• 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!

White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

The only outcome (thanks to Obama's humongous error and stupidity) will be.....

WOW! Blowing up **** is really cool, dude

Thats about it. :lamo
 
I would say to everyone "REMAIN CALM!" Per the article in the OP, it's speculation at this point as to knowing exactly what's going to happen in Libya as far as what form of government takes shape when Ghadaffi (spell check) is either removed from power by force or he leaves of his own accord if he leaves at all. More to the point, without knowing exactly what the U.N. resolution states, you really can't determine for sure what's going to happen because we don't know what the resolution actually calls for. (I tried to find the resolution calling for Libyan air strikes but it's not posted at the U.N.'s website yet.)

For those interested, I found all three UN resolutions concerning recent events in Libya.

U.N. Resolution 1970 (2011) - imposes sanctions against Libya.

U.N. Resolution 1971 (2011) - imposes no-fly zone

U.N. Resolution 1973 (2011) - strengthens arms embargo already in force under UNR 1970
 
Last edited:
For those interested, I found all three UN resolutions concerning recent events in Libya.

U.N. Resolution 1970 (2011) - imposes sanctions against Libya.

U.N. Resolution 1971 (2011) - imposes no-fly zone

U.N. Resolution 1973 (2011) - strengthens arms embargo already in force under UNR 1970

The UN could be taken more seriously if all those voting for those measures actually participated in them. But as most of them vote, but stay on the sidelines, what does their vote mean?

It really means they will give their approval for other nations, notably the United States, to spend their money and risk their peoples lives, while the others get to remain in safety while voicing their disapproval of the way it was handled. It's like the Pope writing a manual for the Honeymoon night.

It is well past bizarre and yet for some obscure reason we continue to accept this irrational system. Doesn't anyone have the nerve to tell the corrupt UN to just f off? It's well past time.
 
If you actually read the article, it is clear that Obama is not going to occupy Libya. That said, his choice of words is abysmal and sends the wrong message. I expect better given the speaking skills he demonstrated during his campaign.
 
I'm curious as to why the anti-war crowd isn't already in the streets.

Not fair...they WERE...there was...like...a hundred of them...and they were protesting "Bush's war"...but... a few of them said they were upset with Obama too...so...there.
 
no you got it wrong see when the W.M.D.'s fell flat GW changed his tune and made it about (oh we are sooo concerned about what Sadam is doing to his people we need to go to war with him) and it worked so now Obama figured it worked once it'll work again and is using the exact same line to sell this war to the public. WTF!!!

GWB gave three reasons for attacking Iraq. All three are undeniable. Genocide, Iraqs ties to global terrorism, and Iraqs refussal to comply with the UN resolutions regarding disposition of his WMDs (all 17 of them, which he repeatedly ignored).
 
http://turkey.usembassy.gov/readout_obama_calls_erdogan_032211.html
"They underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will."


According to sentence, the installers will be the Libyan people.

Otherwise you have Obama underscored his commitment "by installing a democratic system." He has not installed any such thing, so it doesn't really make much sense to read the sentence that way.

It makes much more sense, (but less outrage and fuming), to read the sentence as the Libyan people as the intended installers.

Obviously, YMMV.
 
GWB gave three reasons for attacking Iraq. All three are undeniable. Genocide, Iraqs ties to global terrorism, and Iraqs refussal to comply with the UN resolutions regarding disposition of his WMDs (all 17 of them, which he repeatedly ignored).
You forgot the main reason, the reason that really sold the war--the threat to the US that had to be dealt with immediately.
 
You forgot the main reason, the reason that really sold the war--the threat to the US that had to be dealt with immediately.

Well...ya know...if you ask every elected democrat official from 1992 til after Bush declared war (or at least read their comments) on Iraq, Hussein, and their possession and use of WMDs you would certainly find that every democrat supported that notion...right up until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. Thats why I hate politicians and mindless ideologues.
 
Well...ya know...if you ask every elected democrat official from 1992 til after Bush declared war (or at least read their comments) on Iraq, Hussein, and their possession and use of WMDs you would certainly find that every democrat supported that notion...right up until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. Thats why I hate politicians and mindless ideologues.

Yes, if you take them out of context, and not seek to understand exactly what was being said. Some of the comments many quote came before they said they destroyed. Some were in cntext of saying he didn't merit invading. Most believed he some left over wmds, but few believed he was actually growing and gathering.
 
Well...ya know...if you ask every elected democrat official from 1992 til after Bush declared war (or at least read their comments) on Iraq, Hussein, and their possession and use of WMDs you would certainly find that every democrat supported that notion...right up until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. Thats why I hate politicians and mindless ideologues.

Oh?

Here's just 6 of the 23 Senators that voted against Joint Resolution 114 – the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.


Daniel Akaka (D-HI)

"Great uncertainty surrounds the President's post-war strategy. Remember the day the war ends, Iraq becomes our responsibility, our problem.

Kent Conrad (D-ND)

"Before we ask young men and women to put themselves in harm's way, I must be convinced that we have exhausted every other possibility, pursued every other avenue.

Mark Dayton (D-MN)

"There appears to be no imminent threat to the United States from Iraq.

Richard Durbin (D-IL)

"Historically, we have said it is not enough to say you have a weapon that can hurt us.

Russell Feingold (D-WI)

"Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up.

Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

"It is wrong for Congress to declare war against Iraq now before we have exhausted the alternatives.
 
What's the definition of insanity again? Trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results? We all may very well be insane.

At leaste they didn't lie to us and concoct some ridiculous story about Weapons of Mass Destruction or something silly like that.
 
GWB gave three reasons for attacking Iraq. All three are undeniable. Genocide14 years prior and we supplied the gas , Iraqs ties to global terrorismwe now know didn't exist, and Iraqs refussal to comply with the UN resolutions regarding disposition of his WMDsbecause he had none, the WMD program had been shut down (all 17 of them, which he repeatedly ignored).

GWB administration lied to the country.
 
At leaste they didn't lie to us and concoct some ridiculous story about Weapons of Mass Destruction or something silly like that.

apsdt just showed how he lied, go back and read.
 
You forgot the main reason, the reason that really sold the war--the threat to the US that had to be dealt with immediately.

What was that threat again?
 
At leaste they didn't lie to us and concoct some ridiculous story about Weapons of Mass Destruction or something silly like that.

Lying or not, it's improper use of my military.
 
GWB administration lied to the country.

So, apparently, did these folks...

You are both boring and predictable. Also dishonest...sure...but that part was...well...wait...that part was as obvious os the others...

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
 
Back
Top Bottom