• 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!

Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya

Kandahar said:
The point is that every soldier we commit to this is one soldier less that we could commit somewhere else. There are other places where there are human rights tragedies, where our help would actually be appreciated, and where we'd have a far higher chance of success. If we're going to get involved in military intervention for altruistic reasons, we could start with the high-priority places: South Sudan, Haiti, Cote d'Ivoire, etc.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the South Sudan is your priority but it is obviously not a high priority to others. And if there were troops send to the South Sudan there'd be questions asked about why they don't do something about the murderous dictator in Libya.
Heck I'd be happy with even some short-term planning. I don't see any indication that any of the NATO forces have given the slightest thought to what the mission is. None of them can bring themselves to say that their goal is to depose Gaddafi, even though it obviously is. The mission creep has already begun, with a no-fly zone turning into air strikes.
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone is too clear on what the motives are or what the long term planning might be. It s a war being fought by a political committee who feel they have to do something, so they started letting the bombs fly, which is the easy. Apart from that they remain confused.
I agree about the long term planning though. In the long term, even if the campaign is successful, I see no reason to expect the successor government to be a huge improvement over Gaddafi. We have no idea who we're even allying with, and it's quite possible that we'll come to regret that decision a few years down the road.
Click to expand...

Right. They have no idea at all, nor do we. Are they 'nation building'? Will Gadaffi remain in power if he says he'll be good? And, like you say, who or what will take his place? The Arab League appears to hold more influence than they should, and the same holds true of the corrupt UN. Anything can happen if the West follows the dictates of those guys.
 
Boo Radley said:
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But the comparison has been made, and I'm simply pointing out the differences. ;)
Click to expand...

Well BHO appears to be repeating history, all right, but perhaps its time to turn the page.
 
Crosscheck said:
No matter how many billions we dump into the Middle East and no matter how many young Americans die fighting for them we will always be infidels to them.

I really question if we have a vested interest in running into Libya. Do we oust Gaddafi only to have someone else step up into his position and then curse us?
Click to expand...

That's why everyone needs to wake up and realize that we actually are at war with Islam.
 
apdst said:
That's why everyone needs to wake up and realize that we actually are at war with Islam.
Click to expand...

Perfect example of the kind of ignorance that fuels distrust of America in the Middle East, and makes Arabs assume the worst about any humanitarian goals we might have in Libya.
 
Kandahar said:
The point is that every soldier we commit to this is one soldier less that we could commit somewhere else. There are other places where there are human rights tragedies, where our help would actually be appreciated, and where we'd have a far higher chance of success. If we're going to get involved in military intervention for altruistic reasons, we could start with the high-priority places: South Sudan, Haiti, Cote d'Ivoire, etc.



Heck I'd be happy with even some short-term planning. I don't see any indication that any of the NATO commanders have given the slightest thought to what the mission is. None of them can bring themselves to say that their goal is to depose Gaddafi, even though it obviously is. The mission creep has already begun, with a no-fly zone turning into air strikes.

I agree about the long term planning though. In the long term, even if the campaign is successful, I see no reason to expect the successor government to be a huge improvement over Gaddafi. We have no idea who we're even allying with, and it's quite possible that we'll come to regret that decision a few years down the road.
Click to expand...

That's because the mission can only be defined one way: pound the enemy into submission and takeover the country.
 
Kandahar said:
Perfect example of the kind of ignorance that fuels distrust of America in the Middle East, and makes Arabs assume the worst about any humanitarian goals we might have in Libya.
Click to expand...

^^^^ Example of the kind of ignorance that allows the Islamists to continue to have the upper hand in the propaganda war.
 
apdst said:
That's because the mission can only be defined one way: pound the enemy into submission and takeover the country.
Click to expand...

Why do we need to take over the country? Why is Gaddafi suddenly our enemy again? Where are we going to get the troops and money for an invasion? What about our experience in Iraq or Afghanistan makes you think that an occupation of yet another Muslim country would go well? What makes you think that "pounding the enemy into submission and taking over the country" would be helpful from a humanitarian perspective? And what makes you think that the successor government would be any better than Gaddafi?
 
apdst said:
^^^^ Example of the kind of ignorance that allows the Islamists to continue to have the upper hand in the propaganda war.
Click to expand...

FYI: Gaddafi is a secular dictator who is about as far away from Islamism as any leader in the Arab world. Please educate yourself before you spout off such ridiculous garbage.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Wow, that took all of 24 hours. But I'm sure we'll be greeted with flowers and parades when we liberate the crap out of Libya. :roll:
Click to expand...
That's odd ... wasn't it the Arab League of Nations which called for a no-fly zone? Now that one is being administered, they condemn it?
 
donsutherland1 said:
This criticism only highlights the issue raised earlier when the Arab League adopted a hollow declaration in favor of a no fly zone. What was revealing at the time was that not one of the Arab League members devoted even a single military asset to enforcement of its declaration. The Arab League could have acted. But that wasn't its intent.

IMO, the declaration was nothing but a cynical public relations effort aimed at making it appear that the Arab League was concerned about Libya. The declaration was hollow by design. That some Arab countries might provide some assets now that others have assumed the largest degree of risks and greatly degraded Gadhafi's air defenses does not change that. Not surprisingly, now that the no fly zone is being enforced, the Arab League is recoiling.
Click to expand...

Too true.

The West will bomb Libya and the Arab League will then use this later against the West. They know our weaknesses and can exploit them. We cannot do the same because we wear politically correct multicultural lenses and assume everyone's values and interests are the same.
 
Kandahar said:
Perfect example of the kind of ignorance that fuels distrust of America in the Middle East, and makes Arabs assume the worst about any humanitarian goals we might have in Libya.
Click to expand...

We should all be quiet lest the Muslims think ill of us? Why shouldn't the opposite be true? They don't hesitate to speak their minds, especially when its anti American and anti Western.

It's about time we took of the gloves with these religious goofballs and explained the way the world works. Let them control the agenda and we'll all be living in a third world litter box.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
And these "borders on a map" were place there not by Muslims but willy nilly by the Western powers of the day. There is no reason why the people who had these borders imposed on the should respect them.
Click to expand...

Oh, we can be very specific here. Europe did this. Kings, kaisers, and czars drew lineson a map before they even knew who lived within them. And when tribes, after hundreds and hundreds of years, found themselves squashed together under "one nation," Europeans sought the local warlord or dictator who would keep them in line. By the time the Cold War kicked off, the Soviet Union and America merely continued the recipe and maintained the error as one military coup after another replaced dictators and chose a super power daddy.

Post World War I, Arabs didn't trust the European West because between Britain, France, and Russia they screwed them over. Come World War II, Arabs chose to ally with Nazi Germany for two reasons, 1) their ideology placed them against Jews and 2) Britain, France, and Russia were in the opposition. By the time the Cold War came along, America emerged as the leader of the Free Western world and was declared as Allah's enemy by Saayid Qutb. Despite our reluctance to support Israel and our absence from delivering weapons to them all the way up until the Suez War (1967), we were the hated leader of the West. It would take some time for Arabs to see America different from what they learned was the West. The West didn;t do all these things: save MENA Muslims the fate of hundreds of thousands of Muslimsin the Soviet Caucusus, save Muslims in Bosnia and Kuwait, offer democracy to Iraqis, rid them of the Taliban, and keep the Palestinians from falling off into history. Without America, none of this would have happened. No great Arab caliphate awaits in the wings to do what's right for his own people. No European nation would have been able to perform on the level of the Americans. No European would have united the West for any endeavor except for to war on each other.

But all of this is lost, because a simple religious man named Saayid Qutb in the 1950s gave the tortured and oppressive souls of the MENA region their scapegoat. And how many in the "educated" West eat as much Arab **** sandwiches as they can just to self flaggelate and believe in the popular anti-American hype?
 
Boo Radley said:
You misread. When your side says this is the same thing, when it clearly isn't, it is your side brining up Bush. All I'm doing is answering. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

It's all the same crap. No matter how we get in and how this region changes, it is all the same mission. President Clinton knew that Saddam Hussein had to go for this region to go anywhere. He didn't have a 9/11. President Bush knew that Saddam Hussein had to go for this region to change. He had a 9/11. President Obama, despite his foolish posturing against disposing of Saddam Hussein also knows that this region has to change. What he has is the repercussion of Iraqis voting, which encouraged Tunisians to rise up and spark off the rest of the MENA. It is all connected. And looking for differneces to support your guy or to hate the other's guy is just as foolish as Rumsfeld's plan for the invasion of Iraq.

In the end, the mission will go on. You may as well seek a better understanding instead of seeking ways to support and not support depending on the circumstances and whatever else makes it simple. It's all the same damn mission. Put the map away and look at the civilization. During the "Age of Independence" they all couped through their militaries and they all turned out somewhat the same. During what may be called the "Age of Social Change" or the "Age of Democracy" all the same Arab nations are again following the tribal theme. Borders don't matter and they certainly don't reflect the tribes within.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
It's all the same crap. No matter how we get in and how this region changes, it is all the same mission. President Clinton knew that Saddam Hussein had to go for this region to go anywhere. He didn't have a 9/11. President Bush knew that Saddam Hussein had to go for this region to change. He had a 9/11. President Obama, despite his foolish posturing against disposing of Saddam Hussein also knows that this region has to change. What he has is the repercussion of Iraqis voting, which encouraged Tunisians to rise up and spark off the rest of the MENA. It is all connected. And looking for differneces to support your guy or to hate the other's guy is just as foolish as Rumsfeld's plan for the invasion of Iraq.

In the end, the mission will go on. You may as well seek a better understanding instead of seeking ways to support and not support depending on the circumstances and whatever else makes it simple. It's all the same damn mission. Put the map away and look at the civilization. During the "Age of Independence" they all couped through their militaries and they all turned out somewhat the same. During what may be called the "Age of Social Change" or the "Age of Democracy" all the same Arab nations are again following the tribal theme. Borders don't matter and they certainly don't reflect the tribes within.
Click to expand...

no, it really isn't. It makes a difference on hwo and when and why.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Let me know when the number of U.S. deaths approaches the 21,000 we lost during Nixon's war.
Click to expand...

nixon?

LOL!

why not polk?

meanwhile, obama ESCALATED afghanistan

the enemy we seek, al qaeda, are NOT there

the folks obama relies upon to afghanize our effort are incompetent and corrupt

casualties over there are higher in 2 years of obama than in 8 under what's-his-name

he's waging a not so SECRET war in pakistan

we're sposed to start pullin out by summer

collaborationists know what will happen to them and their families once we leave

and according to BOB WOODWARD obama only ESCALATED cuzza POLITICS

can you deny it?
 
The Prof said:
nixon?

LOL!

why not polk?
Click to expand...
Because unlike Nixon, Polk did not inherit the Vietnam war from his predessor.

The Prof said:
meanwhile, obama ESCALATED afghanistan
Click to expand...
So? That doesn't make it his war any more than Vietnam was Nixon's war. Just because he's trying to win a war which Bush couldn't doesn't make it his war. Like Nixon, Obama inherited this mess.

The Prof said:
the enemy we seek, al qaeda, are NOT there
Click to expand...
Al-Qaeda was always an outlying reason for invading Afghanistan. The main reason was the government there which allowed Al-Qaeda to operate. From day one, we were at war with the Taliban and our efforts to remove them from power and install a democracy. Had the Taliban been thoroughly defeated while Bush was president, there would have been no need for Obama to escalate the efforts.

The Prof said:
casualties over there are higher in 2 years of obama than in 8 under what's-his-name
Click to expand...
Since 7 years under Bush failed to win that war, how do you propose Obama wins it, if not by escalating it?

The Prof said:
we're sposed to start pullin out by summer
Click to expand...
We are? Who said?
The Prof said:
and according to BOB WOODWARD obama only ESCALATED cuzza POLITICS

can you deny it?
Click to expand...
I cannot confirm nor deny that given I don't possess enough information to make such a call. I do believe that politics govern a lot of decisions made on any battlefield and I do figure that a war run by a politician will make decisions based on politics. That aside, I haven't read what Woodward said so I can't really comment about that either.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Because unlike Nixon, Polk did not inherit the Vietnam war from his predessor.
Click to expand...

no, he STARTED it

That doesn't make it his war any more than Vietnam was Nixon's war.
Click to expand...

obama campaigned on afghanistan as the "right war"

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Why President Obama Should End the Afghanistan War

in other words---if you ESCALATE it you OWN it

Al-Qaeda was always an outlying reason for invading Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

obama, december, 09: "that's not what the american people signed off for when they went into afghanistan in 2001, they signed up to go after al qaeda"

Afghanistan: Barack Obama defends US pull out in mid-2011 - Telegraph

how do you propose Obama wins it, if not by escalating it?
Click to expand...

he can't, afghanistan is unwinnable

We are? Who said?
Click to expand...

Obama to start pulling troops out of Afghanistan by July 2011 - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02policy.html

Afghanistan: Barack Obama defends US pull out in mid-2011 - Telegraph

Afghanistan Pullout Set For July 2011

Obama Lays Out New Afghanistan Strategy - CBS News

President Obama's 2011 Deadline in Afghanistan Stirs Controversy | Asia | English

Obama's Afghanistan deadline gives Taliban sustenance, US general warns | World news | The Guardian

where ya been?

I haven't read what Woodward said
Click to expand...

you should
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Why do we need to take over the country? Why is Gaddafi suddenly our enemy again? Where are we going to get the troops and money for an invasion? What about our experience in Iraq or Afghanistan makes you think that an occupation of yet another Muslim country would go well? What makes you think that "pounding the enemy into submission and taking over the country" would be helpful from a humanitarian perspective? And what makes you think that the successor government would be any better than Gaddafi?
Click to expand...

In that case, we shouldn't even **** with it. We should sit back and wait for things to grow totally our of control, until we have no choice but to go in, pound the enemy into submission and takeover the country; losing tens of thousands of American lives, in the process.
 
Kandahar said:
Perfect example of the kind of ignorance that fuels distrust of America in the Middle East, and makes Arabs assume the worst about any humanitarian goals we might have in Libya.
Click to expand...

Of course Islam is "the problem" - they made it so. They are the ones claiming to act in its name.

Also of course, if we resolve that somehow, they will create another issue.
 
apdst said:
In that case, we shouldn't even **** with it. We should sit back and wait for things to grow totally our of control, until we have no choice but to go in, pound the enemy into submission and takeover the country; losing tens of thousands of American lives, in the process.
Click to expand...

Why lose any American lives when you have all the weapons you will ever need, and all coming in various shapes and sizes for amusingly different light shows?

Here's a helpful list which can easily be forwarded to BHO as a friendly reminder.

# Land-Based Strategic Weapons

* Minuteman III ICBM
* Peacekeeper (MX) ICBM

# Sea-Based Strategic Weapons

* Ohio-class (Trident) SSBN
* Trident I C-4 SLBM
* Trident II D-5 SLBM

# Air-Based Strategic Weapons

* B-52H Stratofortress
* B-1B Lancer
* B-2A Spirit
* ALCM
* ACM
* B53 Gravity Bomb
* B61 Gravity Bomb (Strategic)
* B83 Gravity Bomb

# Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons

* Tomahawk TLAM-N SLCM
* B61 Gravity Bomb (Tactical)

Then you go in unmolested and help yourself to all the oil you want!
 
Same war. Different bad borders. As long as the region is a mess, their radical base assumes God's enemy must pay. It's very archaic, but so is mass religious zealousy.
Click to expand...

Libya has nothing to do with the WOT. Qadaffi was not a friend of Al Qaeda, as evidenced by his ridiculous claims that they are behind the rebellion. The U.S. interest in Libya is for humanitarian reasons, scoring points in the PR game and hopefully stabilizing the price of oil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom