• 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!

Libya’s violent free-for-all

Frigidweirdo said:
Okay, I'll prove it.



15th February 2011 was the start of it all in Libya.

Republicans upset with Obama's regime change remarks - CNN.com

"When U.S. President Barack Obama said Monday it would be wrong to seek regime change in Libya by force, Republican lawmakers took issue -- saying removing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is and should be precisely the goal." March 29, 2011

""The reason why we wage wars is to achieve the results of a policy that we state," McCain said."

"Overall, however, McCain said Obama made a "strong case" for the military effort in Libya and laid out the reasons why the president thought it was important to intervene."



McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya - CNN.com

"McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya" April 22, 2011

"Libyan opposition leaders received a major morale boost Friday when a top U.S. senator made a surprise visit to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and urged greater American involvement in the bloody campaign to oust strongman Moammar Gadhafi.

The visit from Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, came a day after the United States said it was deploying predator drones to Libya."


In Syria it all kicked off on the 15th March 2011.

Oh this is massively frustrating. I'm struggling to find the things I found before. Even went back to an old political forum and the search function hardly works, and Google is throwing up so much rubbish it's ridiculous. Type in McCain and Syria and the only thing with McCain in it is to do with Libya.


Anyway, McCain was essentially giving reasons they the US should not go into Syria at this time, in total contrast to what he said with Libya.

Here's McCain two years later talking about arming rebels, no talk of bombing.

John McCain makes surprise visit to rebel leaders in Syria | World news | The Guardian

"
This article is more than 6 years old John McCain makes surprise visit to rebel leaders in Syria"
Click to expand...

Hmm. I'm not seeing any proof of an oil motivation for toppling Qaddafi. What I'm seeing are ambiguous and less than clear reasoning to do so from the then administration. I'm also seeing legitimate concerns expressed from Republicans.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Do you know how things work?

Sometimes the president doesn't know about things. This doesn't need to have been a US job. It could have been CIA without the knowledge of Trump. It could have been Saudi and it could have been Israeli. Either way Trump isn't going to be in on it.

With the realization from the Saudis and Israelis that Trump is easy as pie to manipulate, they're clearly going to try such things at some point.

But the reality is we can't know. It could have been the Iranians. It could have been anyone.
Click to expand...

Who has a record of attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? Wouldn't that be the Iranians?

Not sure that I'd make the claim 'realization from the Saudis and Israelis that Trump is easy as pie to manipulate'. Not only very difficult to demonstrate, each citation of proof of manipulation could easily have an equally valid non-manipulation foundation.

Do I believe Hillary? Not really. Do I believe Trump? No. Israelis? No. Saudis? No. CIA? No.
Click to expand...

Absolute trust? No, Oh hell no. The Israeli and Saudi nations have their own interests, just as the US has its own interests. Since when do you trust a spying agency? Especially with the cloud of a questionable factual predicate hanging over the justification of the Russian Collusion investigation.

That's not the point here. The point is that a LOT OF PEOPLE believe the Saudis are complicit in terrorism. I mean, they brutally executed a Journalist working for the Washington Post. They got away with it. To the point where the US continued to sell arms to the Saudis. The Saudis have got a lot more confident since Trump became president.
Click to expand...

A lot of people believe a lot of things, and they may be wrong. If there's evidence that the Saudi nation is supporting terrorists, I'll be open to that possibility. So far, I'm not aware that this has been publicized as much Iranian support of terrorists.

Yes, the Saudi's murdered Khashoggi. In that society it is unacceptable to criticize the monarchy as Khashoggi had made a habit of. Different system than the US, and it is inappropriate and foolish to apply US values to another culture. It simply doesn't work that way. US values dictate US reactions, but not Saudi actions. Would have to measure those action by Saudi values.

Trump went to Saudi Arabia in May 2017, in June Qatar got blockaded. Coincidence? No chance.
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
Hmm. I'm not seeing any proof of an oil motivation for toppling Qaddafi. What I'm seeing are ambiguous and less than clear reasoning to do so from the then administration. I'm also seeing legitimate concerns expressed from Republicans.
Click to expand...
Libya wasn't about oil.it was Hillary following Albrights policy of R2P

Libya and the Responsibility to Protect

the really stupid part of this -and there was lots of stupid -was the fact the info that Qaddafi was going to bomb Bengazi protestors" was 100% unfounded -based on a few cell phone rants
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom