• 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

and suppose the obama "policy," product of five minutes thought, is "successful," however that goal is on the day we discuss it defined

are YOU, for example, in the MOOD for a little bit of NATION BUILDING?

in LIBYA?

have you MET the folks we have to work with over there?

and are you satisfied that THIS white house has PREPARED itself for such a NATION BUILDING enterprise?

in other words, are you sure this white house knows what it's doing?

party on, progressives
 
Last edited:
President Barack Obama has touted his emphasis on multilateralism in the U.S. military intervention in Libya, but, for political, operational, and legal reasons, Obama's "coalition of the willing" is smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War.

The Cable compiled a chart listing all the countries that contributed at least some military assets to the five major military operations in which the United States participated in a coalition during the last 20 years: the 1991 Gulf War (32 countries participating), the 1995 Bosnia mission (24 countries), the 1999 Kosovo mission (19 countries), the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan (48 countries), and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (40 countries), at the height of the size of each coalition. As of today, only 15 countries, including the United States, have committed to providing a military contribution to the Libya war.
Click to expand...

Why Obama's coalition is smallest

to be fair, tho, you'd really have to ask, just how many phone calls can an overplied president make in five minutes?
 
and you're aware, presumably, that obama RELIES in part on the ARAB LEAGUE for cover

do you think this is wise?
 
Catawba said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/95008-u-s-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-hit-targets-libya-61.html#post1059368136[/URL]

Oh I see, this is why you were so down on Obama for not foolishly rushing to attack without UN consensus, so that you wouldn't have to wait so long to chastise him once he was part of the effort to protect Libyians.
Click to expand...

What's your point? This doesn't answer anything.
 
Looks like Obama's war is actually helping Al Qaeda as alot of us had feared, now the question is do we bomb Al Qaeda in Libya as well as Gadaffi ? I say yes....

Link

"The Islamists of al-Qaeda took advantage of the pillaging of arsenals in the rebel zone to acquire arms, including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries in Tenere," a desert region of the Sahara that stretches from northeast Niger to western Chad, Deby said in the interview.

"This is very serious. AQIM is becoming a genuine army, the best equipped in the region," he said.

His claim was echoed by officials in other countries in the region who said that they were worried that al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) might have acquired "heavy weapons", thanks to the insurrection.
Click to expand...

With Egypt heading for Muslim brotherhood control, I think its a distinct possibility that they take power in Libya as well. One more step towards there goal of a global caliphate and we can at least partially thank Obama for this.
 
Ron Mars said:
What's your point? This doesn't answer anything.
Click to expand...

I am glad to see a president go the diplomatic route for a change in dealing with world military actions. Puts our image to the world and our already over-strained budget in less jeopardy.

A stark difference from the "bring it on"/"your either for us or against us" stance of the last administration in dealing with the rest of the world.
 
obama in the AUDACITY OF HOPE, his second book, the title of which was taken from a sermon by his SPIRITUAL MENTOR, the good rev from the gd church of chickens roosting:

The fact is, close to five years after 9/11 and fifteen years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the United States still lacks a coherent national security policy. Instead of guiding principles, we have what appear to be a series of ad hoc decisions, with dubious results. Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur? Are our goals in Iran regime change, the dismantling of all Iranian nuclear capability, the prevention of nuclear proliferation, or all three? Are we commited to use force wherever there's a despot regime that's terrorizing its people--and if so, how long do we stay to ensure democracy takes root?...

Without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands, America will lack the legitimacy-and ultimately the power--it needs to make the world safer than it is today."
Click to expand...

Does Obama Lack a Foreign Policy Vision? - Swampland - TIME.com

"how long do we stay to ensure that democracy takes root?"

and THERE YA GO

see A MOVE AHEAD, for a change

how do you feel about a little NATION BUILDING these days?

party on, progressives
 
Prof,

More accurately...

The Western alliance already has assumed control of the arms embargo, led by an Italian vice admiral, and has agreed to take over the no-fly zone in coming days, Gortney said. But there is disagreement over the third mission, which includes air strikes to stop Gaddafi from attacking his opponents.
Click to expand...

2 out of 3 ain't bad. I suspect turning over responsibility of the 3rd phase of the mission will take place soon. At the very least, U.S. military forces can only be there for 60 days maximum. To be there longer requires Congressional approval. So either way, coalition forces will assume full command authority in about 50 days one way or another.

And about this claim of "nation building," Republicans didn't seem to be so concerned about that with Iraq. Why all the concern now? Besides, you have to have "boots on the ground" in order to conduct any activity remotely resembling "nation building". So, let's stop with the :spin: here and see things as they really are for a change.
 
Last edited:
from the ap above:

In interviews taped Saturday, Gates and Clinton also defended the narrowly defined U.N. mandate to prevent atrocities against Libyan civilians and said the U.S. had largely accomplished its goals.
Click to expand...

thank goodness, aren't you gratified to know we'll be outta there soon

aren't you relieved we have statesmen like abdel akim al hasidi to hand off to
 
Prof,

Another falsehood. NO ONE HAS DECLARED WAR AGAINST A-N-Y-B-O-D-Y! I know you and your Conservative cohorts love to make that claim, but the has not been a declaration of war issued by Libya, by any coalition party and not by the U.S. As I said in a previous post, the situation in Libya certainly is a civil war, but until a delcaration of war is proclaimed, it's just an internal squabble within Libya - nothing more.

Again, stop the :spin: and the foolishness and present the truth w/the facts.
 
The Prof said:
from the ap above:



thank goodness, aren't you gratified to know we'll be outta there soon

aren't you relieved we have statesmen like abdel akim al hasidi to hand off to
Click to expand...

I don't know who that person is, but are you suggesting the U.S./NATO will be handing over operations to suspected or known terrorist? If so, you're being very hypocritical here because on the one hand you're arguing that the U.S. will be too deeply involved to pull out of this thing, but on the other hand you're implying that when we do turn over full responsibility we're placing the fate of the Libyans in worse hands than they were in before which would suggest a need to "stay the course" and make sure this is done right. Moreover, your "implication" gives credibility to why it was necessary to get involved in the first place. And please, let's not use the weak argument that U.S. involvement as spurred on "insurgency" in Libya. By all accounts, remnants of Al-Quadia was already filtering in before U.S. involvement, thereby supporting the fact that Libya was already dangerously close to being co-opted.

Is there reason to be concerned? Absolutely! All the more reason to do this right as quickly as possible and let the U.N./NATO w/the Arab League take charge.

A aside from the Reuters article you linked to:

"His [Gaddafi's] air force cannot fly. His warships are staying in port. His ammunition stores are being destroyed. Communication towers are being toppled and his command bunkers are being rendered useless."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
reliance on the arab league?

and THERE's the problem

i'm not arguing anything, MISSION BUILDING is the inevitable next shoe to fall

look forward

admiral sestak on abc this morning:

i do not support this intervention, our military force must match our politcal objectives, there are too many contradictions in our mission, we have an alliance where no one wants to lead, that leads to mission creep, we risk an immense impact on american prestige, we're letting circumstances drive our policy, we're hostage, we have to know who we're turning power over to before we can leave...

it aint me, it's PHYSICS---if gadaffi stays, american prestige in the region and beyond is in the crapper

if he goes, we're STUCK THERE

meet the opposition:

Just Who Are These Libyan Rebels? - Swampland - TIME.com
 
The Prof said:
it aint me, it's PHYSICS---if gadaffi stays, american prestige in the region and beyond is in the crapper

if he goes, we're STUCK THERE
Click to expand...

Well said, Prof.....and that's the bottom line.

Good day, ya'll
 
Objective Voice said:
Prof,

Another falsehood. NO ONE HAS DECLARED WAR AGAINST A-N-Y-B-O-D-Y! I know you and your Conservative cohorts love to make that claim, but the has not been a declaration of war issued by Libya, by any coalition party and not by the U.S. As I said in a previous post, the situation in Libya certainly is a civil war, but until a delcaration of war is proclaimed, it's just an internal squabble within Libya - nothing more.

Again, stop the :spin: and the foolishness and present the truth w/the facts.
Click to expand...

If it's not war then why are we bombing Libya? Why would we bomb a foreign country if it's not war?

As Libya has not declared war on the United States or Canada either, why are we sending in missiles?

We bomb other countries because of "internal squabbles". When did that ever become a foreign policy?
 
Objective Voice said:
I don't know who that person is, but are you suggesting the U.S./NATO will be handing over operations to suspected or known terrorist? If so, you're being very hypocritical here because on the one hand you're arguing that the U.S. will be too deeply involved to pull out of this thing, but on the other hand you're implying that when we do turn over full responsibility we're placing the fate of the Libyans in worse hands than they were in before which would suggest a need to "stay the course" and make sure this is done right.
Click to expand...

Looking further into Obama's crystal ball, give organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood a foothold and you, my friend are asking for trouble.

Che Guevarra with talk of freedom and secularism LMAO
 
Grant said:
If it's not war then why are we bombing Libya? Why would we bomb a foreign country if it's not war?

As Libya has not declared war on the United States or Canada either, why are we sending in missiles?

We bomb other countries because of "internal squabbles". When did that ever become a foreign policy?
Click to expand...

If this is a full fledged "war", what would you have called our military engagement in Bosnia?
 
On the surface this may seem like a good idea, and I agree Gadhafi needs to go the way Great Auk , however in the first 24 hours the Missiles cost us tax payers over $100 million.

Then we lost an F-15 Strike Eagle to mechanical problems at a cost of $31.1 million.

The thing is that is $131.1 Million and does not include the cost of fuel and the bombs used to attack ground targets which has got to be way into the Millions of Dollars. The laser guidance package Production unit cost, Air Force: $23700. Navy: $26100 this is on top of the cost of the bombs these are added to.

Frankly we can't afford this with no chance of return on investment. Libya is not in the top 20 nations we get oil from, so even with luck we get no benefit there.

I have to believe it would have been more efficient to put a hit on Gadhafi.
 
Objective Voice said:
If this is a full fledged "war", what would you have called our military engagement in Bosnia?
Click to expand...

Bosnia is not the topic of discussion so let's not have any of your 'spin' .

Your claim is that despite bombing Libya it is not a war because Barrack Obama, or whomever, has not officially said it is a war.


It's safe to say that if we are shooting at a particular country and they are shooting back it is a war, and that is true no matter what BHO might say.

The fact that he first received permission from some members of the UN and the Arab League and left the rest of the American government out of it, does not make it any less of a war.

It still bombing another country, its leader, its people, its government, and a fellow member of the UN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom