• 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!

Do you support America's intervention in Libya?

Do you support America's intervention in Libya?

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
Awesome! said:
Yes its a crazy world. We taught the Japanese too long before Iraq modernizing their military only to fight them in a world war and then rebuilt their country making them one of our largest trading partners. Same with our euro enemies in WW2. War is an art. Not saying were perfect.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we engaged Japan in war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. We engaged Germany and Italy in war after they had already declared war on the United States. Libya has done no such thing. The issue is not what to do during or after a war has been fought. The issue is whether to engage in warfare to begin with.
 
I think it's a mistake, but it's a mistake we've already made. To refuse to support it now is to consign ourselves to failure.
 
I support the Commander in Chief. His political persuasion is immaterial. When American troops are no longer at risk I am more than willing to engage the debate on right vs wrong. But not til then. I am very disappointed with the UN leadership in this effort. In less than a week, this 'coalition' is in shambles, the Germans have left NATO, and the Arab League has immediately turned on the active members. Its a pure cluster****. Ridiculous.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
I think it's a mistake, but it's a mistake we've already made. To refuse to support it now is to consign ourselves to failure.
Click to expand...

No it's not. It's getting off the road to dumbville. This is not our fight, this is not our problem, this is not worth American lives. That's all there is to it. Let them handle their own government, we have no proper say.
 
VanceMack said:
I support the Commander in Chief. His political persuasion is immaterial. When American troops are no longer at risk I am more than willing to engage the debate on right vs wrong.
Click to expand...

So "shoot first and ask questions later"?
 
Kandahar said:
So "shoot first and ask questions later"?
Click to expand...

Once the Commander in Chief has made the decision to obligate US Servicemen and women...you bet. Do the job...get out. Put something more than rhetoric behind 'support our troops.' I want a unified country so that those being sent are able to do their job efficiently and come home. Im fine if you send letters to your congressmen...Im fine if they approach their leadership and approach the President. but going on TV and whining...I believe it strengthens our enemies and ALWAYS gives them aid and comfort and a belief that we will destroy ourselves far more efficiently than they can.
 
Why no intervention in the Ivory Coast or Saudi Arabia, and whatever happened to Darfur? I am sympathetic to the rebels, but we are already seeing mission creep when Obama stated that the goal of the mission was to help remove Gadaffi instead of just protecting civilians.America cannot be the world's policeman. I do not see this as another Iraq, as long as there is not more mission creep, as it is a low intensity and puts our blood and treasure at relatively little risk, but I also do not see how this serves our interests.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
So "shoot first and ask questions later"?
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, he was elected commander in chief. He's commanding AFTER you asked your questions during the election. It's not shooting first. There was a lot of vetting prior to his being handed the gun.
 
VanceMack said:
Once the Commander in Chief has made the decision to obligate US Servicemen and women...you bet. Do the job...get out. Put something more than rhetoric behind 'support our troops.' I want a unified country so that those being sent are able to do their job efficiently and come home. Im fine if you send letters to your congressmen...Im fine if they approach their leadership and approach the President. but going on TV and whining...I believe it strengthens our enemies and ALWAYS gives them aid and comfort and a belief that we will destroy ourselves far more efficiently than they can.
Click to expand...

What will destroy ourselves far more efficiently than they can is a loss of our military/geopolitical/economic power. And one way to do that is to charge headfirst into conflicts without even considering whether we should be involved in the first place.

As for giving aid and comfort to our enemies...remind me why Gaddafi is our enemy again? He hasn't bothered us since 2003.
 
Mach said:
Well, to be fair, he was elected commander in chief. He's commanding AFTER you asked your questions during the election. It's not shooting first. There was a lot of vetting prior to his being handed the gun.
Click to expand...

Elections are helpful for vetting a leader's personality and temperament, but they say nothing about specific future conflicts. When Obama was elected president, Libya was barely even on the international radar screen. No one could foresee that it would suddenly erupt in the winter of 2011.
 
Psychoclown said:
You're the one who stated we have a history of standing up to brutal dictators, as if our foreign policy was based on some sort of anti-dicatator doctrine.

America has, as you now say, supported dictators when we believe ti serves our interests to do so. So the question regarding Lybia is, exactly what interest demands our involvement in the internal affairs of a soveriegn foreign nation? Frankly, I don't see any interests that come close to warranting such involvement.
Click to expand...

What do you want here. Do you expect the US to do anything that isn't in our interests?

I can see a number of different reasons to be in Libya. We need to help the people from being murdered, just like we helped Europe from starving after World War 2. It's in our best interest to be a leader.
 
Kandahar said:
What will destroy ourselves far more efficiently than they can is a loss of our military/geopolitical/economic power. And one way to do that is to charge headfirst into conflicts without even considering whether we should be involved in the first place.

As for giving aid and comfort to our enemies...remind me why Gaddafi is our enemy again? He hasn't bothered us since 2003.
Click to expand...

Maybe you didnt get my viewpoint. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of whether or not we should be there at this point in time. We can do that all we want when there are no troops, pilots, or other military folk in harms way...put there not because they didnt have anything better to do but because their Commander in Chief issued the orders and we dont exactly thrill at the concept of our soldiers engaging in coups when they dont like the guy in the White House.
 
Helvidius said:
Yes, but we engaged Japan in war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. We engaged Germany and Italy in war after they had already declared war on the United States. Libya has done no such thing. The issue is not what to do during or after a war has been fought. The issue is whether to engage in warfare to begin with.
Click to expand...

A lot of "blow back" fighting a modernized Japan though huh?

I just see an opportunity here. Let's stop the retard there from murdering his people and maybe we can get something out of it. Maybe we can get our inbred euro cousins to lead the charge for once?
 
I say no because there is no justification via U.S. interests, we do not have the resources now to have yet a third war, nor do we have the money for this, and the stated reasons and strategy that is occurring is confused at best.
 
Chappy said:
Do you support America's intervention in Libya?

Record your public opinion above.
Click to expand...
No, I don't. I don't understand why we continually 'police' the world. We have enough issues here in our country - and that is what we should be concerned with. It's not that I'm lacking in compassion, but really, why must we always intervene. The last thing our country needs, is to get involved in now THIS when we're financially/economically (for all intended purposes) bankrupt and how about that military of ours that has been "on duty" for HOW many years now? Christsakes. This is the last thing we need to be sticking our noses into.
 
Nope I don't support it. The humanitarian reason is a farce. Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Zimbabwe, Egypt, and many other oppressed people apparently are not worthy of our benevolent freedom fighters and that's because they already have our puppets in power or they do not have enough valuable resources available for us to kill for. I'm more likely to send my own money through charity to help the Libyan freedom fighter than to support this intervention (except for the forced support my government requires).
 
Yes I supported us joining NATO to help protect the Libyan people, and I also agree that it is time now to withdraw and let NATO with the Arab states take it from here.
 
Last edited:
Helvidius said:
Yes, but we engaged Japan in war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. We engaged Germany and Italy in war after they had already declared war on the United States. Libya has done no such thing. The issue is not what to do during or after a war has been fought. The issue is whether to engage in warfare to begin with.
Click to expand...

Not strictly true. FDR was engaged in an illegal war in the Atlantic against German u-boats in the summer of 1941.
 
VanceMack said:
Once the Commander in Chief has made the decision to obligate US Servicemen and women...you bet. Do the job...get out. Put something more than rhetoric behind 'support our troops.' I want a unified country so that those being sent are able to do their job efficiently and come home. Im fine if you send letters to your congressmen...Im fine if they approach their leadership and approach the President. but going on TV and whining...I believe it strengthens our enemies and ALWAYS gives them aid and comfort and a belief that we will destroy ourselves far more efficiently than they can.
Click to expand...

Laudable, but misguided in this instance. There's no defining US interest being served, and at the present time no dead American servicemen in Libya. It's an excellent time to impeach Obama and get out of Libya.
 
Catawba said:
Yes I supported us joining NATO to help protect the Libyan people, and I also agree that it is time now to withdraw and let NATO with the Arab states take it from here.
Click to expand...

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to protect the North Atlantic democracies from any Soviet agression.

That France decided to make a military play, knowing full well how effective France is at military effort, does not make the silly notion of interfering in Libya's civil war a "NATO" mission. No member of NATO had been attacked to prompt a NATO response. This was France deciding to do what France should have done unilaterally in Bosnia, but did not.

This is not an American fight, it is not a NATO fight, it's a fight we need to get out of before any American servicemen get injured or killed.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to protect the North Atlantic democracies from any Soviet agression.

That France decided to make a military play, knowing full well how effective France is at military effort, does not make the silly notion of interfering in Libya's civil war a "NATO" mission. No member of NATO had been attacked to prompt a NATO response. This was France deciding to do what France should have done unilaterally in Bosnia, but did not.

This is not an American fight, it is not a NATO fight, it's a fight we need to get out of before any American servicemen get injured or killed.
Click to expand...

NATO's main mission has always been to provide a peacekeeping force that acts on the collective will of the member nations. It was created to provide a democratic alternative to rogue nations striking out on their own. If it can be made to work more effectively than it has in the past, I think it is much preferable to us spending ourselves in to bankruptsy with continues multiple wars.

I am glad to see that NATO has agreed to takeover. We've done our part in the effort to protect the people from genocide, I say leave the rest to NATO.
 
No I do not, Im against all types of military adventurism. Wars should only be fought in defense, its not the job the US to police the world and hunt every scumbag despot on the planet. Gaddafi has to be taken down by his own people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom