
Ron Mars said:
I didn't see the IPP report even mentioned anywhere in that wiki link.

So you have nothing but a wiki link? If so you're done like the rest.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm definitely done like the rest.
 
Ron Mars said:
Please point out the exact post where you refuted the excerpts I've posted of the IPP report.
Click to expand...
The problem with this request is that the two sets of claims are parallel, not contradictory.
There's nothing in the section you quote that shows that aQ and Hussein had an operational or collaborative relationship. So, while the Post-war Kerr Report says that there was no evidence found of an operational or collaborative relationship, what you have posted does not contradict it by showing an operational nor collaborative relationship between aQ and Hussein.

As far
Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives. 97
Saddam was a pragmatist when it came to personal and state relationships. He and many members of his regime understood that whatever the benefits of a relationship, there was always a potential for internal and external costs for associating too closely with some of these groups. Saddam's reaction to this concern often swung like a pendulum, from arresting members of Wahabi sects to "extending lines of relations" to a new radical Kurdish Islamic group. 98
In one case, Iraq's ambassador in Switzerland, who was also Saddam's half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti, recommended that the Director of the IIS meet directly with an Egyptian who had strong connections to "Islamic parties and anti-Western Islamic organizations," and who was offering his assistance in brokering an alliance. But the director of the IIS department responsible for Arab issues did not concur with the ambassador's recommendation and cautioned in an internal memorandum that a meeting at such a level would "not serve the current Iraqi situation... and will make us lose our main target." He went on to note that working with the religious parties was dangerous at this time because they were "associated with the religious terror, which Hezbollah and Iran are practicing ...and it is provoking the West.99​
 
Ron Mars said:
We are helping them to the point that it's bankrupting the country and for some it's still not enough.

Party on!
Click to expand...
a lot of things are bankrupting this country the military operations all over the world is one of them.
 
Allies Vow to Push Libya Campaign Until Gadhafi Goes | Asia | English

The leaders of Britain, France and the United States say the NATO coalition will continue its military campaign in Libya until Moammar Gadhafi leaves power, while rebels said loyalist attacks killed 23 people in the besieged city of Misrata.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and U.S. President Barack Obama said Friday that leaving Mr. Gadhafi in power would be an "unconscionable betrayal" of the Libyan people.

In a joint article published in several international newspapers, The Times of London, France's Le Figaro and The Washington Post, the leaders wrote it is "unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government."
Click to expand...

I thought the title of this thread was 'White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission'.
 
In a joint op-ed published outside the U.S., President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, and President Sarkozy have mentioned that the fighting will continue onto Col. Gadhafi has been driven from power. Of course, to avoid a technical violation of UNSC Res. 1973, they have denied that regime change is their goal. But in substance, if they vow to fight until he is gone, then regime change is the goal. Actions speak louder than words.

Some highlights from the op-ed, which is posted on the White House's website:

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power. The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal...

The regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misurata and Zintan, and return to their barracks. However, so long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. In order for that transition to succeed, Qaddafi must go and go for good. At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Qaddafi has destroyed — to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.
Click to expand...

Joint Op-ed by President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy:

Given the lack of critical U.S. interests in Libya, the lack of broad popular support for the anti-Gadhafi movement, and the gross incompetence of the anti-Gadhafi movement, I do not favor regime change. Moreover, the contradiction between the statements that "It is not to remove Qaddafi by force" and "However, so long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations..." leaves the operation to be judged by actions, alone. Following regime change, what is known as nation-building will be required. The op-ed acknowledges for perhaps the first time that nation-building will, in fact, follow. The three leaders write, "At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Qaddafi has destroyed — to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society."
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
In a joint op-ed published outside the U.S., President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, and President Sarkozy have mentioned that the fighting will continue onto Col. Gadhafi has been driven from power. Of course, to avoid a technical violation of UNSC Res. 1973, they have denied that regime change is their goal. But in substance, if they vow to fight until he is gone, then regime change is the goal. Actions speak louder than words.

Some highlights from the op-ed, which is posted on the White House's website:



Joint Op-ed by President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy:

Given the lack of critical U.S. interests in Libya, the lack of broad popular support for the anti-Gadhafi movement, and the gross incompetence of the anti-Gadhafi movement, I do not favor regime change. Moreover, the contradiction between the statements that "It is not to remove Qaddafi by force" and "However, so long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations..." leaves the operation to be judged by actions, alone. Following regime change, what is known as nation-building will be required. The op-ed acknowledges for perhaps the first time that nation-building will, in fact, follow. The three leaders write, "At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Qaddafi has destroyed — to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society."
Click to expand...

In other words... 'regime change'.
 
Whovian said:
In other words... 'regime change'.
Click to expand...

If Obama invades Libya, espeically outside the UN with the coalition of the willing, to remove the leader of that country, he will be a stupid and wrong as Bush was with Iraq.

If Obama goes under the UN banner, that would be better, but still foolish and wrong as we have no business in deciding who does or doesn't rule any country.

If France and the UN take a position of regime change and use the UN to accomplish it, And Obama doesn't object, and spend a lot of US capital, that too would be wrong.

If the UN tries to save lives and seeks to allow the people to do their business safely, I would take pause. Condier the arguments, and try to determine if it is even possible.
 
Whovian said:
In other words... 'regime change'.
Click to expand...

I agree. And from BBC a short time ago:

The French defence minister has suggested a new UN Security Council resolution may be needed for Nato allies to achieve their goals in Libya.

Gerard Longuet was speaking after a joint letter by the US, UK and French leaders said there could be no peace while Col Muammar Gaddafi was in power.
Click to expand...

BBC News - Libya conflict: France eyes new UN resolution

If the mission is about civilian protection and not regime change, then UNSC Res. 1973 provides ample authority. However, the joint op-ed tying the end of military operations to Gadhafi's departure and periodic close-air support provided to the rebels to shape the battlefield strongly argue otherwise. That a new resolution "may be needed for Nato allies to achieve their goals in Libya" highlights the possible existence of tensions the unstated goal of regime change may have produced. A resolution that expressly authorizes regime change could reduce those tensions and allow those who are currently pursuing it to work toward that goal without having to try to conceal it.
 
Boo Radley said:
If Obama invades Libya, espeically outside the UN with the coalition of the willing, to remove the leader of that country, he will be a stupid and wrong as Bush was with Iraq.

If Obama goes under the UN banner, that would be better, but still foolish and wrong as we have no business in deciding who does or doesn't rule any country.

If France and the UN take a position of regime change and use the UN to accomplish it, And Obama doesn't object, and spend a lot of US capital, that too would be wrong.

If the UN tries to save lives and seeks to allow the people to do their business safely, I would take pause. Condier the arguments, and try to determine if it is even possible.
Click to expand...

Libya is a losing proposition...anyway you slice it

Is Libya a threat to US interests? Nope

Then why create democracies or even tear down dictatorships??? Unless they become a threat to American interests, which are largely described as our people.

If Omar want to oppress his own people, but doesn't kill Americans or help those who do, leave him, the **** alone. The US can't or should NOT fix their problems.

Removing one dictator is just as likely to result in another one who is anti-American.

This cycle continues....ad infinitum
 
A report on the U.S. assessment of the anti-Gadhafi forces. From Reuters:

But the more the intelligence agencies learn about rebel forces, the more they appear to be hopelessly disorganized and incapable of coalescing in the foreseeable future.

U.S. government experts believe the state of the opposition is so grave that it could take years to organize, arm and train them into a fighting force strong enough to drive Gaddafi from power and set up a working government.
Click to expand...

U.S., allies see Libyan rebels in hopeless disarray | Reuters

Nonetheless, U.S. Intelligence assessments notwithstanding, the U.S. is engaged in a regime change operation. If the military regime change operation is successful, big and potentially costly tasks of nation-building and averting civil war will likely loom.
 
Mr President, get us out of Libya get us out of Iraq now...and start setting up a withdrawl from Afghanistan we are no longer accomplishing anything except making us deeper in debt My humble opinion
 
donsutherland1 said:
A report on the U.S. assessment of the anti-Gadhafi forces. From Reuters:



U.S., allies see Libyan rebels in hopeless disarray | Reuters

Nonetheless, U.S. Intelligence assessments notwithstanding, the U.S. is engaged in a regime change operation. If the military regime change operation is successful, big and potentially costly tasks of nation-building and averting civil war will likely loom.
Click to expand...

The entire Middle East is now in total disarray with none of its leaders now trusting Obama. Whose resignation will he call for next? And does anyone really care?

Either his handling of the economy and his foreign initiatives are seriously stupid or he is out to destroy the United States and create a world revolution.
 
Grant said:
The entire Middle East is now in total disarray with none of its leaders now trusting Obama.
Click to expand...

Nobody trusts anybody in international politics.
 
Nobody can possibly know everything, That is what advisors are for.

Someone who has a good decision making ability. That's where Obama is sorely lacking.
 
Ron Mars said:
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.
Click to expand...
huh? how could a commercial aircraft, expected to kill a president, ever get past one of our aircraft carriers and lived to chuckle about it again?
 
majora$$hole said:
says who? and it's not JUST oil it's the military machine where have you been the last 50 years?
Click to expand...

No it's not just oil. No one on either side should seek to simplify anything or reduce it to any one reason. oil certainly plays a role, as does the desire to have a base close to Iran, and maybe even some misguided idea of spreading freedom. None of which work as a justification for invading another country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom