• 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!

NATO Uses Attack Helicopters for First Time in Libya

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,657
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The non-War has moved ahead as Obama is lies about our mission.

Is it remotely possible that Obama has been less than forthright in the degree of our involvement in the Libyan theater. Say it's not so.

URL="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/04/nato-uses-attack-helicopters-for-first-time-in-libya/"]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/04/nato-uses-attack-helicopters-for-first-time-in-libya/[/URL]

NATO announced Saturday it had for the first time used attack helicopters in Libya, striking military vehicles, military equipment and forces backing embattled leader Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi.

"Attack helicopters under NATO command were used for the first time on 4 June, 2011 in military operations over Libya as part of Operation Unified Protector," the Atlantic Alliance said in a statement.
"The targets struck included military vehicles, military equipment and fielded forces" of the Qaddafi regime, said the statement, without detailing exactly where the strikes had taken place.
Looks like a war to me.
apachej.jpg

I wnever want to see these monster pointed at me.
 
I'm confused... Wasn't Obama highly critical of Bush invading Iraq? But now isn't Obama part of a coalition invading Lybia? Is this hope and change we can depend on?

I guess this message turned out to be true after all.

obama-obama-hope-and-change-political-poster-1261844240.jpg
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059540253 said:
I'm confused... Wasn't Obama highly critical of Bush invading Iraq? But now isn't Obama part of a coalition invading Lybia? Is this hope and change we can depend on?

I guess this message turned out to be true after all.

obama-obama-hope-and-change-political-poster-1261844240.jpg

No. Don't you see that if you understand and can recognize reality you will never get it, you like me are doomed to think that we got it wrong.

As long as Obama is around we cannot let logic, honesty, the truth, or facts get in the way of our belief that he can do no wrong.

Lest we be deemed some kind of racist, or other dumb-ass by the Leftists.
 
They are not US helicopters, right?
 
No. Don't you see that if you understand and can recognize reality you will never get it, you like me are doomed to think that we got it wrong.

As long as Obama is around we cannot let logic, honesty, the truth, or facts get in the way of our belief that he can do no wrong.

Lest we be deemed some kind of racist, or other dumb-ass by the Leftists.

Apples and oranges.

Bush said Iraq had WMD, but Hans Blix went in and inspected and found NONE. Powell went to the UN, said Iraq had WMD, but Powell lied like the rest of the Bush admin. The problem with Iraq was not that we invaded, it was that we invaded under false pretense. Cheney irroneously tried to make the case that Iraq was linked to 9/11, but the 9/11 commission found "no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda".

Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."
Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq - washingtonpost.com

That condemnation form Bush's own longtime friend, who could not stand the lies any longer.

On Libya, there was an uprising going on, that is not a lie. The US chose to support it, and to involve NATO in support of the rebels. You will note, those are NATO attack helicopters, not US.
 
I'm confused. Maybe that is the way it is for Independents. It seems to me that a hell of a lot of conservatives and Republicans were damn near joyous over Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats, by and large, were opposed. Many said they voted for Obama, in part, because he promised to fully withdraw US troops from Irag. Many believed he would de-escalate the war in Afghanistan. As a point of clarification, I did not vote for Obama though I would have supported complete withdrawal of all US troops from the Gulf and Middle East.

To date Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan, has not withdrawn all troops from Iraq, has increased hostile actions in Pakistan and has attacked Libya and now has troops in-country there. Now the Republicans are opposed to increases in hostile actions. Democrats, as always, can't seem to decide what it is they want or when they want whatever it is they want. What an effing mess! AND we cannot afford any of it!
 
I'm confused. Maybe that is the way it is for Independents. It seems to me that a hell of a lot of conservatives and Republicans were damn near joyous over Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats, by and large, were opposed. Many said they voted for Obama, in part, because he promised to fully withdraw US troops from Irag. Many believed he would de-escalate the war in Afghanistan. As a point of clarification, I did not vote for Obama though I would have supported complete withdrawal of all US troops from the Gulf and Middle East.

To date Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan, has not withdrawn all troops from Iraq, has increased hostile actions in Pakistan and has attacked Libya and now has troops in-country there. Now the Republicans are opposed to increases in hostile actions. Democrats, as always, can't seem to decide what it is they want or when they want whatever it is they want. What an effing mess! AND we cannot afford any of it!

Sounds like you nailed it...what part are you confused about?
 
You see its because IN MY HEAD liberals are HIPPY DIPPIES who would never support war. Therefore IN MY HEAD they appear to be hypocrites when its actually the principles behind the war and the pursuit of JUST WAR that is the issue. Cant get my head around the JUST WAR thing where they think they are better than conservatives for not supporting UNJUST WARS. And btw I dont support this war cause the liberals do....


:roll:
 
You see its because IN MY HEAD liberals are HIPPY DIPPIES who would never support war. Therefore IN MY HEAD they appear to be hypocrites when its actually the principles behind the war and the pursuit of JUST WAR that is the issue. Cant get my head around the JUST WAR thing where they think they are better than conservatives for not supporting UNJUST WARS. And btw I dont support this war cause the liberals do....


:roll:

So...endorsing an attack on Libya because they have a brutal dictator is a 'just war'?
 
increased hostile actions in Pakistan and has attacked Libya and now has troops in-country there.

What?

...

an attack on Libya because they have a brutal dictator is a 'just war'?

If one defines brutal as 'bombs his own people with their air force, for 6 days and no end in sight'.
 
Last edited:
You see its because IN MY HEAD liberals are HIPPY DIPPIES who would never support war. Therefore IN MY HEAD they appear to be hypocrites when its actually the principles behind the war and the pursuit of JUST WAR that is the issue. Cant get my head around the JUST WAR thing where they think they are better than conservatives for not supporting UNJUST WARS. And btw I dont support this war cause the liberals do....

You are just wrong. It is NOT TRUE that liberals never support war. I know of NO substantive opposition to Bush I's war to throw Iraq out of Kuwait, nor of any substantive opposition to Bush II's war in Afghanistan (we were attacked by Al Qaeda, they were in Afghanistan, and we went in there to clean them out, just war).

We reserve the right to NOT SUPPORT dumb wars that are expensive in treasure and life, where there is not a payback that is worth the cost of the war, like Iraq in 2003-2010.

It is also NOT TRUE that there are only two kinds of people in the US, conservatives and liberals. There is a large segment of independent moderates, that some on the left label as liberals because they listen to Rush too much, and they are wrong.
 
civil war, whereas in Iraq we created one

One man's civil war is another's multi-party system.
 
Sharp of you. But last I checked they were having a civil war, whereas in Iraq we created one.

Indeed. Valid point. In Iraq, their brutal dictator slaughtered his people at will, whereas, in Libya, this brutal dictator has been slaughtering people in active rebellion to his government. And we jumped in...on...who's side exactly? We are engaging in the ouster of a government...and thats OK...just cause. Just not in Iraq. Wait...what?
 
On another note:

Wonder why we are really in Libya.... Wallstreet ripping off the Libyan people with Gadaffis help?



I wonder if something is misrepresenting Libyas funds or if Gadaffi is a direct part of the collusion.

Also, you cant help others make war on a country and say you aren't part of the war. If you peel a potato and feed a combatant you are just as much a part of the war as a missle strike or laser painter.
 
Apples and oranges.

Bush said Iraq had WMD, but Hans Blix went in and inspected and found NONE. Powell went to the UN, said Iraq had WMD, but Powell lied like the rest of the Bush admin. The problem with Iraq was not that we invaded, it was that we invaded under false pretense. Cheney irroneously tried to make the case that Iraq was linked to 9/11, but the 9/11 commission found "no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda".


Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq - washingtonpost.com

That condemnation form Bush's own longtime friend, who could not stand the lies any longer.

On Libya, there was an uprising going on, that is not a lie. The US chose to support it, and to involve NATO in support of the rebels. You will note, those are NATO attack helicopters, not US.

It's not apples and oranges. Invasion is invasion. Libya didn't attack the U.S. You can't campaign on one platform and do just the opposite when you get elected, unless of course you want the world to know you are a hypocrite.

Whether Bush lied or not, even Bill Clinton and much of the world community said Iraq had WMD's and would use them. Don't try to make this Libya situation a Bush thing. It's not, it's an Obama thing.
 
Last edited:
In response to the OP:

1) Anyone who didn't realize that the day this mission moved beyond humanitarian objectives was the day it started, needs to pay more attention

2) Obama =/= NATO. Just sayin'

3) I'm not sure what the presence of attack helicopters has to do with anything. I don't think they are ours (American).
 
I don't remember if it was day 1, but when euro countries recognized the transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya and many in NATO flat-out said that Gaddafi had to go...

Does it seem reasonable for those countries to declare that Gaddafi is, once again, the legitimate government of Libya?


I'm confused.
It appears so.

increased hostile actions in Pakistan and has attacked Libya and now has troops in-country there.

Now has troops in country where?

Anyway, regarding Pakistan:

Ilyas Kashmiri, a top Pakistani militant and senior Al Qaeda operative, reportedly has been killed in a US drone strike in the tribal territory of South Waziristan, according to press reports and a statement from the group he headed.

Kashmiri is believed to be behind some of the deadliest attacks in India and Pakistan, including a 2009 suicide attack on Pakistan’s spy agency and attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.

He is the operations chief of a group called Harakut-ul Jihad Islami, which has some 3,000 militia members and is classified by the US as a terrorist organization tied to Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the Punjabi Taliban.

A Newsweek profile headlined “Is Ilyas Kashmiri the New Bin Laden?” said he “has the experience, the connections, and a determination to attack the West – including the United States—that make him the most dangerous Qaeda operative to emerge in years.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...s-Kashmiri-reported-killed-in-US-drone-attack

I'm not sure about that source. If true, Obama is doing well in Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. Valid point. In Iraq, their brutal dictator slaughtered his people at will

In the 90s where NATO and the UN established no fly-zones and stop the killings (largely). Had we gone in during the 90s, there wouldn't of been much of a valid complaint. Timing matters

whereas, in Libya, this brutal dictator has been slaughtering people in active rebellion to his government. And we jumped in...on...who's side exactly? We are engaging in the ouster of a government...and thats OK...just cause. Just not in Iraq. Wait...what?

Your facts are a little wrong. The rebels took refuge in towns that tacitly supported their cause and then were bombed and sieged.

Also, you cant help others make war on a country and say you aren't part of the war. If you peel a potato and feed a combatant you are just as much a part of the war as a missle strike or laser painter.

Total war means everyone is a target, that means terrorist can be justified for killing anyone.

3) I'm not sure what the presence of attack helicopters has to do with anything. I don't think they are ours (American).

They are not, people obviously haven't been paying attention to international politics or are being willfully ignorant. The helicopters are NATOs and the rebels have been asking for NATO to either give them to the rebels or use them with in a coordinated effort with the rebels. The reason being is that attack helicopters are better for the theater and would cause less collateral damage and/or civilian/rebel casualties.

Repubs just want to attack Obama for anything. Granted, we should not be directly promoting regime change. I'm not sure if the objectives could have been met any other way though.
 
"Its a matter of days, not weeks ............. " Mar 21, 2011.

"Qaddafi bombed his own people" ..... so did we starting in 1861. Its what happens in a Civil War.

Can anyone who supports this Libya escapade tell the rest of us which of our vital national interests were threatened in any way ? Heck, a good lie might suffice. Just tell us.

The rebels, who we are providing air support for, have a definite Al Qeada contingent. In Yemen, we aim our bombs at Al Qeada. In Libya, we aim them at the enemies of Al Qeada, as directed by Al Qeada. :roll:
 
In the 90s where NATO and the UN established no fly-zones and stop the killings (largely). Had we gone in during the 90s, there wouldn't of been much of a valid complaint. Timing matters



Your facts are a little wrong. The rebels took refuge in towns that tacitly supported their cause and then were bombed and sieged.



Total war means everyone is a target, that means terrorist can be justified for killing anyone.



They are not, people obviously haven't been paying attention to international politics or are being willfully ignorant. The helicopters are NATOs and the rebels have been asking for NATO to either give them to the rebels or use them with in a coordinated effort with the rebels. The reason being is that attack helicopters are better for the theater and would cause less collateral damage and/or civilian/rebel casualties.

Repubs just want to attack Obama for anything. Granted, we should not be directly promoting regime change. I'm not sure if the objectives could have been met any other way though.

I do love a good liberal spin...

Saddam NEVER STOPPED brutalizing his people. there were three reasons given to attack Iraq, global ties to terrorism, refussal to comply with UN resolutions regarding the disposition of his known WMD programs, and genocide. Genocide has been a common theme. His republican guard made people disappear on a regular basis.

We are involved in regime change in Libya. Their country represents aboslutely no threat to the American people. We stepped in it and its up to our knees. Funny tho that even though we as the president says, dont stand for povernments killing their citizens, we havent said **** in Syria, Saudi, Bahrain, Yemen...the hit list goes on. And face it...it doesnt MATTER. He could launch an attack on a girl scout cookie stand and his true believers would find a reason to justify it.
 
"Qaddafi bombed his own people" ..... so did we starting in 1861. Its what happens in a Civil War.

Not "bombed". Bombed using the country's air force. If the US bombed US people with airplanes in 1861, you might have a distraction.

Can anyone who supports this Libya escapade tell the rest of us which of our vital national interests were threatened in any way ? Heck, a good lie might suffice. Just tell us.
Democratic peace theory

The rebels, who we are providing air support for, have a definite Al Qeada contingent.
Citation. Last I checked, they had installed local tribunals and were committed to democracy - this is why the euros recognize them as the government of Libya.

In Yemen, we aim our bombs at Al Qeada. In Libya, we aim them at the enemies of Al Qeada, as directed by Al Qeada. :roll:

Now I see you're just having fun.


Funny tho that even though we as the president says, dont stand for povernments killing their citizens, we havent said **** in Syria, Saudi, Bahrain, Yemen...the hit list goes on.

Wait a minute. We've said plenty. Check out what Hillary has been saying. Let us not slip into the "everything is possible at the same time" fallacy of foreign policy debate.
 
Last edited:
"Its a matter of days, not weeks ............. " Mar 21, 2011.

So NATO = US now?

Can anyone who supports this Libya escapade tell the rest of us which of our vital national interests were threatened in any way ? Heck, a good lie might suffice. Just tell us.

Vital interest don't always matter. In this case, its not the US's vital interest, but France and UK's that are at the forefront of the military action since a good percentage of their oil comes from or through Libya.

However, the point was never that America has vital interest in Libya, it was that a dictator was slaughtering his own people and using mercenariness to do it. It was in "America" interest to stop that to score points with the Muslim world.

This does't mean I support picking a side directly for regime change though. Just explaining.

The rebels, who we are providing air support for, have a definite Al Qeada contingent.

Libyan Rebels Al Qaeda | U.S. finds no organized Al Qaeda presence in Libya opposition, officials say - Los Angeles Times

Also, the rebel government or what ever you want to call it does not have any ties to terrorist.
 
Repubs just want to attack Obama for anything. Granted, we should not be directly promoting regime change. I'm not sure if the objectives could have been met any other way though.

And Obama provides plenty of fodder...
 
Back
Top Bottom