• 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. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

Aunt Spiker said:
What's going on in Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

good question

a full HALF of the caucus voted THURSDAY for an IMMEDIATE pullout

House rejects immediate Afghanistan pullout, message rings - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

875 americans martyred in the mountains on the moon in the 2 years since obama matriculated, 630 in the eight years previous

iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties

for what?

what's the mission, afghanization?

with whom?

what's the exit strategy?

what's our endgame in libya?

obama mumbled friday something about flying over tripoli "for days, not weeks"

Libya Crisis: Obama Gives Moammar Gadhafi Ultimatum - ABC News

does ANYONE believe him?

he's TEMPORIZING

certainly no way to conduct a WAR

remember what WOODWARD said

pray
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The Taliban did not exist during that time period of course, niether did the Northern Alliance. But as the majority of the Mujahadeen were pashtun, and the Pashtun's make up theTaliban, it would be a safe bet to say that US aid went to the Pashtun Mujahadeen, and as such flowed to the Taliban when they were created as a group. When the Northern Alliance was formed as an official group, fighting against the Taliban they received their primary support from Russia and Iran.
Click to expand...

We did much more than that. The U.S. government actually helped the Taliban take control of Afghanistan for a variety of reasons such as its hostility towards Iran and its willingness to allow that Unocal pipeline. However, they were just not willing to pay us the protection money.
 
Demon of Light said:
We did much more than that. The U.S. government actually helped the Taliban take control of Afghanistan for a variety of reasons such as its hostility towards Iran and its willingness to allow that Unocal pipeline. However, they were just not willing to pay us the protection money.
Click to expand...

Ummm...the Soviets withdrew in 1989. The Taliban didn't form until 1994.

The Soviets couldn't pacify Afghanistan with a half-million troops, what makes us think we can?
 
Demon of Light said:
It's nice to see you know your history.
Click to expand...

With its tribal and ethnic divisions didn't it seem likely that Libya would splinter apart? If so, should we encourage the splintering and pick our poison?
 
Goshin said:
I try not to be too partisan very often, but this has me not knowing whether to LOL or scream. :lamo

If someone sent 112 flying bombs into the USA, would you call it war? :lamo

So, it is moral and wise to bomb, but evil and stupid to use ground troops? :doh

Iraq was all about oil, you say (despite the fact that oil was flowing just fine at the time), and this IS NOT about oil, even though we're experiencing bad price hikes due to the conflicts currently ongoing in the MidEast? :wassat1:







The UN authorized all kinds of things against Saddam, which he ignored, and authorized the use of force, which apparently didn't matter a fig to the Left THEN.


The hypocrisy of some just amazes me.

I support this action, btw.... should've been done three weeks ago without waiting for that corrupt and nearly useless body known as the United (cough cough!) Nations.
Click to expand...

I want to know why the Dems in Congress don't have a bill drafted with a Declaration of War in it.
 
Last edited:
Ron Mars said:
0bama is allowing the UN to set his foreign policy. Got it!
Click to expand...

No, he has cleverly not put the US in position to be the aggressor in the mid-east and further terrorism as a result. Nice to see real diplomacy in action, its been awhile.
 
upsideguy said:
No, he has cleverly not put the US in position to be the aggressor in the mid-east and further terrorism as a result. Nice to see real diplomacy in action, its been awhile.
Click to expand...

Diplomacy=looking weak and indecisive to the world.

That would be something a liberal would be proud of.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
That's a comment worthy of a fifteen year old. The Constitution should not be violated becuase the President has to save face with the French.

No vital US interests was threatened in Libya until the US commenced bombing raids in Libya today. We had nothing to win, and now we still have nothing to win but we've already lost sixty million dollars and counting, to name just one thing, and now we're enaged in three wars simultaneously, only one of which was justifiable.
Click to expand...

Helping others to seek freedom is always justifiable even if it's oil related.
So quit crying snob and enjoy your freedom.
 
upsideguy said:
No, he has cleverly not put the US in position to be the aggressor in the mid-east and further terrorism as a result. Nice to see real diplomacy in action, its been awhile.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. He stated that Gaddafi must go and it appears the UN has bullied him out of it. We've heard nothing about 0bama's "Gaddafi must leave" policy lately. In fact the WH and military leaders are stating there is a time limit to the operations in Libya. This is a major mistake. Gaddafi is going to wait it out and this military campaign will be for nothing.

Cleverly? Sitting on his hands for weeks waiting for political cover from the UN while Gaddafi slaughtered innocent people was clever of 0bama? I doubt the people of Libya would agree.

If this was the right decision today than it was the right decision weeks ago.
 
USA_1 said:
Not much of a war. I hope Obama does a better job than the last knucklehead.
Click to expand...

It's actually a war run by a political committee with none of them wanting to take the responsibility for any failures, or deaths, and they can thus share the blame when things go wrong, and easily blame someone else. They know how the West will attack its own rather than those responsible for creating the chaos.

The West is militarily strong but morally very weak. The Islamists are morally much stronger, even if we generally do not agree with those morals. They are convinced they'll win over the long term and I tend to agree with them..
 
upsideguy said:
No, he has cleverly not put the US in position to be the aggressor in the mid-east and further terrorism as a result. Nice to see real diplomacy in action, its been awhile.
Click to expand...

Do you think the Islamists admire weakness? Do you think as a result of this dithering, and flying off to Brazil and El Salvador, they'll think he's really a nice guy, that his Nobel Prize was deserving, and that the American people should henceforth be safe and secure?

I doubt the Islamic leaders are fooled by this 'cleverness'. They can read as well as you do, they just interpret it differently.
 
We know the American religious far right views diplomacy as weakness. Whether or not their Islamic cousins do so or not is less certain.
 
Grant said:
It's actually a war run by a political committee with none of them wanting to take the responsibility for any failures, or deaths, and they can thus share the blame when things go wrong, and easily blame someone else. They know how the West will attack its own rather than those responsible for creating the chaos.

The West is militarily strong but morally very weak. The Islamists are morally much stronger, even if we generally do not agree with those morals. They are convinced they'll win over the long term and I tend to agree with them..
Click to expand...

The West is militarily weak--if it wasn't, it would've made short work of the Third World fighting force known as the Taleban. The only "strength" the US military has are its high tech weapons, which are practically worthless in asymmetric warfare. If Qedafi wages it effectively, he'll prevail. But he's dumb, so he won't.

Defeating the US is actually very easy. It's just that Qedafi is a brainless nut job who can't think straight. Of course, that applies to US corporate oil leadership as well, but this is simply one bunch of wimpy idiots (US oil interests) vs. another (Qedafi), and, alas, in this case, the oil interests are the smarter of the two, so they'll likely prevail.
 
Manc Skipper said:
We know the American religious far right views diplomacy as weakness. Whether or not their Islamic cousins do so or not is less certain.
Click to expand...

Do "we" know that?

Do you have a link?

And i doubt the Islamists view Christians as their "cousins". The way they are treating Christians throughout the world, when they have the numbers in their favour, suggests they don't share the same familial attitudes as you think they do.

What made you think they were 'cousins', in any respect?
 
Grant said:
Do "we" know that?

Do you have a link?

And i doubt the Islamists view Christians as their "cousins". The way they are treating Christians throughout the world, when they have the numbers in their favour, suggests they don't share the same familial attitudes as you think they do.

What made you think they were 'cousins', in any respect?
Click to expand...

It's like Calvin VS the Catholic Church all over again.

Nevermind the similarities - there's one differe *here* and *here*

Reminds me of an EMO Phillips joke. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDmeqSzvIFs
 
solletica said:
The West is militarily weak--if it wasn't, it would've made short work of the Third World fighting force known as the Taleban. The only "strength" the US military has are its high tech weapons, which are practically worthless in asymmetric warfare. If Qedafi wages it effectively, he'll prevail. But he's dumb, so he won't.
Click to expand...

The West has a stockpile of nuclear weapons and missiles which could destroy Afghanistan and the Middle East in a few hours. We all know that. We also know that they are useless, because they will never be used.

What the Islamists will do is win the war politically, just as in the case of Vietnam, and they are better educated in the ways of war then the west is. We tend to think that war is all about boots on the ground and planes in the air but that's no longer true at all. It's all about will. Who believes in their culture and philosophies more. More and more they will control the language, as Orwell so insightfully knew, and that is a hugely important element. They will also separate the democracies into different camps in the old divide and conquer fashion, and we can see that happening as well.
Defeating the US is actually very easy. It's just that Qedafi is a brainless nut job who can't think straight. Of course, that applies to US corporate oil leadership as well, but this is simply one bunch of wimpy idiots (US oil interests) vs. another (Qedafi), and, alas, in this case, the oil interests are the smarter of the two, so they'll likely prevail.
Click to expand...

I don't believe defeating the US will be easy, it will take more time, but defeating Western Europe is pretty much a done deal if we can talk in terms of a 30 years or so. Iyt is not 'all about oil', at least from the Islamists point of view. That might be the biggest red herring of them all.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
The West has a stockpile of nuclear weapons and missiles which could destroy Afghanistan and the Middle East in a few hours. We all know that. We also know that they are useless, because they will never be used.
Click to expand...

A weapon is only useful if it destroys the intended target w/an amount of collateral damage acceptable to the user.

For that reason, nukes are useless for the kinds of war the US military likes to wage.

Grant said:
What the Islamists will do is win the war politically, just as in the case of Vietnam, and they are better educated in the ways of war then the west is.
Click to expand...

Vietnam was not just a political victory. It was military victory for the Viet Cong, because the Viet Cong forced the US to withdraw; the other side quitting means you win.

And when the US withdraws from Afghanistan, it will be a military victory for the Taleban.

For something to be only a political victory for a side, it must entail military defeat for that side coupled with victory in winning large-scale support for one's cause.

Grant said:
We tend to think that war is all about boots on the ground and planes in the air but that's no longer true at all. It's all about will.
Click to expand...

Actually, in the modern world, it all about strategy. The Taleban doesn't have anywhere near the offense budget of the US, but it's able to hold its own in Afghanistan because its tactics are superior to the those of the US forces, including its attempt to exploit US distaste for long conflicts to force an (eventual) US withdrawal.

Grant said:
Who believes in their culture and philosophies more. More and more they will control the language, as Orwell so insightfully knew, and that is a hugely important element. They will also separate the democracies into different camps in the old divide and conquer fashion, and we can see that happening as well.

I don't believe defeating the US will be easy,
Click to expand...

Forcing the US military to withdraw is actually significantly easier than most people know, and most of the US's past opponents know. Obviously, I can't elaborate on that here.

Grant said:
it will take more time, but defeating Western Europe is pretty much a done deal if we can talk in terms of a 30 years or so. Iyt is not 'all about oil', at least from the Islamists point of view. That might be the biggest red herring of them all.
Click to expand...
 
solletica said:
A weapon is only useful if it destroys the intended target w/an amount of collateral damage acceptable to the user.
For that reason, nukes are useless for the kinds of war the US military likes to wage.
Click to expand...
They were used to great effect in Japan with the war ending very quickly soon after. Knowing they will never be used will certainly embolden enemies, and will force you to fight their fight. That's just what's happening now. No one else but the democracies worries about "collateral damage" in a war, which is why we are always at a disadvantage.

Vietnam was not just a political victory. It was military victory for the Viet Cong, because the Viet Cong forced the US to withdraw; the other side quitting means you win.
Click to expand...

No, the US military could easily have defeated the Vietcong.
And when the US withdraws from Afghanistan, it will be a military victory for the Taleban.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind it is not just the US fighting in Afghanistan, though that's the way anti American propaganda works. There are several countries involved, including my own. It will be a political self defeat by the West when we leave, and will just be a continuation of what's gone before.
For something to be only a political victory for a side, it must entail military defeat for that side coupled with victory in winning large-scale support for one's cause.
Click to expand...

There are military defeats and political defeats. Give the military carte blanche and we'll see how long the Taleban, Gadaffi, or any of these third world dictatorships stand up. They would be gone in weeks. But the democracies are weak and without any political cohesion or determination.
Actually, in the modern world, it all about strategy. The Taleban doesn't have anywhere near the offense budget of the US, but it's able to hold its own in Afghanistan because its tactics are superior to the those of the US forces, including its attempt to exploit US distaste for long conflicts to force an (eventual) US withdrawal.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sure. That's why it is not all military. It's about will and politics.

Forcing the US military to withdraw is actually significantly easier than most people know, and most of the US's past opponents know. Obviously, I can't elaborate on that here.
Click to expand...

I agree. The US is the strongest democracy while the rest are comparative wimps, filled with self doubts and no stomach for war. Plus they are as anti American as the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood. The US will eventually crumble also as soon as there are any body bags arriving home and the accent will be placed on "Exit Strategy", a recent term devised to disguise defeat as victory. I think it's quite clear where the future lies. The only saving grace for the American people is their Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
 
solletica said:
The West is militarily weak--if it wasn't, it would've made short work of the Third World fighting force known as the Taleban. The only "strength" the US military has are its high tech weapons, which are practically worthless in asymmetric warfare. If Qedafi wages it effectively, he'll prevail. But he's dumb, so he won't.

Defeating the US is actually very easy. It's just that Qedafi is a brainless nut job who can't think straight. Of course, that applies to US corporate oil leadership as well, but this is simply one bunch of wimpy idiots (US oil interests) vs. another (Qedafi), and, alas, in this case, the oil interests are the smarter of the two, so they'll likely prevail.
Click to expand...

I've read some silly posts but this was remarkable.

If you think the West is weak and can be easily defeated you really need to pay more attention to world events. Especially if you plan to make your opinions public.
 
solletica said:
Vietnam was not just a political victory. It was military victory for the Viet Cong, because the Viet Cong forced the US to withdraw.
Click to expand...

The Viet Cong were destroyed during the TET offensive in '68.

solletica said:
The Taleban doesn't have anywhere near the offense budget of the US, but it's able to hold its own in Afghanistan because its tactics are superior to the those of the US forces,
Click to expand...

The tali tactics are to hide behind women and children and explode bombs. When they fight US forces face to face they get their a** shot off. There is nothing superior about that. Where do you get your information?
 
Ron Mars said:
The Viet Cong were destroyed during the TET offensive in '68. The tali tactics are to hide behind women and children and explode bombs. When they fight US forces face to face they get their a** shot off. There is nothing superior about that. Where do you get your information?
Click to expand...

But that's the point, Ron Mars. The Islamists don't care if they hide behind women and children, or in fact use children as suicide bombers. They want 'collateral damage', and never concern themselves with an 'exit strategy' because their exit strategy is centuries old.

This is just part of the thinking behind what the West is up against.

suicide bombing - Topics - Macleans.ca

We can throw whatever we learned from past wars out the window. This is one where the idea of 'collateral damage' is not only dismissed, it is actually used as a central tactic.
 
Ron Mars said:
The Viet Cong were destroyed during the TET offensive in '68.
Click to expand...

Do you mean, the Vietcong who created an urban front in 1968 called the Alliance of National, Democratic, and Peace Forces, who then merged in June 1969 with the NLF to form a "Provisional Revolutionary Government," were a bunch of zombies?
 
Grant said:
They were used to great effect in Japan with the war ending very quickly soon after. Knowing they will never be used will certainly embolden enemies, and will force you to fight their fight. That's just what's happening now. No one else but the democracies worries about "collateral damage" in a war, which is why we are always at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

WWII was far different from the kinds of wars the US military currently wages.

In WWII, the US was defending itself from an aggressor, so the collateral damage of the nuke was acceptable--it wouldn't have compromised the US objective.

But today, the US government fights offensive wars aimed at exploiting the natural resources of the attacked country. Nuclear weapons would be useless in such wars as they would make harnessing those resources difficult, i. e. once an Arab/African country is nuked, its oil fields and/or mines become contaminated and worthless.

Grant said:
No, the US military could easily have defeated the Vietcong.
Click to expand...

Could a-would a-should a. The point is that the US did not defeat the Viet Cong because it quit, which means the Viet Cong won by default.

It's no different than the Revolutionary War of 1776. The US defeated the British militarily. The Brits could have won if they kept fighting, but they quit, deciding it wasn't worth it.

A military victory means accomplishing one's military objectives. It doesn't matter how it was accomplished. The NVA accomplished its goal--withdrawal of enemy forces, while the US failed in its goal, so the NVA won.

Political victory only means to win widespread support for your side--that's it. It's possible to lose a war (i. e. get conquered) and still win a political victory.

Grant said:
Keep in mind it is not just the US fighting in Afghanistan, though that's the way anti American propaganda works. There are several countries involved, including my own. It will be a political self defeat by the West when we leave, and will just be a continuation of what's gone before.
Click to expand...

It will be both a military and political defeat, mostly for the US, as the bulk of troops in Afghanistan are American.

Grant said:
There are military defeats and political defeats. Give the military carte blanche and we'll see how long the Taleban, Gadaffi, or any of these third world dictatorships stand up. They would be gone in weeks. But the democracies are weak and without any political cohesion or determination.


Sure. That's why it is not all military. It's about will and politics.



I agree. The US is the strongest democracy while the rest are comparative wimps, filled with self doubts and no stomach for war. Plus they are as anti American as the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood. The US will eventually crumble also as soon as there are any body bags arriving home and the accent will be placed on "Exit Strategy", a recent term devised to disguise defeat as victory. I think it's quite clear where the future lies. The only saving grace for the American people is their Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

:lol: the US is only a democracy on paper. In practice, it's a plutocracy. The CINC does not take orders from the American people, but only from oil companies/contractors, offense contractors, private equity firms, and hedge funds. The previous Iraq war made that more obvious--most of the country was against it, but the President didn't have to listen to the country.
 
Last edited:
Ron Mars said:
I've read some silly posts but this was remarkable.

If you think the West is weak and can be easily defeated you really need to pay more attention to world events. Especially if you plan to make your opinions public.
Click to expand...

I have. Recent history has shown that the US military, with the world's most expensive hardware, is unable to defeat a Third World fighting force (Taleban) after 8 years.

Recent history has also shown that the US military, with the world's most expensive hardware, is unable to repel attacks from 20-something sex-starved flight school flunkies.

Maybe you should brush up on history :) A lot has changed since, uh, WWII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom