• 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!

Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

It only took a complete violation of the Constitution of the United States, a violation of the War powers resolution and about 6 months longer than it took to capture Baghdad but the US commander in chief took us to war without congressional consent and promised us it would take weeks rather than months.

Now that rebel forces are in the Libyan capital do we pretend we didn’t kill civilians and that everyone will live happily ever after in Libya while pretending the wars that congress approved were an evil blight on America’s reputation while this war is just and good?
 
It only took a complete violation of the Constitution of the United States, a violation of the War powers resolution and about 6 months longer than it took to capture Baghdad but the US commander in chief took us to war without congressional consent and promised us it would take weeks rather than months.

Now that rebel forces are in the Libyan capital do we pretend we didn’t kill civilians and that everyone will live happily ever after in Libya while pretending the wars that congress approved were an evil blight on America’s reputation while this war is just and good?

Actually the War Powers Resolution is probably unconstitutional, and Obama had the grudging approval of Congress for the mission. Our role was quite limited, not a single American life was lost, and unlike Iraq, this was a popular revoution against a tyrant who actually DID support terrorism. Oh yeah, and we kept the Gaddafi from slaughtering the rebels as Assad is now doing in Syria.

Hard to imagine a better outcome ... so far. Now we have to hope that the reports are true and that, if so, the new government represents an upgrade.
 
Re: Libyan Rebels Advance Into Central Tripoli

Already a thread on this story.
 
Actually the War Powers Resolution is probably unconstitutional, and Obama had the grudging approval of Congress for the mission. Our role was quite limited, not a single American life was lost, and unlike Iraq, this was a popular revoution against a tyrant who actually DID support terrorism. Oh yeah, and we kept the Gaddafi from slaughtering the rebels as Assad is now doing in Syria.

Hard to imagine a better outcome ... so far. Now we have to hope that the reports are true and that, if so, the new government represents an upgrade.
Obama had no approval from congress, claimed that the WPR was constitutional and that his declaration of war was consistent with the WPR. This pretty much seals the deal for Presidential power to go to war with whomever a president wants, for whatever reason he wants, for however long he wants and if congress has a problem with it, let them pull funding from the troops. Great victory indeed.

It is good to know that we are the ones who killed civilians rather than the dictator isn’t it? It is good to know that we waged war in violation of our constitution and the WPR while pretending everyone who can read said documents are complete idiots if they disagreed with our slick interpretation thereof and it is good to know that Gaddafi is dead and can no longer threaten the US.

Oh, Gaddafi isn’t dead? Hard to imagine a better outcome ...
We have no way of controlling what type of government takes over? Hard to imagine a better outcome ...
We spent nearly a trillion dollars? Hard to imagine a better outcome ...
We killed thousands of civilians with our bombs? Hard to imagine a better outcome ...

Forgive me if I don’t run into the streets to celebrate, because I know we could have and should have done better.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rebels in the Green Square

already 2 threads on this topic tonight. This is #3.
 
Re: Rebels in the Green Square

You want some of me? I'll school you the right way boy.
 
It is good to know that we are the ones who killed civilians rather than the dictator isn’t it?

Gaddafis forces were slaughtering and raping civilians this whole time... I don't know where you were when this was happening.

Oh, Gaddafi isn’t dead? Hard to imagine a better outcome ...

Not yet... hopefully if he's captured, like his son he will be handed over to the Hague and tried for war crimes, and we will see true justice.

We have no way of controlling what type of government takes over? Hard to imagine a better outcome ...

Well... thats always the risk you take with this kind of thing.

We spent nearly a trillion dollars? Hard to imagine a better outcome ...

This thing did not cost a trillion dollars :coffeepap

We killed thousands of civilians with our bombs? Hard to imagine a better outcome ...

Hope you have something to back that up, I know NATO bombs did kill some civillians, but not to my knowledge thousands.

Buzz Killington.

I don't know why you hate America, and the troops, and want America to lose, and don't want Libyans to be free and........................ Sorry I coulda sworn it was 2003.
 
Re: Rebels in the Green Square

haha my apologies, by all means Mr. Mod, merge the threads.
 
anyone here fluent in arabic, BBC Arabic radio has brilliant coverage from Libya. they are interviewing people in Tripoli. very emotional.
 
Gaddafis forces were slaughtering and raping civilians this whole time... I don't know where you were when this was happening.

I see no evidence that Gaddafi's forces behaved any worse than rebel forces did. Or that NATO intervention saved more lives than it cost. Or that the rebels have any more moral authority than Gaddafi did. I think this whole line of thinking is rooted in the premise that the United States is always the "good guy," and anyone who opposes the United States is always the "bad guy."

Let's not forget that just a year ago, our rapprochement with Libya was being heralded as a great success story, because it demonstrated that a pariah could give up his WMDs and rejoin the international community. Now we turned against him at the first opportunity. That lesson has certainly not been lost on America's other (more important) enemies; Kim Jong-il has reportedly cited Gaddafi's naivete as an example of why the United States can never be trusted. NATO certainly wouldn't have ****ed with Gaddafi if he had biological weapons he could drop on Italy.

Good for the people of Libya for getting rid of him and I wish them the best...but it's hard for me to see how our involvement was a net positive.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully Qadaffi will be gone soon but i still do not support the US involvement in this at all...
 
I couldnt care less about this. Its just a shift of one type of 3rd world community to another 3rd world community. Both savages for the most part and in no way makes the world any better. Im sure they will bitch about the US too even after we give them money.
 
This is good news. I'm glad it ended up with victory on the rebels' side, even if it did take long. If it was the other way around and the rebels were squashed that would be terrible and I'm glad it ended up with good news. This means a democratic government and better life for the Libyan people, I'm sure no one will miss Gaddafi.
 
Good for the people of Libya for getting rid of him and I wish them the best...but it's hard for me to see how our involvement was a net positive.

Didn't you use to make the case that the US SHOULD intervene in these kinds of things.

I seem to remember clearly you advocating intervention i Cote Divoire.

QUOTE=Kandahar;1059185892]The United States should send troops into Cote D'Ivoire if necessary. It would cost us virtually nothing, the troops wouldn't have to be there more than a couple months, and they would have a clear mission: to help establish the legitimately elected government. This is exactly the kind of situation where we should be more willing to deploy our military.[/QUOTE]

People would still view it as American involvement...but without the benefits, efficiency, and ease with which the US military could topple the Gbagbo junta.

So sending troops in would be fine to deal with an internal conflict, but giving the rebels a nudge with some airstrikes isn't...

k.
 
This is good news. I'm glad it ended up with victory on the rebels' side, even if it did take long. If it was the other way around and the rebels were squashed that would be terrible and I'm glad it ended up with good news. This means a democratic government and better life for the Libyan people, I'm sure no one will miss Gaddafi.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusion that this would lead to a democratic government or necessarily better lives for Libyan people. I agree no one would miss Gaddafi, except for perhaps those who benefited the most under him.
Libya is still very much tribal, and women are still disproportionately shunned out from society as objects to men's discretion.
So whether or not this is good news is relative.

The undeniable case here is that the international coalition was a success - this should be the model of how countries intervene - balancing the military power in favor of popular stance rather than go it alone cowboy silliness.
 
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusion that this would lead to a democratic government or necessarily better lives for Libyan people. I agree no one would miss Gaddafi, except for perhaps those who benefited the most under him.
Libya is still very much tribal, and women are still disproportionately shunned out from society as objects to men's discretion.
So whether or not this is good news is relative.

The undeniable case here is that the international coalition was a success - this should be the model of how countries intervene - balancing the military power in favor of popular stance rather than go it alone cowboy silliness.

This is the important part. The Iraq and Afghan wars were over quicker but were associated with long and costly occupations thereafter. This won't be the case here, if the transition is difficult as it always is, it will be the Libyans responsibility.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Earning my pay... 3 threads merged.
 
Didn't you use to make the case that the US SHOULD intervene in these kinds of things.

I seem to remember clearly you advocating intervention i Cote Divoire.

Is it not possible to support action in one situation and not the other? Foreign policy should be a bit more nuanced than a declaration on whether we will intervene in "these kinds of things."

So sending troops in would be fine to deal with an internal conflict, but giving the rebels a nudge with some airstrikes isn't...

Were the situations exactly the same? :confused:
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised too. It took them so long to slog through territory that was purportedly more friendly to them. Then they just sliced through that last stretch which should have been most loyal to Daffy. Suggests to me that Daffy had little backing even in his region of traditional support.

Breaking News: He is alive and fighting.

Dammit. I was hoping they'd have this morning.

Loyalists at Qaddafi compound hold off rebels - CBS News
 
Back
Top Bottom