• 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

Dr. Chuckles said:
1) How does the issue of SA address anything I wrote? 2) Yes, really. The whole idea of pursuing regime change was based on events in Libya. Perception of those events might have been flawed, but that doesn't change the fact that countries like france were responding to events within Libya and what they thought was an advantages development
Click to expand...

Oh I'm not denying the French involvement, but I'm not French.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1) it still wouldn't address anything I wrote

2) what are you even talking about? I never mentioned supporting anything in SA and I made clear I was still skeptical of our actions in Libya
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sorry, it wasn't clear to me before. But your skepticism of it is clear to me now, therefore I really have no disagreement with you.
 
MadLib said:
Um...a bank owned by the Rothschild family? There are plenty of other banks.

Yes, I would like an independent source to verify the idea that over a million people took to the streets to protest NATO intervention. It's impossible that no western journalists would have been able to notice this. I would demand the same evidence if it was made by rebel supporters, by the way.


Here's what I wrote, with the part that you left out



You mean the people he's droning :lol:

That asshole got what was coming to him, for Lockerbie, La Belle, and Black September. I would advocate getting rid of him a majority of his brainwashed country did buy into his cult of personality. The fact that a sizable amount hated him and wanted democracy made intervention an even better undertaking



Let me guess...you just looked at my lean and assumed my position on the matter. I'm ambivalent on Iraq - Saddam needed to go, but I'm not sure it was worth 4000 American lives, and I think our focus should have been on Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

:0) Obviously what you claim to 'lean' doesn't mean anything .. that's pretty common.

Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan .. makes little difference, they are all failed wars.

Good job warmongers .. damn good job.
 
annata said:
this wasn't a populist uprising, far from it. It was the selected tribes from east Africa.
Click to expand...

I think the uprising was geographic. But limited involvement in it does not translate into support for Qaddafi, the idea that people want him to remain in power, or that they don't support his removal. Like I said earlier, involvement could be limited for any number of reasons, besides there was no support for the rebels, including credible fear of retaliation from the regime and his success in addressing insurgents in the past and his ability to control the narrative in country
 
BlackAsCoal said:
:0) Obviously what you claim to 'lean' doesn't mean anything .. that's pretty common.

Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan .. makes little difference, they are all failed wars.

Good job warmongers .. damn good job.
Click to expand...

Just and FYI, since you seem intent on harping on it: I was asking how you defined a Rothschild bank because there are multiple independent institutions that share the Rothchild name and b) we were offering no details on what basis you were claiming these banks were controlled by the Rothschilds, besides that they charged interest.

So, yes, I continue to be lost on what is a "rothchilds bank"
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
you're not making any sense
Click to expand...

I'm not French. The people of France can be up their governments ass sideways, I'm concerned with what my government is using my tax dollars to do, and how the civilian leadership is using our military around the world.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
:0) Obviously what you claim to 'lean' doesn't mean anything .. that's pretty common.

Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan .. makes little difference, they are all failed wars.

Good job warmongers .. damn good job.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you misrepresented my jihad quote :lol:
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
I'm not French. The people of France can be up their governments ass sideways, I'm concerned with what my government is using my tax dollars to do, and how the civilian leadership is using our military around the world.
Click to expand...

this discussions stems from me pointing out that the reason people supported regime change in Libya was due to the fact that there seemed a real opposition movement was capable of dislodging Gaddafi, as opposed to Iran.

So yeah, I'm still lost on what you are responding to
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
this discussions stems from me pointing out that the reason people supported regime change in Libya was due to the fact that there seemed a real opposition movement was capable of dislodging Gaddafi, as opposed to Iran.

So yeah, I'm still lost on what you are responding to
Click to expand...

Ok, sorry Dr. C
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I think the uprising was geographic. But limited involvement in it does not translate into support for Qaddafi, the idea that people want him to remain in power, or that they don't support his removal. Like I said earlier, involvement could be limited for any number of reasons, besides there was no support for the rebels, including credible fear of retaliation from the regime and his success in addressing insurgents in the past and his ability to control the narrative in country
Click to expand...
well you pick one or the other in the real world, when the US/NATO intervened.

It's fine to say the NTC was a geographical uprising, and I agree to some extent, though I wouldn't diminish the roles of Salafists, or the Libyan Fighting Group, or Ansar al-Sharia.

If Qaddafi didn't have widespread support, then he was a dictator who did have enough support to stay in power.

The point.
We decided to intervene far beyond the term of the UN resolution - we decided, and by that I mean the US itself -on regime change.

So the follow up cluter**** we left; we own it. You can't intervene to the point of taking sides in a civil war, and then just say "oh well, such is how it is"
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
this discussions stems from me pointing out that the reason people supported regime change in Libya was due to the fact that there seemed a real opposition movement was capable of dislodging Gaddafi, as opposed to Iran.

So yeah, I'm still lost on what you are responding to
Click to expand...
again I have to disagree, the NTC was not "capable".
 
MadLib said:
I'm still waiting for you to explain why you misrepresented my jihad quote :lol:
Click to expand...

If I've misquoted anything you've said, I apologize .. I don't need to mischaracterize anything or anyone to make a valid point about this issue.

But here's the point you keep ignoring .. Libya has been destroyed and its citizens are FAR worse off today than before the clown cowboy rode into Libya.

What you're defending is a human disaster.
 
Higgins86 said:
I long for the good old days of Gaddafi where planes blew up over the skies of Scotland...
Click to expand...

And nightclubs in Germany. Ah, back when decent people were in charge, before the mean ole U.S. decided to stop the massacre of an entire city...
 
BlackAsCoal said:
If I've misquoted anything you've said, I apologize .. I don't need to mischaracterize anything or anyone to make a valid point about this issue.

But here's the point you keep ignoring .. Libya has been destroyed and its citizens are FAR worse off today than before the clown cowboy rode into Libya.

What you're defending is a human disaster.
Click to expand...

As Christopher Hitchens so ably pointed out, the problem with non-interventionists is that they often fail to account for the fact that in the absence of U.S. action, it's not that "nothing" happens. It is that something else happens.

Without U.S. intervention, Libya would look like Syria, not Saudi Arabia.
 
annata said:
again I have to disagree, the NTC was not "capable".
Click to expand...

" reason people supported regime change in Libya was due to the fact that there **seemed** a real opposition movement was capable of dislodging Gaddafi"

And like I wrote earlier, before it became apparent Gaddafi was simply regrouping his forces, it appeared the rebels did have the upper hand
 
cpwill said:
As Christopher Hitchens so ably pointed out, the problem with non-interventionists is that they often fail to account for the fact that in the absence of U.S. action, it's not that "nothing" happens. It is that something else happens.

Without U.S. intervention, Libya would look like Syria, not Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Without US intervention, Libya would still be whole today, and thousands of innocent dead people would still be alive. The same is true of Iraq.

Christopher Hitchens is a fool .. always has been.
 
cpwill said:
As Christopher Hitchens so ably pointed out, the problem with non-interventionists is that they often fail to account for the fact that in the absence of U.S. action, it's not that "nothing" happens. It is that something else happens.

Without U.S. intervention, Libya would look like Syria, not Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...
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.

Libya today is in very bad shape, this is a direct result of our intervention.
One has to own this idea that the west destabilized a fairly stable country ( if despotic rule), allowed the rise of the militias, Bengazi,
and assorted jihadist we assisted were already trained in Iraq.

Jihadism's Foothold in Libya - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

LIBYAN JIHADISM BEFORE THE WAR

Prior to the 2011 uprising, the country's main organized jihadist movement, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, had already deradicalized and retired. Founded after the anti-Soviet jihad, the LIFG attempted to overthrow the Qadhafi regime in the mid-1990s but began to move away from armed conflict in 2006.
In 2009, the group's shura council members -- some in Libyan prison, others in exile in Europe -- negotiated an end to conflict with the regime via Qadhafi's son Saif al-Islam.
The minority that disagreed with that decision joined al-Qaeda in Pakistan, leaving no organized presence in Libya.
Therefore, on the eve of last year's war, organized violent jihadism in Libya was more or less extinct

In addition, Libya has become a transfer point for fighters from Western Europe and the Maghreb headed to Syria. News reports and jihadist sources suggest that some of these individuals have attended training camps in Misratah, Benghazi, the desert area near Hon, and Green Mountain in the east, though the accuracy of these reports is unknown
 
BlackAsCoal said:
Without US intervention, Libya would still be whole today, and thousands of innocent dead people would still be alive. The same is true of Iraq.

Christopher Hitchens is a fool .. always has been.
Click to expand...
one would think so, we went in way over any mandate then walk away. Not our problem except Bengazi, but that is just a campaign talking point by now.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
" reason people supported regime change in Libya was due to the fact that there **seemed** a real opposition movement was capable of dislodging Gaddafi"
And like I wrote earlier, before it became apparent Gaddafi was simply regrouping his forces, it appeared the rebels did have the upper hand
Click to expand...
I can accept the idea the NTC **seemed** to be viable.
It doesn't really excuse our behavior. It doesn't really change anything on the ground.
 
annata said:
I can accept the idea the NTC **seemed** to be viable.
It doesn't really excuse our behavior. It doesn't really change anything on the ground.
Click to expand...

no, but it does address why we intervened, at the time we did, and why other situations were ignored, like Iran.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
no, but it does address why we intervened, at the time we did, and why other situations were ignored, like Iran.
Click to expand...
are you referring to my earlier post "remember Neda?"

neda-agha-soltan-soltani-angel-freedom-iran.jpg

The World Mourns Neda - ABC News

if so, did Obama actually criticize Iran for this?? I can't recall, but I don't think so.... all was needed was vehement condemnation. She still is an icon.
Why I mentioned assassination of Qaddafi might have been an over-reaction ( this is unprovable , but my pet theory)

I agree to an extent this is a factor in the intervention that morphed into regime change; still was way past any UN mandate, so we have to take full responsibility for Libya after Qaddafi
 
are you referring to my earlier post "remember Neda?"
Click to expand...

I think someone cited intervention in general


annata said:
I agree to an extent this is a factor in the intervention that morphed into regime change; still was way past any UN mandate, so we have to take full responsibility for Libya after Qaddafi
Click to expand...

It seemed most of the players involved were aiming and working towards regime change
 
annata said:
one would think so, we went in way over any mandate then walk away. Not our problem except Bengazi, but that is just a campaign talking point by now.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

A foreign policy for fools.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I think someone cited intervention in general
It seemed most of the players involved were aiming and working towards regime change
Click to expand...
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

To be fair, while the fighting has dragged on longer than anticipated, the death on Thursday of the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, gave senior Obama administration officials an opportunity to trumpet the new American way of war to a nation weary of ground combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The United States military has spent just $1.1 billion in Libya, and in the words of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.,
“didn’t lose a single life.” He added that “this is more of the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward than it has been in the past.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...tates-was-vital-to-toppling-qaddafi.html?_r=0

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

It got so bad during internal debates over whether to intervene in Libya in 2011 that Gates says he felt compelled to deliver a “rant” because the White House staff was “talking about military options with the president without Defense being involved.”

Gates says his instructions to the Pentagon were: “Don’t give the White House staff and [national security staff] too much information on the military options.
They don’t understand it, and ‘experts’ like Samantha Power will decide when we should move militarily.”
Click to expand...
Bob Gates vs. the White House « Commentary Magazine

Gates memoir
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom