Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Military Action In Libya

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 1:24:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As many of you may already be aware, the United States is in its second day of military action against Gaddafi's air defenses in Libya. In short, the United States will take action to destroy Libya's air defenses and to impose a no fly zone. No ground troops will be deployed. It is unclear, however, under what circumstances this situation could escalate; consequently, some in the press and elsewhere have suggested that this may be the start of a war. Time will tell whether this analysis is accurate.

Of course, the United Nations was not alone in taking this action. This decision has come about as a result of a resolution passed by the United Nations that was signed by the Arab League, France, Britain and other major powers.

Obama, as would be expected, has outlined an argument for this decision. To put it simply, it amounts to the claim that not taking action would end up causing more civilians to die than taking action would. In this sense, I suppose, the argument could be analogous to the old ethical problem in philosophy involving trolley cars. http://en.wikipedia.org...

So, here's my question. Is the President justified in his decision? Should he have snubbed the international community and refused to sign onto the UN resolution? Why or why not?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 4:30:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's not hard to justify war against Libya, the question I don't know is whether it's a good idea. What's the platform of the rebels?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 7:35:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is absurd. Similar justification was used for the invasion of Iraq (plus that whole WMD thing, or lack thereof), which then-Senator Obama claimed that President Bush had no constitutional authority to order.

And now, and now our NOBEL PEACE PRIZE winning President deployed 124 Tomahawk missiles against a country which, as Ragnar stated, poses absolutely no threat to the American people? I wonder how many starving people could be fed with the millions of dollars each missile costs. The hypocrisy of it all makes me want to vomit.

There is some hope. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio, has called Obama's move "an impeachable offense." Let's hope the American people are listening, but I doubt it.
http://politics.gather.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 7:54:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 1:24:26 PM, Freeman wrote:

So, here's my question. Is the President justified in his decision? Should he have snubbed the international community and refused to sign onto the UN resolution? Why or why not?



How selective are you being of what the International Community is?
The Arab League?
Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India were not for this action. Are you okay with pissing these countries off Obama? The great apologist?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 8:48:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Arab League was for a no fly zone but it is now a more broad military action attacking ground forces that have nothing to do with air defense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 9:48:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Like sharks who have caught the smell of blood, NATO descends on Libya to seize its oil now that the nation is destabilized. The need to defend the lives of civilians is nothing more than the pretext to spend the money of US taxpayers in an effort to steal what rightfully belongs to the people of Libya and ensure that the country remains under the grip of Western power.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 11:12:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 7:35:07 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
And now, and now our NOBEL PEACE PRIZE winning President deployed 124 Tomahawk missiles against a country which, as Ragnar stated, poses absolutely no threat to the American people?
Wait, what did I say where?

*goes and shops for a home drug test*


Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India were not for this action. Are you okay with pissing these countries off Obama? The great apologist?

4 of those countries are pretty bad to have on your side by most people's ethical stndards. ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 11:26:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 4:50:59 PM, Koopin wrote:
Wait, so the premium vacation package to Libya I just got for $32.93 is worthless?

Nah man. You can still go. It'll be a blast.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 11:29:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 7:54:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/20/2011 1:24:26 PM, Freeman wrote:

So, here's my question. Is the President justified in his decision? Should he have snubbed the international community and refused to sign onto the UN resolution? Why or why not?


How selective are you being of what the International Community is?
The Arab League?
Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India were not for this action. Are you okay with pissing these countries off Obama? The great apologist?

None of those countries were against it. They all abstained. In fact Germany was explicitly in support of it, they just didn't want to get dragged into another conflict themselves.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 9:10:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 11:12:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/20/2011 7:35:07 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
And now, and now our NOBEL PEACE PRIZE winning President deployed 124 Tomahawk missiles against a country which, as Ragnar stated, poses absolutely no threat to the American people?
Wait, what did I say where?

*goes and shops for a home drug test*


No earthly idea *checks bottle*