• 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:
There is nothing wrong with oil companies buying oil from Libya if the money actually goes to address the needs of the Libyan people. Oil money in the ME has helped increase the standard of living for many people. It has also helped fuel (pun intended) jihadis and that point should not be overlooked. It's also making lots of despotic tyrants like Gaddafi very rich men.

It would be better if the US aggressively produced our own oil to be sold to legitimate public or private companies on the open market. Refining oil into dozens of products is not evil and neither are the companies and people who profit from that industry.
Click to expand...
it is when we put our young men and women's lives on the line for it. hey if exxon wants to protect IT'S intrests then it should hire mercinaries to do so and leave our soldiers to do the job they are there for which is defending this country from invaders foreign and domestic.
 
majora$$hole said:
it is when we put our young men and women's lives on the line for it. hey if exxon wants to protect IT'S intrests then it should hire mercinaries to do so and leave our soldiers to do the job they are there for which is defending this country from invaders foreign and domestic.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. All about oil.

When do we start getting that free Iraqi oil?
 
I remember Rush Limbaugh once saying we would thank Bush once that cheaper oil started coming in. That Limbaugh is certainly a silly ass liberal!!!

:coffeepap
 
majora$$hole said:
it is when we put our young men and women's lives on the line for it. hey if exxon wants to protect IT'S intrests then it should hire mercinaries to do so and leave our soldiers to do the job they are there for which is defending this country from invaders foreign and domestic.
Click to expand...

You'll have to explain to me how it is we went into Iraq for their oil and now we're profiting from it.

Where are, we getting the cheap gas made from looted Iraqi oil?
 
ric27 said:
You'll have to explain to me how it is we went into Iraq for their oil and now we're profiting from it.

Where are, we getting the cheap gas made from looted Iraqi oil?
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. We spent all this money, ran an occupational war to "bring Iraq freedom" and blah blah blah and didn't get **** to show for it. Great use of our military.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah I know. We spent all this money, ran an occupational war to "bring Iraq freedom" and blah blah blah and didn't get **** to show for it. Great use of our military.
Click to expand...

We have another free and peaceful nation to show for it.

Not to mention Saddam on a rope, defeat of AQI and millions of free people.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah I know. We spent all this money, ran an occupational war to "bring Iraq freedom" and blah blah blah and didn't get **** to show for it. Great use of our military.
Click to expand...

I've said this many times that we should get out of the business of nation building.

WHEN we have to get militarily involved in an Islamic nation in the ME, Africa or Asia, it should be a punitive action only. Kill the leadership, destroy the military and **** things up. Then get out and repeat the rules to whoever takes over. 1) Keep selling oil. You'll make money and we won't kill you so long as you also follow rule 2) Don't kill Americans. Period. Anywhere.
 
Ron Mars said:
We have another free and peaceful nation to show for it.

Not to mention Saddam on a rope, defeat of AQI and millions of free people.
Click to expand...

Not my people, not my problem. If we pull out of Iraq in full, what will happen to that "free and peaceful nation"?
 
Ikari said:
Not my people, not my problem. If we pull out of Iraq in full, what will happen to that "free and peaceful nation"?
Click to expand...

The day we leave Iraq? Iraqi troops are doing virtually all of the secutity and fighting.

I know people are still upset Iraq was a victory. Many of them were hoping for a Vietnam style defeat.
 
Ron Mars said:
The day we leave Iraq? Iraqi troops are doing virtually all of the secutity and fighting.

I know people are still upset Iraq was a victory. Many of them were hoping for a Vietnam style defeat.
Click to expand...

OK, let's take all our troops out right now then since it's stable. No reason to be there.

People aren't upset at an "Iraq victory", people are mostly upset that we bankrupted ourselves, went heavy into debt to China, over doubled our losses from 9/11, engaged in imperial war against nations which were no direct threat against us, etc. Victory in Iraq? No, the government was never given power for these sorts of actions, that's a loss right there. This was used as all sorts of excuses for the expansion of government, the creation of more government agencies, the implementation of suspect law, and the overall loss of liberty by the People; so that's a loss right there...a huge one. We spent ourselves into the poor house. That's a loss. Iraq isn't actually stable even after 10 years. And we use it as an excuse now to engage in more undeclared, imperial movements against governments which do not pose threats against us, thus continuing all the problems listed above and more. That's a loss.

But if by "victory" you meant the weakening of our own Republic and betrayal of our own principles...then yes, it's a "victory".
 
Ron Mars said:
The day we leave Iraq? Iraqi troops are doing virtually all of the secutity and fighting.

I know people are still upset Iraq was a victory. Many of them were hoping for a Vietnam style defeat.
Click to expand...

The Iraq war was a victory for who? Were the Iraq people out in the streets protesting their government? Take a look at the state of our economy and tell me that we won in Iraq, tell me we should have been spending our money on Iraq instead of on our own countries needs, tell me that deploying our military in Iraq was a better use then if we used them to secure our own borders.

Iraq posed no threat to the USA so tell me again why we sent our young men and women there and why we spent so much of our money
 
EarlzP said:
Iraq posed no threat to the USA so tell me again why we sent our young men and women there and why we spent so much of our money
Click to expand...
To say "no threat" is an exaggeration. It's more accurate to say that Iraq was unlikely to attack us directly or by proxy in the foreseeable future. That's how the NIE testimony from the US intel community went anyway.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
To say "no threat" is an exaggeration. It's more accurate to say that Iraq was unlikely to attack us directly or by proxy in the foreseeable future. That's how the NIE testimony from the US intel community went anyway.
Click to expand...

Well they really didn't have a delivery system to actually hit us directly, and there was no proof of any proxy type attack. As such we had no reason at all to wage war against Iraq.

And BTW, shouldn't we really be declaring these things? When we go to war, I would like it to take a Declaration of War. Seems reasonable.
 
Ikari said:
Well they really didn't have a delivery system to actually hit us directly, and there was no proof of any proxy type attack. As such we had no reason at all to wage war against Iraq.
Click to expand...

The missiles Saddam was developing could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME.

You really need to read the ISG report. The key findings is only 19 pages in pdf.

Ikari said:
And BTW, shouldn't we really be declaring these things? When we go to war, I would like it to take a Declaration of War. Seems reasonable.
Click to expand...

Who or what would you declare war against?
 
Ikari said:
Well they really didn't have a delivery system to actually hit us directly, and there was no proof of any proxy type attack. As such we had no reason at all to wage war against Iraq.
Click to expand...
Ron Mars said:
The missiles Saddam was developing could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME.
Click to expand...
I notice that two different time frames being referenced here. The former references what was at the time, the present case and situation. The latter references some indefinite time in what was a potential future.
Given this discrepancy, the latter doesn't actually seem to contradict the former.
 
Yes, but I think what matters is the reality of the world at the time you make the decision, at at the time Saddam was no threat to us. If they had the capabilities of striking the 50 states proper directly and demonstrated the intent to do so, I think you'd have a much stronger case for intervention. But there was none of that. Saddam was more likely to saber rattle to make himself seem like a big man, but with no intent of backing it up than anything else. Dictators tend to like being in charge and Saddam knew that if he were to seriously provoke the US, he wouldn't be dictator much longer. We probably surprised the **** out of him by making the decision for intervention and entering into our decade war in Iraq which still to this day hasn't ended.
 
Ron Mars said:
Who or what would you declare war against?
Click to expand...

Iraq for one. We went up against the sovereign nation and existing government. We should probably have necessitated an actual declaration of war for that one.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, but I think what matters is the reality of the world at the time you make the decision, at at the time Saddam was no threat to us.
Click to expand...

How do you know Saddam was no theat to anyone? Did you have that knowledge prior to the invasion or was your opinion formed much later?


If they had the capabilities of striking the 50 states proper directly and demonstrated the intent to do so, I think you'd have a much stronger case for intervention. But there was none of that.
Click to expand...

You're overlooking US commitments to their Allies, the UN , agreements from the previous Gulf War, and so on.

Saddam was more likely to saber rattle to make himself seem like a big man, but with no intent of backing it up than anything else. Dictators tend to like being in charge and Saddam knew that if he were to seriously provoke the US, he wouldn't be dictator much longer. We probably surprised the **** out of him by making the decision for intervention and entering into our decade war in Iraq which still to this day hasn't ended.
Click to expand...

You really don't know that the US military was on his borders for several months prepared to invade and prior to the invasion Saddam was given the opportunity to leave in order to avoid that invasion?

How do you know Saddam was no theat to anyone? Did you have that knowledge prior to the invasion or was it formed much later?
 
Ikari said:
Yes, but I think what matters is the reality of the world at the time you make the decision, at at the time Saddam was no threat to us. If they had the capabilities of striking the 50 states proper directly and demonstrated the intent to do so, I think you'd have a much stronger case for intervention.
Click to expand...
If this were the case, GBW wouldn't've needed to formulate the Bush Doctrine to try and make pre-emption the equivalent of preventive war in newspeak.

Also, many, many more people would've wholeheartedly supported the invasion.
 
Grant said:
How do you know Saddam was no theat to anyone? Did you have that knowledge prior to the invasion or was your opinion formed much later?
Click to expand...

All the data at the time said that Saddam did not have the capabilities of hitting the United States proper. Nor did he have any indication of desire to actually do so.

Grant said:
You're overlooking US commitments to their Allies, the UN , agreements from the previous Gulf War, and so on.
Click to expand...

Who was he going to hit? Do you have actual proof that he was gearing up to actually launch military action? Or is this a "he kinda had something and was totally working on some other stuff over here that could maybe be a threat if you squint"?

Grant said:
You really don't know that the US military was on his borders for several months prepared to invade and prior to the invasion Saddam was given the opportunity to leave in order to avoid that invasion?

How do you know Saddam was no theat to anyone? Did you have that knowledge prior to the invasion or was it formed much later?
Click to expand...

Why should he have left? On what authority did we have to dispose of a sovereign leader? Saddam was in no way a threat to the United States and as such there is no need to involve ourselves militarily on the issue.
 
Repeat after me......

Mission creep.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
If this were the case, GBW wouldn't've needed to formulate the Bush Doctrine to try and make pre-emption the equivalent of preventive war in newspeak.

Also, many, many more people would've wholeheartedly supported the invasion.
Click to expand...

If it could have been proven that Saddam not only had the capability of hitting the 50 States proper but also the intent to do so, then yes it would have become a much simpler solution which could have been supported by well more people.
 
Ikari said:
If it could have been proven that Saddam not only had the capability of hitting the 50 States proper but also the intent to do so, then yes it would have become a much simpler solution which could have been supported by well more people.
Click to expand...

Yes, both would be required and it would make a difference. Of course, that was not the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom