• 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!

Egyptian embassy staff "seized" in Libya

Germany joined in, most of the "players" dropped out by the endgame; leaving only Great Britain/US/France
when Qaddafi was "regime changed" (killed). The war was too long for the rest of NATO to stomach

The countries that took an initial interest in supporting the rebels like france, the UK, UAE, Qutar, etc, all seemed on board to the end. Natural there were other who had a limited interest in a no fly zone, but they were people brought into the debate by states like France, etc pushing for Nato and UN intervention. And involvement was certainly represented beyond the US

Biden here shills for the neocon Obama. "prescription" indeed.

Obama is far from a neocon, and seemed more as someone responding to pressure from within his admin and the public. After all, he's not exactly known for his leadership qualities and someone that directs policy


Gates memoir

I'm not really following your point here
 
Absolutely.

A foreign policy for fools.

I'm not sure anyone who reduces the issue to "jew banks" should be making comments about fools
 
The countries that took an initial interest in supporting the rebels like france, the UK, UAE, Qutar, etc, all seemed on board to the end. Natural there were other who had a limited interest in a no fly zone, but they were people brought into the debate by states like France, etc pushing for Nato and UN intervention. And involvement was certainly represented beyond the US
most of NATO dropped out, as the war dragged on. I left out the Gulf States, as this was a NATO war.

Obama is far from a neocon, and seemed more as someone responding to pressure from within his admin and the public. After all, he's not exactly known for his leadership qualities and someone that directs policy
neocon :
assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Neoconservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

what else would you call Libya / Afganistan?
I'm not really following your point here
it was mostly to be a sidebar. Gates memoir is full of contradictions, but his views are worth the citations.
 
take the point about not intervening doesn't prelude "something else" from happening.
We know what happened because of Libyan war, there isn't a lot of good that came from it - I'd argue there was a lot of bad things that did come from it.

And you'll get no argument from me that Islamists pour into a vacuum at current. This is a necessary step in the regions' political evolution. It is simply that those who take the presence of Islamist militia's and even terror groups and charge AHA! And without the US, none of THIS! are forgetting that the option that was realistically available was worse. :shrug: welcome to the real world.
 
Without US intervention, Libya would still be whole today, and thousands of innocent dead people would still be alive.

Are you aware of the history of the conflict that you are debating?

1. Libya was already torn before the U.S. intervened. The "whole Libya" was already gone by the time we got there.
2. Qaddafi intended to massacre an entire city, which is why we intervened. I see your thousands and raise you hundreds of thousands.
 
most of NATO dropped out, as the war dragged on. I left out the Gulf States, as this was a NATO war.

Earlier you seemingly tried to lay intervention, regime change, and all actions that went beyond the UN mandate at the US's feet. My point was that those interests were represented by a number of states from pretty early one and seemingly involved them until that aim was achieved. In that context, the UN mandate (and wider UN and Nato involvement) seemed something they simply settled on out of necessity then eventually ignored when it was obvious there was any real consequence to doing so.

neocon :
assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

That's a rather simplistic and general definition and could include all number of political ideologies that don't really fall under neo-conservatism

this might be of a more practical value

neoconservatism (political philosophy) -- Encyclopedia Britannica


Secondly, as I stated above and even the Gates quote indicates, Obama wasn't really the ideological driver in his foreign policy
 
And you'll get no argument from me that Islamists pour into a vacuum at current. This is a necessary step in the regions' political evolution. It is simply that those who take the presence of Islamist militia's and even terror groups and charge AHA! And without the US, none of THIS! are forgetting that the option that was realistically available was worse. :shrug: welcome to the real world.
what "region?" Syria? Libya? Iraq? the smaller sections of Libya?

Some militias are Islamic, but some are "AQ Affiliates" - bin Qumu's was an ex. of ties to AQAP/Zawahiri. We (U.S.) knew he was operating, and we chose this course.
The "real world" analysis would have foreseen these a probable outcome.

In April 2011, the New York Times reported that bin Qumu had been fighting to overthrow Qaddafi, ostensibly with American support.
A little over a year later, in a June 2012 profile, the paper describes his leadership of a militia in eastern Libya as an alternative vision for the country
Abu Sufian bin Qumu – A Familiar Fighter | Analysis Intelligence


new jihadist groups began to emerge once the dust settled. One of the largest is Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi (ASB), led by Muhammad Zahawi. In addition to online connections with the Ansar al-Sharia group in Tunisia, ASB has ties to several smaller Salafi-jihadist katibas (battalions) in Libya, including the shadowy Ansar al-Sharia in Darnah (ASD), led by former Guantanamo Bay inmate Abu Sufyan bin Qumu.
Jihadism's Foothold in Libya - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
 
Earlier you seemingly tried to lay intervention, regime change, and all actions that went beyond the UN mandate at the US's feet. My point was that those interests were represented by a number of states from pretty early one and seemingly involved them until that aim was achieved. In that context, the UN mandate (and wider UN and Nato involvement) seemed something they simply settled on out of necessity then eventually ignored when it was obvious there was any real consequence to doing so.
The US did command and control, flew the most sorties, and he Predator drone guided the French missile at Qaddafi. ( going by recall, could be in error).
By no means do I lay this entirely at the US doorsteps; the point was without the US this regime change could not have happened.


That's a rather simplistic and general definition and could include all number of political ideologies that don't really fall under neo-conservatism

this might be of a more practical value

neoconservatism (political philosophy) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Secondly, as I stated above and even the Gates quote indicates, Obama wasn't really the ideological driver in his foreign policy
indeed it is a simple definition.
I use it for simple clarity, to make the point Obama's foreign policy is a direct extension of Bush's in Afg.
I would argue Libya is along the same fault line of fracturing a (mostly) stable state as Bush did in Iraq.

Obama is CIC, POTUS, and head of the executive branch, you'd have to flesh out for me how he isn't the driver of his foreign policy,,
,( although I do see you use the term "ideological" as a qualifier).
 
Another US foreign policy success.


At least four Egyptian embassy personnel have been kidnapped in the Libyan capital Tripoli, the Libyan foreign ministry says.

Another embassy official was seized in the Libyan capital on Friday.

Several kidnappings of officials in Libya recently have been blamed on militias. They are often paid by the government, but their allegiance and who controls them remain in doubt.


BBC News - Egyptian embassy staff 'seized'in Libya

It's Bush's fault!



Oh sorry, I've been so conditioned.
 
I'm not sure anyone who reduces the issue to "jew banks" should be making comments about fools

"Jew banks" is YOUR term, not mine.

On top of your ignorance of Libya, you're also a race-baiter .. albeit an unsuccessful one.
 
Are you aware of the history of the conflict that you are debating?

1. Libya was already torn before the U.S. intervened. The "whole Libya" was already gone by the time we got there.
2. Qaddafi intended to massacre an entire city, which is why we intervened. I see your thousands and raise you hundreds of thousands.

I am fully aware of Libya's history .. as I'm also aware of who and how much of that history was turned around .. driving Libya from being one of the poorest countries in the world, into a prosperous nation where its citizens had the highest standard of living in all of Africa, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil. I could go on with more of what you obviously don't know .. just as you don't know that everything claimed by NATO and Obama as rationale to intervene in Libya has been proven a lie .. including Gaddafi's supposed massacres.

But you don't know that.

I'm also aware that Gaddafi was supported by 2000 of Libya's 2335 tribes.
Support for Gaddafi soars amid NATO bombing on civilians

But you didn't know that either..

Worse Than Iraq: Lies of the Libyan War

As exposed here on CounterPunch the lies used to justify the NATO war against Libya have surpassed those created to justify the invasion of Iraq. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both had honest observers on the ground for months following the rebellion in eastern Libya and both have repudiated every major charge used to justify the NATO war on Libya. According to the Amnesty observer, who is fluent in Arabic, there is not one confirmed instance of rape by the pro-Gadaffi fighters, not even a doctor who knew of one. All the Viagra mass rape stories were fabrications. Amnesty could not verify a single "African mercenary" fighting for Gaddafi story, and the highly charged international satellite television accounts of African mercenaries raping women that were used to panic much of the eastern Libyan population into fleeing their homes were fabrications.

There were no confirmed accounts of helicopter gun ships attacking civilians and no jet fighters bombing people which completely invalidates any justification for the No-Fly Zone in Security Council resolution used as an excuse for NATO to launch its attacks on Libya. After three months on the ground in rebel controlled territory, the Amnesty investigator could only confirm 110 deaths in Benghazi which included Gadaffi supporters. Only 110 dead in Benghazi? Wait a minute, we were told thousands had died there, ten thousand even. No, only 110 lost their lives including pro-government people.

No rapes, no African mercenaries, no helicopter gun ships or bombers, and only 110 ten deaths prior to the launch of the NATO bombing campaign, every reason was based on a lie.

much more
Lies of the Libyan War » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

But you don't know that.
 
"Jew banks" is YOUR term, not mine.

On top of your ignorance of Libya, you're also a race-baiter .. albeit an unsuccessful one.

lol, you're the one going on about Rothchild banks and posting articles from "american free press" with antisemitic imagery.
 
lol, you're the one going on about Rothchild banks and posting articles from "american free press" with antisemitic imagery.

:0) You're a race-baiter dude. You don't have the capacity to debate the issue .. so you reach for things you know .. race-baiting.

I posted FACTUAL information about Rothschild's banks .. without ever mentioning, intimating, or referring to anything Jewish .. and absolutely nothing that could sanely be construed as 'anti-semitic' by sane people.

I have no idea what you're talking about in the free press .. but that's just you trying to desperately mask your inability to keep up.

Race-baiting is a nasty thing .. done by nasty people.
 
:0) You're a race-baiter dude. You don't have the capacity to debate the issue .. so you reach for things you know .. race-baiting.

Ive been trying to debate the issue with you. But you won't debate. You simply ignore what I write in response to you and endlessly repeat yourself. But that has little relevency to me pointing out you should avid calling people fools while you promote laughable antisemitic conspiracies.

I posted FACTUAL information about Rothschild's banks .. without ever mentioning, intimating, or referring to anything Jewish .. and absolutely nothing that could sanely be construed as 'anti-semitic' by sane people.

1) you won't even explain what a rothchild ban is

2) you haven't outlined any actual basis for calling these rothchild banks

3) your one link was from a white supremist organization and had a classical ansemitic depiction of a jewish banker sitting on a bag of money

I have no idea what you're talking about in the free press .. but that's just you trying to desperately mask your inability to keep up.

then you should learn to research your sources and read with a critical eye before you latch on to anything that promotes your views on the internet
 
Ive been trying to debate the issue with you. But you won't debate.

That's BS.

You attempted to 'debate' like a know-it-all. Clearly you are not.

You .. at this very moment .. have your hands on the internet. If you were a genuine debater, you would have researched Rothschilds banks the moment you recognized that you didn't know the subject being talked about. That's what intelligent people do.

I have absolutely NO desire to hold your hand through any conversation. If you don't know the subject, perhaps you shouldn't be debating it.

I am not responsible for the content of any source beyond the article that I post .. AND, intelligent people .. honest people .. do not hide behind 'sources.' You're still attempting race-baiting.
 
You .. at this very moment .. have your hands on the internet. If you were a genuine debater, you would have researched Rothschilds banks the moment you recognized that you didn't know the subject being talked about. That's what intelligent people do.

Again, what do you mean by 'rothchild" bank? Are you not aware that there are more than one company that has the Rothchild name and that operate independent of each other? From your sources and comments here, the only defining factor offered is a bank that charges interest

I have absolutely NO desire to hold your hand through any conversation. If you don't know the subject, perhaps you shouldn't be debating it.

Defining and explaining overly vague terms isn't holding anyone's hand anbd is a very basic practice in anytype of debate

I am not responsible for the content of any source beyond the article that I post .. AND, intelligent people .. honest people .. do not hide behind 'sources.' You're still attempting race-baiting.

I am discussing an article YOU posted

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ssy-staff-seized-libya-17.html#post1062864728
 
I am fully aware of Libya's history .. as I'm also aware of who and how much of that history was turned around .. driving Libya from being one of the poorest countries in the world, into a prosperous nation where its citizens had the highest standard of living in all of Africa, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil. I could go on with more of what you obviously don't know .. just as you don't know that everything claimed by NATO and Obama as rationale to intervene in Libya has been proven a lie .. including Gaddafi's supposed massacres.

But you don't know that.

I'm also aware that Gaddafi was supported by 2000 of Libya's 2335 tribes.
Support for Gaddafi soars amid NATO bombing on civilians

But you didn't know that either..

Worse Than Iraq: Lies of the Libyan War

As exposed here on CounterPunch the lies used to justify the NATO war against Libya have surpassed those created to justify the invasion of Iraq. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both had honest observers on the ground for months following the rebellion in eastern Libya and both have repudiated every major charge used to justify the NATO war on Libya. According to the Amnesty observer, who is fluent in Arabic, there is not one confirmed instance of rape by the pro-Gadaffi fighters, not even a doctor who knew of one. All the Viagra mass rape stories were fabrications. Amnesty could not verify a single "African mercenary" fighting for Gaddafi story, and the highly charged international satellite television accounts of African mercenaries raping women that were used to panic much of the eastern Libyan population into fleeing their homes were fabrications.

There were no confirmed accounts of helicopter gun ships attacking civilians and no jet fighters bombing people which completely invalidates any justification for the No-Fly Zone in Security Council resolution used as an excuse for NATO to launch its attacks on Libya. After three months on the ground in rebel controlled territory, the Amnesty investigator could only confirm 110 deaths in Benghazi which included Gadaffi supporters. Only 110 dead in Benghazi? Wait a minute, we were told thousands had died there, ten thousand even. No, only 110 lost their lives including pro-government people.

No rapes, no African mercenaries, no helicopter gun ships or bombers, and only 110 ten deaths prior to the launch of the NATO bombing campaign, every reason was based on a lie.

much more
Lies of the Libyan War » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

But you don't know that.

:doh Qaddafi went on national television and swore to destroy an entire city, but hey, Amnesty had a guy on the ground, so...:roll:. Also your source is lying to you - we didn't go in because Qaddafi hadi] already[/ wiped out Benghazi. We went in because he was about to do so. But then, your source doesn't even claim that - he claims that it was to head off the Libyan Banking Empire that was about to arise in Africa and liberate the continent from its' evil Western imperial oppressors :roll: you really can't make this stuff up.

So you are arguing a strawman; but, then, that's what you get for using a source like counterpunch. I'm generally a fan of letting source fight source, but there is a forum for this kind of conspiracy theory crap for good reason.
 
Last edited:
It's Bush's fault!



Oh sorry, I've been so conditioned.

Nope, he was long gone and miles away from the controls. His list of sins is long enough. I wouldn't discredit yourself by trying to pin one of Obama's on him as well. But then, I see you were being super sarcastic, I think. :)
 
These weak leaders from weak countries that could be pushed over with a hay rake, always make grandiose threats that everybody knows is bull****, has never happened and can't ever happen. And in a weak and pathetic attempt to excuse US abuse of power, those threats are always pointed to.
 
Back
Top Bottom