• 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]

AQI (Iraqis) but not al Qeada. I'm trying to get you to see there is a difference between the two.

In Afghanistan you're fighting someone different as well (Taliban). al Qaeda is in Pakistan. We're in Afghanistan because we're worried aboiut al Qaeda, who is in Pakistan, but we're not fighting al Qaeda directly there.

AQI was started by OBL and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Neither of them are Iraqi's.

al-Qaeda in Iraq has been destroyed.

Try another smoke color. The yellow one isn't working.
 
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but we do have to abandon our imperialistic efforts, which aren't all that new (think Hawaii).

Imperialism is the death of a Republic and birth of an Empire. There are serious concerns over how the government can use our military and the degree of freedom one man seems to have over control of our standing military without proper check. I think that there is serious ramifications to the Republic in terms of size and scope of government which we are not properly regulating. And as the government becomes bigger, more authoritative, more interventionist; the Republic will begin to die. A properly controlled government is essential to the longevity of the Republic.
 
Imperialism is the death of a Republic and birth of an Empire. There are serious concerns over how the government can use our military and the degree of freedom one man seems to have over control of our standing military without proper check. I think that there is serious ramifications to the Republic in terms of size and scope of government which we are not properly regulating. And as the government becomes bigger, more authoritative, more interventionist; the Republic will begin to die. A properly controlled government is essential to the longevity of the Republic.

I certanly think there are concerns. I only wish these were new concerns. We seem to have all too often in our past behaved as if we were an Empire. And what is more disconcerting is the number of Americans who seem to want us to act like we rule the world.
 
I certanly think there are concerns. I only wish these were new concerns. We seem to have all too often in our past behaved as if we were an Empire. And what is more disconcerting is the number of Americans who seem to want us to act like we rule the world.

I don't see us as having acted this aggressively towards imperialism in the past. I really do feel that we're moving towards a precipice and if we're not careful, we're gonna fall off the edge.
 
AQI was started by OBL and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Neither of them are Iraqi's.

al-Qaeda in Iraq has been destroyed.

Try another smoke color. The yellow one isn't working.

Actually, not entirely true. AQI was started by Iraqis. They lobbied al Qaeda for help against what they saw as an invading army. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not with al Qaeda in the begining. He joined after he was fighting us in Iraq.

But the point is, destorying AQI is not equal to defeating al Qaeda. We beat Iraqis, or more accurately, Iraqis defeated them. It was the Sunni awakening that turned the tables, and this was largely an Iraqi movement. We wisely picked up on it and helped where we could, but that movement was more than significant.
 
I don't see us as having acted this aggressively towards imperialism in the past. I really do feel that we're moving towards a precipice and if we're not careful, we're gonna fall off the edge.

The take over of Hawaii for example. VN would be another example. Even Cuba would fall under that classification I think.

After a century of American rule, many native Hawaiians remain bitter about how the United States acquired the islands, located 2,500 miles from the West Coast.

In 1893, a small group of sugar and pineapple-growing businessmen, aided by the American minister to Hawaii and backed by heavily armed U.S. soldiers and marines, deposed Hawaii's queen. Subsequently, they imprisoned the queen and seized 1.75 million acres of crown land and conspired to annex the islands to the United States.

Digital History
 
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.

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.
A 'not my problem' foreign policy is a poor foreign policy IMO. Hitler's militarizing the Rhineland? Not my problem. Japan's invading China? Not my problem. This is a global world and things have consequences. If you want to see a reformed Middle East, then we should look into how we can further mutual interests with the littlest bit of help. We don't have to send in a ground army, but we have sufficient air power that could wipe out Ghaddafi in an instant.
 
A 'not my problem' foreign policy is a poor foreign policy IMO. Hitler's militarizing the Rhineland? Not my problem. Japan's invading China? Not my problem. This is a global world and things have consequences. If you want to see a reformed Middle East, then we should look into how we can further mutual interests with the littlest bit of help. We don't have to send in a ground army, but we have sufficient air power that could wipe out Ghaddafi in an instant.

Expand a bit about 'not my problem' foreign policy. One point is other nations have the right to decide what form of government they want. The US is better served if we cease policing the world. It gets us very, very few friends and buttloads of enemies.

And, the second point is to limit our activity in the ME. We should not create democracies or even tear down dictatorships unless they become a threat to American interests

Thats the bottom line
 
Hitler's militarizing the Rhineland?
Is Libya doing something comparable in preparation to invade another country?
Japan's invading China?
Has Libya invaded another country like Japan invading China?
This is a global world and things have consequences.
This is true. Our action have global consequences too.
But the interconnectedness of global players in and of itself doesn't inform us of what the best course of action is.
If you want to see a reformed Middle East, then we should look into how we can further mutual interests with the littlest bit of help.
Agreed. But the case for war has to be absolutely compelling because it means that we become responsible for the deaths of innocents, it means we start a number of actions whose consequences we can't fully foresee. It's probably one of the most serious issues a nation can possibly face. The case for has to be very compelling.
We don't have to send in a ground army, but we have sufficient air power that could wipe out Ghaddafi in an instant.
Sure. We could. But thinking it would be "easy" and hoping we share sympathies with people fighting a rotten regime is not enough.

I'll listen. I am willing to be convinced. But I am not yet.
 
Last edited:
Expand a bit about 'not my problem' foreign policy. One point is other nations have the right to decide what form of government they want. The US is better served if we cease policing the world. It gets us very, very few friends and buttloads of enemies.

And, the second point is to limit our activity in the ME. We should not create democracies or even tear down dictatorships unless they become a threat to American interests

Thats the bottom line
I understand your point about not intervening anywhere and not creating enemies. I believe either we should intervene all the time or none of the time, not intervene occasionally because that would not be helpful.

I advocate only for intervening when the people request it and when we have support of the people, such as to overthrow a dictator. You're right, people should have the right to choose their own government and form of government too, through a popular vote, or a popular opinion where each person has equal say as anyone else. I don't believe dictatorships that maintain power through intimidation are legitimate.

The 'not my problem' policy, is just that things that do not directly affect the US, but are not good for the world, will probably end up even worse for the world and will later affect the US in a negative way. Better to nip something in the bud first, then have it explode later.
 
I'll listen. I am willing to be convinced. But I am not yet.
I will try to persuade you.

Simon W. Moon said:
Is Libya doing something comparable in preparation to invade another country?
Has Libya invaded another country like Japan invading China?
The analogy, holds, in those days they Japan and Germany were not in our critical interest, but when not stopped, they became our critical interest in a bad way. Same with Libya, its not in our critical interest now, but it may in the future if it remains under Ghaddafi's control.

Simon W. Moon said:
But the interconnectedness of global players in and of itself doesn't inform us of what the best course of action is.
We know what's right and what's wrong. We know what is good and what is bad. Generally, the correct course of action is the one that is good and right in general terms. For Libya, the UN and the world has condemned Ghaddafi's actions, the right course of action lies in that Ghaddafi's regime comes to an end, as echoed by heads of state of responsible countries around the world. For most situations, we know what's the right thing and what's the wrong thing.

Simon W. Moon said:
Agreed. But the case for war has to be absolutely compelling because it means that we become responsible for the deaths of innocents, it means we start a number of actions whose consequences we can't fully foresee. It's probably one of the most serious issues a nation can possibly face. The case for has to be very compelling.
Sure. We could. But thinking it would be "easy" and hoping we share sympathies with people fighting a rotten regime is not enough.
The case for inaction is just the same. More lives will be lost through inaction than through action, and that we know. Don't forget, if they do get a representative democracy, the lives of an entire country will be better off than they are.
 
Actually, not entirely true. AQI was started by Iraqis. They lobbied al Qaeda for help against what they saw as an invading army. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not with al Qaeda in the begining. He joined after he was fighting us in Iraq.

But the point is, destorying AQI is not equal to defeating al Qaeda. We beat Iraqis, or more accurately, Iraqis defeated them. It was the Sunni awakening that turned the tables, and this was largely an Iraqi movement. We wisely picked up on it and helped where we could, but that movement was more than significant.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before OIF. He fled there after he was wounded in Afghanistan and started a terrorist trainning camp in NE Iraq.

Never let actual facts destroy a perfectly good hoax.
 
The analogy, holds, in those days they Japan and Germany were not in our critical interest, but when not stopped, they became our critical interest in a bad way. Same with Libya, its not in our critical interest now, but it may in the future if it remains under Ghaddafi's control.
So the "danger" from Libya isn't that they're invading or preparing to invade another country as in the examples you cited. It's not even that Libya is actually doing anything at the moment. Rather it is instead merely that MomoQ is in power and it may be that at some indefinite point in the future Libya may become a problem. And that potential to be a possible problem at some indefinite point in the future is the reason why we must act now?

We know what's right and what's wrong. We know what is good and what is bad. Generally, the correct course of action is the one that is good and right in general terms.
Engaging in war without a solid reasons is wrong. That's the crux of the biscuit here. Since we haven't demonstrated a legitimate national interest, engaging in war is the wrong choice.
War means that people die. Innocents are among those who will die. There are many unforeseeable consequences of our actions. Though they are unforeseeable, we become responsible for them anyway. These two things are not the only reasons why it is unconscionable to go to war when it is not necessary, but they are enough.

For Libya, the UN and the world has condemned Ghaddafi's actions, the right course of action lies in that Ghaddafi's regime comes to an end, as echoed by heads of state of responsible countries around the world.
Even if this is allowed as a given, it still doesn't make the case as to why we should be involved militarily to do so. It doesn't even make the case that military action is the best course.

The case for inaction is just the same. More lives will be lost through inaction than through action, and that we know.
No, we don't know that at all. That's one of the reasons why we should engage in warfare when we have a reasonable choice not to. Further, it's not clear that establishing safe havens for non-combatants wouldn't prevent some unnecessary loss of life just as well or better w/o running the same risks associated with military intervention.

Don't forget, if they do get a representative democracy, the lives of an entire country will be better off than they are.
AFAICT, your case for going to war is built upon ifs and maybes and held together with appeals to emotion.
IMHO, that's not very compelling.

If you personally want to go kill Libyans, I am sure there's a way. But I don't see the reason why the US military should be involved.
 
These things do not contradict each other, Ron Mars. FYI

Whatever is known about Iraqi WMDs now, at the time the best intelligence we had available said that Saddam had chemical weapons, he was still trying to develop nuclear weapons, he was supporting terrorists even if there was no strong connection with Al Qaeda, and that if he supplied those weapons to a terrorist organization, not just Al Quaeda, the results could be devastating. 9-11 showed that we couldn't afford to just react to a terrorist attack, we had to be proactive and go after them before the attack. Hence the global war on terror, not a global war on Al Quaeda. AQ may be the most visible terrorist organization, but they are certainly not the only one and they are not the only one that hates the US and has the capability to mount attacks against Americans.
 
We know some stuff was moved to Syria before the invasion. But, most of what we were looking for DID NOT EXIST.

Curious thing though...During the months that Saddam was questioned before his execution, he admitted that he had run a disinformation program to make people think he had stuff hidden away. Primarily to keep the Iranians at bay. Unfortunately for him, he was too convincing.
 
Engaging in war without a solid reasons is wrong. That's the crux of the biscuit here. Since we haven't demonstrated a legitimate national interest, engaging in war is the wrong choice.
War means that people die. Innocents are among those who will die. There are many unforeseeable consequences of our actions. Though they are unforeseeable, we become responsible for them anyway. These two things are not the only reasons why it is unconscionable to go to war when it is not necessary, but they are enough.
No, inaction when you have the power to act is wrong. So let me get this straight, if there was a genocide or ethnic cleansing you wouldn't act because going to war is wrong and absent any critical interests, we shouldn't go to war unnecessarily. That is wrong in itself. In fact, international law requires countries to act if there is a genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Simon W. Moon said:
No, we don't know that at all. That's one of the reasons why we should engage in warfare when we have a reasonable choice not to. Further, it's not clear that establishing safe havens for non-combatants wouldn't prevent some unnecessary loss of life just as well or better w/o running the same risks associated with military intervention.
Yeah, we do know that. More lives will be saved by ending the war now then letting it prolong on to its own conclusion when Ghaddafi invades Misrata and Benghazi and kills all the rebels opposing him. Don't forget him using snipers in the streets and unleashing munitions on the people in general. The country will be much better off free than under a dictatorship.

Simon W. Moon said:
So the "danger" from Libya isn't that they're invading or preparing to invade another country as in the examples you cited. It's not even that Libya is actually doing anything at the moment. Rather it is instead merely that MomoQ is in power and it may be that at some indefinite point in the future Libya may become a problem. And that potential to be a possible problem at some indefinite point in the future is the reason why we must act now?
Let me give you an example: Afghanistan. For decades this country was under civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. People around the world forgot about this country and it became a failed state and a haven for terrorism. We lobbed some cruise missiles into it and then forgot about it again. All the while the Northern Alliance was requesting military assistance and aid. Fast forward to 2001, and it became the source and cause of the largest terrorist attack in American history. Your policy of apathy has led up to this disaster. My policy of intervention would have prevented this disaster in the 1990's. Your policy of only going to war when necessary doesn't work, you have to be proactive globally and involved. Now Libya may not become as dangerous as Afghanistan was, but the policy remains the same, you cannot allow failed states, havens, and dictatorships to develop.

Simon W. Moon said:
If you personally want to go kill Libyans, I am sure there's a way. But I don't see the reason why the US military should be involved.
That's ridiculous, why would I want to kill Libyans? You're the one actually who wants to let them die in the streets and at the hands of African mercenaries and snipers paid to fight because going to war is 'wrong'. Well letting Libyans die is also wrong.
 
So let me get this straight, if there was a genocide or ethnic cleansing you wouldn't act because going to war is wrong and absent any critical interests, we shouldn't go to war unnecessarily. That is wrong in itself. In fact, international law requires countries to act if there is a genocide or ethnic cleansing.
Is there genocide or ethnic cleansing going on in Libya?

Yeah, we do know that.
I don't think this is as certain as you do.

Let me give you an example: Afghanistan. For decades this country was under civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. People around the world forgot about this country and it became a failed state and a haven for terrorism. We lobbed some cruise missiles into it and then forgot about it again. All the while the Northern Alliance was requesting military assistance and aid. Fast forward to 2001, and it became the source and cause of the largest terrorist attack in American history. Your policy of apathy has led up to this disaster. My policy of intervention would have prevented this disaster in the 1990's. Your policy of only going to war when necessary doesn't work, you have to be proactive globally and involved. Now Libya may not become as dangerous as Afghanistan was, but the policy remains the same, you cannot allow failed states, havens, and dictatorships to develop.
And is Libya a failed state like Afghanistan?

Why can't each incident be evaluated on its own merits rather than trying to stretch my comments about Libya into something they are not and applying them situations that are not Libya and then arguing against that?
 
We know some stuff was moved to Syria before the invasion.
There is not much evidence underlying this "knowledge"

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/DuelferRpt/Addendums.pdf
Addendums to the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD
ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent several months examining documents, interviewing former Iraqi officials , examining previous intelligence reports, and conducting some site investigations. The declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when
circumstances on the ground improve.
The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq—at least when there was considerable profit for those involved. Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.
ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation.
It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that conclusive information would have been found.
At best, barring discovery of original documentary evidence of the transfer, reports or sources may have been substantiated or negated, but firm conclusions on actual WMD movements may not be possible.
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.​
Note that "WMD-related materials" ≠ WMDs
 
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before OIF. He fled there after he was wounded in Afghanistan and started a terrorist trainning camp in NE Iraq.

Never let actual facts destroy a perfectly good hoax.

He was not, however, a member of al Qeada.

In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You can't link al Qaeda to Saddam pre-invasion based on something that didn't occur until post invasion. So, it is you who are ignoring actual facts.
 
He was not, however, a member of al Qeada.

In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You can't link al Qaeda to Saddam pre-invasion based on something that didn't occur until post invasion. So, it is you who are ignoring actual facts.


Wow! Really? Well, he must have been just a stand up guy before that then huh? So your Nuh uh, is based on semantics.

Good GAWD.


j-mac
 
He was not, however, a member of al Qeada.

In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You can't link al Qaeda to Saddam pre-invasion based on something that didn't occur until post invasion. So, it is you who are ignoring actual facts.

So Zarqawi was fighting in Afghanistan for whom? Himself?

His training camp in NE Iraq before OIF was training which terrorist group?

Wiki isn't an accurate source for things like this. They aren't about to admit Bush was right. Like you they would rather take cyanide.

You have to actually read a book or two. We both know you aren't going to do that.
 
He was not, however, a member of al Qeada.

In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geezus...wiki?

Foreign fighters were just 3-4 % of all insurgents ... 4% is high. This insurgency was and still is almost purely Iraqi. Ignore the occassional Al Qaeda attack .. most SVBIEDs are from former regime loyalists.

Zarqawi was a small player in the overall insurgency. Why give him so much play when former General Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri and the former head of the covert intelligence agency the Saddam Fedayeen, Special Security Service and Special Republican Guard were running, the war.

Focus on the right enemy.
 
Geezus...wiki?

Foreign fighters were just 3-4 % of all insurgents ... 4% is high. This insurgency was and still is almost purely Iraqi. Ignore the occassional Al Qaeda attack .. most SVBIEDs are from former regime loyalists.

Zarqawi was a small player in the overall insurgency. Why give him so much play when former General Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri and the former head of the covert intelligence agency the Saddam Fedayeen, Special Security Service and Special Republican Guard were running, the war.

Focus on the right enemy.

That small percentage was responsible for the majority of the major bombings that killed tens of thousands of innocent people.

People like Boo always try to blame the US for the Iraqi's al Qaeda killed.

Some here blame the US for the innocent people killed on 9/11. Go figure.
 
Back
Top Bottom