• 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

Yep, another example where US interference has produced instability.

meh.... The instability was already present.

The U.S. presence not improving stability is disappointingly accurate... IMO

A few too many years of poor foreign policy and the present U.S. admin is the match on the fuse. I would like to think a different admin may have done better but it might have been worse.

Good day to you M

Thom Paine
 
meh.... The instability was already present.

The U.S. presence not improving stability is disappointingly accurate... IMO

A few too many years of poor foreign policy and the present U.S. admin is the match on the fuse. I would like to think a different admin may have done better but it might have been worse.

Good day to you M

Thom Paine

Mornin Thom, from the opening of the embassy there in 2006 we never had to evacuate our embassy. Gaddafi provided a stability that has been shaky sense his death, same with Mubarak, Hussein and Assad.
 
Yep, another example where US interference has produced instability. On the 27th of May the State Department advised all US citizens to leave the country, and now this.

The US and other Western countries can lead a horse to water but they can't force it to drink.
 
The US and other Western countries can lead a horse to water but they can't force it to drink.

And who authorized the US to lead that horse.
 
Mornin Thom, from the opening of the embassy there in 2006 we never had to evacuate our embassy. Gaddafi provided a stability that has been shaky sense his death, same with Mubarak, Hussein and Assad.

Actually,I heartily agree; I try to walk lightly through topics that may expose my "wild ranting lune side". ( It's so unbecoming :lamo )

Almost got myself started here but will sthu. I can't stay here, The adrenalin is starting to flow.. not good.... later maybe

Thom Paine
 
In part, former President George H.W. Bush understood what the two most recent Presidents (Bush and Obama) seemingly don't. One can't effortlessly make a country democratic simply by changing its leader. The outcomes in Iraq and Libya highlight the flawed assumption that regime change can transform an undemocratic country into a democracy.

Ahead of the Persian Gulf War, some were demanding that democratization of Kuwait be a requirement for its liberation from Iraq. President Bush rejected such a requirement. He explained, "I did not think we should impose democracy on the Kuwaitis--rather, it was something which had to grow from within."

Source: George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998, p.376.
 
Actually,I heartily agree; I try to walk lightly through topics that may expose my "wild ranting lune side". ( It's so unbecoming :lamo )

Almost got myself started here but will sthu. I can't stay here, The adrenalin is starting to flow.. not good.... later maybe

Thom Paine

Lol! Ok buddy, see ya when ya get back.
 
The US should have never intervened, it was a mistake just like Iraq. All it did was get one of our diplomats killed and now there could be another spawning ground for terror there. When will we ever learn? :roll:
 
In part, former President George H.W. Bush understood what the two most recent Presidents (Bush and Obama) seemingly don't. One can't effortlessly make a country democratic simply by changing its leader. The outcomes in Iraq and Libya highlight the flawed assumption that regime change can transform an undemocratic country into a democracy.

Ahead of the Persian Gulf War, some were demanding that democratization of Kuwait be a requirement for its liberation from Iraq. President Bush rejected such a requirement. He explained, "I did not think we should impose democracy on the Kuwaitis--rather, it was something which had to grow from within."

Source: George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998, p.376.

At least he was willing to say what he was willing to sacrifice American kids for. His buddies, both in the ME and Big Oil.
 
The US should have never intervened, it was a mistake just like Iraq. All it did was get one of our diplomats killed and now there could be another spawning ground for terror there. When will we ever learn? :roll:

And, not only that, the UN resolution for use of force to protect Libyan civilians was abused/expanded for "regime change" which is where US/Russian relations really took a turn for the worse. And it's what made both China and Russia deny the US a resolution for the use of force in Syria, believing, and for good reason, that the US would try the same thing there. In fact going forward, we're going to see a lot of push back from both China and Russia on US military aggression. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
 
And who authorized the US to lead that horse.

Well they didnt in Libya I believe France took the lead on that one. Also worth pointing out that its not in our best interest to allow civil wars to ravage countries while we sit around and do nothing. See Syria.
 
Well they didnt in Libya I believe France took the lead on that one. Also worth pointing out that its not in our best interest to allow civil wars to ravage countries while we sit around and do nothing. See Syria.
Actually Syria is stabilizing so its the opposite of what youre advocating. If we had gone in there and took out Assad the place would be swarming with Al Queda fanatics by now.
 
Well they didnt in Libya I believe France took the lead on that one. Also worth pointing out that its not in our best interest to allow civil wars to ravage countries while we sit around and do nothing. See Syria.

France did take the lead. There wasn't too much opposition to the US/NATO execution of the use of force to protect Libyan civilians, until that is, it became apparent to China and Russia that the targeting was consistent with regime change, and not merely protection of civilians. Now, Libya is just another trashed country in our wake.
 
Actually Syria is stabilizing so its the opposite of what youre advocating. If we had gone in there and took out Assad the place would be swarming with Al Queda fanatics by now.

True. But US covert support for the insurgents, which incidentally have been infested with AQ/MB/al Nusra for years now has allowed them to hang on now to the tune of 160,000 civilian deaths, unfortunately. And strengthen IS. Russia and China both correctly warned at the beginning of the Syrian conflict that US support for the rebels would cause the conflict to spill over into the entire region. And sure enough, take a look around.
 
And, not only that, the UN resolution for use of force to protect Libyan civilians was abused/expanded for "regime change" which is where US/Russian relations really took a turn for the worse. And it's what made both China and Russia deny the US a resolution for the use of force in Syria, believing, and for good reason, that the US would try the same thing there. In fact going forward, we're going to see a lot of push back from both China and Russia on US military aggression. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
absolute correct. on the over play of the UN resolution on Libya (which was a bad idea, and we didn't have to enforce it).

Regime change? how about ASASSINATION - call it what it was. Libya is in a slow motion civil war ; Qaddafi was vehemently anti-al-Qaida.
The whole thing was a cluster, and Bengazi is the symptom of our madness
 
absolute correct. on the over play of the UN resolution on Libya (which was a bad idea, and we didn't have to enforce it).

Regime change? how about ASASSINATION - call it what it was. Libya is in a slow motion civil war ; Qaddafi was vehemently anti-al-Qaida.
The whole thing was a cluster, and Bengazi is the symptom of our madness

Yeah, I almost did say murder. But you're right.
 
Actually Syria is stabilizing so its the opposite of what youre advocating. If we had gone in there and took out Assad the place would be swarming with Al Queda fanatics by now.
how do you figure Syria is stabilizing?? Yes, this endless search for "Syrian moderates" has bought us ISIL (Islamic State)
 
how do you figure Syria is stabilizing??

The fighting is starting to wind down so that means law and order is returning. It may not be the law and order we want it to be but its a lot better than if these Islamic fanatics would have won instead.
 
Surge in Libya violence raises spectre of civil war | GlobalPost

NATO warplanes helped topple dictator Moamer Kadhafi in 2011, sparking a power struggle between rival armed groups that has wracked the country ever since
gives some ideas. the militias prop up the government -but the militias also rivsl the government.

Kidnappings/murder of politicians, the closing of oil terminals in the east, ( now reopening) "dueling Prime Ministers" ..it just goes on and on
 
Back
Top Bottom