• 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]

You've certainly seen this from me before, with documentation. As it is documented, and you have seen it, I'm not sure how you can challenge it.

Iraq is a big success. I mean, Shell, BP, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron and other Big Corporate cash registers with hands to work your sock puppets are profiting handsomely. So what that there are a bunch of dead Iraqis. And more dying. Eggs and scrambled eggs. You have to start relating to the greater good. Globalization and Privatization means turning the World over to Multi National Corporations and you've got to get on the train. Your opposition smacks of tyranny against the very Corporations that are running your wars and lives. Wake up, man. Get Corporate today. Multi-National today. Get some strong currency.
 
The dummies who joined AQI are either dead or have rejected Al Qaeda in favor of a free and peaceful Iraq. Ever heard of the Sunni Awakening? Some recruiting bonana!

AQI has been decimated and our military leaders have stated there are only around 100 al Qaeda left in Afghanistan.

By fighting them we have decimated al Qaeda's ranks and we have captured documents suggesting they are having a lot difficulty recruiting replacements.

If you ever care to find out about the shift in Iraq and why it happened you will need to read The Strongest Tribe by Bing West.




I know that. They are either dead or now on the side of the Iraqi Government and the coalition.



I never said that he did so stuff the BS Boo. Iraqi terrorists were sent out to kill innocent people. The IPP report confirms that.

Saddam wanted to send terrorists to the US to kill President Bush and they could have easily flown out on a commercial aircraft or simply driven across the border to get out of Iraq.

The US Navy positioned to "contain" Saddam as was suggested by MA, which is how this conversation started if you remember, would not have been able to do anything stop them.

See how easy that was?

Again, Iraqis were not terroriszing us, fighting us, or doing much of anything before we invaded, so killing them can't rationally count as killing terrorist. And new recruits don't hurt the organization we're fighting, even when they die (many killed themselves).

And terrorist were not sent from Iraq. The effort to kill the first Bush was years before, and was dealt with. Saddam paid dearly for that. So, Saddam was contained, and was not, repeat not, sending out terrorist. You present something that simply did not happen.
 
Iraq is a big success. I mean, Shell, BP, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron and other Big Corporate cash registers with hands to work your sock puppets are profiting handsomely. So what that there are a bunch of dead Iraqis. And more dying. Eggs and scrambled eggs. You have to start relating to the greater good. Globalization and Privatization means turning the World over to Multi National Corporations and you've got to get on the train. Your opposition smacks of tyranny against the very Corporations that are running your wars and lives. Wake up, man. Get Corporate today. Multi-National today. Get some strong currency.

The Iraqi people are profiting from their sale of oil on the open market. As as do lots nations including the US.

The pain and suffering amongst lefties caused by a free and peacful Iraq continues to this very day.
 
Again, Iraqis were not terroriszing us, fighting us, or doing much of anything before we invaded,

That would be news to the pilots flying NFZ missions.

....so killing them can't rationally count as killing terrorist. And new recruits don't hurt the organization we're fighting, even when they die (many killed themselves).

If they joind a jihadi group to commit terrorist acts against their own people then they sure a hell were terrorists in every sense of the word.


And terrorist were not sent from Iraq. The effort to kill the first Bush was years before, and was dealt with. Saddam paid dearly for that. So, Saddam was contained, and was not, repeat not, sending out terrorist. You present something that simply did not happen.

If you refuse to read the IPP report you will always be ignorant about Saddam's terrorist connections and the terrorists who came in and went out of Iraq.
 
That would be news to the pilots flying NFZ missions.

No, it wouldn't. They know pissing in the wind when they see it.

If they joind a jihadi group to commit terrorist acts against their own people then they sure a hell were terrorists in every sense of the word.

Which is meaningless to our discussion. They were not a major factor in terrorism outside Iraq and not a threat to us.


If you refuse to read the IPP report you will always be ignorant about Saddam's terrorist connections and the terrorists who came in and went out of Iraq.

You are misreading. There were no working relationships, and this has been shown to you before.
 
Because there is still violence in Iraq means it's not free and peaceful?

Our nation is free and peaceful and we have lots of violent acts here including terrorist attacks.

I'm not ignoring anything Boo. Nice try though.

You sound very familiar to me. Where else have you posted?

Peacefull means a relative lack of violence. If we were killing each as part of an ongoing conflict, we would not use the word peaceful.

As for free? Are they? Really? Define their freedom.
 
That is a wonderfully isolationist view you got going on there. I am sure that is part of the reason that China and Russia are gaining ground on oil supplies that used to come here, now under contract to go there.

No, the reason the oil goes to China is because of money. It goes to the highest bidder. Russia has tons of natural resources, like natural gas up the wazoo. Trade gas for any extra oil they need (outside of what they drill themselves)? Probably. That and the oil coming out of Iran. Russia traded nuclear reactors for oil from Iran. At least it wasn't trading weapons to fund a civil war in Central America.

That said, Saudi Arabia is an important strategic ally to the US. We need the oil. This is why we need to try to develop alternative energy sources, but until then....
 
Originally Posted by j-mac
Quote"That is a wonderfully isolationist view you got going on there. I am sure that is part of the reason that China and Russia are gaining ground on oil supplies that used to come here, now under contract to go there."End QUOTE

They have gained and will conltinue to gain and pass us because of our poor economic policies. The dollar was 120 when GWBush took office and is around 74 today. Most of that drop occurred under the stewardship of Bush. It is still overvalued at 74, so reality is rushing where fools have dared to go, as the music goes. nGee, you don't think if we continued Jimmy Carter's energy policy to develop alternatives and renewables things might be better. Nah! That would make the teflon Reagan a moron, and he's a conservative hero. Must be an oxymoron here.
 
BTW Ron, from the IPP:

But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations.
 
Any president that creates war, is a wartime president, etc historically will get voted for a second term. Obama already has Afghanistan, so I don't think he seriously wants us to go into Libya. The way things are going and thanks to the uprisings and the shifting going on in other middle eastern countries, I think if we just left these people alone, they will do what is right.
 
No, it wouldn't. They know pissing in the wind when they see it.

So they were fired upon. Glad we agree.

Which is meaningless to our discussion. They were not a major factor in terrorism outside Iraq and not a threat to us.

Of course it's meaningless to you. That al Qaeda, and their followers, have been soundly defeated on the battlefield is always pointless to a lefty.

The fact they are having trouble recruiting blows the "making more terrorist" theory away.

You are misreading. There were no working relationships, and this has been shown to you before.

BTW Ron, from the IPP:

This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda

You don't have to quote the IPP report Boo. I've read most of it at least once. You need to read the report instead of "cherry-picking" the parts you like.

I have never stated that Saddam and al Qaeda executed X terrorist attack against Y.

You have been posted the parts of the report that Saddam was absolutely willing to work with al Qaeda and you don't care.

If you would actually read the report you will find out about Saddam's terrorist attacks and the terrorists he was working with and their intended targets.

But of course someone would have to actually care about the truth on this issue in order to spend the time reading the IPP report. Most people like yourself can't be bothered. It's the very reason I don't believe you're an honest debater.
 
BTW Ron, from the IPP:

But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.

Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations.

The third sentence is always overlooked by lefties.

You should find out what that support involved before talking about this subject.

You've suddenly become and expert on a report you only just found out about. What a hoot!!
 
Peacefull means a relative lack of violence. If we were killing each as part of an ongoing conflict, we would not use the word peaceful.

As for free? Are they? Really? Define their freedom.

They are free and peaceful.

Their freedom is represented in a free press, free expression of religion, to come and go as they please, and being able to choose their own leaders to name a few.
 
You have been posted the parts of the report that Saddam was absolutely willing to work with al Qaeda and you don't care.
Hussein was willing to work with an aQ associated group to what exactly? Would you like to share this part?
I know there're examples in there. But I thought you might enjoy telling them more than I would.
 
The third sentence is always overlooked by lefties.

You should find out what that support involved before talking about this subject.

You've suddenly become and expert on a report you only just found out about. What a hoot!!

No, you just misread it. He had an interest, but he wasn't actively doing anything. He had relationships before DS, and he wanted to maintain them in case he needed to do something later. But he was not actively doing much of anything.

Read the document. It's full or could, could have, would have been able.
 
Any president that creates war, is a wartime president, etc historically will get voted for a second term. Obama already has Afghanistan, so I don't think he seriously wants us to go into Libya. The way things are going and thanks to the uprisings and the shifting going on in other middle eastern countries, I think if we just left these people alone, they will do what is right.

I don't agree that they would do what's right, but I do think it's a big mistake getting ourselves involved in their civil war.
 
They are free and peaceful.

Their freedom is represented in a free press, free expression of religion, to come and go as they please, and being able to choose their own leaders to name a few.

You can't call fighting that kills thousands peaceful. Sorry, that's a no brainer.

Freedom:

"I'm afraid just to step outside my flat, because they might shoot me," she says, even now. "I want an end to this nightmare. I'm exhausted."

Khalil, the son of singer Souad Abdullah, was killed by kidnappers although she paid a ransom This level of sectarian violence is rare in Iraq today. Things are getting better, a point that American officials never tire of making.

And in a sense, they are right. The question is, compared to what?

BBC News - 'Normal life' in Iraq amid the violence

Over 100,000 dead, millions displaced, and we're arrogant enough to think we did them a favor.
 
I don't agree that they would do what's right, but I do think it's a big mistake getting ourselves involved in their civil war.

Ok then how about we don't disturb the hornet nest and we don't worry about them at all and let them do whatever the hell they want in their own land.
 
Ok then how about we don't disturb the hornet nest and we don't worry about them at all and let them do whatever the hell they want in their own land.

That's about my thinking. I hope the anti-Gaddafi guys win, but we should stay the F out.
 
Obama went to war without congressional approval and without an eminent threat to the US. The hypocrisy of both parties is dizzying at times. War is good this time but not last time and whether it is good or bad the next time totally depends upon whether it is a democrat or republican in the white house.

If we go to war, the first question I have is “did they attack us?” and the second question I have is “who’s going to pay for it?”

If Bush had any brains he would have made sure the US had exclusive rights to a large portion of the oil reserves until the US was reimbursed for our expenditures. Same goes for Obama in Libya. Secure some oil rights, then kick the dictator out.

France and the UK need to kiss our red white and blue butts if they think we should be fighting this war for them.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Obama went to war without congressional approval and without an eminent threat to the US. The hypocrisy of both parties is dizzying at times. War is good this time but not last time and whether it is good or bad the next time totally depends upon whether it is a democrat or republican in the white house.

If we go to war, the first question I have is “did they attack us?” and the second question I have is “who’s going to pay for it?”

If Bush had any brains he would have made sure the US had exclusive rights to a large portion of the oil reserves until the US was reimbursed for our expenditures. Same goes for Obama in Libya. Secure some oil rights, then kick the dictator out.

France and the UK need to kiss our red white and blue butts if they think we should be fighting this war for them.

Just my 2 cents.

^^This

12345
 
Not for the squeamish...

The rebels are accused of war crimes.There are videos at the link and are of course NSFW.The rebels dont like the African mercenaries and usually assassinate them.

Reason why Ghaddafi's forces will fight to the end. For them there is no way out except to win. Lose - they die

***NSFW***

Pajamas Media » Mounting Evidence of Rebel Atrocities in Libya
 
Back
Top Bottom