• 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!

President Obama Signs Order Authorizing Covert Operations in Libya

IF we had reason for a greater expectation that actual democracies might arise from the revolts taking place in Libya, then I would agree that support for them would make sense. In this day and age, fundamental Islam is on the rise. Fundamentalist will seize control of the revolutions as the Bolsheviks seized the Russian revolution in 1917.

Besides, how can a 12th century tribal Arabic culture be compatible with modern democracy? Anyone

Islam exclusionism is not compatible with the human rights and tolerance inherent in a democratic society.
 
today: nato threatens to bomb the rebels

Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior military and government officials.

As NATO takes over control of airstrikes in Libya, and the Obama administration considers new steps to tip the balance of power there, the coalition has told the rebels that if they endanger civilians, they will not be shielded from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the government’s forces have been punished.

“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.”

The warnings, and intense consultations within the NATO-led coalition over its rules for attacking anyone who endangers innocent civilians, come at a time when the civil war in Libya is becoming ever more chaotic, and the battle lines ever less distinct. They raise a fundamental question that the military is now grappling with: who in Libya is a civilian?

Meanwhile, fresh intelligence this week showed that Libyan government forces were supplying assault rifles to civilians in the town of Surt, which is populated largely by Qaddafi loyalists. These civilian Qaddafi sympathizers were seen chasing rebel forces in nonmilitary vehicles like sedans and trucks, accompanied by Libyan troops, according to American military officers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?_r=3&src=twrhp
 
I kind of assumed this was already going on -- don't we want eyes on the ground "gathering intelligence on targets for airstrikes"? Don't we want to take reasonable measures to ensure we're not bombing aspirin factories or otherwise killing civilians?
I'll go one further...

Don't we want to know who the rebels really are? The argument continues to be "we don't know who these people are? Are they Libyan nationals or are they remnants of Al-Quaida mixing in with the fighters? We just don't know." Well, with CIA boots on the ground, we should know rather quickly exactly who we're dealing with among the rebels - friend or foe.

More to the point: You're either going to believe what "their" media and/or people are telling us OR you're going to believe what OUR operatives feedback what they learn from their intelligence gathering.
 
Last edited:
I'm more pissed that this got leaked while operations are presumable still going on.
 
Then why aren't we occupying half the world? what about Darfur, North Korea, numerous Middle Eastern countries, and many South East Asian countries? We can't liberal the entire world, and certain conflicts we should not meddle in. We can't just start a war, oust an oppressive leader, and assume that peace and freedom will follow.

No ****. We are not idealistic liberators. It would be one thing if there were the case. Stupid and still wrong, as well as arrogant, but something different. Instead, we pick and choose and too often don't really make things better.
 
In some cases it's worth the risk.

North Korea is one of those.

What made it worth the risk? Just asking to see your opinion. . . .:coffeepap
 
Then why aren't we occupying half the world? what about Darfur, North Korea, numerous Middle Eastern countries, and many South East Asian countries? We can't liberal the entire world, and certain conflicts we should not meddle in. We can't just start a war, oust an oppressive leader, and assume that peace and freedom will follow.

Alittle clarity goes a LONG way.

WE didn't start the uprisings throughout the Middle-East and North Africa. Their people did this. They finally got tired of being oppressed and did EXACTLY what those on the Conservative side of the political divide have been saying IS an American fundamental right - for a nation's citizens to take up arms against an oppressive government to defend themselves against aggression. Frankly, I wonder how ANYONE can disagree with any nation rendering aid to a nation's countrymen who are doing the EXACT same thing WE, as a nation, wouldn't do for ourselves if our government were treating its citizens in the EXACT SAME OPPRESSIVE MANNER! I mean, this IS a basic tennent of Conservatism! How can a Conservative be against this? IT'S ABSURD to see Conservatives think otherwise because what you're really saying is, "It's okay for Americans, but it's not okay for the rest of the world to exercise this pretective measure against oppression." How hypocritical of you.

Still, I'll tone it down just a notch and say while I disagree with any U.S. President to unilaterally take his country into war, I have no problem with a U.S. President using his judgement to render aid to a country that is fighting for its freedom against aggression and oppression AS LONG AS he/she can do so in a way that brings about the least amoung of loss of life to Americans and over-use of our resources (military and military hardware). To that, I think President Obama has done the right thing here and he's doing it in a way the puts few of our assets in harms way but is getting the maximum positive gains from it.

Qadaffi's finances are drying up if not toally frozen.

Some of his closing government officials are either fighting on the side of the rebels or have defected (2).

Most of him military resources (planes, tanks, surface-to-air missile launchers, etc) have been destroyed. Libya's military is now forced to fight in the streets among civilian populations to insulate themselves against U.N./NATO offensive attacks. Yes, Qaddafi's forces still have some fight in them, but they haven't been able to gain as much ground as is being reported. Watch Al-Jezzara on Link-TV; it tells a completely different story than what's being reported in U.S. media circles.

Unless NATO forces make a big blunder, I don't think Qadaffi has much time left.
 
Last edited:
I'm more pissed that this got leaked while operations are presumable still going on.

Yeah, that gets on my *(#@# nerves, too. Wish the media (and some government officials) would learn the Navy motto, "LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS!", and learn to keep the #@## damned mouths shut! Not every piece of "news" need be reported.
 

Turns out the rebels are selling the oil for weapons. So much for Qadaffi's plan to nationalize the oil and give most the profits to citizens.

Libyan opposition sets conditions for cease-fire - USATODAY.com
BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — A plan to sell rebel-held oil to buy weapons and other supplies has been reached with Qatar, a rebel official said Friday, in another sign of deepening aid for Libya's opposition by the wealthy Gulf state after sending warplanes to help confront Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

It was not immediately clear when the possible oil sales could begin or how the arms would reach the rebel factions, but any potential revenue stream would be a significant lifeline for the militias and military defectors battling Gadhafi's superior forces.

Rebel units were pushed back about 100 miles (160 kilometers) this week along the Mediterranean coast, but still held parts of oil-rich eastern Libya and the key city of Benghazi. In recent clashes, rebels displayed more firepower including mortars and rockets, but remain significantly outgunned.
 
Must not be so "secret" if we're chatting about it. Probably more disinformation.
 
We should all just hope that it never has to come to that, but if the choice is between defending innocents and having allies in Libya, I'd have to argue in favor of defending innocents.

I think we're being smart in not training an insurgency, I mean look at what happened when we did that in Afghanistan.

The problem there wasn't that we trained them. It was that we ARMED them. The rebel forces in Libya have picked up various weapons found on the battle field, but many fighters don't know how to use them nor how to implement combat strategies. I have no problem with CIA operatives teaching them how to use the weapons they find or how to implement combat strategies, i.e., how to flank the enemy or use the terran to your advantage. But I WOULD NOT arm them with American weapons. We should have learned that lesson from the Soviet/Afghan war in how that came back to bite us in the butt in our own war over there.
 
[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-31-2011/america-at-not-war---libyan-rebel-forces[/video]

damn I don't know how to embed a daily show vid.
 
Last edited:
There are much fewer secrets today. We all need to get used to that, and act accordingly.

Once again I agree with you Boo.

It would have been better if this info had not been revealed.

I wonder what would happen if Bush had said no boots on the ground and it later turned out that was not true?

Anyone on CNN, ABC, SeeBS, MSNBC or any other lefty calling 0bama a liar today?
 
I kind of assumed this was already going on -- don't we want eyes on the ground "gathering intelligence on targets for airstrikes"? Don't we want to take reasonable measures to ensure we're not bombing aspirin factories or otherwise killing civilians?

Look, Obama couldn't wait to tell us, "No boots on the ground." Why did he even say it? Of course we knew there'd be boots on the ground -for all the reasons you mention. So why lie?? He could have just said.....nothing.
 
Look, Obama couldn't wait to tell us, "No boots on the ground." Why did he even say it? Of course we knew there'd be boots on the ground -for all the reasons you mention. So why lie?? He could have just said.....nothing.

0bama was trying to protect the lives of the CIA guys on the ground IMO. I don't fault him for not telling us.

IMO his "no boots on the ground" comment was about US combat troops. I don't believe 0bama lied.

Others may disagree.
 
Back
Top Bottom