• 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!

U.S. Evacuates Embassy In Libya Amid Clashes

Obama saw how easy it was to abandon our border with Mexico he figured he can cut and run from any place in the world where his policies have failed.

You weren't a supporter of the "US mission" in Libya?
 
You weren't a supporter of the "US mission" in Libya?

Which mission was that ?

Removing an ally who was conducting enhanced interrogations of suspected Al Qaeda members for the CIA ?

Or the mission of allowing Al Qaeda to use Libya as a base of operations ?

The mission of arms trafficking to Muslim extremest in Syria ?

The mission of regime change so the frogs could get a better deal for Libyan oil ?

The mission of challenging the War powers Act ?

The mission of forcing Qaddafi into a life of homosexuality by sodomizing him ?
 
Which mission was that ?

Removing an ally who was conducting enhanced interrogations of suspected Al Qaeda members for the CIA ?

Or the mission of allowing Al Qaeda to use Libya as a base of operations ?

The mission of arms trafficking to Muslim extremest in Syria ?

The mission of regime change so the frogs could get a better deal for Libyan oil ?

The mission of challenging the War powers Act ?

The mission of forcing Qaddafi into a life of homosexuality by sodomizing him ?

Oh nice, you and I landed on the same page on something!:)
 
Which mission was that ?

Removing an ally who was conducting enhanced interrogations of suspected Al Qaeda members for the CIA ?

Or the mission of allowing Al Qaeda to use Libya as a base of operations ?

The mission of arms trafficking to Muslim extremest in Syria ?

The mission of regime change so the frogs could get a better deal for Libyan oil ?

The mission of challenging the War powers Act ?

The mission of forcing Qaddafi into a life of homosexuality by sodomizing him ?

1. He wasn't an ally.

2. The goal wasn't to turn Libya into a base of operations for al-Qaeda. The lack of concrete support for the Libyan government after the fall of Gaddafi has been shameful and reflects terribly on the administration and the international community.

3. Using Libya as a hub to direct whatever meagre support we've been willing to offer to worthy rebels is a laudable mission. We should do more.

4. What? You can't possibly believe that.

5. How did he challenge that?

6. Lol.
 
1. He wasn't an ally.

Yes he was.

In 2003 Qaddafi like all Muslims feared G.W. Bush and Qaddafi became a secret ally of the USA on it's war against Al Qaeda and Muslim extremest.

Libya destroyed it's WMD's, dismantled it's development of nuclear weapons and cut off all ties with terrorist organizations. Because the CIA was no longer allowed to use enhanced interrogations, Qaddafi's intelligence service took over that job for the CIA of captured Al Qaeda.

Qaddafi like Egypt's Mubarak kept the lid on North Africa, kept the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda from expanding in North Africa. There was no Al Qaeda black flag flying over Libya before Obama ****ed up.
 
Yes he was.

In 2003 Qaddafi like all Muslims feared G.W. Bush and Qaddafi became a secret ally of the USA on it's war against Al Qaeda and Muslim extremest.

Libya destroyed it's WMD's, dismantled it's development of nuclear weapons and cut off all ties with terrorist organizations. Because the CIA was no longer allowed to use enhanced interrogations, Qaddafi's intelligence service took over that job for the CIA of captured Al Qaeda.

Qaddafi like Egypt's Mubarak kept the lid on North Africa, kept the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda from expanding in North Africa. There was no Al Qaeda black flag flying over Libya before Obama ****ed up.

Same applies to Hussein and Assad.
 
Yes he was.

In 2003 Qaddafi like all Muslims feared G.W. Bush and Qaddafi became a secret ally of the USA on it's war against Al Qaeda and Muslim extremest.

Libya destroyed it's WMD's, dismantled it's development of nuclear weapons and cut off all ties with terrorist organizations. Because the CIA was no longer allowed to use enhanced interrogations, Qaddafi's intelligence service took over that job for the CIA of captured Al Qaeda.

Qaddafi like Egypt's Mubarak kept the lid on North Africa, kept the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda from expanding in North Africa. There was no Al Qaeda black flag flying over Libya before Obama ****ed up.

Being threatened into dismantling your nascent WMD program and serving as a destination for renditioned terror suspects does not qualify him as an ally. We normalized relations with a tyrant and took advantage of opportunities as they emerged. The same was true for Assad who did many of the same things (including acting as a host for renditioned suspects) and we would not call him an ally.

Gaddafi was a deeply unstable psychopathic dictator who deserved everything he got. The great tragedy is that we didn't step into the breach to seriously help the new Libyan government.
 
Being threatened into dismantling your nascent WMD program and serving as a destination for renditioned terror suspects does not qualify him as an ally. We normalized relations with a tyrant and took advantage of opportunities as they emerged. The same was true for Assad who did many of the same things (including acting as a host for renditioned suspects) and we would not call him an ally.

Gaddafi was a deeply unstable psychopathic dictator who deserved everything he got. The great tragedy is that we didn't step into the breach to seriously help the new Libyan government.

The regime change was all about oil, the Frogs wanted to renegotiate a new contract for cheaper Libyan oil and Qaddafi said no so regime change time.
 
Too bad we can't get Khadaffi back.
 
Already, some are calling for U.S. military intervention to save Libya's embattled central government. In an op-ed in The New York Times, Karim Mezran, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council wrote:

A three-pronged approach should begin with a threat, issued by the United States and European countries, of a limited military intervention to force the warring sides to withdraw from the two major cities and cease firing upon civilians and installations; militias that disobey the order should be targeted with airstrikes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/opinion/dont-abandon-libya.html

Just as had been the case preceding the U.S.-NATO regime change military operation, the U.S. lacks compelling interests and there is little tangible evidence that this situation will change. First, the government Mr. Mezran wants the U.S. to rescue has not distinguished itself as fundamentally more favorable to U.S. interests than the Gadhafi government. It rejected a U.S. request to extradite the Lockerbie Bomber, who is now deceased. It condemned U.S. operations to seize one of the key suspects in the Benghazi terrorist attack. Second, it has not taken the kind of measures required to address differing tribal interests. Much of today's emergent conflict is the result of that government's failures. There is no credible and concrete evidence that giving the current Libyan government a "do over" of sorts would lead to stable governance. Third, Libya's government has not made any serious efforts concerning oil revenue sharing with its regions. Fourth, the Muslim Brotherhood plays a significant role in the current government.

In short, I do not believe the U.S. should wade into Libya's growing sectarian conflict with military forces. Regime change had created a destabilizing power vacuum. The successor government's ineffectual performance amplified the risks associated with that power vacuum. The government's policies and membership did not become materially more compatible with U.S. interests. A better role would entail a willingness to help mediate among the parties without taking sides in the multi-faceted internal conflict.
 
Back
Top Bottom