• 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!

Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

Are we doing the right thing in Libya?


  • Total voters
    49
You are right in that Congress has the sole power to declare war. But let's see what the Constitution says regarding the President's power over the military.



So while Congress has the sole power to declare war, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military. This is the case whether Congress declares war or not. So as Commander-in-Chief, the President can deploy troops whether Congress declares war or not.


Gee. you haven't defined the emergent crisis threatening the immediate security of the United States in your argument.

You think maybe that the US military is a toy the president can use at whim, and the requirement that the Congress declare war nothing but a formality?

As I said, you people are singing a predictably different tune when it's your foolish candidate in the White House than when the Republicans held that office.

And you have not one shred of shame when it's pointed out.
 
Our involvement is a bad idea for many conflicts. Let's go down the list

1. THE REALPOLITIK ARGUMENT - Is it really such a no-brainer that the successor government will be better than Gaddafi's? Perhaps it only looks like that because the opposition is relatively amorphous at this point, unlike in Egypt. You can assign whatever motives you want to the opposition, but nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan convinces me that the US has a good grasp of nations' internal politics before intervening.

2. THE HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENT - Are we sure that our involvement will actually stop a slaughter? If so, will it save more lives than the air strikes cost?

3. THE MISSION ARGUMENT - What exactly is the goal of our mission - to protect civilians or to depose Gaddafi? If it's the latter, why not just come out and say it? If it's the former, are we going to bomb rebel sides that attack Gaddafi's forces too?

4. THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT - What makes it so clear-cut that air strikes and bombings will be sufficient to win this conflict? Saddam Hussein survived those for 12 years.

5. THE OPPORTUNITY COST ARGUMENT - Every dollar spent on Libya and every soldier deployed to Libya is one less dollar and one less soldier that we have for somewhere else. Is Libya the most pressing humanitarian conflict in the world? Is Libya the conflict where American interests are most at stake? No and no.
 
Last edited:
Our involvement is a bad idea for many conflicts. Let's go down the list

1. THE REALPOLITIK ARGUMENT - Is it really such a no-brainer that the successor government will be better than Gaddafi's? Perhaps it only looks like that because the opposition is relatively amorphous at this point, unlike in Egypt. You can assign whatever motives you want to the opposition, but nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan convinces me that the US has a good grasp of nations' internal politics before intervening.

2. THE HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENT - Are we sure that our involvement will actually stop a slaughter? If so, will it save more lives than the air strikes cost?

3. THE MISSION ARGUMENT - What exactly is the goal of our mission - to protect civilians or to depose Gaddafi? If it's the latter, why not just come out and say it? If it's the former, are we going to bomb rebel sides that attack Gaddafi's forces too?

4. THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT - What makes it so clear-cut that air strikes and bombings will be sufficient to win this conflict? Saddam Hussein survived those for 12 years.

5. THE OPPORTUNITY COST ARGUMENT - Every dollar spent on Libya and every soldier deployed to Libya is one less dollar and one less soldier that we have for somewhere else. Is Libya the most pressing humanitarian conflict in the world? Is Libya the conflict where American interests are most at stake? No and no.

A near perfect post. Saved me the trouble of typing it all out myself.
 
The US is bankrupt and cant even win the first war she entered. Give it up boys.
 
The US is bankrupt and cant even win the first war she entered. Give it up boys.

Sure we could win the wars that we enter if we were fully committed.

Originally Posted by Psycholclown
A near perfect post. Saved me the trouble of typing it all out myself.

So you are suggesting that you could write a near perfect post? Get outa town with that silliness...
 
Gee. you haven't defined the emergent crisis threatening the immediate security of the United States in your argument.

You think maybe that the US military is a toy the president can use at whim, and the requirement that the Congress declare war nothing but a formality?

As I said, you people are singing a predictably different tune when it's your foolish candidate in the White House than when the Republicans held that office.

And you have not one shred of shame when it's pointed out.

Please search this forum and point out where I have ever denied a Republican President's Constitutional authority to deploy troops.
 
Since there is no talk of putting boots on the ground, it appears we're just bombing for the sake of bombing. I don't see any way of changing the situation without forcibly removing the current dictator and replacing him with a puppet. I do not support such a proposition and I don't support the current bombing campaigns.

There's really no good answer to the situation in Libya, but I believe it is ultimately the responsibility of the Libyan people to determine their own future, by any means necessary.

What are your thoughts?

The real solution in Libya is that it is up to the Libyans. We don't have proper say since Libya is a sovereign nation. However, what we're currently doing is about the biggest half-assed approach to doing something that we could take. We're not really going to help out the situation there and we have to still worry about Afghanistan and Iraq first so we can't really commit to another war (why are we setting up perpetual war?). In the end, it's pretty much the same as Bosnia.
 
Since there is no talk of putting boots on the ground, it appears we're just bombing for the sake of bombing. I don't see any way of changing the situation without forcibly removing the current dictator and replacing him with a puppet. I do not support such a proposition and I don't support the current bombing campaigns.

There's really no good answer to the situation in Libya, but I believe it is ultimately the responsibility of the Libyan people to determine their own future, by any means necessary.

What are your thoughts?

I largely agree with you. However, it is hard to watch those standing up get killed and do nothing. Too often we've acted for reasons less noble. This seems like the type of thing the UN should address. However, they have limits and it is likley to be long, drawn out, and costly.
 
I think our president has gone crazy. Absolutely Looney-Tunes.

A no-fly zone, in my mind, is, "Libya!! If you put military planes in the air, we are going to shoot them down." It does not mean bombing Daffy's compound, bombing military installations or anything else. We are waaaay off the mark here. If Obama puts troops into Libya, he is a one-term president for sure. And possibily a candidate for impeachment unless he gets Congressional approval. Even I will march in the streets if we put our guys on the ground. I think he's gone insane.
 
I think our president has gone crazy. Absolutely Looney-Tunes.

A no-fly zone, in my mind, is, "Libya!! If you put military planes in the air, we are going to shoot them down." It does not mean bombing Daffy's compound, bombing military installations or anything else. We are waaaay off the mark here.

Please, spare us the "I had no idea what I was supporting" routine. Was it really so difficult to foresee that the no-fly zone would quickly evolve into something more, especially when many of us were warning about that very problem? Every no-fly zone in the history of warfare has involved bombing military installations to neutralize anti-aircraft machinery. Otherwise the planes that patrol the no-fly zone would be sitting ducks for Gaddafi to shoot down.

Yes, it's "absolutely looney-tunes" to be involved. And I guess that makes you Bugs Bunny. ;)
 
Please, spare us the "I had no idea what I was supporting" routine. Was it really so difficult to foresee that the no-fly zone would quickly evolve into something more, especially when many of us were warning about that very problem? Every no-fly zone in the history of warfare has involved bombing military installations to neutralize anti-aircraft machinery. Otherwise the planes that patrol the no-fly zone would be sitting ducks for Gaddafi to shoot down.

Yes, it's "absolutely looney-tunes" to be involved. And I guess that makes you Bugs Bunny. ;)

You'll have to call me naive' then, because I absolutely did not foresee what's happening. I do understand what you're saying about sitting ducks, but I have to wonder if that's really the case. Would our planes be sitting ducks?

Bugs Bunny, huh? Well, I've certainly been called worse! *Smiling*
 
Since there is no talk of putting boots on the ground, it appears we're just bombing for the sake of bombing. I don't see any way of changing the situation without forcibly removing the current dictator and replacing him with a puppet. I do not support such a proposition and I don't support the current bombing campaigns.

There's really no good answer to the situation in Libya, but I believe it is ultimately the responsibility of the Libyan people to determine their own future, by any means necessary.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts...

Well, my perspective comes from my grandmother. She was a orphan, born in Yugoslavia during war and genocide. I support the UN trying to stop genocide and trying to stop a dictator from killing his own citizens. I am pretty much just looking at this from POV of the people being murdered. If I were in their shoes, I'd want help too. How could every country in the world watch such madness and just look away, not feel compelled to try to stop the actions of Gaddafi?

I don't know what's the best thing to do... but I am glad we are trying to do the right thing, and that is to stop a massacre. We shouldn't get in the middle of their government or tell them how to govern, or help put somebody in power... Leave that to the Libyan people.
 
I have been so busy working... I really have no idea what the GOP and Democrats are saying about this...
 
You'll have to call me naive' then, because I absolutely did not foresee what's happening. I do understand what you're saying about sitting ducks, but I have to wonder if that's really the case. Would our planes be sitting ducks?

Bugs Bunny, huh? Well, I've certainly been called worse! *Smiling*

To enforce a nofly zone you have to be able to do regular flight ops over an area. To do regular flight ops over an area, you have to ensure that anti-air ground defenses are not an issue. As soon as I heard nofly zone, I knew that it would involve strikes.
 
Our involvement is a bad idea for many conflicts. Let's go down the list

1. THE REALPOLITIK ARGUMENT - Is it really such a no-brainer that the successor government will be better than Gaddafi's? Perhaps it only looks like that because the opposition is relatively amorphous at this point, unlike in Egypt. You can assign whatever motives you want to the opposition, but nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan convinces me that the US has a good grasp of nations' internal politics before intervening.

There are no guarantees, but it would likely be better, and almost certainly no worse. Sometimes it is worth taking a chance for improvement.

2. THE HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENT - Are we sure that our involvement will actually stop a slaughter? If so, will it save more lives than the air strikes cost?

Sure? Of course not. Will it likely suppress actions against rebels? Very likely yes.

3. THE MISSION ARGUMENT - What exactly is the goal of our mission - to protect civilians or to depose Gaddafi? If it's the latter, why not just come out and say it? If it's the former, are we going to bomb rebel sides that attack Gaddafi's forces too?

It's possible that the goals are being formulated and part of the reason for taking action when we did was to ensure we had time to make a decision.

4. THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT - What makes it so clear-cut that air strikes and bombings will be sufficient to win this conflict? Saddam Hussein survived those for 12 years.

You are assuming that this is all that will be done. With rebels on the ground already in the country, the likelihood of air strikes to support them is high.

5. THE OPPORTUNITY COST ARGUMENT - Every dollar spent on Libya and every soldier deployed to Libya is one less dollar and one less soldier that we have for somewhere else. Is Libya the most pressing humanitarian conflict in the world? Is Libya the conflict where American interests are most at stake? No and no.

Any increased stability in the middle east is likely very valuable as well.

Questions are good, but simply asking questions and deciding that since there are questions we should not act is a quick way to reach paralysis.
 
There are no guarantees, but it would likely be better, and almost certainly no worse. Sometimes it is worth taking a chance for improvement.

Better for whom? Gaddafi hasn't screwed with us since 2003, and in fact he was cooperative keeping terrorists at bay since then. The opposition, on the other hand, is rank with Islamists, it's internally divided, and democracy seems to be a much lower priority for them than it was for the Egyptians. And I'd be much more inclined to take a chance for improvement if we didn't have such a horrendous historical track record in that department.

Will a rebel government be better than Gaddafi's? I'd say the odds are slightly in their favor, yes. I'm rooting for them. Is it such a slam-dunk certainty that it's worth injecting ourselves into the conflict? Absolutely not.

Redress said:
Sure? Of course not. Will it likely suppress actions against rebels? Very likely yes.

And why is that inherently desirable for anyone other than the rebels?

Redress said:
It's possible that the goals are being formulated and part of the reason for taking action when we did was to ensure we had time to make a decision.

Every minute that goes by without us having a clear-cut mission is one more minute where mission creep takes place. The no-fly zone has already evolved into air strikes, which I'm sure would have escalated into special forces if our plane had crashed near Tripoli instead of Benghazi today. Meanwhile, our goal has already changed from preventing a massacre, to serving as the rebel air force, to installing a democracy.

We don't need a Somalia-on-the-Mediterranean, which is what this is sounding more and more like with each passing hour.

Redress said:
You are assuming that this is all that will be done. With rebels on the ground already in the country, the likelihood of air strikes to support them is high.

There were rebels on the ground in Iraq when we authorized the no-fly zone after Desert Storm. Yet Saddam Hussein held out for 12 years.

Redress said:
Any increased stability in the middle east is likely very valuable as well.

Libya is far from the Middle East. And if "stability" is our concern, then why are we supporting the overthrow of Gaddafi's government? If we demand Gaddafi's ouster and he won't go peacefully, then by definition we are ENCOURAGING a civil war, rather than preventing one.

Redress said:
Questions are good, but simply asking questions and deciding that since there are questions we should not act is a quick way to reach paralysis.

It's not the questions I'm worried about, it's the fact that none of them have favorable answers.
 
Last edited:
I completely agree. The masses way outnumber the authority in any case, they'll win eventually. But we are not the police of the world and have no right to go americanizing more and more countries. Maybe we should focus on that trillions of debt and using the money we could be spending on interference with another country's conflict on government programs instead.
 
I think our president has gone crazy. Absolutely Looney-Tunes.

A no-fly zone, in my mind, is, "Libya!! If you put military planes in the air, we are going to shoot them down." It does not mean bombing Daffy's compound, bombing military installations or anything else. We are waaaay off the mark here. If Obama puts troops into Libya, he is a one-term president for sure. And possibily a candidate for impeachment unless he gets Congressional approval. Even I will march in the streets if we put our guys on the ground. I think he's gone insane.

There are two things at work here. One, no-fly zone. Two, protection of civilians.

In order to enforce the no-fly zone, anti-aircraft assets must be degraded to the point that they do not pose a threat to aircraft enforcing the zone.

Also, the resolution also authorized force to prevent a humitarian crisis, thus the attack of ground assets (i.e. tanks, artillery, etc.) is also fair game.

Once the air defenses are dedgraded sufficiently, hand it off to the Europeans with the U.S. in a logistical support role. This is their backyard. Let them take the lead with willing Arab powers.
 
Bugs Bunny, huh? Well, I've certainly been called worse! *Smiling*

Maybe he mistook the ponytails for ears... :p

I think, however, if you didn't assume there would be attacks on anti-air assets in setting up the no-fly zone, that would be extremely naive...
 
Libya is far from the Middle East. And if "stability" is our concern, then why are we supporting the overthrow of Gaddafi's government? If we demand Gaddafi's ouster and he won't go peacefully, then by definition we are ENCOURAGING a civil war, rather than preventing one.

How do you figure? It borders Egypt and many consider North Africa to be politically and culturally linked to the Middle East... something that is obvious given recent events...
 
How do you figure? It borders Egypt and many consider North Africa to be politically and culturally linked to the Middle East... something that is obvious given recent events...

There are varying defintions of what geographic region the ME consists of, but ludahai is correct in saying that generally it is not wrong to consider Libya to be part of the Middle East due to the cultural linkages. On the other hand it shouldn't be forgotten that Libya also possesses many linkages with the rest of Africa including Sub-Saharan Africa.
 
Last edited:
Why don't Americans obey the Constitution and declare war through Congress approval before they trow tomahawks in other peoples land? Oh, wait, it not a war, just a "protect the good people from their evil dictator" operation.
What has happened to the world?

I agree, but congress hasn't acted to declare war since 1942. Hopefully you had similar outrage over all other military conflicts we have been involved with since 1942. Though my memory fails me, I do remember at least one other armed conflict for which war was not declared....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
 
Last edited:
There are varying defintions of what geographic region the ME consists of, but ludahai is correct in saying that generally it is not wrong to consider Libya to be part of the Middle East due to the cultural linkages. On the other hand it shouldn't be forgotten that Libya also possesses many linkages with the rest of Africa including Sub-Saharan Africa.

I wasn't trying to argue that it is definately part of the Middle East, though a strong case can be made for it. It was a part of pan-Arabism including proposed union with other states which are undeniably Middle Eastern.

However, the original point was made that Libya was not even near the Middle East. However, even if you DON'T consider Libya part of the Middle East, it most certainly BORDERS it as Egypt most certainly is.

As for African linkages, those are more manufactured than anything else. Libya was not generally regarded as one of the Maghrib area states that did have significant impact with West Africa (basically being the gold-salt trade which also brought a lot of slaves into the Mediterranean world.) Libya has historically been more Mediterranean in orientation and in closer orbit with Egypt and thus the Middle East rather than the Maghrib. Libyans even at one time conquered Egypt.

The modern ties with the rest of Africa were mostly creations of Khaddafy during one of his fits of grandeur, particularly after his dreams of dominating a pan-Arab state fell apart...
 
Back
Top Bottom