• 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]

I supported the no-fly zone -- I guess without really understanding what that meant. I thought it meant if we catch any military planes in the air that we'd shoot them down. I didn't realize it meant bombing Daffy's compound and other military installations. Knowing that now, I think I'd have wanted to listen to DP'ers brainstorm what else might have been done instead. I strongly support the rebels and their mission to depose Daffy -- perhaps there was another way. Well. There was. But we don't do political assassinations.

I did some brief research and that was my understanding also. It said it was to prevent Gadaffi's air force from shooting at rebels, their transport and their compounds from the air. The No Fly zone in Iraq didn't involve the sort of bombing and strafing we see today.

It seems we might have been misled.
 
Most uses of the military are improper.

Well with the current way we're abusing it, yes. But there are definitely proper means by which the military is used. I would say, however, that it is limited to defensive purposes only.
 
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).
we care about iraq genocide? we don't care about the homeless starving people in this country what makes you think we give 2 ****s about any iraq people? bs! "global terrorism"? how do/did we defeat that again? bs!! wmd's fell flat!!! bs!!!
 
You forgot the main reason, the reason that really sold the war--the threat to the US that had to be dealt with immediately.
threat to the us? ha whatever dude, our seventh fleet could sit outside our boarders and nothing would get past them if that is what we REALLY wanted.
 
At leaste they didn't lie to us and concoct some ridiculous story about Weapons of Mass Destruction or something silly like that.
no they just lied that they (the govt.) are concerned about what is being done to the libyan people. when we have starving homeless people in this country they could care less about apparently.
 
Lying or not, it's improper use of my military.
exactly! the proper use of the military is to defend the country from invaders foreign and domestic and i say the 16 million illegals (that just walked across when we spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense) just walking across are most definently foreign invaders!!!
 
we care about iraq genocide? we don't care about the homeless starving people in this country what makes you think we give 2 ****s about any iraq people? bs! "global terrorism"? how do/did we defeat that again? bs!! wmd's fell flat!!! bs!!!

Setting the over-the-top rhetotric aside...

Exactly where do you get the notion we dont care about the homeless or starving in this country? There are countless private organizations as well as local state and federal that work daily to feed and house people. And no...we didnt 'defeat' global terrorism, that doesnt make the reality that Saddam supported global terrorism less true. And the claim re WMDS was that Iraq refused to comply with UN resolutions demanding an accounting of their WMDs...something we still dont have. The UN passed 17 separate resolutions demanding Iraq state where the chemical weapons are that were cataloged post GW1. Weapons everyone knew or at least believed he posessed...EVERYONE...including every elected democrat long before Bush2. Three primary reasons...agree with them or disagree...but thats what was given. Genocide was used by Clinton and now Obama as their primary motivation for staking us to war against the Serbs and now Libya. Its apparently a relevant reason...when it is a democrat taking us to war.
 
Setting the over-the-top rhetotric aside...

Exactly where do you get the notion we dont care about the homeless or starving in this country? There are countless private organizations as well as local state and federal that work daily to feed and house people. And no...we didnt 'defeat' global terrorism, that doesnt make the reality that Saddam supported global terrorism less true. And the claim re WMDS was that Iraq refused to comply with UN resolutions demanding an accounting of their WMDs...something we still dont have. The UN passed 17 separate resolutions demanding Iraq state where the chemical weapons are that were cataloged post GW1. Weapons everyone knew or at least believed he posessed...EVERYONE...including every elected democrat long before Bush2. Three primary reasons...agree with them or disagree...but thats what was given. Genocide was used by Clinton and now Obama as their primary motivation for staking us to war against the Serbs and now Libya. Its apparently a relevant reason...when it is a democrat taking us to war.

I think at some point we have to deal with the real realities that we do not get involved in "any" conflict or war that does not benefit some of us in some way. If Sadam had any WMD he would have had to ship them here to the USA to deploy them before they would have been a threat to us. We could have better used all the of money spent on all wars right here at home building our infrastructure, investing in the technologies of the future and on securing our country, instead we get involved in the internal struggles of other countries and build the economies of other nations through trade. When do we quit accepting the BS we are spoon fed by the few elite who have nothing more in mind then continuing to control the masses through mind control. We could set an example of how well we live in the USA and let other countries strive to copy us, instead we continually breed new enemies by getting in the middle of the internal struggles of other countries.

When are we going to move to the next level of civilization and quit being nothing more then the invading conquering pawns and puppets of those few who really control those we elect to represent us, how many more of our children do we sacrifice, how much more of our economy do we redistribute to foreign nations before we wake up and concentrate on maintaining and improving our own lives?
 
Well that's too bad.

As 0bama makes a blatant hypocrite of himself you lefties are just going to have to eat a few **** sandwiches.

This doesn't really change my opinion of Obama - anybody who examines U.S. foreign policy knows it doesn't change much from president to president. Both parties love the opportunity to spread some democracy - although I do like that Obama has showed more initial restraint and hesitancy and Bush, Jr.
 
This doesn't really change my opinion of Obama - anybody who examines U.S. foreign policy knows it doesn't change much from president to president. Both parties love the opportunity to spread some democracy - although I do like that Obama has showed more initial restraint and hesitancy and Bush, Jr.



DIthering, is that what your calling restraint these days? It took Bush a year or so, it took Obama about a month to vote present.
 
I supported the no-fly zone -- I guess without really understanding what that meant. I thought it meant if we catch any military planes in the air that we'd shoot them down. I didn't realize it meant bombing Daffy's compound and other military installations. Knowing that now, I think I'd have wanted to listen to DP'ers brainstorm what else might have been done instead. I strongly support the rebels and their mission to depose Daffy -- perhaps there was another way. Well. There was. But we don't do political assassinations.

Edit: Haven't seen DonaldSutherland. I wonder how he'd weigh in on what's happening...


The rebels are supported by none other than Al queda WHY? because al queda wants daffy out so they can make it a terrorist safe haven if afghan falls for them
We shouldnt be involved anywhere in the middle east unless its directly in our interests or natural security...in plain english screw the UN throw it out of the USA, theyve been leeching on us for decades
 
There were protestors in the street before we sent troops into Afghanistan.

Same with Iraq. I watched thousands of candle toting lefties protest in Greenwich Village before OIF.
 
exactly! the proper use of the military is to defend the country from invaders foreign and domestic and i say the 16 million illegals (that just walked across when we spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense) just walking across are most definently foreign invaders!!!
this has already been shown to be false in multiple threads.
 
This doesn't really change my opinion of Obama - anybody who examines U.S. foreign policy knows it doesn't change much from president to president. Both parties love the opportunity to spread some democracy - although I do like that Obama has showed more initial restraint and hesitancy and Bush, Jr.

Of course the hypocricy doesn't change a lefties opinion of 0bama. I never for a minute thought it would.

About Bush, you are welcome to that fantasy. It isn't true as you already know.
 
The rebels are supported by none other than Al queda WHY? because al queda wants daffy out so they can make it a terrorist safe haven if afghan falls for them
We shouldnt be involved anywhere in the middle east unless its directly in our interests or natural security...in plain english screw the UN throw it out of the USA, theyve been leeching on us for decades

If the danger to human lives is sufficient for UN approval then it should be sufficient enough to involve UN troops.

The UN shouldn't expect other countries to do what it can't do itself, nor should their permission be required for one country to come to the humanitarian aid of another.

In fact, come to think of it, those thieving and corrupt mothers should be ignored completely.
 
And the mission creep continues. The no-fly zone quickly escalated to air strikes,

Establishing a NFZ will always require air strikes to neutralize air defense weapons.

Lots of people who supported the NFZ believed it would be a simple matter of flying planes over Libya. They are quite surprised at what is necessary to establish an effective NFZ. We had to attack Iraqi AAA and SAM sites on a regular basis before OIF. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

This is not mission creep IMO. 0bama has finally stated our intended goals in Libya are to protect the Libyan people and remove Gaddafi. I believe that was his policy since early last week. How that is to be achieved has yet to be announced and probably shouldn’t be. Why let Gaddafi know what we are doing to remove him?

I support the President 100% on Libya. I have lots of problems with the way this is being conducted and the timing however.
 
Establishing a NFZ will always require air strikes to neutralize air defense weapons.

Lots of people who supported the NFZ believed it would be a simple matter of flying planes over Libya. They are quite surprised at what is necessary to establish an effective NFZ. We had to attack Iraqi AAA and SAM sites on a regular basis before OIF. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

This is not mission creep IMO. 0bama has finally stated our intended goals in Libya are to protect the Libyan people and remove Gaddafi. I believe that was his policy since early last week. How that is to be achieved has yet to be announced and probably shouldn’t be. Why let Gaddafi know what we are doing to remove him?

I support the President 100% on Libya. I have lots of problems with the way this is being conducted and the timing however.

I was one of those who didn't understand what it took to establish a NFZ. Naive', I guess. What's going on now? IMO, we're fighting an undeclared war. Again. Afreakin'gain!

Congress owes it to the people of the USA to go after a President's authority -- clarify it/limit it -- to commit our billions/resources/soldiers' lives w/o their approval.
 
Establishing a NFZ will always require air strikes to neutralize air defense weapons.

Lots of people who supported the NFZ believed it would be a simple matter of flying planes over Libya. They are quite surprised at what is necessary to establish an effective NFZ. We had to attack Iraqi AAA and SAM sites on a regular basis before OIF. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

I agree that air strikes are a normal part of no-fly zones, but that's part of the problem I have with the intervention in the first place. Each escalation could very logically derive from the previous one...No-fly zones require air strikes. If a pilot gets shot down, we'll need commando teams to rescue him. If they are captured, perhaps we'll need to send in ground troops.

IMO a no-fly zone is an innocuous-sounding tactic that's palatable to the American people, but opens the door for other types of intervention.

Ron Mars said:
This is not mission creep IMO. 0bama has finally stated our intended goals in Libya are to protect the Libyan people and remove Gaddafi. I believe that was his policy since early last week. How that is to be achieved has yet to be announced and probably shouldn’t be. Why let Gaddafi know what we are doing to remove him?

Last I heard Obama was still denying that the goal of our involvement was to remove Gaddafi (even though it obviously is). The mission was originally just to stop a slaughter. Now it has become serving as the rebels' air force, and with the talk of "installing a democratic system" it seems that the goal has changed yet again.
 
I think at some point we have to deal with the real realities that we do not get involved in "any" conflict or war that does not benefit some of us in some way. If Sadam had any WMD he would have had to ship them here to the USA to deploy them before they would have been a threat to us. We could have better used all the of money spent on all wars right here at home building our infrastructure, investing in the technologies of the future and on securing our country, instead we get involved in the internal struggles of other countries and build the economies of other nations through trade. When do we quit accepting the BS we are spoon fed by the few elite who have nothing more in mind then continuing to control the masses through mind control. We could set an example of how well we live in the USA and let other countries strive to copy us, instead we continually breed new enemies by getting in the middle of the internal struggles of other countries.

When are we going to move to the next level of civilization and quit being nothing more then the invading conquering pawns and puppets of those few who really control those we elect to represent us, how many more of our children do we sacrifice, how much more of our economy do we redistribute to foreign nations before we wake up and concentrate on maintaining and improving our own lives?

'When' is simple...when troops are not in harms way. I dont disagree that these are things that need to be discussed. I just believe that the nation stands unified during a time of war. I dont think the letter behind the Presidents name should dictate the position we take on our action.
 
Of course the hypocricy doesn't change a lefties opinion of 0bama. I never for a minute thought it would.

About Bush, you are welcome to that fantasy. It isn't true as you already know.

Why would I change my opinion of Obama when both parties have very similar foreign policy platforms relative to spreading democracy...this is not shocking.
 
Back
Top Bottom