• 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

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.

Obama said it was in our 'national interests' and perhaps 'vital interests' to support our allies in the UN as they intervene to stop a large-scale massacre. His thrust was that it was in our vital interests to support our allies and abide by our treaties to do so, and it was right to do so given the circumstances. He did not link the vital or national interests to Libya directly.
 
Not "bombed". Bombed using the country's air force. If the US bombed US people with airplanes in 1861, you might have a distraction.

Artillery shells are not "bombs" for those on the receiving end ?

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.

And what kind of Democracy is that ? Two wolves and a sheep have democracy, do they not ?

Now I see you're just having fun.

Having fun being bluntly honest .. you bet !! You can Google up plenty on this. Here's your gimme's. Beyond that, its on you.

Connections Between Al Qaeda And Libyan Rebels Run Deep Mar 26, 2011

There’s more evidence today that many of the men engaged in fighting against the Gaddafi regime have ties to an organization that killed 3,000 Americans about 9 1/2 years ago:

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

more: Connections Between Al Qaeda And Libyan Rebels Run Deep
Al Qaeda offers aid to rebels in Libya Feb 24, 2011

Al Qaeda’s North Africa affiliate publicly offered its assistance and support to rebels in Libya who are fighting to wrest control of the country from troops still loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi

More: Al Qaeda offers aid to rebels in Libya - Washington Times
 
Last edited:
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.

Genocide against the Kurds stopped in the 90s in part because of the the No-Fly zone and in part because Saddam ran out of chemical weapons we gave him. If we would have backed the souther Shiite uprising in 1996 (not sure if thats the correct date) while enforcing the not fly zone in the north, Saddam would have been nixed then and would not have had the problems it has today (power vacuum wouldn't of existed).

We are involved in regime change in Libya.

Never said the government wasn't. Personally, I think it would have been cheaper to simply help the rebels through funding. There are plenty of mercenary outfits that would have loved to have justified regime change on their portfolio.

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 the realities of the day say that we can't afford to do anymore than what we have or are doing (outside CIA involvement I suppose) for a whole host of reasons.

But what has Saudi Arabia gov done to its own people lately? All I've herd/read is that its giving money away to try to thwart uprisings.
 
Ahhh... "organized" and everyone knows AlQ is not an "organized" group... right? Besides, total number of articles one way or another is the best way to decide the truth.

With Risky and Eighty, why do I feel like I'm in the ME/CT section.
 
Genocide against the Kurds stopped in the 90s in part because of the the No-Fly zone and in part because Saddam ran out of chemical weapons we gave him. If we would have backed the souther Shiite uprising in 1996 (not sure if thats the correct date) while enforcing the not fly zone in the north, Saddam would have been nixed then and would not have had the problems it has today (power vacuum wouldn't of existed).



Never said the government wasn't. Personally, I think it would have been cheaper to simply help the rebels through funding. There are plenty of mercenary outfits that would have loved to have justified regime change on their portfolio.



And the realities of the day say that we can't afford to do anymore than what we have or are doing (outside CIA involvement I suppose) for a whole host of reasons.

But what has Saudi Arabia gov done to its own people lately? All I've herd/read is that its giving money away to try to thwart uprisings.


"But what has Saudi Arabia gov done to its own people lately?"

Good point, so just like Libya, why don't we just invade Saudi Arabia and take our oil under their sand. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we're going to be invading and killing indiscriminately, we should profit handsomely.
 
Google "Al Qaeda in Libya". For me, it was 30,500,000 hits in 0.07 seconds. More than a few would be contrary to what you linked. However, the key word in your link is "organized". That is rather subjectively put, is it not ?

You'd have a point if people weren't trying to say that "Al-Qaeda is an organizing force in Libya" I also linked one of the few articles that actually quotes a legitimate source the CIA.

"But what has Saudi Arabia gov done to its own people lately?"

Good point, so just like Libya, why don't we just invade Saudi Arabia and take our oil under their sand. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we're going to be invading and killing indiscriminately, we should profit handsomely.

The Libya regime is actually killing its own people that aren't part of the civil war. Saudi Arabia is giving away money to try and thwart an uprising. How is there any correlation here?
 
Last edited:
"But what has Saudi Arabia gov done to its own people lately?"

Good point, so just like Libya, why don't we just invade Saudi Arabia and take our oil under their sand. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we're going to be invading and killing indiscriminately, we should profit handsomely.

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him...

Transcript of President Obama's speech on Libya - Washington Times
 
Last edited:
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.

I gotcha...our morals and values can only KINDA be offended...and...well..we will be really really sad...in some places.

So basically its the if you dont do what we want we are going to talk sternly...and then...maybe...hold our breath...that'll show em...foreign policy model.
 
Last edited:
I gotcha...our morals and values can only KINDA be offended...and...well..we will be really really sad...in some places.

So basically its the if you dont do what we want we are going to talk sternly...and then...maybe...hold our breath...that'll show em...foreign policy model.

Some we can regime change, some we can engage economically and diplomatically and some we can influence with foreign aid. Some we can only interact with via proxy (nK). We must weigh each intervention and keep priorities in mind. It is willfully childish to pretend that we can end tyranny tomorrow if only our values were true - we simply cannot.
 
Last edited:
Listening to the usual suspects on these boards it would seem that the US was doing everything in Libya.... now my question is .... what is the US exactly doing there? I know they are providing logistics for NATO and some command and control functions, but as far as I understand US planes are not in the fight any more or rarely at best... not that many bombing raids any more. Is it the cruise missiles the US are using that people are pissed over?

The attack copters were British and French. Any "advisor's" on the ground are British former SAS working for a private contractor.. aka mercenaries.

So what exactly is the US doing in the conflict at the moment?
 
Mostly drones, maybe a little aircraft. Logistics for humanitarian aid probably, we do most of that around the world.

Any "advisor's" on the ground are British former SAS working for a private contractor.. aka mercenaries.

Last I checked, that's not true. The Brits sent people. IIRC, the French were going to also.
 
Last edited:
Mostly drones, maybe a little aircraft. Logistics for humanitarian aid probably, we do most of that around the world.

That you do.. but is that a "war"?

Last I checked, that's not true. The Brits sent people. IIRC, the French were going to also.

Nope. The British and French (and Italians and others) sent people to Bengazhi to coordinate strikes and aid, but no trainers. Was yesterday or two days ago, that the British media "exposed" the use of former SAS mercenaries as trainers and so on, hired by the MOD...but paid by Gulf states..
 
Last edited:
Listening to the usual suspects on these boards it would seem that the US was doing everything in Libya.... now my question is .... what is the US exactly doing there? I know they are providing logistics for NATO and some command and control functions, but as far as I understand US planes are not in the fight any more or rarely at best... not that many bombing raids any more. Is it the cruise missiles the US are using that people are pissed over?

The attack copters were British and French. Any "advisor's" on the ground are British former SAS working for a private contractor.. aka mercenaries.

So what exactly is the US doing in the conflict at the moment?

Fact is .. we do not know. The Obama Administration has not explained the current "mission". It isn't what it first was, that is for sure. He has ignored Congress. Ignored the War Powers Resolution. Its all part of the new "WTF" campaign.
 
Obama has explained the US mission very clearly: Support our NATO allies as minimally as possible, so that the UN resolution can be realized according to UN and NATO goals. We have not recognized the transitional government, put people on the ground or made any other major move like Euros have.

He is doing precisely what he said he would do, and what he has consistently explained was the US mission.
 
Last edited:
.......... I also linked one of the few articles that actually quotes a legitimate source the CIA ........

As Groucho Marx used to say .. "Who are you going to believe, me (the purported CIA note) or your lying eyes" ? BTW, your article never mentions the "CIA".

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
25 Mar 2011

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

Hasidi_1857433c.jpg


more:Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

Your earlier article does say this though:

A congressional staffer who receives intelligence briefings did not dispute those assessments. But the aide added: "There ought to be a concern and recognition that there may be such a linkage. There should also be an appreciation that the opposition is not a uniform, monolithic movement."
 
Last edited:
Fact is .. we do not know. The Obama Administration has not explained the current "mission". It isn't what it first was, that is for sure. He has ignored Congress. Ignored the War Powers Resolution. Its all part of the new "WTF" campaign.

Sorry but that is bs.

The Obama administration has explained the current mission. To aid NATO in its mission in Libya by providing logistical support and some command and control functions. What has not been clear is the over all mission of NATO and how far they are willing to go, but that has nothing to do with what the US is providing.

As for the War Powers Resolution.. does that War Powers Resolution not require an actual war that the US is participating in?... like shooting **** and stuff on a consistent basis? I mean.. is there a requirement to use the War Powers Resolution each time when Bush (and now Obama) used cruise missiles in Pakistan? Or sending in CIA operatives to kidnap/rendition people in Italy, Gambia and other places... yes that is an act of war also.
 
The article also says this:


In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader"...

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

So, ~2001 he recruited 25 guys and fought in Afghanistan against the coalition. Now he says some of those guys are fighting in Libya against Gaddafi. He says they are not terrorists. He says that AlQ (note: also, a distinct separation) are good muslims fighting the invaders. Heck, many on this board consider the US to be invaders in Afghan. The only thing really messed up is his view of AlQ as "good muslims". He never says AlQ is among his men or calling any shots (as you claimed). The title of the article is "fighters have AlQ links", not "fighters are AlQ".


I cannot believe that you use a leader who fought in Afghan and a couple of his dudes to try to support this:

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:
 
Last edited:
The article also says this:




So, ~2001 he recruited 25 guys and fought in Afghanistan against the coalition. Now he says some of those guys are fighting in Libya against Gaddafi. He says they are not terrorists. He says that AlQ (note: also, a distinct separation) are good muslims fighting the invaders. Heck, many on this board consider the US to be invaders in Afghan. The only thing really messed up is his view of AlQ as "good muslims". He never says AlQ is among his men or calling any shots (as you claimed). The title of the article is "fighters have AlQ links", not "fighters are AlQ".


I cannot believe that you use a leader who fought in Afghan and a couple of his dudes to try to support this:

"I cannot believe ... blah .. .blah " For starters, it says "Iraq", not Afghanistan. Secondly, if you were really up on the intel, you would know that the second greatest contributor of foreign jihadists to Al Qaeda Iraq was ............. Libya !!!

Folks, this ain't George Washington, Thomas Payne, Nathaniel Greene, Thomas Jeffereson, etc. The rebels are jihadists. Jihadists against Qaddafi.
 
As Groucho Marx used to say .. "Who are you going to believe, me (the purported CIA note) or your lying eyes" ? BTW, your article never mentions the "CIA".



Your earlier article does say this though:

Are there elements of Al-Qaeda in Libya of course they are every there is a Jihad to be had. Are they in any way influencing polices from the transitional government or actually organized. No. They are a non-entity that is contributing bodies, just like in Iraq.
 
Some we can regime change, some we can engage economically and diplomatically and some we can influence with foreign aid. Some we can only interact with via proxy (nK). We must weigh each intervention and keep priorities in mind. It is willfully childish to pretend that we can end tyranny tomorrow if only our values were true - we simply cannot.

So it IS selective 'poutrage' then. Outrage against regime change when it is a republican. Support regime change when it is a democrat. And which country represented a greater threat to both its people and the world at large?
 
Back
Top Bottom