• 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]

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.

1 So, intervening in Libya because we have put out the message that we support freedom around the world - Bull****

Hanging Omar from a lamp pole would be a positive, but that's about it because we won't get one single positive thing from a new government in Libya. There could be an expression of gratitude. Which will last long enough to drink a cup of koolaid.
 
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.

considering the 1st post in this thread, I'm not sure how he'd be able to say that with a straight face.
 
1 So, intervening in Libya because we have put out the message that we support freedom around the world - Bull****

Hanging Omar from a lamp pole would be a positive, but that's about it because we won't get one single positive thing from a new government in Libya. There could be an expression of gratitude. Which will last long enough to drink a cup of koolaid.

you mean, we aren't doing it for the oil? :ninja:
 
At leaste they didn't lie to us and concoct some ridiculous story about Weapons of Mass Destruction or something silly like that.

After reading lots of your posts I know you are an intelligent person hazlnut. But it still amazes me that intelligent people believe this.

The father of the "Bush Lied" hoax admitted that he made it up iin 2004.
 
After reading lots of your posts I know you are an intelligent person hazlnut. But it still amazes me that intelligent people believe this.

The father of the "Bush Lied" hoax admitted that he made it up iin 2004.

I have no idea who "the father" is, but the entire idea is silly. Even if such a person existed, and thought as you do, it has little to nothing to do with the actual facts. Al libi was coearsed and doubted by the CIA. Bush and his people knew this. Curveball was doubted by the CIA, and this was known. There was no evidence outside of these two, and Chalibi's heros in error, who we also had much cause to doubt, that supported Bush's claims. This is called evidence and not anyone's invention. So, no one's statement trumps facts.
 
you mean, we aren't doing it for the oil? :ninja:

Though Libya only accounts for about 2% of the worlds crude production, the oil impact is negligible, as Saudi Arabia, within a day and a half will up production to compensate for decreased Libyan output and could do so for the foreseeable future

Why should we ever have gotten involved in this. It was never a winning situation. If, the "false" rebels want freedom and democracy let them earn it.
 
After reading lots of your posts I know you are an intelligent person hazlnut. But it still amazes me that intelligent people believe this.

The father of the "Bush Lied" hoax admitted that he made it up iin 2004.

All of the people I know who believe that Bush lied/mislead the country believe so because of their own analysis of the situation not because some "father" of whatever told them to believe it.
 
I have no idea who "the father" is, but the entire idea is silly. Even if such a person existed, and thought as you do, it has little to nothing to do with the actual facts. Al libi was coearsed and doubted by the CIA. Bush and his people knew this. Curveball was doubted by the CIA, and this was known. There was no evidence outside of these two, and Chalibi's heros in error, who we also had much cause to doubt, that supported Bush's claims. This is called evidence and not anyone's invention. So, no one's statement trumps facts.

So everyone knew there were no WMD before the invasion? Is that the accusation?
 
All of the people I know who believe that Bush lied/mislead the country believe so because of their own analysis of the situation not because some "father" of whatever told them to believe it.

That "analysis" occurred after the invasion. The earlier arguments were to give it more time.
 
So everyone knew there were no WMD before the invasion? Is that the accusation?

Bush and his administration knew he wasn't growing and gathering, and that the intel used to sell the war was seriously flawed. To know that, and they did, and say otherwise is the definition of lying.
 
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.

IMO 0bama has not misled the nation at all. His statements and actions have been confusing at times but just yesterday he firmly stated what the US mission in Libya is. That was desperately needed. I’m firmly behind him on this one.

UN resolution 1973 authorizes attacks on ground forces attacking civilians. Gaddafi's forces are doing just that right now and should be pounded. They are indiscriminately firing artillery and rockets at civilians in several Libyan cities.
 
Well now, unknown rebels of the instant variety, "well armed, new uniforms, thousands of flags, no political identifications, no long stated goals, huge partisan media coverage" and isn't this the CIA playbook to instigate regime change? And that is a question. Could this be an intervention to make sure Libyan OIL stays in the "Centralized Distribution Network" of old boys. Selling for USDollars? War brought to you for the benefit of Total, BP, Exxon/Mobil and the other poor multi trillionaires. Quaddafi isn't any saint, but he is real good for Libyans. Housing, education, infrastructure are all top notch in Libya when compared to the rest of Africa and especially compared to Libya before Quaddafi. We're on the wrong side in this war!
 
That "analysis" occurred after the invasion. The earlier arguments were to give it more time.

The analysis occurred after the invasion by necessity since it was only after the invasion we only knew he went into the war on false pretenses. Although many people were already opposed to the war before we found out about the weak intel since many felt that it was a distraction from the real enemy at the time: al-Qaeda.
 
I'm curious as to why the anti-war crowd isn't already in the streets.

No you're not. The Democrats never protest one of their own, and the looney people who think marching in the street accomplishes anything are all Democrat robots.
 
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.

Wrong. Blatant hypocrites NEVER admit to it. That's why they become hypocrites, so they can spend their time lying through their teeth.
 
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!

No question IMO we are fighting in a revolutionary war on the side of the Libyan people against Gaddafi's regime and military forces.

NFZ's are going to be ugly when implemented. I do not believe the NFZ over Libya is a good idea. Destroying Gaddafi's air assets and air defense will eliminate the need for one.

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.

That's an excellent point and 0bama should have sought Congressional approval and he should be seeking that approval today. He is well within his Constitutional authority to conduct military operations in Libya but he at least should have kept congress in the loop whether he formally requested their approval or not.

As long as US forces are in harms way to defeat Gaddafi's forces and remove him from power the President has my support.

At this point I would favor covert US military operations to conduct anti-sniper missions within Libyan cities.
 
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.

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.

Good post but I have one point.

I believe the WH has been stating since late Feb. that Gaddafi must leave. I've been asking what happened to this policy and was very glad to hear 0bama restate that yesterday.

It's easy to be confused by 0bama's actions and statements the past month about Libya. IMO he's had the same policy throughout but did a lousy job of clearly defining our policy and what we intend to do. Hopefully 0bama is realizing what will need to happen in order for Gaddafi to leave.

The rebels have a lot of ground to take back before they reach Tripoli. When a two-carrier battlegroup’s planes are pounding Gaddafi's butchers the end will be near for him.
 
IMO 0bama has not misled the nation at all. His statements and actions have been confusing at times but just yesterday he firmly stated what the US mission in Libya is. That was desperately needed. I’m firmly behind him on this one.

What we're doing now is just gambling that the false rebels will win with our support. What we're putting on the gambling table are American lives that will be lost if a successful Gadafi/Kaddafi retaliates against us with a terror attack.

If Gaddafi wants to weather the storm he needs to pull his forces into civ territory and wait until the "false" rebels make their move. We end up with a divided country and have another Somalia.

Thats what you want, right?
 
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.

I'm sorry but you will have to try this on someone else.

My memory isn't that bad yet. I haven't forgotten the first decade of this century.
 
1 So, intervening in Libya because we have put out the message that we support freedom around the world - Bull****

Hanging Omar from a lamp pole would be a positive, but that's about it because we won't get one single positive thing from a new government in Libya. There could be an expression of gratitude. Which will last long enough to drink a cup of koolaid.

I don't care if the Libyan people like us or not. As long as the new government is free and peaceful it's a win-win for the US and the free world.
 
All of the people I know who believe that Bush lied/mislead the country believe so because of their own analysis of the situation not because some "father" of whatever told them to believe it.

Yes I know. That "analysis" is based on a hoax.
 
Bush and his administration knew he wasn't growing and gathering, and that the intel used to sell the war was seriously flawed. To know that, and they did, and say otherwise is the definition of lying.

You need to read the Senate pre-war intelligence report of 2004.
 
Back
Top Bottom