• 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!

Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

  • Total voters
    49
ludahai said:
I wasn't trying to argue that it is definately part of the Middle East, though a strong case can be made for it. It was a part of pan-Arabism including proposed union with other states which are undeniably Middle Eastern.

However, the original point was made that Libya was not even near the Middle East. However, even if you DON'T consider Libya part of the Middle East, it most certainly BORDERS it as Egypt most certainly is.

As for African linkages, those are more manufactured than anything else. Libya was not generally regarded as one of the Maghrib area states that did have significant impact with West Africa (basically being the gold-salt trade which also brought a lot of slaves into the Mediterranean world.) Libya has historically been more Mediterranean in orientation and in closer orbit with Egypt and thus the Middle East rather than the Maghrib. Libyans even at one time conquered Egypt.

The modern ties with the rest of Africa were mostly creations of Khaddafy during one of his fits of grandeur, particularly after his dreams of dominating a pan-Arab state fell apart...
Click to expand...

No disagreement here.
 
ludahai said:
I wasn't trying to argue that it is definately part of the Middle East, though a strong case can be made for it. It was a part of pan-Arabism including proposed union with other states which are undeniably Middle Eastern.

However, the original point was made that Libya was not even near the Middle East. However, even if you DON'T consider Libya part of the Middle East, it most certainly BORDERS it as Egypt most certainly is.
Click to expand...

What I meant is that Libya is geographically far away from the nations in the Middle East that are currently rebelling, especially those on the Arabian Peninsula. I don't think that any particular outcome of Libya's civil war is going to have any bearing on the outcome of the protests there.
 
I don't know the motives of the rebels and I have yet hear anyone actually even attempt to prove that their motives are pure. As it stands now I don't know if they want to take back their country back for the right reasons or the wrong, I don't know if they are worse or better than who they have now. The idea that the UN, Obama, or anyone else has made a decision on it tells me they either know something I don't or they're acting just to act.

edit: Whatever their motives are however I don't support helping them.
 
Last edited:
Ron Mars said:
The British won the Revolutionary War? First I've heard of that.
Click to expand...

The U.S. didn't fight the Revolutionary War. We were still just colonies back then. That's why it was a revolution.
 
Obama is a blithering idiot when it comes to foreign policy. We don't need to be there. Let someone else do the heavy lifting this time. I mean really, can anyone see this ending well.

We all know he's a cooked goose as far as 2012. This will just seal his fate. It's time for him to go anyway. I voted for him but I'll vote for anyone but him in 2012. Since I'm not a party hack, I have that freedom. He is shaping up to be another Bush. Spending American's lives on the refuse of the desert to appease the oil companies. I wonder how much Exxon is donating to the DNC this year?
 
Kandahar said:
What I meant is that Libya is geographically far away from the nations in the Middle East that are currently rebelling, especially those on the Arabian Peninsula. I don't think that any particular outcome of Libya's civil war is going to have any bearing on the outcome of the protests there.
Click to expand...

Which makes even less sense because this all started in Tunisia and Egypt, both states that border Libya... Furthermore, Libya has pan-Arabism links with Yemen and Syria from the days that they were involved, with Khaddafy trying to lead, a pan-Arab superstate...
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
The U.S. didn't fight the Revolutionary War. We were still just colonies back then. That's why it was a revolution.
Click to expand...

YES, and this is a civil war which is really none of our business. We're no more justified in bombing Libya back to the stone age than we are in bombing the majority of African, Middle Eastern, and Asian nations who are ruled by dictators that kill their own people.

And retrospectively, would you have wanted GB or France to support the rebels in our civil war? Granted, every foreign policy decision is somehow made in the pursuit of national self-interest, but bombing Libya is not in our national self-interest. It was also not in our self-interest to bomb Iraq in the 1990s to try and get back at Saddam. The estimates claim we killed somewhere on the magnitude of hundreds of thousands, the majority of them children. This is where I agreed with Michael Moore when he suggested we build a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.
 
ElijahGalt said:
And retrospectively, would you have wanted GB or France to support the rebels in our civil war?
Click to expand...

1. Was the United States a dictatorship run by the same madman for more than four decades?
2. Was the Union army indiscriminantly killing people?

Please, be aware of what you are saying when you make such comparisons...
 
ludahai said:
1. Was the United States a dictatorship run by the same madman for more than four decades?
Click to expand...

Not the same madman for four decades, but the US was definitely not a democracy at that time, as the government disenfranchised the 50% of the population that was female, as well as various ethnic minorities.

ludahai said:
2. Was the Union army indiscriminantly killing people?
Click to expand...

Yeah, probably. Sherman set the entire state of Georgia ablaze.
 
Last edited:
I'm torn.
On one hand I'm thrilled that the Libyan rebels are not getting help.
On the other hand I agree with Kucinich that Obama bypassing congress is an impeachable offense.
And I also wonder if an objective is to, as Bob Herbert says, pour:

"shiploads of cash into yet another war, this time in Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home."

And of course the worse the contrived budget crisis the more excuses the Scott Walkers of the US have to try to bust unions.
 
Kandahar said:
Not the same madman for four decades, but the US was definitely not a democracy at that time, as the government disenfranchised the 50% of the population that was female, as well as various ethnic minorities.
Click to expand...

By the standards of the day, the U.S. was quite democratic. Also, the minorities who were mostly disenfranchised were in the areas of the country that were rebelling...

Yeah, probably. Sherman set the entire state of Georgia ablaze.
Click to expand...

The entire state of Georgia? Were that true, there wouldn't be any antebellum structures left standing and in tact in the state. Also, I had never heard any stories of Sherman targeting civilivians either during the siege of Atlanta or during the march to the sea...

Nice try though, but all it does is show your desparation to make a point...
 
samsmart said:
The U.S. didn't fight the Revolutionary War. We were still just colonies back then. That's why it was a revolution.
Click to expand...

And all this time I thought the US became a nation in 1776. Go figure.
 
ludahai said:
By the standards of the day, the U.S. was quite democratic. Also, the minorities who were mostly disenfranchised were in the areas of the country that were rebelling...



The entire state of Georgia? Were that true, there wouldn't be any antebellum structures left standing and in tact in the state. Also, I had never heard any stories of Sherman targeting civilivians either during the siege of Atlanta or during the march to the sea...

Nice try though, but all it does is show your desparation to make a point...
Click to expand...

Sherman burned a vast amount of Atlanta. He acted like a real butcher while in South Carolina.


"I'm going to march to Richmond...and when I go through South Carolina it will be one of the most horrible things in the history of the world. The devil himself couldn't restrain my men in that state." -William T. Sherman

To Henry W Helleck: "The truth is the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina." -Sherman
 
Kandahar said:
Yeah, probably. Sherman set the entire state of Georgia ablaze.
Click to expand...

He ordered the burning of public buildings, arsenals and materials that could support the rebel army.

Union troops did not indiscriminately set fire to Atlanta. If memory serves Sherman ordered all civilians out of the city.
 
ludahai said:
By the standards of the day, the U.S. was quite democratic.
Click to expand...

Why do the "standards of the day" apply to the US in 1860s, but the "standards of the region" don't apply to Libya today?

ludahai said:
Also, the minorities who were mostly disenfranchised were in the areas of the country that were rebelling...
Click to expand...

Uhh I'm pretty sure that minorities in the north didn't get much representation either. And in any case, women still didn't have the right to vote which is fully half the population.

ludahai said:
The entire state of Georgia? Were that true, there wouldn't be any antebellum structures left standing and in tact in the state. Also, I had never heard any stories of Sherman targeting civilivians either during the siege of Atlanta or during the march to the sea...
Click to expand...

When you set everything on fire in your path, it's going to kill some civilians. And it's hardly a tactic that minimizes those casualties. Whether they were specifically "targeted" or not probably didn't matter much to those who died.

ludahai said:
Nice try though, but all it does is show your desparation to make a point...
Click to expand...

You're the one who suggested that the US during the Civil War was democratic and didn't indiscriminately kill civilians. I just pointed out that neither of those things were true. Don't get mad at ME just because your suggestion was stupid and you got called on it.
 
Helvidius said:
Sherman burned a vast amount of Atlanta. He acted like a real butcher while in South Carolina.


"I'm going to march to Richmond...and when I go through South Carolina it will be one of the most horrible things in the history of the world. The devil himself couldn't restrain my men in that state." -William T. Sherman

To Henry W Helleck: "The truth is the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina." -Sherman
Click to expand...

Yep, Union troops were happy to destroy anything of use to the rebel army in SC. They blamed the state for starting the war.
 
Kandahar said:
Why do the "standards of the day" apply to the US in 1860s, but the "standards of the region" don't apply to Libya today?
Click to expand...

You can't distinguish between the standards of the day and standards of the region? You know, this is 2011, not 1861. Values have changed. If we don't like their values, we don't have to deal with them. Fortunately, many in that region do NOT want to be ruled by dictators and do NOT accept the notion that human rights and values apply to some but not to others in the 21st century.

Uhh I'm pretty sure that minorities in the north didn't get much representation either. And in any case, women still didn't have the right to vote which is fully half the population.
Click to expand...

Where DID women have the vote at that time?

When you set everything on fire in your path, it's going to kill some civilians. And it's hardly a tactic that minimizes those casualties. Whether they were specifically "targeted" or not probably didn't matter much to those who died.
Click to expand...

Anything that could support war against the Union troops was destroyed if it could be, but civilians were allowed to leave before torching began. There are still large numbers of antebellum buildings standing in Georgia, FYI.

You're the one who suggested that the US during the Civil War was democratic and didn't indiscriminately kill civilians. I just pointed out that neither of those things were true. Don't get mad at ME just because your suggestion was stupid and you got called on it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was responding to the stupid suggestion that possible British or French recognition of the CSA would somehow be comparable to the French recognition of the Libyan rebels or that anything that the Western and Arab forces may be doing would somehow help them. THAT was the original comparison and it was absurd on its face... notice, he hasn't return to the thread to respond...

And the U.S. was MOST CERTAINLY democratic and free compared to other states in the 1860s and in many respects, arguably MORE FREE than any other state in the world at the time...
 
ludahai said:
1. Was the United States a dictatorship run by the same madman for more than four decades?
Click to expand...

In that case, Mugabe is next and then Bashir and then Deby and then...WHEN DOES IT END?

I've had this argument with other conservatives who pick and choose which dictators they see as worthy of bombing. In the end, it really comes down to the type of political party in power in the United States. Bush was justified in Iraq, Clinton was unjustified in Kosovo, etc. It's total subjective bull****.

When you plan to kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of mostly children civilians, you better be DAMN SURE it is justified. And frankly, it is not in Libya, or Iraq, or Kosovo, or anywhere else that is not deemed an immediate or pertinent threat to the U.S.A.

2. Was the Union army indiscriminantly killing people?
Click to expand...

It is debatable whether or not Lincoln was, in fact, a dictator. You could argue that Lincoln was not a dictator because our constitution allowed for the suspension of habeas corpus during war. In that case, you cannot claim Mussolini was a dictator because the Italian constitution allowed the ascension of leader with dictatorial powers during a time of war. But we all know that Mussolini was a dictator, and that Lincoln held almost absolute control over the country (at least the Union) during the civil war. His only opponents were the radicals of his own party, who ultimately went ahead with his ideas.

Please, be aware of what you are saying when you make such comparisons...[/QUOTE]
 
ElijahGalt said:
In that case, Mugabe is next and then Bashir and then Deby and then...WHEN DOES IT END?

I've had this argument with other conservatives who pick and choose which dictators they see as worthy of bombing. In the end, it really comes down to the type of political party in power in the United States. Bush was justified in Iraq, Clinton was unjustified in Kosovo, etc. It's total subjective bull****.
Click to expand...

For the record, I supported the action regarding Kosovo, though I did take a lot of heat for it living in China at the time, especially after the accidential bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

When you plan to kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of mostly children civilians, you better be DAMN SURE it is justified. And frankly, it is not in Libya, or Iraq, or Kosovo, or anywhere else that is not deemed an immediate or pertinent threat to the U.S.A.
Click to expand...

Sure it was in all of these cases. Kosovars were being brutalized by the Yugoslav army. Iraq was in material violation of more than a dozen UN Security Council resolutions, all of which carried with them the authorization for the use of force. Saddam was a maniacal dictator who invaded two neighbors, used WMDs against his own people, and attemptede genocide against the Marsh Arabs in the south. I also agree it is appropriate in Libya as well.


It is debatable whether or not Lincoln was, in fact, a dictator. You could argue that Lincoln was not a dictator because our constitution allowed for the suspension of habeas corpus during war. In that case, you cannot claim Mussolini was a dictator because the Italian constitution allowed the ascension of leader with dictatorial powers during a time of war. But we all know that Mussolini was a dictator, and that Lincoln held almost absolute control over the country (at least the Union) during the civil war. His only opponents were the radicals of his own party, who ultimately went ahead with his ideas.
Click to expand...

Except that Mussolini was a dictator BEFORE the war started and he was on the side that STARTED the war. The same can't be said for Lincoln.

Is this the best you can do? We can agree to disagree on whether the aforementioned actions are justifiable or not. That is a matter of opinion. However, to argue that the U.S. was not democratic in the 1860s is really not open to debate. The U.S. was clearly one of the most, if not THE most, democratic states in the world at the time, regardless of its imperfections.
 
Laila said:
It's a revolution. It is two sides battling it out for their own country.
Let them get to it, if they lose. They never had the immense broad support that was seen in Egypt and Tunisia.
If they win, then we welcome them into the fold.

It is not our responsibility or our duty. We are not the world's police and I wonder what BS excuse will come out of our politicians mouths when more dead soldiers start arriving.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's not a revolution if they have other people doing their fighting for them. If they can overthrow the existing government, they have the support and resolve to do so. Otherwise, they don't and have no business running Libya. I'm getting sick of people involved in a revolution whining that they can't fight the good fight alone. Then stop fighting already!
 
Cephus said:
I agree, it's not a revolution if they have other people doing their fighting for them. If they can overthrow the existing government, they have the support and resolve to do so. Otherwise, they don't and have no business running Libya. I'm getting sick of people involved in a revolution whining that they can't fight the good fight alone. Then stop fighting already!
Click to expand...

Easy to say, but when your oppresive government has fighter jets, artillery and tanks, it is kind of hard. It isn't 1776 after all and all of the Russian equipment Khaddafy has at his disposal is not something the rebels have access to...
 
ludahai said:
For the record, I supported the action regarding Kosovo, though I did take a lot of heat for it living in China at the time, especially after the accidential bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
Click to expand...

The point has been lost. In these types of circumstances, you can't be subjective. If you want to bomb Libya to deliver democracy, then you must also do the same for every other country facing an oppressive dictator. There are countries with worse dictators than Libya, yet it doesn't change the fact that we should not and cannot police the world.



Sure it was in all of these cases. Kosovars were being brutalized by the Yugoslav army. Iraq was in material violation of more than a dozen UN Security Council resolutions, all of which carried with them the authorization for the use of force. Saddam was a maniacal dictator who invaded two neighbors, used WMDs against his own people, and attemptede genocide against the Marsh Arabs in the south. I also agree it is appropriate in Libya as well.
Click to expand...

And where do you draw the line, and why do the draw the line there?


Except that Mussolini was a dictator BEFORE the war started and he was on the side that STARTED the war. The same can't be said for Lincoln.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, let me correct myself. It referred to a crisis, not war.

Is this the best you can do? We can agree to disagree on whether the aforementioned actions are justifiable or not. That is a matter of opinion. However, to argue that the U.S. was not democratic in the 1860s is really not open to debate. The U.S. was clearly one of the most, if not THE most, democratic states in the world at the time, regardless of its imperfections.
Click to expand...

Of course the U.S. was democratic, if by democratic you mean a one-party political system. The democrats that numbered seats in the U.S. congress at that time compare roughly to the number of Arab parties in Israel. Sure, Israel is a democracy. A democracy strictly for the Jewish people. And South Africa was a democracy strictly for the white minority. And the U.S., at that time, was a democracy for strictly white, Anglo men who lived in the North. By some standards, you could argue it was more democratic than other nations at that time, but certainly not ideally democratic. Furthermore, a democracy can still be run by a leader with dictatorial powers.
 
I'm most probably not fully aware of all aspects involved in this Libyan mix-up, but I was under the impression that there were some members of various terrorist groups among the rebel forces, and perhaps also some money from them?

My thought, based on that info, was to wonder if allowing rebel forces influenced by terrorists to take control of a country was advisable...

But I likely don't have anywhere NEAR all the info.

However, assuming that is accurate, would a terrorist-influenced Libya be enough of a threat to the US to prompt our stepping in to counter that influence?

I’m probably missing something here, since I didn’t see anyone else talking about this aspect…

Thoughts?
 
ElijahGalt said:
The point has been lost. In these types of circumstances, you can't be subjective. If you want to bomb Libya to deliver democracy, then you must also do the same for every other country facing an oppressive dictator. There are countries with worse dictators than Libya, yet it doesn't change the fact that we should not and cannot police the world.

And where do you draw the line, and why do the draw the line there?
Click to expand...

I draw the line where an army of a dictator is deliberately killing civilians and we are in a position where we can help. It sucks that we have to pick and choose, but I believe that those of us who are free have a moral responsible to help those who are not free if we are in a position to. I actually completely agree with the U.S. assisting in this operation, but taking a secondary role to the Europeans as it appears we are in the direction of doing.



Of course the U.S. was democratic, if by democratic you mean a one-party political system. The democrats that numbered seats in the U.S. congress at that time compare roughly to the number of Arab parties in Israel. Sure, Israel is a democracy. A democracy strictly for the Jewish people. And South Africa was a democracy strictly for the white minority. And the U.S., at that time, was a democracy for strictly white, Anglo men who lived in the North. By some standards, you could argue it was more democratic than other nations at that time, but certainly not ideally democratic. Furthermore, a democracy can still be run by a leader with dictatorial powers.
Click to expand...

The U.S. did NOT have a one-party political system. Lincoln was the very first Republican to hold the White House. His immediate predecessor was a Democrat and Congress was under Democrat control with a sizable majority just four years earlier.
 
We had to make a choice in this situation. To do nothing would have ensured that the rebels were crushed by Ghadaffi's superior numbers and arms. Since all we've done is evened the odds, I think we did the only thing we could to abdicate responsibility for the outcome. Now it's a fair fight between the rebels and Ghadaffi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom