Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

  1. #41
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,302

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    That's a straw man. The LIBYAN PEOPLE weren't going to get **** out of that deal.
    Your argument is the straw man. Qaddafi actually made the proposal and you pose a hypothetical reality that never happened. That is a straw man. Libya has many free social programs paid for with the OIL money, so your argument has the same cloudy appeal as a leaking balloon.

  2. #42
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Your argument is the straw man. Qaddafi actually made the proposal and you pose a hypothetical reality that never happened. That is a straw man. Libya has many free social programs paid for with the OIL money, so your argument has the same cloudy appeal as a leaking balloon.
    Libya has the largest proven oil reserves on the African continent, yet their economy is suffering from 30% unemployment. Give me a break. If the Libyan people were screwed out of Libya's oil wealth before nationalization, they would have still been screwed afterwards.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 03-31-11 at 06:19 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  3. #43
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,302

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    You know, I see an eerie parallel between Benghazi and Baghdad, in that someone again is not being truthful.
    What possible similarities. MidEast, easily recoverable OIL, lies, CIA, possible nationalization and sales to China, mythical dead civilians?, but no babies in incubators. The babies in incubators clinches the deal but that was Kuwait and there are certainly no similarities. How could rational people even consider such possibilities. And they both start with B. Check with Santa and the Easter Bunny for specifics.

  4. #44
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,945
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I disagree with that. I offer the following link.

    LINK< Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil - English pravda.ru >
    The link doesn't really make much of a case even if one accepts all of the info as accurate. It's all based on plan from a couple/few years ago that failed.
    I may be wrong.

  5. #45
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    The link doesn't really make much of a case even if one accepts all of the info as accurate. It's all based on plan from a couple/few years ago that failed.
    Not to mention the US doesn't even rely on Libyan oil. The Europeans, yes. Us? Not so much.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  6. #46
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,302

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    The link doesn't really make much of a case even if one accepts all of the info as accurate. It's all based on plan from a couple/few years ago that failed.


    It is about the Centralized Distribution of OIL that is pertinent. It doesn't take 6 minutes of 6 days or 6 years, more likely 60 years and a continuing profit motive at the Corporate level. Does big energy own any politicians?

  7. #47
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Obama knowingly stuck his neck out on this one. If one, just one US casualty gets reported, the I TOLD YOU SO cacophony of the Reps and doomsday media will reverberate all across the country AND the world.

    ricksfolly
    Hence, the reason he has stood fast not to put "boots on the ground". I can agree with him using the CIA to perform intelligence survellience or even train the rebel forces on how to use certain weapons, i.e., shoulder held rocket launcers. After all, that's what we did in the Soviet/Afgahn war (well, that AND supply the Afgahn rebels with weapons and ARGs which I hope we don't do in the case with Libya). And considering all the outcry by the GOP/Tea Parties insisting on knowing who these "rebel forces" are, I'd say the only way to know for sure IS to get our intel folks behind enemy lines using covert operations.

    But you are correct: the first U.S. casualty to come out of this will provide that "gotcha moment" for the opposition despite the fact that the lose of life wouldn't be scores of our Armed Forces but instead members of a small group of our intel apporatus. Not saying that any lose of American lives is insignificant, but in the grand scheme of things I'd much rather that lose come from a small group from the CIA than to lose a combat helo, strike fighter plane or a warship.

  8. #48
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    This whole business is about 2012 re-election.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #49
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,475

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Hence, the reason he has stood fast not to put "boots on the ground". I can agree with him using the CIA to perform intelligence survellience or even train the rebel forces on how to use certain weapons, i.e., shoulder held rocket launcers. After all, that's what we did in the Soviet/Afgahn war (well, that AND supply the Afgahn rebels with weapons and ARGs which I hope we don't do in the case with Libya). And considering all the outcry by the GOP/Tea Parties insisting on knowing who these "rebel forces" are, I'd say the only way to know for sure IS to get our intel folks behind enemy lines using covert operations.

    But you are correct: the first U.S. casualty to come out of this will provide that "gotcha moment" for the opposition despite the fact that the lose of life wouldn't be scores of our Armed Forces but instead members of a small group of our intel apporatus. Not saying that any lose of American lives is insignificant, but in the grand scheme of things I'd much rather that lose come from a small group from the CIA than to lose a combat helo, strike fighter plane or a warship.
    The difference being? Seriously.

  10. #50
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go - The Daily of the University of Washington

    So far, the military action has been limited to clearing the airspace by shooting down Libyan military planes, airstrikes on Libyan military forces and Tomahawk missile strikes. Planes and missiles can do a lot against buildings, missile launch sites and large tank formations, but planes canít place someone into custody. If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women...

    We can expect the United States to have to commit more soldiers than any other nation. This has less to do with the size of our military and more to do with the national politics of the member countries...

    In order to distribute aid properly, there will have to be troops on the ground. To prevent chaos, in the power vacuum, NATO will have to send in troops, not as an invasion force, but as a force to secure the food and relief efforts. And that inevitably means that NATO will send ground forces, and that means Americans...

    President Obama will be able to say that the United States is not sending troops to Libya, which on paper will be true. NATO will be sending troops, and as a member nation, the United States will support that action with troops of its own. In the end, the United States will commit more forces than any other country...
    Yeah but what's your opinion on the subject? Should we be involved or not?
    Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •