• 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]

Ron Mars said:
Joe Wilson started the "Bush Lied" hoax people.

Since then lots of people have tried to prove Bush made up, sexed up, or lied about WMD intelligence and each and every one of them have failed.

So have you.
Click to expand...

It should not have taken a rocket scientist to figure out that Saddam did not have WMD if he did why did he not use them against us when we invaded Iraq durning Kuwait or even in the Bush invasion, every thing he had we gave him to fight Iran, if you want to call what he had WMD they still poised no threat to us he could not deliver them.

Back to Libya I don't believe that we are there to install a new government, just to give the Libyan people an opportunity to choose for themselves who they want to rule their country. That said who knows, the Iraqy people to my knowledge were not demonstrating for a change in government.

When we had our civil war no other country intervened in our affairs maybe it's just time to mind our own business we sure have enough problems right here in the USA that we don't need to biting into another countries eternal conflicts.

If we want to increase our security we need to do two things

1- Keep out of the internal affairs of other countries
2- Punish any country that has involvement in the training or organizing any terrorist activity that involves the USA and punish them so severely that they never want to feel our fury again
 
Now that NATO is taking over maybe the GOP will lend the 'Mission Accomplished' banner. Add the words: For Real this time.
 
Grant said:
That might be the way we would like the world to work, Reefedjib, but it is taking on a lot of responsibility that the American people shouldn't shoulder. Unless other democracies get involved in these humanitarian efforts it is the American people who will suffer, both in financial terms and in terms of lives lost. And as you have probably noticed, the United States is not particularly admired for their efforts, despite many of the complainants being the recipient themselves of American aid and assistance.

It is a pity but the Americans can't save everyone but sometimes we just have to pick our moments and Libya, I don't believe, is one of them.
Click to expand...

You seem to agree with point 1. Is that correct?

As for point 2, I assert the we (and any other 1st world country) has the right to intercede, but not the obligation to intercede. We should pick our battles very carefully.

So we arrive at point 3. The world increasingly becoming democratic protects the USA. The two regions where we see abusive autocracies and failed states are in the ME and Africa. However, as mentioned in point 2, we need to pick our battles carefully. Not only is spreading democracy important, but preserving other political and economic interests are also important (Suez Canal, Israel, oil supplies, markets). Finally, a candidate country should have the capacity for democracy, which seems to rule out Afghanistan and Libya.

We cannot save everyone. The burden needs to be shared among all democracies. NGOs are as important in this effort as protecting the population and providing security. I agree that Libya is not one of our moments.

Iraq was one of our moments. We accomplished what we set out to accomplish, which was the introduction of democracy into a state of the ME which would act as a trigger to other democracy movements in the region. A complete success no matter how it ultimately turns out. Despite the broad claim by Iraqi Shiites that they are anti-American, even though we have saved them AND empowered them, they are still considering asking us to stay longer. This is also true of Sunnis. It is a strange mix of publicly being anti-American, but privately being in favor of our aid and military assistance.
 
Ikari said:
There's no loss of sovereignty for what they did. There are no laws above a sovereign, that's what it means to be sovereign.
Click to expand...

That's 20th century thinking. Why extend the protections of sovereignty, when they abuse their people? The rights of their people trump their right to sovereignty.

And #3 is complete and utter horse****.
Click to expand...

While we may make money selling arms to a dictator, a growing and free economy, which is only possible in a democracy, and a country not antagonistic to its neighbors (unless they are abusive autocracies), is in the interests of the USA and other 1st world democracies. It is the autocracies of the ME, that we support with arms sales, which creates radicalism and promotes terrorism.
 
reefedjib said:
That's 20th century thinking. Why extend the protections of sovereignty, when they abuse their people? The rights of their people trump their right to sovereignty.
Click to expand...

But you have no ability to resend their sovereignty. You are not the sovereign. The People can rise up against their government and take back their sovereignty. But that's their business and their duty. An outside nation cannot revoke the sovereignty of another nation. At best you can go to war to destroy the government, but that should require an official declaration of war. As at that point it isn't just "military operations", but actual factual war. Even then, it is not our power to say yeah or nay on other people's governments. The Libyan people rose up in some part against their government as is their right. But that is not our right as we are not part of the governed in Libya.

reefedjib said:
While we may make money selling arms to a dictator, a growing and free economy, which is only possible in a democracy, and a country not antagonistic to its neighbors (unless they are abusive autocracies), is in the interests of the USA and other 1st world democracies. It is the autocracies of the ME, that we support with arms sales, which creates radicalism and promotes terrorism.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the solution then is not imperial type war and occupation; but rather the halt of sales of our military tech.
 
Ikari said:
But you have no ability to resend their sovereignty.
Click to expand...

resend? I do not understand your point.

You are not the sovereign. The People can rise up against their government and take back their sovereignty. But that's their business and their duty.
Click to expand...

Correct, we are not the sovereign. Nor is the current government, given their abuses. Nor is the people since they are not in control of the state.

An outside nation cannot revoke the sovereignty of another nation. At best you can go to war to destroy the government, but that should require an official declaration of war. As at that point it isn't just "military operations", but actual factual war.
Click to expand...

I am asserting that we CAN revoke the sovereignty of another state, if that state violates the rights, freedom and safety of its people. Sovereignty is not inviolable in order to protect the sanctity of the government of a state. Bad actors are experts at using our sluggish western rules against us. Time for the rule to change. This violates the only current international law/treaty of the land, The Peace of Westfailia.

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. In theoretical terms, the idea of "sovereignty", historically, from Socrates to Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it.

The United Nations currently only requires that a sovereign state have an effective and independent government within a defined territory. According to current international law norms, states are only required to have an effective and independent system of government pursuant to a community within a defined territory.

For centuries past, the idea that a state could be sovereign was always connected to its ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens. Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a “sovereign” state.

The concept of sovereignty has been discussed, debated and questioned throughout history, from the time of the Romans through to the present day. It has changed in its definition, concept, and application throughout, especially during the Age of Enlightenment. The current notion of state sovereignty is often traced back to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which, in relation to states, codified the basic principles:
  • territorial integrity
  • border inviolability
  • supremacy of the state (rather than the Church)
  • a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

I TOTALLY agree with you that it is not in immediate defense of the US, therefore the War Powers Act does not apply (or rather the executive right to commit military action without approval of Congress is not available). Therefore, whether or not we actually make it a "declaration of war", Congress MUST be consulted.

Even then, it is not our power to say yeah or nay on other people's governments. The Libyan people rose up in some part against their government as is their right. But that is not our right as we are not part of the governed in Libya.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely our right and, furthermore, our duty, to say yay or nay on other people's governments. Whether or not we act on that duty is a separate issue.

Although I think that in some ways the rules governing interaction between states is different than interactions between people, a clear analogy can be made. If your neighbor is severely abusive to his wife and children, in the absence of police, you have the right and duty to intercede. Since there is no police internationally, we have the right and duty to intercede in another state.

Perhaps the solution then is not imperial type war and occupation; but rather the halt of sales of our military tech.
Click to expand...

Imperial is such a bad and loaded term to describe this. We are NOT talking about installing a puppet government and acquiring the territory, becoming the sovereign. We may well be interested in favored trading status and economic deals, but that is not imperialism.

Stopping the sales of arms to these countries would be a GREAT start, but may not be sufficient. Also, we cannot force Russia and China to agree to this.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
resend? I do mot understand your point.
Click to expand...

That is because I suck at using the English language. You have not ability to rescind an foreign state's sovereignty. It is not within your proper power as you cannot have any jurisdiction over that State. That's what it means to be sovereign.

reefedjib said:
Correct, we are not the sovereign. Nor is the current government, given their abuses. Nor is the people since they are not in control of the state.
Click to expand...

The People are the base source of all sovereignty, and it is that sovereignty which is lent to a State. The Government is the sovereign until the People (the governed of that government) rescind that sovereignty and take it back themselves. That is the right of the governed, the right of the People. However, foreigners possess no such power over a State. You CANNOT rescind their sovereignty as they are sovereign and thus beyond your control. Only the people of that land, only the governed, have proper say in the matter.

reefedjib said:
I am asserting that we CAN revoke the sovereignty of another state, if that state violates the rights, freedom and safety of its people. This violates the only current international law/treaty of the land, The Peace of Westfailia.
Click to expand...

Did Libya sign that? There are tons of places which violate the rights, freedom, and safety of its people. Most notably almost every country in Africa. But we still have no legitimate power as all government derives its legitimacy and power from the governed. If you are not part of the governed, you have no proper say in the matter.

reefedjib said:
I TOTALLY agree with you that it is not in immediate defense of the US, therefore the War Powers Act does not apply (or rather the executive right to commit military action without approval of Congress is not available). Therefore, whether or not we actually make it a "declaration of war", Congress MUST be consulted.
Click to expand...

Given our standing army (we had none when we first started out), I'd say we need even more restriction and thus war against other nations can only be waged with an official declaration of war from Congress.

reefedjib said:
It is absolutely our right and, furthermore, our duty, to say yay or nay on other people's governments. Whether or not we act on that duty is a separate issue.

Although I think that in some ways the rules governing interaction between states is different than interactions between people, a clear analogy can be made. If your neighbor is severely abusive to hTis wife and children, in the absence of police, you have the right and duty to intercede. Since there is no police internationally, we have the right and duty to intercede in another state.
Click to expand...

We absolutely do not have the right. Nor is it our duty. No where in the Constitution did we authorize our government to be the world's police. In fact, it was most definitely meant the other way around. A sovereign is sovereign, sovereignty means that there is no law above them. That is the definition. We cannot hold other nations to our laws and culture because they are sovereign and we have not the rightful power to do so. Only the governed has that power. That is that absolute.

reefedjib said:
Imperial is such a bad and loaded term to describe this. We are NOT talking about installing a puppet government and acquiring the territory, becoming the sovereign. We may well be interested in favored trading status and economic deals, but that is not imperialism.

Stopping the sales of arms to these countries would be a GREAT start, but may not be sufficient. Also, we cannot force Russia and China to agree to this.
Click to expand...

You talk about creating western style democracies which are friendly with the US. That is most definitely a puppet government. You do not allow the People free reign to create their own government. We guide it and tell them what they must have. You want us running around overthrowing governments which may be hostile to us to create for ourselves "foreign" governments which will then be friendly to us. We don't have a strong track record with that. This is a form of puppet government. If you were allowing the People in total to choose their own government, you would allow them total freedom to do so. You can say "oh well that's not good" or whatever, but you could not force the change. In short, you would have no guarantee that they would create a "friendly" government. But we don't, we monkey with things we don't like, come up with excuses like we have the right to overthrow other foreign nations, particularly without declaration of war against the sovereign in the first place, and to establish for ourselves a government in the area which will be friendly with us. We absolutely do not have that right or duty. We are not the governed, nor has our government been empowered with that ability.

And of course you can't force Russia and China to agree, they're sovereign nations. Or maybe we can rescind their sovereignty by saying their actions violate the rights and freedoms of people. I mean, so long as we're making stuff up.
 
Ikari said:
That is because I suck at using the English language. You have not ability to rescind an foreign state's sovereignty. It is not within your proper power as you cannot have any jurisdiction over that State. That's what it means to be sovereign.

The People are the base source of all sovereignty, and it is that sovereignty which is lent to a State. The Government is the sovereign until the People (the governed of that government) rescind that sovereignty and take it back themselves. That is the right of the governed, the right of the People. However, foreigners possess no such power over a State. You CANNOT rescind their sovereignty as they are sovereign and thus beyond your control. Only the people of that land, only the governed, have proper say in the matter.

Did Libya sign that? There are tons of places which violate the rights, freedom, and safety of its people. Most notably almost every country in Africa. But we still have no legitimate power as all government derives its legitimacy and power from the governed. If you are not part of the governed, you have no proper say in the matter.

Given our standing army (we had none when we first started out), I'd say we need even more restriction and thus war against other nations can only be waged with an official declaration of war from Congress.

We absolutely do not have the right. Nor is it our duty. No where in the Constitution did we authorize our government to be the world's police. In fact, it was most definitely meant the other way around. A sovereign is sovereign, sovereignty means that there is no law above them. That is the definition. We cannot hold other nations to our laws and culture because they are sovereign and we have not the rightful power to do so. Only the governed has that power. That is that absolute.
Click to expand...

The people have the right to revolution. They may not be able to exercise that right, especially with the advanced weapons of the 21st century and the exclusive possession of those weapons, by the state.

You and I fundamentally disagree that we have the right to invade a country which forfeits its sovereignty. No need to further discuss it as we will just be repeating ourselves.

Sovereignty is not inviolable.

You talk about creating western style democracies which are friendly with the US. That is most definitely a puppet government. You do not allow the People free reign to create their own government. We guide it and tell them what they must have. You want us running around overthrowing governments which may be hostile to us to create for ourselves "foreign" governments which will then be friendly to us. We don't have a strong track record with that. This is a form of puppet government. If you were allowing the People in total to choose their own government, you would allow them total freedom to do so. You can say "oh well that's not good" or whatever, but you could not force the change. In short, you would have no guarantee that they would create a "friendly" government. But we don't, we monkey with things we don't like, come up with excuses like we have the right to overthrow other foreign nations, particularly without declaration of war against the sovereign in the first place, and to establish for ourselves a government in the area which will be friendly with us. We absolutely do not have that right or duty. We are not the governed, nor has our government been empowered with that ability.

And of course you can't force Russia and China to agree, they're sovereign nations. Or maybe we can rescind their sovereignty by saying their actions violate the rights and freedoms of people. I mean, so long as we're making stuff up.
Click to expand...

In Iraq, we allowed the people to chose their government. Their government is not especially friendly to us. No matter, they have the democracy they chose.
 
reefedjib said:
The people have the right to revolution. They may not be able to exercise that right, especially with the advanced weapons of the 21st century and the exclusive possession of those weapons, by the state.

You and I fundamentally disagree that we have the right to invade a country which forfeits its sovereignty. No need to further discuss it as we will just be repeating ourselves.

Sovereignty is not inviolable.
Click to expand...

It is against foreign sources. Only the governed can rescind a State's sovereignty as the State derives all legitimacy from the consent of the People.

reefedjib said:
In Iraq, we allowed the people to chose their government. Their government is not especially friendly to us. No matter, they have the democracy they chose.
Click to expand...

We had SIGNIFICANT influence and input into their Constitution. And the whole thing would probably fall apart if we left.
 
Grant said:
Sure it is, but then all free nationns shoud be participating. Germany, as just one example, is setting on the sidelines, as well as their friends the Swiss. These are the profiteers of war and the humanitarian angle holds no interest for them.
Click to expand...

I agree Grant. It would have been nice if the SC would have passed a resolution they intend to enforce.

It's obvious member nations are looking on in horror as they see, once again, what it looks like to fight for the basic human right to self determination.

This will take great heaping mounds of courage and leadership from 0bama to see it trough. It's time he earns that medal.
 
hazlnut said:
Now that NATO is taking over maybe the GOP will lend the 'Mission Accomplished' banner. Add the words: For Real this time.
Click to expand...

It was owned by the crew of the carrier. But then you knew that already. Didn't you?
 
EarlzP said:
It should not have taken a rocket scientist to figure out that Saddam did not have WMD if he did why did he not use them against us when we invaded Iraq durning Kuwait or even in the Bush invasion, every thing he had we gave him to fight Iran, if you want to call what he had WMD they still poised no threat to us he could not deliver them.

Back to Libya I don't believe that we are there to install a new government, just to give the Libyan people an opportunity to choose for themselves who they want to rule their country. That said who knows, the Iraqy people to my knowledge were not demonstrating for a change in government.

When we had our civil war no other country intervened in our affairs maybe it's just time to mind our own business we sure have enough problems right here in the USA that we don't need to biting into another countries eternal conflicts.

If we want to increase our security we need to do two things

1- Keep out of the internal affairs of other countries
2- Punish any country that has involvement in the training or organizing any terrorist activity that involves the USA and punish them so severely that they never want to feel our fury again
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-weapons-mass-destruction.html#post1059369415
 
EarlzP said:
I have stated my opinion based on logic, since this was my opinion from the start it is not after the fact, I was not surprised at all that they found no WMD. President Bush changed his mind more often then the wind changed direction as to why we were there
Click to expand...

Your opinion is not supported by UN weapons inspectors.
 
American said:
Link


Well well well, all this sound familiar? :doh
Click to expand...

So what? Tell me what kind of government would you like to see in Libya? I have been watching the word play going on it disgustingly unbelievable listening to some of these space cadets second guessing every thing.

Some are crying he should have moved sooner some are crying he should be going after Kadafi, some are crying that he should have held congressional meetings before committing and now some are taking installing a democratic system to mean that they want to install puppets like we installed in Iraq and Afganistan. the UN is running this show not the USA, the people of Libya are going to form their own government just like the people in Egypt are attempting to do.


I am not crazy about our decision to go into Libya but it would be a hard not to try to save the rebels looking to oust Kadafi. There are 28 NATO countries plus some Arabian countries participating, this may be the beginning of a world environment that could redefine the way that wars and conflicts are approached and settled in the future. Finally we have a united front ready to deal with a dictator who we know has caused a lot of pain and suffering around the world, isn't it time to stand up and support the President and his administration?
 
Ron Mars said:
Your opinion is not supported by UN weapons inspectors.
Click to expand...

Maybe they will see this thread and consult with me the next time before committing our young people to a war.
 
EarlzP said:
Maybe they will see this thread and consult with me the next time before committing our young people to a war.
Click to expand...

Because...if they had....you would have known differently than every intel agency in the world prior to Bush's actions. :lamo

Face it...you and al the others...you are the ultimate arm chair quarterbacks. You are newspaper warriors. You pick and choose 'what you know' based on what you want to read. Bill Clinton KNEW in 2002 that Saddam had chemical weapons. Al Gore KNEW. The old democrat lion Ted Kennedy KNEW. John Kerry KNEW. EVERYONE in 2002 KNEW...

but YOU woulda knowd better by golly... :lamo
 
Last edited:
EarlzP said:
I have stated my opinion based on logic, since this was my opinion from the start it is not after the fact, I was not surprised at all that they found no WMD. President Bush changed his mind more often then the wind changed direction as to why we were there
Click to expand...

Perhaps instead of using your 'logic" in coming to your conclusions, Earlzp. you should rely more on facts.

Here are a whole bunch of them and there are many more resolutions as well. George Bush was not acting alone.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikisource
 
VanceMack said:
Because...if they had....you would have known differently than every intel agency in the world prior to Bush's actions. :lamo

Face it...you and al the others...you are the ultimate arm chair quarterbacks. You are newspaper warriors. You pick and choose 'what you know' based on what you want to read. Bill Clinton KNEW in 2002 that Saddam had chemical weapons. Al Gore KNEW. The old democrat lion Ted Kennedy KNEW. John Kerry KNEW. EVERYONE in 2002 KNEW...

but YOU woulda knowd better by golly... :lamo
Click to expand...

By golly maybe we should start a new thread to address President Bushes war, mean time without derailing this thread any more I will again post my opinion on the situation in Libya

So what? Tell me what kind of government would you like to see in Libya? I have been watching the word play going on it disgustingly unbelievable listening to some of these space cadets second guessing every thing.

Some are crying he should have moved sooner some are crying he should be going after Kadafi, some are crying that he should have held congressional meetings before committing and now some are taking installing a democratic system to mean that they want to install puppets like we installed in Iraq and Afganistan. the UN is running this show not the USA, the people of Libya are going to form their own government just like the people in Egypt are attempting to do.


I am not crazy about our decision to go into Libya but it would be a hard not to try to save the rebels looking to oust Kadafi. There are 28 NATO countries plus some Arabian countries participating, this may be the beginning of a world environment that could redefine the way that wars and conflicts are approached and settled in the future. Finally we have a united front ready to deal with a dictator who we know has caused a lot of pain and suffering around the world, isn't it time to stand up and support the President and his administration?
 
EarlzP said:
By golly maybe we should start a new thread to address President Bushes war, mean time without derailing this thread any more I will again post my opinion on the situation in Libya

So what? Tell me what kind of government would you like to see in Libya? I have been watching the word play going on it disgustingly unbelievable listening to some of these space cadets second guessing every thing.

Some are crying he should have moved sooner some are crying he should be going after Kadafi, some are crying that he should have held congressional meetings before committing and now some are taking installing a democratic system to mean that they want to install puppets like we installed in Iraq and Afganistan. the UN is running this show not the USA, the people of Libya are going to form their own government just like the people in Egypt are attempting to do.


I am not crazy about our decision to go into Libya but it would be a hard not to try to save the rebels looking to oust Kadafi. There are 28 NATO countries plus some Arabian countries participating, this may be the beginning of a world environment that could redefine the way that wars and conflicts are approached and settled in the future. Finally we have a united front ready to deal with a dictator who we know has caused a lot of pain and suffering around the world, isn't it time to stand up and support the President and his administration?
Click to expand...

I responded to YOUR quote that was TOTALLY about Bush's war...and you want to talk about derailing a thread? I have a better idea...when you get your ass handed to you...you might want to just say..."touche, sir!"

Now...about Libya...

I stated prior to Obamas decision to go into Libya my position. However...SINCE he has made the decision to engage and attack, I support his decision even though it is counter to mine. I will continue to support his decision until US Servicemen are no longer in harms way. Until such time I believe the ONLY position is one of national unity. We can debate the right or wrong later for the purpose of growing and learning. But not during a conflict situation where our enemy see's a nation divided and usually NOT over policy but politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom