• 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!

The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

StillBallin75 said:
My understanding is that they are there to act as FO's and lase targets.
Click to expand...

That would be my only hesitation, is that I'm unsure of what their actual mission might be. Regime change is not a proper policy for our nation. We should not be in the business of deciding who rules other countries.
 
Boo Radley said:
That would be my only hesitation, is that I'm unsure of what their actual mission might be. Regime change is not a proper policy for our nation. We should not be in the business of deciding who rules other countries.
Click to expand...

I agree. 10 chars.
 
Boo Radley said:
That would be my only hesitation, is that I'm unsure of what their actual mission might be. Regime change is not a proper policy for our nation. We should not be in the business of deciding who rules other countries.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Boo. Hope that doesn't scare you.

I firmly believe that if the mission in Libya is successful 0bama will do everything he can to ensure that the Libyan people decide their own government.
 
Ron Mars said:
I agree with you Boo. Hope that doesn't scare you.

I firmly believe that if the mission in Libya is successful 0bama will do everything he can to ensure that the Libyan people decide their own government.
Click to expand...

Ron, I'd go a step further and flip that around and say that the mission will only be successful when the Libyan people are able to decide their own government. Else this will all have been for naught.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Ron, I'd go a step further and flip that around and say that the mission will only be successful when the Libyan people are able to decide their own government. Else this will all have been for naught.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Ron, I'd go a step further and flip that around and say that the mission will only be successful when the Libyan people are able to decide their own government. Else this will all have been for naught.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this always be up to the Lybian people. Our success should not ride on their actions.
 
Ron Mars said:
I agree with you Boo. Hope that doesn't scare you.

I firmly believe that if the mission in Libya is successful 0bama will do everything he can to ensure that the Libyan people decide their own government.
Click to expand...

Strange world sometimes. ;)
 
Whovian said:
The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go - The Daily of the University of Washington

So far, the military action has been limited to clearing the airspace by shooting down Libyan military planes, airstrikes on Libyan military forces and Tomahawk missile strikes. Planes and missiles can do a lot against buildings, missile launch sites and large tank formations, but planes can’t place someone into custody. If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women...

We can expect the United States to have to commit more soldiers than any other nation. This has less to do with the size of our military and more to do with the national politics of the member countries...

In order to distribute aid properly, there will have to be troops on the ground. To prevent chaos, in the power vacuum, NATO will have to send in troops, not as an invasion force, but as a force to secure the food and relief efforts. And that inevitably means that NATO will send ground forces, and that means Americans...

President Obama will be able to say that the United States is not sending troops to Libya, which on paper will be true. NATO will be sending troops, and as a member nation, the United States will support that action with troops of its own. In the end, the United States will commit more forces than any other country...
Click to expand...

Two words: Air drops.

NATO/U.N. have used air lifts to drop food and medical supplies into rebel held terrirories on a number of occasions. To imply that American forces would be necessary on the ground to distribute such aid is not only speculative, but disengenous. NATO has always hand humanitarian aid workers in troubled areas. There's no reason to believe those same forces wouldn't help to distribute food and medicine to the hungry or wounded on their own WITHOUT American boots on the ground. They've done great without our direct manpower/supervision in the past. They'll continue to do that now and well into the future, I'm sure.
 
Ron Mars said:
I agree with you Boo. Hope that doesn't scare you.

I firmly believe that if the mission in Libya is successful 0bama will do everything he can to ensure that the Libyan people decide their own government.
Click to expand...

How about letting the Libyan people decide who they will sell their OIL to and at what price. Let's give that a democratic option.
 
Whovian said:
The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go - The Daily of the University of Washington

So far, the military action has been limited to clearing the airspace by shooting down Libyan military planes, airstrikes on Libyan military forces and Tomahawk missile strikes. Planes and missiles can do a lot against buildings, missile launch sites and large tank formations, but planes can’t place someone into custody. If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women...

We can expect the United States to have to commit more soldiers than any other nation. This has less to do with the size of our military and more to do with the national politics of the member countries...

In order to distribute aid properly, there will have to be troops on the ground. To prevent chaos, in the power vacuum, NATO will have to send in troops, not as an invasion force, but as a force to secure the food and relief efforts. And that inevitably means that NATO will send ground forces, and that means Americans...

President Obama will be able to say that the United States is not sending troops to Libya, which on paper will be true. NATO will be sending troops, and as a member nation, the United States will support that action with troops of its own. In the end, the United States will commit more forces than any other country...
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with noncombat troops being there as long as they are not sent to any dangerous territory, but its just to keep people from rioting over food, than thats probably ok.
 
Last edited:
You know, I see an eerie parallel between Benghazi and Baghdad, in that someone again is not being truthful.
 
Objective Voice said:
Two words: Air drops.

NATO/U.N. have used air lifts to drop food and medical supplies into rebel held terrirories on a number of occasions. To imply that American forces would be necessary on the ground to distribute such aid is not only speculative, but disengenous. NATO has always hand humanitarian aid workers in troubled areas. There's no reason to believe those same forces wouldn't help to distribute food and medicine to the hungry or wounded on their own WITHOUT American boots on the ground. They've done great without our direct manpower/supervision in the past. They'll continue to do that now and well into the future, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Obama knowingly stuck his neck out on this one. If one, just one US casualty gets reported, the I TOLD YOU SO cacophony of the Reps and doomsday media will reverberate all across the country AND the world.

ricksfolly
 
StillBallin75 said:
That's a straw man. The LIBYAN PEOPLE weren't going to get **** out of that deal.
Click to expand...

Your argument is the straw man. Qaddafi actually made the proposal and you pose a hypothetical reality that never happened. That is a straw man. Libya has many free social programs paid for with the OIL money, so your argument has the same cloudy appeal as a leaking balloon.
 
DaveFagan said:
Your argument is the straw man. Qaddafi actually made the proposal and you pose a hypothetical reality that never happened. That is a straw man. Libya has many free social programs paid for with the OIL money, so your argument has the same cloudy appeal as a leaking balloon.
Click to expand...

Libya has the largest proven oil reserves on the African continent, yet their economy is suffering from 30% unemployment. Give me a break. If the Libyan people were screwed out of Libya's oil wealth before nationalization, they would have still been screwed afterwards.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
You know, I see an eerie parallel between Benghazi and Baghdad, in that someone again is not being truthful.
Click to expand...

What possible similarities. MidEast, easily recoverable OIL, lies, CIA, possible nationalization and sales to China, mythical dead civilians?, but no babies in incubators. The babies in incubators clinches the deal but that was Kuwait and there are certainly no similarities. How could rational people even consider such possibilities. And they both start with B. Check with Santa and the Easter Bunny for specifics.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The link doesn't really make much of a case even if one accepts all of the info as accurate. It's all based on plan from a couple/few years ago that failed.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the US doesn't even rely on Libyan oil. The Europeans, yes. Us? Not so much.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The link doesn't really make much of a case even if one accepts all of the info as accurate. It's all based on plan from a couple/few years ago that failed.
Click to expand...



It is about the Centralized Distribution of OIL that is pertinent. It doesn't take 6 minutes of 6 days or 6 years, more likely 60 years and a continuing profit motive at the Corporate level. Does big energy own any politicians?
 
ricksfolly said:
Obama knowingly stuck his neck out on this one. If one, just one US casualty gets reported, the I TOLD YOU SO cacophony of the Reps and doomsday media will reverberate all across the country AND the world.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Hence, the reason he has stood fast not to put "boots on the ground". I can agree with him using the CIA to perform intelligence survellience or even train the rebel forces on how to use certain weapons, i.e., shoulder held rocket launcers. After all, that's what we did in the Soviet/Afgahn war (well, that AND supply the Afgahn rebels with weapons and ARGs which I hope we don't do in the case with Libya). And considering all the outcry by the GOP/Tea Parties insisting on knowing who these "rebel forces" are, I'd say the only way to know for sure IS to get our intel folks behind enemy lines using covert operations.

But you are correct: the first U.S. casualty to come out of this will provide that "gotcha moment" for the opposition despite the fact that the lose of life wouldn't be scores of our Armed Forces but instead members of a small group of our intel apporatus. Not saying that any lose of American lives is insignificant, but in the grand scheme of things I'd much rather that lose come from a small group from the CIA than to lose a combat helo, strike fighter plane or a warship.
 
This whole business is about 2012 re-election.
 
Objective Voice said:
Hence, the reason he has stood fast not to put "boots on the ground". I can agree with him using the CIA to perform intelligence survellience or even train the rebel forces on how to use certain weapons, i.e., shoulder held rocket launcers. After all, that's what we did in the Soviet/Afgahn war (well, that AND supply the Afgahn rebels with weapons and ARGs which I hope we don't do in the case with Libya). And considering all the outcry by the GOP/Tea Parties insisting on knowing who these "rebel forces" are, I'd say the only way to know for sure IS to get our intel folks behind enemy lines using covert operations.

But you are correct: the first U.S. casualty to come out of this will provide that "gotcha moment" for the opposition despite the fact that the lose of life wouldn't be scores of our Armed Forces but instead members of a small group of our intel apporatus. Not saying that any lose of American lives is insignificant, but in the grand scheme of things I'd much rather that lose come from a small group from the CIA than to lose a combat helo, strike fighter plane or a warship.
Click to expand...

The difference being? Seriously.
 
Whovian said:
The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go - The Daily of the University of Washington

So far, the military action has been limited to clearing the airspace by shooting down Libyan military planes, airstrikes on Libyan military forces and Tomahawk missile strikes. Planes and missiles can do a lot against buildings, missile launch sites and large tank formations, but planes can’t place someone into custody. If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women...

We can expect the United States to have to commit more soldiers than any other nation. This has less to do with the size of our military and more to do with the national politics of the member countries...

In order to distribute aid properly, there will have to be troops on the ground. To prevent chaos, in the power vacuum, NATO will have to send in troops, not as an invasion force, but as a force to secure the food and relief efforts. And that inevitably means that NATO will send ground forces, and that means Americans...

President Obama will be able to say that the United States is not sending troops to Libya, which on paper will be true. NATO will be sending troops, and as a member nation, the United States will support that action with troops of its own. In the end, the United States will commit more forces than any other country...
Click to expand...

Yeah but what's your opinion on the subject? Should we be involved or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom