• 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!

Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

lpast said:
Germany pulls out of Nato and the coalition falls apart...what a cluster this is...we shouldnt be in there in the first place Libya war: Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart | Mail Online
Click to expand...

From your link:


Can anyone say cluster****?
 
lpast said:
Germany pulls out of Nato and the coalition falls apart...what a cluster this is...we shouldnt be in there in the first place


Libya war: Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart | Mail Online
Click to expand...

Your first problem.. The Daily Mail

Second problem.. it is an utter lie and distortion by the Daily Mail.

Third.. Germany was against the operation from the start, so it is hardly "the coalition falls apart" moment.. Germany was NEVER IN IT!..

Gezz, do you conservatives never learn when it comes to FACTS?
 
Yeah I'll go ahead and wait to see an actual news organization run the story before I bother forming an opinion.
 
Deuce said:
Yeah I'll go ahead and wait to see an actual news organization run the story before I bother forming an opinion.
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm going to see what Media Matters tells me to think.
 

Here ya go pete, im sure you will agree to this one, written by the premier libtard blog the DailyKos.

Daily Kos: A head spinning coalition
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Translation: I'm going to see what Media Matters tells me to think.
Click to expand...

LOL now that is funny considering The Daily Mail is the National Enquirer of the UK, but with even less integrity. At least the NE never backed fascists..
 
lpast said:
Here ya go pete, im sure you will agree to this one, written by the premier libtard blog the DailyKos.

Daily Kos: A head spinning coalition
Click to expand...

Again... Germany NEVER was part of the ****ing coalition. I could care less what the Daily Kos says. The fact is Germany was never ever part of the coalition and has ever right to say it does not want its military to be part or near the intervention. It is not even technically a freaking NATO mission, just certain NATO countries and others who are doing the intervention and the whole discussion is if they should or should not use the NATO infrastructure to run the show but without calling it NATO .. you know like in Afghanistan.
 
lpast said:
Germany pulls out of Nato and the coalition falls apart...what a cluster this is...we shouldnt be in there in the first place


Libya war: Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart | Mail Online
Click to expand...

If Obama had kept us out of this, he could be now saying that the EU cannot put together a cohesive answer to a world crisis such as in Libya. Now that he got us involved, he'll be part of the failure. NATO - US = EU Frankly the EU needs to fall on its ass, because they've been bitching about how we do things for far too long without having to prove their own leadership ability.
 

Your sounding a bit distraught petey, relax take a deep breath and realize your wrong
 
The more I'm hearing and reading that the rebels consist of a lot of al-Qaeda, the more I'm convinced to just leave these people to figure this out for themselves.
 
Erod said:
The more I'm hearing and reading that the rebels consist of a lot of al-Qaeda, the more I'm convinced to just leave these people to figure this out for themselves.
Click to expand...

No one knows for sure. Problem is Gaddafi claims so, so automatically the accusation looses a lot of credibility. You have to also factor in that the people of Eastern Libya are of a different tribe than Gaddafi, and have been in conflict with his tribe and the other major population group of Libya for hundreds of years.

Now is it possible that there are AL Q from Eastern Libya? Of course there is, but there are Al Q from everywhere.. US, UK, Israel, you name it. Chances are also good that Gaddafi himself sent people on Jihad against American interests in Afghanistan and Iraq and used the cover of Al Q as an excuse.

Basically we do not know.
 
IMO, this exercise risks becoming a case study of bad leadership and communication, if increasingly urgent corrections (mission definition + consistent message articulation) are not made.

First, the risks involved illustrate exactly why national interests, not emotional impulses, should drive the application of military force. America's, France's, and the UK's providing weapons to the anti-Gadhafi forces (my preference) would have entailed no commitment from states such as Germany who possibly have even fewer interests in Libya than the U.S., France, or UK.

Second, I believe the military mission should not be widened beyond an NFZ. Tactical air strikes aimed at helping the anti-Gadhafi forces should not be furnished. Such a move is not justified by critical U.S. interests (nor those of the other Western states participating). The revolution should be waged, won, or lost by Libyans.

Third, in my opinion, maintaining a strong and effective partnership with Germany is far more important than any of the stakes involved in Libya. In terms of the national interest, there is no contest whatsoever, even if the worst-case scenario of a complete Gadhafi victory materialized. Dependable allies are extremely valuable. Partners who join "coalitions of the willing" do so only because some temporary cause brings them together. What they bring to bilateral relations is far short of what reliable allies offer. While I'm not yet sure of where things stand vis-a-vis Germany, I am fully aware of its consistently-articulated positions on the issue and strongly believe NATO as an organization should not take a formal role given Germany's needs.

Fourth, communication has to be clear, consistent, and focused to be effective. To date, the communication has been muddled, inconsistent, and anything but focused. Different leaders are saying different things. Some leaders are even saying different things to different audiences or at different moments. There remains no succinct definition of the mission at hand, much less one that has had any staying power. The gap between rhetoric/policy and actions has created a genuine credibility problem.
 
Yeah, if all thats going on, we should pull out.
 
Germany was never involved, so there leaving isn't really important. That said, the inability to get a unified command together is pathetic. NATO is the wrong organization to use as many member states have doubts and Libya is outside the traditional mission scope. The French have the right idea in creating a separate unified command.
 
With respect to Germany, The New York Times is now reporting:


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/europe/24germany.html
 
That seems like a quagmire. The rebels are a disorganized mess. Who will provide the training, transportation, and distribution of the weapons? How will we prevent the weapons from falling into the wrong hands or being targeted by frauds and conns? Its a logistics nightmare!! Whereas air power from remote sea or land bases is fully under our control and at our discretion.


can you elaborate on how air strikes are not justified but flooding weapons into the hands of untrained and scattered forces is preferable?

donsutherland1 said:
The revolution should be waged, won, or lost by Libyans.
Click to expand...
This contradicts your desire to furnish libyans with weapons. The airstrikes leveled the playing field. Its up to the libyans to fight the rest of the war for the government they deserve.

I don't see how we can fix the opinions and politics of other nations.
 

Providing limited weapons (and I have made the point about limited weapons clear in a number of past messages on the topic), namely a modest number of anti-aircraft weapons, would be anything but a quagmire. Unlimited weapons would be an issue. One example where I specified the limited amount of weapons assistance is: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...e-backs-no-fly-zone-libya.html#post1059346252

can you elaborate on how air strikes are not justified but flooding weapons into the hands of untrained and scattered forces is preferable?
Click to expand...

Tactical air strikes are not justified, because the U.S. lacks the critical interests to become involved in military operations. Libya under Gadhafi does not pose an imminent and credible threat to the U.S., critical U.S. interests, or U.S. allies. Emotions are not sufficient to justify direct military intervention. Indeed, I believe the emotional urge "to do something" following the collapse of Somalia's dictator and evolution of a civil war was an example of a terrible decision to put emotions ahead of interests. The Cold War had largely wound down. Somalia had no geopolitical importance. The collapse of Somalia's dictatorship and jockeying of factions posed no threat to U.S. interests or allies. Sending troops there was, therefore, not anchored in critical U.S. interests.

This contradicts your desire to furnish libyans with weapons. The airstrikes leveled the playing field. Its up to the libyans to fight the rest of the war for the government they deserve.
Click to expand...

There is no contradiction. In the former case, the Libyans would be waging the war all by themselves. In the latter, the U.S. and others are doing so to some extent.

I don't see how we can fix the opinions and politics of other nations.
Click to expand...

I was talking about how the U.S. and other Western leaders were communicating their message concerning the mission, rationale for it, etc., not the politics of other nations.

Clearly, the U.S. and West, cannot make democracy magically appear in Libya. That would depend on the Libyans themselves, their institutions, their laws, etc. That Libya has had a monarchy followed by a long period of authoritarian rule is no coincidence. It is a product of the country's institutions, structure, history, and dynamics. Even if the anti-Gadhafi revolution succeeded, the barriers to democratic governance would be very steep and democratic governance would not be the assured outcome. It might not even be the most likely one e.g., civil war might be more likely given tribal rivalries, the reality that Col. Gadhafi still enjoys significant support, etc.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:

This from one of your links:


It is very difficult for me to believe that we are not going to be in the lead. I don't believe it, in fact. Obama may think the American people are pickin' up what he's puttin' down, but the thinkers won't be.

Puppetmasters we will be.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Libya under Gadhafi does not pose an imminent and credible threat to the U.S., critical U.S. interests, or U.S. allies.
Click to expand...

true

obama, december 20, 2007:

"the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual and imminent threat to the nation"

Boston.com - Special reports - News
 
meanwhile, he accomplished SQUAT in latin america


Big trip short on progress - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

the president just can't catch a break these days, with local, national or international media

why do you think that is?
 
MaggieD said:
From your link:



Can anyone say cluster****?
Click to expand...

Yep...can...and have. This is what we can typically expect when we rely on the UN for ANYTHING. Its why I have no problem with the US taking a mandate and then simply telling everyone else to sit down, shut up, and get out of the way. My biggest problem with what Obama has done throughout this situation is he has been so damned indecisive. If we were going to stay out of it we should have declared it and told others handle it or STFU. If we were going to step in we should have told others, you all agreed...now, STFU and stay out of our way and God help you if you turn on us once we engage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…