• 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!

UN authorizes no-fly zone over Libya

President Obama is diplomatically rehabilitating America's tarnished warmongering image abroad and especially in the ME. There can be no doubt of the US working behind the scenes, but the frontmen are the UN and the Arab league, as well as the Europeans.

Obama is doing no such thing. He'd not have the U.S. warships anywhere near Libya if what you say were to be true, which it is not.
 
France, Britain and the Lebanon proposed the resolution, The US "approved" of it. America will no doubt join in, but it is seen to not be the instigator.
 
Last edited:
Was it or was it not the U.S. who pushed this through the Security Council? So because it's not U.S. planes in the air first, it makes it all okay?

Nope, but the Security Council listens to the US a lot more than they listen to France. As I said, I just hope that the political cover is the extent of our involvement in this.
 
France, Britain and the Lebanon proposed the resolution, The US "approved" of it. America will no doubt join in, but it is seen to not be the instigator.

No where does the resolution 1973 identify France, Britan and Lebanon proposed the resolution. You're indicating that the U.S. is a minor partner - provide evidence of this, because I see it as spin.

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions
 
President Obama is diplomatically rehabilitating America's tarnished warmongering image abroad and especially in the ME. There can be no doubt of the US working behind the scenes, but the frontmen are the UN and the Arab league, as well as the Europeans. I'm hearing as I type that the British airstrikes have started with a few Tomahawks into the Libyan air defences.

Looks like the AMERICAN Tomahawk missiles today say differently.
 
Looks like the AMERICAN Tomahawk missiles today say differently.

I love the Obama defense shift coming out and making excuses for the same things that Bush did in Iraq. This is hypocrisy at it's finest.
 
I love the Obama defense shift coming out and making excuses for the same things that Bush did in Iraq. This is hypocrisy at it's finest.

Saddam can kill thousands of his own people, and it's none of our business. But if Gaddafi does the same thing, Obama is a hero.
 
So you agree this is for oil, same way it was when Bush did it in Iraq?

The West used to prop up his regime and turn a blind eye at his domestic activities because of the role Libya played economically for the region. The West turned its back to Gadaffi only when he started loosing the fight, and now he is winning (in an unfortunate turn of events), that puts us in a difficult situation.

The rebels have to win, otherwise if Muammer comes back into power his going to play straight into the hands of Iran and the axis of evil to spite us. We chose our side now we have to bare the responsibilities of doing that.

I doubt the intervention has anything to do with oil, more that the atrocities that are being committed there is happening at our doorstep and that the Libyan people expect protection from the international community.
 
Last edited:
Nope, but the Security Council listens to the US a lot more than they listen to France. As I said, I just hope that the political cover is the extent of our involvement in this.

I agree. I was glad to see that U.S. planes were not the first ones out there and that our involvement thus far has been mostly political/verbal. I'm not interested in getting heavily involved in another war no matter who the president is.
 
I agree. I was glad to see that U.S. planes were not the first ones out there and that our involvement thus far has been mostly political/verbal. I'm not interested in getting heavily involved in another war no matter who the president is.

As long as NATO boots do not step foot on Libyan soil the US can get away with minimizing its efforts there with the occasional air or naval strike. This is more of a European effort than anything and it should stay that way. That way if we get pushed into a corner and find a no-fly zone is ineffective and we have to launch a ground invasion, we can lead the effort.
 
Last edited:
I doubt the intervention has anything to do with oil, more that the atrocities that are being committed there is happening at our doorstep and that the Libyan people expect protection from the international community.

Neocons said the same thing about Iraq didn't they? It was all about the WMD's and not the oil, yet the narrative for years from media and our left wing bretheren was "No blood for oil". Fact is, Libya does supply much of it's oil to Europe.
 
Saddam can kill thousands of his own people, and it's none of our business. But if Gaddafi does the same thing, Obama is a hero.

Correction: Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people.
 
President Obama is diplomatically rehabilitating America's tarnished warmongering image abroad and especially in the ME. There can be no doubt of the US working behind the scenes, but the frontmen are the UN and the Arab league, as well as the Europeans. I'm hearing as I type that the British airstrikes have started with a few Tomahawks into the Libyan air defences.

And making us look like toothless ******s, instead.
 
Nope, but the Security Council listens to the US a lot more than they listen to France. As I said, I just hope that the political cover is the extent of our involvement in this.

There are amphib units on station off the Libyan coast. There's a lot of potential for American troops to be deployed in this TO.
 
There are amphib units on station off the Libyan coast. There's a lot of potential for American troops to be deployed in this TO.

That would be a mistake. This has a huge potential downside and a very limited upside. Realistically, our involvement in Libya could result in anything from a pyrrhic victory (like Kosovo) to a stalemate (like 1990s Iraq) to a total disaster (like Somalia). Even in the best case scenario, all that we'd be able to do is depose Gaddafi and hope that the successor government was marginally better. And it's far from certain that we could even get that.
 
There are amphib units on station off the Libyan coast. There's a lot of potential for American troops to be deployed in this TO.

I don't think they will be, en masse. Perhaps SOF, Recon, etc, for target acquisition...

I am looking for the trains reaching Bengazi, with food, water, med supplies, arms and ammo. I heard Italy and Egypt were both participating on that front. The Libyans can handle the ground war, if we neutralize the air and armor.
 
No where does the resolution 1973 identify France, Britan and Lebanon proposed the resolution. You're indicating that the U.S. is a minor partner - provide evidence of this, because I see it as spin.

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions


"...Introducing the resolution, the Foreign Minister of France, Alain Juppé, said “the situation on the ground is more alarming than ever, marked by the violent re-conquest of cities that have been released”. The Security Council could not stand by and “let the warmongers flout international legality”. The world was experiencing “a wave of great revolutions that would change the course of history”, but the will of the Libyan people had been “trampled under the feet of the Qadhafi regime”. Earlier Council measures had been ignored and violence against Libyan civilians had redoubled...."

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

"United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, on the situation in Libya, is a measure that was adopted on 17 March 2011. The Security Council resolution was proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom."

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I don't think they will be, en masse. Perhaps SOF, Recon, etc, for target acquisition...

No, Obama said no ground troops and that's the way it is. If the zoomies need FO's, the Brits and the French need to insert some people for that.

I am looking for the trains reaching Bengazi, with food, water, med supplies, arms and ammo. I heard Italy and Egypt were both participating on that front. The Libyans can handle the ground war, if we neutralize the air and armor.

We'll have to kill some government infantrymen, too. Even without air, arty and armor, the government troops are trained alot more better than the rebels.
 
Looks like the AMERICAN Tomahawk missiles today say differently.

Where did I claim otherwise? Britain launched American made "Tomahawk" (TM) missiles at Gadaffi forces. The US did too, as part of the UN coalition, not as the warmonger.
 
Last edited:
Where did I claim otherwise? Britain launched American made "Tomahawk" (TM) missiles at Gadaffi forces. The US did too, as part of the UN coalition, not as the warmonger.

The difference is? Let me guess, one war you agree with, the other you don't agree with?
 
Neocons said the same thing about Iraq didn't they? It was all about the WMD's and not the oil, yet the narrative for years from media and our left wing bretheren was "No blood for oil". Fact is, Libya does supply much of it's oil to Europe.

The left wing are pretty good at making claims without any evidence. Somebody who tells me Iraq was invaded for oil has just about as much credibility as somebody who tells me aliens are visiting planet Earth.

I still don't see how Libya having oil is relevant. The intervening forces wanted a UN mandate that disallowed ground troops and permitted a no-fly zone. Unless the Americans have a top secret jet that can suck oil out of the ground from the air then what your telling me is just another made up conspiracy theory.
 
The left wing are pretty good at making claims without any evidence. Somebody who tells me Iraq was invaded for oil has just about as much credibility as somebody who tells me aliens are visiting planet Earth.

I guess Republicans John McCain and Alan Greenspan are just as bad:

In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'

Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m | World news | The Observer

"My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East." -John McCain
...But I thought we were in the Middle East for WMDs and bin Laden? What does oil have to do with that?

First Read - McCain: Iraq war was for oil?


And then you have the circumstantial evidence:
"Four western companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power."
How convenient.
The Iraq War Was About Oil, All Along | World | AlterNet

The reason the U.S. takes on war/humanitarian interventions in Libya/Iraq/ME and not in the multiple other countries where leaders kill their population is because the Middle East is filled with a huge interest of ours: oil. The funny part is that we only get 22% of our oil from the Middle East so we do it mostly for our allies who get most of their oil from the region. The United States goes where its interests lie. It would be illogical to discount oil as one of its primary interests in the ME.
 
It would be illogical to discount oil as one of its primary interests in the ME.

Absolutely right. But another of our primary interests is to democratize the ME. Dictatorships only provide short-term stability.
 
Absolutely right. But another of our primary interests is to democratize the ME. Dictatorships only provide short-term stability.

Let's say it is complete and total democracy for the people of Libya, Iraq, etc....****ing absurd!!! Hell, we don't have a democracy in the US and I for one am glad, I do not subscribe to the chaos method of governance by rabble.
 
Back
Top Bottom