Libyan War

[marharth]

If the rebels don't have a organized military structure, and they don't seem to have any military training at all, how do you expect them to set up a working government system on their own?

 

If the rebels win over Libya I think there is a good chance the US and other NATO countries will come in to Libya to "help" set up the government.

 

I wouldn't might humanitarian missions on our part if we could afford it and it would have very little to no negative effects on our country. The USA is not in the place for that however. We have a large deficit and we have many other problems to deal with.

[PhantX]

Personally, I do not agree with this war. BUT I do think that fascist Gadhafi needs to be removed, quickly. Send any humanitarian aid available, just keep the NATO away from it. Destroying their infrastracture that they have to rebuild isn't progress. Of course, the "World Police" think it's their duty to get involved.

[csgators]

60 days and still no congressional approval.

[DeTomaso]

I'd like to see a far more intense engagement by the Arab League, up to now there is just a little up to nothing what they had to add to, a considerable engagement especially by those Arab countries that have already passed the Arab spring. It is revealing to see a Pan-Arabic solidarity, the spring feeling, among all the différent Arab people and the traditional oasis behavior of the Bedouines, the odd looking away on state level when the theme is an internal Arabic one. The new and imo positive self-awareness of the Arab people still has not yet influenced the appearance of the Arab governments, not even of the new ones. Thus the question is, what do we in the West get after the Libyan War that we haven't yet seen? I fear almost nothing new, no fundamental shift in the political structures and probably not even very new faces in a new Libyan government. The skilled deserteurs from the Gaddafi regime of today will again play an important role in the new regime or whatever. This is as frustrating as the role of the NAtO is confusing, to say the least.

[HeyYou]

Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, before we invaded. Just that anyone that told him so, was marginalized, ignored, or flat out fired. (why do you think Colin Powell resigned?) We had no business going there. We were lied to. Plain and simple. If the WMD's were the REAL reason we went, then why are we not invading North Korea? We KNOW for a FACT that they are developing nukes, they have tested a couple, but, do you hear anything about military action there? Nope. Iraq was all about oil. That's it. I found it absolutely hilarious when the time came to put those oil contracts up for bids, not a single american company was to be found.... reason? Security Issues.

 

Afghanistan: Our sole purpose for going there WAS regime change. The taliban were in charge, and we didn't like it. What's really amusing is, the US are the ones that PUT them in power in the first place. These were the rebels that we supported when the Soviet Union invaded. Seems the rebels were more than happy to accept our help, but, as soon as the Russians left, the US instantly became the Great Satan, and their goal was to destroy us. Nice huh?

 

Libya: This is a CIVIL war. NO other nation has ANY business getting involved. None. Zero. It is a purely internal issue, and we should just stay the hell out of it. But, again, there is OIL!!! there.

 

So, technically, the US is government that was in place when all of these actions occurred, are war criminals. We have used military force to overthrow a legitimate government. (for certain values of legitimate) We are going to spend billions blowing them up, and then billions more repairing the stuff we blew up. All at a time when programs designed to help AMERICAN citizens are getting the axe. Seems we can help anyone else, but ourselves.

 

Someone needs to invade the US, and implement some Regime Change. :D

[grannywils]

HeyYou, can't say I agree 100% with everything that you say here. But I have to admit you have pretty much got it pegged, particularly regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't know why we don't hear more from you. Let me first say, as I have on other threads, that while I am a patriotic American, I believe that means that it is incumbant upon me to speak up when I see my country making mistakes; just as I proudly speak up when she does well.

 

In this instance, I have mixed emotions. I agree that we have a tendency to march in when it will in some manner benefit our interests in the short and/or long term. And we steadfastly ignore those areas of no immediate benefit to us (i.e. Korea and most of Africa, and much of South America). Or we may give some token assistance, just so we can say that we did.

 

I believe that you are right on Libya as well. My only hesitance has to do with my knowledge of Ghadiffi. He is a miserable human being. However, I believe that you are still correct in saying that it is a civil matter, and we probably have no business there. My concern is what will happen to the rest of the area if he takes over. But then again, is that our problem? The answer is no. We would not be there were it not for our interest in the resource.

[csgators]

Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, before we invaded. Just that anyone that told him so, was marginalized, ignored, or flat out fired. (why do you think Colin Powell resigned?) We had no business going there. We were lied to. Plain and simple. If the WMD's were the REAL reason we went, then why are we not invading North Korea? We KNOW for a FACT that they are developing nukes, they have tested a couple, but, do you hear anything about military action there? Nope. Iraq was all about oil. That's it. I found it absolutely hilarious when the time came to put those oil contracts up for bids, not a single american company was to be found.... reason? Security Issues.

 

Afghanistan: Our sole purpose for going there WAS regime change. The taliban were in charge, and we didn't like it. What's really amusing is, the US are the ones that PUT them in power in the first place. These were the rebels that we supported when the Soviet Union invaded. Seems the rebels were more than happy to accept our help, but, as soon as the Russians left, the US instantly became the Great Satan, and their goal was to destroy us. Nice huh?

 

Libya: This is a CIVIL war. NO other nation has ANY business getting involved. None. Zero. It is a purely internal issue, and we should just stay the hell out of it. But, again, there is OIL!!! there.

 

So, technically, the US is government that was in place when all of these actions occurred, are war criminals. We have used military force to overthrow a legitimate government. (for certain values of legitimate) We are going to spend billions blowing them up, and then billions more repairing the stuff we blew up. All at a time when programs designed to help AMERICAN citizens are getting the axe. Seems we can help anyone else, but ourselves.

 

If Iraq was about oil, where is the oil? Iraq was about the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent misbehavior and breaking of cease fire agreements after the first Gulf War. We were already getting the Iraqi oil through the massively corrupt UN run food for oil program. The second Iraq War would have had UN support if not for the fact that France was one of the countries profiting form the food for oil program. Food which rarely found it's way to the people.

 

Someone needs to invade the US, and implement some Regime Change. :D

 

Regime change is coming in Jan, 2013.

[HeyYou]

Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, before we invaded. Just that anyone that told him so, was marginalized, ignored, or flat out fired. (why do you think Colin Powell resigned?) We had no business going there. We were lied to. Plain and simple. If the WMD's were the REAL reason we went, then why are we not invading North Korea? We KNOW for a FACT that they are developing nukes, they have tested a couple, but, do you hear anything about military action there? Nope. Iraq was all about oil. That's it. I found it absolutely hilarious when the time came to put those oil contracts up for bids, not a single american company was to be found.... reason? Security Issues.

 

Afghanistan: Our sole purpose for going there WAS regime change. The taliban were in charge, and we didn't like it. What's really amusing is, the US are the ones that PUT them in power in the first place. These were the rebels that we supported when the Soviet Union invaded. Seems the rebels were more than happy to accept our help, but, as soon as the Russians left, the US instantly became the Great Satan, and their goal was to destroy us. Nice huh?

 

Libya: This is a CIVIL war. NO other nation has ANY business getting involved. None. Zero. It is a purely internal issue, and we should just stay the hell out of it. But, again, there is OIL!!! there.

 

So, technically, the US is government that was in place when all of these actions occurred, are war criminals. We have used military force to overthrow a legitimate government. (for certain values of legitimate) We are going to spend billions blowing them up, and then billions more repairing the stuff we blew up. All at a time when programs designed to help AMERICAN citizens are getting the axe. Seems we can help anyone else, but ourselves.

 

If Iraq was about oil, where is the oil? Iraq was about the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent misbehavior and breaking of cease fire agreements after the first Gulf War. We were already getting the Iraqi oil through the massively corrupt UN run food for oil program. The second Iraq War would have had UN support if not for the fact that France was one of the countries profiting form the food for oil program. Food which rarely found it's way to the people.

 

Someone needs to invade the US, and implement some Regime Change. :D

 

Regime change is coming in Jan, 2013.

 

The invasion of Kuwait was in the early 90's. We had a different president then, and he elected NOT to go into baghdad, to oust saddam. Why? No viable exit strategy. Which is PRECISELY where we are today. We didn't actually invade Iraq until the early 2000's, more than 10 years after Kuwait. The US wasn't getting any oil from Iraq, at least, not more than a drop in the proverbial bucket. This was a 'war' that did NOT turn out as was envisioned by its supporters. They RADICALLY misjudged the peoples reaction to the ouster of Saddam, and our boys paid the price for that mistake. They are STILL paying the price for that mistake.

 

And trying to rationalize the invasion by claiming Iraq was violating various sanctions is an empty argument. Look at Iran, they have been thumbing their collective noses at us since 1979, yet we haven't invaded them yet either. Saddam was at war with them for quite a while, and guess who was supporting him? That's right, the Good ol' US of A. Don't you think it is just a tad hypocritical of us to turn on our one-time allies? Same goes for Egypt, we had issues with the leadership, but, we were NOT actively trying to oust him. Along comes "arab spring", and now we are more than happy to turn on our one-time ally there too....... Some friends we are.

 

And we are not going to get regime change come 2013. We are going to get some new faces, maybe..... put into the same system, that will yield the exact same results for america. A further decline in our relevance on the world stage, and the continued erosion of our economy, and the complete disappearance of the middle class. There is so little difference between the two parties ideologically, on the issues that matter, foreign policy, corporate policy, etc, as they are basically indistinguishable, one from the other.

[csgators]

 

The invasion of Kuwait was in the early 90's. We had a different president then, and he elected NOT to go into baghdad, to oust saddam. Why? No viable exit strategy. Which is PRECISELY where we are today. We didn't actually invade Iraq until the early 2000's, more than 10 years after Kuwait. The US wasn't getting any oil from Iraq, at least, not more than a drop in the proverbial bucket. This was a 'war' that did NOT turn out as was envisioned by its supporters. They RADICALLY misjudged the peoples reaction to the ouster of Saddam, and our boys paid the price for that mistake. They are STILL paying the price for that mistake.

 

And trying to rationalize the invasion by claiming Iraq was violating various sanctions is an empty argument. Look at Iran, they have been thumbing their collective noses at us since 1979, yet we haven't invaded them yet either. Saddam was at war with them for quite a while, and guess who was supporting him? That's right, the Good ol' US of A. Don't you think it is just a tad hypocritical of us to turn on our one-time allies? Same goes for Egypt, we had issues with the leadership, but, we were NOT actively trying to oust him. Along comes "arab spring", and now we are more than happy to turn on our one-time ally there too....... Some friends we are.

 

And we are not going to get regime change come 2013. We are going to get some new faces, maybe..... put into the same system, that will yield the exact same results for america. A further decline in our relevance on the world stage, and the continued erosion of our economy, and the complete disappearance of the middle class. There is so little difference between the two parties ideologically, on the issues that matter, foreign policy, corporate policy, etc, as they are basically indistinguishable, one from the other.

 

At the time of the invasion of Iraq we were enforcing a no-fly zone over the country and receiving surface to air fire from Iraqi forces. We had troops still stationed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The conflict was far from "over". If you shoot at American armed forces you must expect a response, they got one. If you violate a cease fire agreement that justifies re-initiating hostilities, it is in fact the entire point of a cease fire agreement. If you do these things we will stop attacking, if you don't we will continue to attack. What else is the point of a cease fire agreement? Iraq was thumbing its nose at UN inspectors, almost every intelligence service in the world thought Saddam had WMD's, defectors testified to the fact. I think you are making a huge leap to say that Bush didn't think WMD's were in Iraq. Saddam actually used them against both Iran and the Kurds. Taking pot-shots with hindsight knowledge doesn't discount the huge amounts of evidence pointing to them having them VS the small amount of evidence going the other way.

 

On your second point about the 2012 elections I essentially agree.

 

 

EDIT:

Oh yeah, they actually DID have WMD's.

Edited May 20, 2011 by csgators

[csgators]

Whoops, double posts Edited May 20, 2011 by csgators