• 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!

Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

I was born in 1949 and lived through this time. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Your inability to refute my points is AMAZING..

How can a political solution work when the left takes our ability to respond militarily away from us (by pulling out) to defend the politcal solution, obviuosly once we are out we can't go back in.... that was what happened in Vietnam! This is what Von Clauswitz meant, that politics is only as forceful and meaningful as the ability to back up your agreements and make them stick.
 
Again - We didn't lose **** in Vietnam. We left in 73 - Vietnam fell in 75. They fought good until the libs yanked the rug out from under them. Look for Foreign Assistance Act of 1974.

Heads are exploding all over Libbo Land. :lamo
 
Your inability to refute my points is AMAZING..

How can a political solution work when the left takes our ability to respond militarily away from us (by pulling out) to defend the politcal solution, obviuosly once we are out we can't go back in.... that was what happened in Vietnam! This is what Von Clauswitz meant, that politics is only as forceful and meaningful as the ability to back up your agreements and make them stick.

when were you born?

Do you even know who was President of the USA during this time?
 
Last edited:
The U.N. has just voted for implementing a no-fly zone in Libya.

So what? Obama can't do a damn thing, cause he doesn't have an official Declaration of War.
 
I was born in 1949 and lived through this time. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Well tell us about your tour in Vietnam.
 
Your inability to refute my points is AMAZING..

How can a political solution work when the left takes our ability to respond militarily away from us (by pulling out) to defend the politcal solution, obviuosly once we are out we can't go back in.... that was what happened in Vietnam! This is what Von Clauswitz meant, that politics is only as forceful and meaningful as the ability to back up your agreements and make them stick.

You attack THE LEFT and you attack LIBERALS and blame them for the loss of Viet Nam. You sound like someone who was not even alive to live through a decade of daily Viet Nam news and events. I also suspect everything you know about Viet Nam came from reading about it long after the war was ended.

The LEFT and LIBERALS were not in charge of the decisions which lost Viet Nam. That came from a Republican President Richard Nixon. His policy was called Vietnamization.

Vietnamization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Vietnamization was a policy of the Richard M. Nixon administration, as a result of Tet, to "expand, equip, and train South Vietnam's forces and assign to them an ever-increasing combat role, at the same time steadily reducing the number of U.S. combat troops."[2] This referred to U.S. combat troops specifically in the ground combat role, but did not reject combat by U.S. air forces, as well as the support to South Vietnam, consistent with the policies of U.S. foreign military assistance organizations. The mistrust of the government that had begun after Tet and worsened with the release of news about US soldiers massacring civilians at My Lai (1969), the invasion of Cambodia (1970), and the leaking of the Pentagon Papers (1971). After Nixon's election in 1968, this became the policy of the United States. While it was a deliberate policy, the name was rather accidental. At a January 28, 1969, meeting of the National Security Council, GEN Andrew Goodpaster, deputy to GEN Creighton Abrams, commander of the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, said the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam (ARVN) had been steadily improving, and the point at which the war could be "de-Americanized" was close. Melvin Laird, the Secretary of Defense, agreed with the point, but not with the language: "what we need is a term like 'Vietnamizing' to put the emphasis on the right issues." Nixon immediately liked Laird's word.[3]
Vietnamization fit into the broader Nixon Administration detente policy, in which the United States no longer regarded its fundamental strategy as containment of Communism, but a cooperative world order in which Nixon and his chief adviser Henry Kissinger were basically "realists" in world affairs, interested in the broader constellation of forces, and the biggest powers.[4] Nixon had ordered Kissinger to negotiate basic U.S.-Soviet policy between the heads of state via Kissinger and Dobrynin, with the agreements then transferred to diplomats for implementation. In like manner, Nixon opened high-level contact with China. U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and China were seen as far more important than the fate of South Vietnam, which certainly did not preclude South Vietnam maintaining its own independence.
Nixon said Vietnamization had two components. The first was "strengthening the armed force of the South Vietnamese in numbers, equipment, leadership and combat skills. The second component is the extension of the pacification program in South Vietnam." The first was achievable, but it would take time. For the U.S., it was trivial to have a U.S. helicopter pilot fly in support, but helicopter operations were too much part of ground operations to involve U.S. personnel. As observed by LTG Dave Palmer, to qualify an ARVN candidate for U.S. helicopter school, he first needed months of English language training to be able to follow the months-long training, and then additional field time to become proficient. In other words, adding new capabilities to the ARVN would often take two or more years.[5] Palmer did not disagree that the first component, given time and resources, was achievable. "Pacification, the second component, presented the real challenge...it was benevolent government action in areas where the government should always have been benevolently active...doing both was necessary if Vietnamization were to work."

there is plenty more in the article.


It was a long and deliberate process which took years to carry out and was the intentional drawdown of US forces in favor of Viet Namese forces to carry out the war.
The LEFT had precious little to do with its adoption or its implementation.

The facts are clear and well remembered for many who lived during this time. When US troops left the nation at the orders of our Republican Commanded In Chief Richard Nixon, the Northern forces soon won over the nation and unified it. The side that the USA had fought for lost.
 
Last edited:
You attack THE LEFT and you attack LIBERALS and blame them for the loss of Viet Nam. You sound like someone who was not even alive to live through a decade of daily Viet Nam news and events. I also suspect everything you know about Viet Nam came from reading about it long after the war was ended.

The LEFT and LIBERALS were not in charge of the decisions which lost Viet Nam. That came from a Republican President Richard Nixon. His policy was called Vietnamization.

Vietnamization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



there is plenty more in the article.


It was a long and deliberate process which took years to carry out and was the intentional drawdown of US forces in favor of Viet Namese forces to carry out the war.
The LEFT had precious little to do with its adoption or its implementation.

The facts are clear and well remembered for many who lived during this time. When US troops left the nation at the orders of our Republican Commanded In Chief Richard Nixon, the Northern forces soon won over the nation and unified it. The side that the USA had fought for lost.

Wikipedia....my arse lol

Go back to school and read up.

What really happened in Vietnam.

1 - The U.S.' stated purpose was to eliminate the "insurgent" communist force in South Vietnam. That means eliminating the Viet Minh/Cong as an effective force in S. Vietnam. The Tet offensive of 1968 was a political victory for the Viet Cong, but a military disaster. Prior to Tet, most of the combat in S. Vietnam was conducted by the S. Vietnamese Viet Cong. Tet virtually wiped them out and the main war effort was then conducted by the North Vietnamese Army (NVA).

2 - When the U.S. pulled out in 1973, the Viet Cong were virtually non-existent and the NVA had been beaten back across the border. Militarily, the war had been won.

3 - In March 1975, the NVA invaded S. Vietnam in a conventional invasion, not an internal communist revolution. The invasion force had more tanks than Hitler used to invade Russia in 1941. The NVA was the 5th largest army in the world at that time. We had promised S. Vietnam that in the event of a N. Vietnamese invasion, we would use U.S. Airpower to support them. But with Nixon's resignation in August 1974 and anti-war U.S. sentiment, we did nothing to help them.

4 - South Vietnam was conquered in a conventional invasion by North Vietnam 23 months after the last American was killed in Vietnam and over 2 years after everyone but a few advisors had been withdrawn.

We lost 50,000 Americans in Vietnam and approximately 225,000 ARVN troops. NVA/VC dead were approximately 1,100,000 (as reported by NV). We killed/annihilated them at a rate of 4:1 - 5:1

Militarily, we kicked their ****ing asses

Plain and simple

Politically, they beat us at every turn. Their will to continue far exceeded our own and their use of propaganda made us look like amateurs. Their dedication eventually brought them political victory, but militarily, it was ineffective.
 
You attack THE LEFT and you attack LIBERALS and blame them for the loss of Viet Nam. You sound like someone who was not even alive to live through a decade of daily Viet Nam news and events. I also suspect everything you know about Viet Nam came from reading about it long after the war was ended.

The LEFT and LIBERALS were not in charge of the decisions which lost Viet Nam. That came from a Republican President Richard Nixon. His policy was called Vietnamization.

Vietnamization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



there is plenty more in the article.


It was a long and deliberate process which took years to carry out and was the intentional drawdown of US forces in favor of Viet Namese forces to carry out the war.
The LEFT had precious little to do with its adoption or its implementation.

The facts are clear and well remembered for many who lived during this time. When US troops left the nation at the orders of our Republican Commanded In Chief Richard Nixon, the Northern forces soon won over the nation and unified it. The side that the USA had fought for lost.

Are you actually saying that the Left wanted to stay in Vietnam and win the war and didn't want American troops to leave Vietnam?

"Hey, Hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today"
 
Your so-called "disease of the human spirit" is most accurately applied to the fundamentalist Islamists. The ever-warring Shia and Sunni factions at each others throats over Q'ran interpretation. So you would have us do what? Insert ourselves in those Middle East nations to show them the way by enabling discourse. By sending agronomists there to teach them. By sending teachers in to replace the madras schools. Give me a break. Your high-minded commentary provides no practical solutions. The indigenous peoples have to have the courage to rise up and however possible reject the notion of totalitarian religious states. We cannot pay the blood bounty to do that for them. This has been ongoing back into the Ottoman Empire and will continue until those very people reject it. So now we shall see, with all the current turmoil, whether regimes that fall are replaced by a worse fate, the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and equivalent interests or a secular uprising of the people to take the first step towards some form of democratization. We have no business inserting ourselves in the middle.[/FONT][/SIZE]

I'm assuming that you actually want to learn something here. First of all, my "so called" disease of the human spirit is well documented amongst social and religious experts. And second, you are ignorant as to what has been going on. You think bombs over Baghdad or struggling to build a solid Afghani government is our only effort? You want practical solutions? You actually think 19 years in the Marine Corps and facing this enemy since Somalia that I don't know my business? I've posted this material before for others who fancy malicious opinions. First understand the basics.......

1) Root Cause - The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al Banna and the vast majority of terrorists are members, however most Radicals are not. The majority of Islamic Radicals are "the sea from which the terrorists swim" and are revered. The cancer of Radical Islam grows where socio-economic conditions are poor; governments are repressive and unable to provide essential social services, such as providing adequate oversight of their educational system….or have allowed / sanctioned Radical Islamic curricula. Islamic fundamentalism has given an aim and form to the otherwise aimless and formless resentment and anger of the Muslim masses at the forces that have devalued their traditional values and loyalties and, in the final analysis, robbed them of their beliefs, their aspirations, their dignity, and to an increasing extent even their livelihood. Frustrated by the complete inability to exert any discernible degree of control over their immediate circumstances, frustrated adherents of Radical Islam, goaded by Radical Islamic Clerics, will resort to terrorism as the only avenue to effect religious, social, political, and economic change.

2) Short Term Solution - Radical Islam is a precursor to terrorism. It lays the ideological and religious foundation for Islamic-inspired violence and, as such, represents a long-term threat to the national security of the United States of America. The ongoing Global War on Terrorism targets the current generation of terrorists; however, unless the ideology that spawned them is also countered the long-term threat to the U.S. will exponentially grow with time.

3) Long Term Solution - Thus, when dealing with a culture in which only faith and family matter to our enemies, we insist on making war on governments and negotiating with political organizations that are no more than mobs with diplomatic representation. When doing this, we merely punch thin air. Since 9/11 we have been active in far more locations than just Iraq and Afghanistan at every level. Note...Some of these are active operations and some are general sentiments of the intel/military community.

a - Acknowledge the threat posed by Radical Islam. (This is something the lot of the civilian world is clueless about)

b - We are not targeting Islam, just the Radical Islamists – we better say so and often.

c - Support the moderate voices (Directly, but mostly indirectly). (This is something we have been failing at since Mubarak.)

d - Focus our efforts on the long term enemy = the creation of more Radical Islamists.

e - Garner worldwide support for this effort…..and at least engage in the IO war more aggressively. Counter Al Jazeera and like Radical Islamic media….without appearing to do so.

f - Designate DOS (Department of State) as lead agency against countering Radical Islam.

g - Following recognition of the threat – fund the programs necessary to counter it.

h - Reorganize foreign assistance funding and efforts creating DOS “Regional Directors” that actually control assets = Reorganize DOS along Geographical vice Functional Lines (much like DoD Combatant CDRs).

i - Review Current Foreign Policy Focusing on Taking the Political Ammunition Away From the Radical Extremists.

j - Resolve Israeli / Palestinian and Indian / Pakistani disputes.

k - We must succeed in both Afghanistan and Iraq….and ensure these are perceived as successes in the Muslim world. Iraq is a success as can be seen today across the region. Afghanistan will be a success in another couple years if nothing impedes Marine Corps progress.

l - Counter Radical Islamic Media = Counter Al Jazeera and like Radical Islamic media….without appearing to do so.

m - Reestablish funding for cultural outreach programs that were cut following the end of the Cold War.

n - Give voice to moderate Islamic leaders (Directly, but mostly indirectly).

o - Support programs dedicated to providing educational reform in threatened countries. (The official Saudi newspaper, Ain Al-Yaqeen, described royal expenditures on "education" as "astronomical." (Mar 2002) They built 1500 mosques, 202 colleges, and 2000 Muslim schools. These were established throughout non-Islamic countries in Europe, North and South America, Australia, and Asia. None in the Middle East.) In other words, we need to support true education throughout the region.

p - Governments with strong governmental oversight over the education of their young must be rewarded; likewise those that do not provide such oversight must be punished.

q - AT HOME = Constitutional / Legal Review of activities surrounding fundamentalist religions that pose a domestic threat, – we face a new threat and our legal system is ill equipped to handle it. (Many Americans would rather recognize their freedom to preach hate and spit venom above protecting their own asses from the repercussions of it.)


More problems in the MENA Region....

- The populations within the ME over the next 25 years…
Egypt’s population will increase by 38%
Jordan’s by 67%
Syria’s by 58%
Saudi Arabia’s by 94%
Pakistan’s by 69%, and
Israel’s by 39%

- Decreasing Fresh Water Supplies: MENA region faces precipitous decrease in per capita fresh water supply.

- Economic doldrums / disaster: Regional unemployment for ages 15-35 = 40%…and growing. ….mostly males….who can’t afford to get married……...

- No known solutions to these problems, save one = Jihad.

Only democracies have shown agility to deal with such problems. In the absence of answers victims will look for scapegoats. Radical Islamic clerics provide the scapegoat for the problems facing the Arab/Islamic world. "Their problems are the fault of the West, specifically the US." Either we find a way to support the affected countries in finding their own solutions to these problems or our sons and daughters will be fighting another, protracted fight. Thus far, the Muslim people are screaming out for change andsupport. Thus far, President Obama is refusing to allow us to take responsibility for our Cold War part in this mess. Like so many in Washington they are clueless as to the problems that facilitate the Al-Quedas, Talibans, Hezbollahs, PLOs, Muslim Brotherhoods, 9/11s, Cole bombings, Beirut bombings, Madrid, London, and Bali bombings, etc. It makes addressing this situation even harder for the troop that has to go and emerse himself in it.

Unfortunately you are decades too late to be complaining that it's not our business. The moment we supported the dictator that leaned our way during the Cold War we set them back. We facilitated some of this mess. We don't get to pretend that we have no business here. We don't get to pretend that after starving out Iraqis and ignoring their rebellious cries throughout the 90s under the UN that we had no business. We don't get to pretend that after arming and organizng religious monsters against the Soviets in Afghanisgtan and then leaving them to start civil war for a decade and emerging as the Taliban that we have no business. We don't get to pretend that supporting the House of Saud for our oil leaves us with no responsibility. We don't get to pretend that after struggling to orhcestare peace between Israel and Palestine that we have no business. Globalization has a price too many prefer not to see.

And my "high-minded commentary" isn't high minded when you consider my education and experience. I simply base my opinions and conclusions on more than headlines and baseless malicious criticisms. As you can see, I'm more than just the average dip**** who loses him or herself in simplistic black and white ignorance and then assumes that his or her opinion matters. Despite 16,000 posts of talking about this subject and years of the Middle East proving my accuracy, I would think some of you people would stop replying to me with the "nu-uhs" and assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you want to understand what generally will work, you have to understand the past and this culture. Simply dismissing them does nothing. I remind you (if you didnlt already know) that we had done nothing to them prior to the Cold War kick off and still Saayid Qutb declared us the enemy of God in the 1950s. I believe in the "Clash of Civilizations" but I believe that it doesn't have to be as violent or confusing as some assume.
 
Last edited:
So what? Obama can't do a damn thing, cause he doesn't have an official Declaration of War.

The President of the United States has the Marine Corps. Marine Expeditionary Units (4 Naval ships with a submarine tag along) are positioned around the globe for emergency cases. And it only takes the President to declare one. There was no Declaration of War to send Marines into Beirut, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, etc. He doesn't need a Declaration of War to send in an entire Battalion (reinforced with armor, air, and logistics) with a snap of a finger. A MEU just so happens to be sitting right off the coast.
 
The President of the United States has the Marine Corps. Marine Expeditionary Units (4 Naval ships with a submarine tag along) are positioned around the globe for emergency cases. And it only takes the President to declare one. There was no Declaration of War to send Marines into Beirut, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, etc. He doesn't need a Declaration of War to send in an entire Battalion (reinforced with armor, air, and logistics) with a snap of a finger. A MEU just so happens to be sitting right off the coast.

Well the left said Bush went to war without one, and I just want to make sure Obama doesn't get into trouble. ;)
 
Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

Appeal to be made as G8 foreign ministers consider whether to back French and British calls for a no-fly zone over Libya

Mustafa Gheriani, spokesman for the revolutionary national council in its stronghold of Benghazi, said the appeal was to be made by a delegation meeting the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, in Paris on Monday, as G8 foreign ministers gathered there to consider whether to back French and British calls for a no-fly zone over Libya.

"We are telling the west we want a no-fly zone, we want tactical strikes against those tanks and rockets that are being used against us and we want a strike against Gaddafi's compound," said Gheriani. "This is the message from our delegation in Europe."

But with diplomatic wrangling focused on the issue of the no-fly zone, there appeared to be little immediate prospect of a foreign military assault on Gaddafi's forces, let alone an air strike against the Libyan dictator.

But the rebels' appeal is also a recognition that while a no-fly zone would provide a boost to them, their military defeats of recent days have largely been under an onslaught of rockets and shells, and air strikes have been relatively peripheral.

A no-fly zone alone may not be enough to prevent the continued advance of Gaddafi's forces toward Benghazi, the revolutionaries' de facto capital.

The talks are being closely watched in Benghazi and other areas under the control of the revolutionaries where Libyans are increasingly concerned at the direction of the conflict and the west's failure, so far at least, to follow through on calls for Gaddafi to go with action in support of the rebellion.

A large French flag hangs on the front of the courthouse used as the revolutionary council's headquarters after Paris recognised the rebel leadership, and the tricolour is often seen on the streets of Benghazi. But Libyans are also increasingly vocal in their criticism of Washington in particular for what is seen as a failure to back up rhetoric against the regime.

However, Gheriani said that if the west failed to offer practical help to the revolutionaries to free themselves from Gaddafi's rule it risked frustrated Libyans turning to religious extremists.

"The west is missing the point. The revolution was started because people were feeling despair from poverty, from oppression. Their last hope was freedom. If the west takes too long – where people say it's too little, too late – then people become a target for extremists who say the west doesn't care about them," he said.

"Most people in this country are moderates and extremists have not been able to penetrate them. But if they get to the point of disillusionment with the west there will be no going back."

Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi | World news | The Guardian


Libyans have the courage to fight for themselves. The free world should have the courage to support them.

He should have been assassinated a long time ago.
 
Well the left said Bush went to war without one, and I just want to make sure Obama doesn't get into trouble. ;)

President Obama has proved himself to be a pure Leftist (not to be confused with the typical Democrat or the Left). I'm finished defending him and giving him the benefit of the doubt. He has represented every immoral Leftist around the world since sitting on the fence in regards to Mubarak. I firmly believe now that he would destroy everything and anything just to achieve the impossible dream. His inexperience is proven. His lack of decision making has been proven. His inability to exploit our many levels of power to the advantage of long term security around the globe has been proven. At no time should a country like France ever be louder than us when it comes to ending people's suffering. Libya is a piss ant little country ripe for a future and we sit on the side lines biting our nails and hiding behind closed doors deliberating. One country at a time we need to be fixing this failed region. It's all about the War on Terror. If the base of our problems stem from wrecked education systems, ruined economies, and religious radicalisms, then we should be supporting the people who rise up against their twisted regimes with cries of democracy coming from their lips.


1) President Bush led the charge to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein and led the charge into Somalia.

2) Though President Clinton's inexperience forced a cowardly withdraw from an unfinished Somalia (piracy would follow later), he went on to lead the charge into Bosnia and over Kosovo with a reluctant Europe behind.

3) President Bush led the charge into Iraq to rid ourselves of the decrepit UN mission after ignoring a decades worth of Shia and Kurd outcry and led the charge to demand social reform throughout the Middle East.

4) Thus far, President Obama had hidden from the world until Mubarak looked like he was going to lose, he has hidden away from making bold statements against Gaddafi, and he has even managed to make France more responsible than us even though they offered security help to the dictator of Tunisia throughout December. In his haste to "respect" even the worst of humanity, he has merely emboldened them and made us look morally decrepit.

Is the man purposefully tearing us down? It's what a Global Leftist would do. Is he so anti-Bush that he refuses to rise above his shallow and near sighted criticisms while ruining the effort? He's behaving like a European - scared to take a stand and afraid of looking bad for a decision. Therefore, he makes no decision. He hangs our actions do right on an international organization where nationslike China and Russia have a say. The last President to behave like this was Carter.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom