• 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!

US may send ground troops to Libya

lpast

lpast

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
4,633
Location
Fla
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Bah I was afraid this was going to happen we shouldnt even have gotten involved at all with libya. No liberal can defend obama on this...HE DID THIS ALL ON HIS OWN...cant blame bush cant blame congress


General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya

WASHINGTON - The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya - CBS News
 
No liberal can defend obama on this...HE DID THIS ALL ON HIS OWN...cant blame bush cant blame congress
Click to expand...

Politically compelled to choose the damned-if-you-do in this situation? From the little I gather it may be less of a quagmire than other 'distractions'.
 
This is Reagan's fault, because he follow through after the Air strikes, 1986 known as Operation El Dorado Canyon, didn't kill Gaddafi only his daughter.

That cost us two Air crewmen.

There I beat the Liberals to the spin I know is coming.
 
President Barack Obama has said repeatedly there will be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya, although there are reports of small CIA teams in the country. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told lawmakers last week that there would be no American ground troops in Libya "as long as I am in this job."
Click to expand...

I doubt ground troops are going to happen. Especially after that comment from Gates, which reads to me like a barely-veiled threat to resign if Obama orders ground troops into Libya. Bob Gates has been a great SecDef and I can't imagine that Obama wants to lose him.
 
I would strongly oppose any such move. First, and most importantly, no critical national interests are at stake. Second, the gross political and military incompetence of the anti-Gadhafi movement elevates risks of a post-Gadhafi civil war on account of that movement's lack of broad popular support, lack of ability/understanding on how to build such support, etc.
 
So, a no-fly zone didn't cut the mustard, eh?

Some of us told you all this from jump street.
 
I really hope not. That would be a terrible legacy.
 
apdst said:
Obama's legacy is already shot, anyway. :lamo
Click to expand...

very telling though. considering putting US troops in harms way and what is his biggest concern... obama's legacy. #*%$^(@)$&@^)$)@&^$(()@)^^&$@_@*&
 
Councilman said:
This is Reagan's fault, because he follow through after the Air strikes, 1986 known as Operation El Dorado Canyon, didn't kill Gaddafi only his daughter.

That cost us two Air crewmen.

There I beat the Liberals to the spin I know is coming.
Click to expand...

dammit
you got there before i could blame uncle ronnie
 
lpast said:
Bah I was afraid this was going to happen we shouldnt even have gotten involved at all with libya. No liberal can defend obama on this...HE DID THIS ALL ON HIS OWN...cant blame bush cant blame congress


General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya

WASHINGTON - The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya - CBS News
Click to expand...

You are correct. As a Liberal I cannot defend Obama. Our involvement in Libya is a mistake on a few different levels, and any expansion of that mistake would be terrible.

I feel that General Ham may be either speaking out of turn, which is highly unlikely, or is playing a part in gauging Gaddafi's response to the threat of troops coming into country. Both Gates and Obama have made it clear that no troops (besides the CIA?) would be deployed in Libya, so I think this may be an opening gambit in diplomacy that we do not see. There is currently an admin envoy in Benghazi and a former senator in Tripoli talking to Gaddafi, so I doubt it is a mistake that this statement was made at this time.

Though, a threat without the reality that it will be backed up is no threat at all, so I would suspect we see some troop deployment to the region soon. I'm just hoping it is only a threat and diplomatic gambit, of course. Otherwise I'll be really P.O'd.
 
SE102 said:
Politically compelled to choose the damned-if-you-do in this situation? From the little I gather it may be less of a quagmire than other 'distractions'.
Click to expand...

It is still wrong. Our action in Libya cannot be justified through the War Powers Act or the Constitution. Just like our involvement in Iraq, this is illegal.
 
ADG said:
His legacy is still being written. So far, his foreign policy reads like a neo-cons wet dream. How's that for a legacy. :(
Click to expand...

Well I did say that he'd be another Bush. Though I did think at the start of his term he'd be going after Pakistan, not Libya.
 
Ikari said:
Well I did say that he'd be another Bush. Though I did think at the start of his term he'd be going after Pakistan, not Libya.
Click to expand...

I've said this repeatedly! Don't believe me? Search the phrase:

I voted for change and got Bush III.

Oh wait. Forgot. I'm liberal therefore I blindly support Obama no matter what. Brraaaaaainnnsss.
 
ADG said:
It is still wrong. Our action in Libya cannot be justified through the War Powers Act or the Constitution. Just like our involvement in Iraq, this is illegal.
Click to expand...

Well, Obama didn't do anything illegal, nor un-constitutional by sending assets to Libya. The only thing he's guilty of is making a half hearted attempt at regime change, which isn't illegal.
 
apdst said:
Well, Obama didn't do anything illegal, nor un-constitutional by sending assets to Libya. The only thing he's guilty of is making a half hearted attempt at regime change, which isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

He's just a hypocrite for not getting a declaration of war.
 
ADG said:
It is still wrong. Our action in Libya cannot be justified through the War Powers Act or the Constitution. Just like our involvement in Iraq, this is illegal.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Well, Obama didn't do anything illegal, nor un-constitutional by sending assets to Libya. The only thing he's guilty of is making a half hearted attempt at regime change, which isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

American said:
He's just a hypocrite for not getting a declaration of war.
Click to expand...

War has only been declared 5 times, last time was WW II. Since then, 6 times Congress has authorized war without declaring it, including Vietnam and the Iraq War II. 8 times war was authorized by the UNSC and funded by Congress, 2 of which were also authorized by Congress (Multinational Force in Lebanon and the Gulf War - Iraq I).

Iraq War II - Congress authorized.
Military Intervention in Libya - UN authorized.

Since Obama did not go to Congress for funding or authorization, and there was no immediate threat to our security, the fact is that the Iraq War II was entirely more legitimate than the Libyan adventure.

Iraq War II was not illegal.
 
Looks like many of the right wingers are scared to death there will be a successful outcome to implementing the no fly zone. How would it look? A successful regime change with no US Troops lost. I know some of you are getting impatient but it's not over yet.
 
USA_1 said:
Looks like many of the right wingers are scared to death there will be a successful outcome to implementing the no fly zone. How would it look? A successful regime change with no US Troops lost. I know some of you are getting impatient but it's not over yet.
Click to expand...

Not at all worried of a successful outcome (in my role as neocon, not a right winger). That would be stellar. But on what planet do you predict a successful outcome?
 
reefedjib said:
Not at all worried of a successful outcome (in my role as neocon, not a right winger). That would be stellar. But on what planet do you predict a successful outcome?
Click to expand...

Top officials in Qadaffis government are defecting faster than Palin supporters. It's only a matter of time before Qadaffi makes a run for it to avoid a bullet in the head. I would say there is a 50-50 chance he doesn't last the year.
It is swinging both ways but the war is only weeks old. Be patient.
 
USA_1 said:
Top officials in Qadaffis government are defecting faster than Palin supporters. It's only a matter of time before Qadaffi makes a run for it to avoid a bullet in the head. I would say there is a 50-50 chance he doesn't last the year.
Click to expand...

Yo, bro, send me some of that herbage...
 
reefedjib said:
Yo, bro, send me some of that herbage...
Click to expand...

Do you guys honestly believe Qadaffi is in total control? If so I have some swampland in Florida you might be interested in.

 
Last edited:
What makes you so sure that Gaddafi's departure would even be a good thing for Libya, or for the world? He hasn't bothered us for years. Why is he suddenly our enemy again? And what makes you so sure that these rebels are more able to govern?

We are once again making a foreign conflict all about *us*, and how wonderful we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom