--> All discussion of candidates' Iraq policies here - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-28-2008, 05:13 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
I think any historical policy issue should be studied and debated because that process is important to the formulation of policy in the future. Those who consider the invasion a mistake because certain types of WMD were not found at the time, are not understanding the broader security consequences of leaving Saddam in power. Just as whether the US should begin to withdraw should not be based alone on recent casualty levels, nor should the cost of the war to this point be the lone determining factor in the wars necessity. Multiple other factors in both cases have to be considered.

It is not relevant to the current election. Start a historical thread if you like. AS I read the title of the thread it is about the ELECTION. In my mind that means the debate over should we or shouldn't we is not pertinent. It is WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO DO TO MOVE FORWARD.


Ken Pollack has TRASHED this administrations handling of the war. He supported the removal of Saddam, but he most definitiely is NOT a supporter of the manner in which this administration LIED about Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invastion, the pinning of the world trade center bombing on Saddam, and the selective use of sentences from intelligence reports out of context of whole reports to make the run up to war. The debate that you want to have, is not pertinent to the election and moving forward.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 06:12 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The United States remained in Korea, Japan, and Germany out of necessity. US troops should remain in Iraq as long as it is necessary for US security needs there which include the development and rebuilding of the Iraqi State. Once they reach a sustainable level of development and security, both internal and external security, it will not be necessary to have US troops in the country.
So you disagree with Charles Krauthamer?

By the way you could say something along the lines of "it's not as simple as agree or disagree". . .and I'd accept that. But I'm looking for you to take an actual position on what he said rather than this admittedly masterfully evasive answer. I'm realizing for all the density of your posts, there's not a lot analysis going on. Let's see what you got. . .
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 06:22 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I'm realizing for all the density of your posts, there's not a lot analysis going on. Let's see what you got. . .
Is your occupation shining through here?
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 06:23 PM   #64
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I'm realizing for all the density of your posts, there's not a lot analysis going on.

it's the same thing as saying, "indefinite occupation."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 06:34 PM   #65
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
It is not relevant to the current election. Start a historical thread if you like. AS I read the title of the thread it is about the ELECTION. In my mind that means the debate over should we or shouldn't we is not pertinent. It is WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO DO TO MOVE FORWARD.


Ken Pollack has TRASHED this administrations handling of the war. He supported the removal of Saddam, but he most definitiely is NOT a supporter of the manner in which this administration LIED about Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invastion, the pinning of the world trade center bombing on Saddam, and the selective use of sentences from intelligence reports out of context of whole reports to make the run up to war. The debate that you want to have, is not pertinent to the election and moving forward.

You can't make the claim that the candidates positions on various issues over the past 8 years is not relevant to an election debate, although I agree discussing the way forward is the more important of the two.

The Bush administration did not lie about Al Quada and certainly did not say that Saddam was responsible for knocking down the World Trade Center. Every administration thats ever occupied the White House could be accused at one time or another of "selective use of sentences" from intelligence reports. While Ken Pollack has criticized the administrations handling of the war, he agrees with the administration on the much larger and strategic issue of removing Saddam from power.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 06:43 PM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Ummm......

I forgot.....you are always right. I will wait to dialogue with someone who cares to dialogue.

Sting, seriously, how many of your posts in this thread have had anything to do with the campaign?

__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 06:45 PM   #67
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** Please use this thread, rather than the general campaign discussion thread, for all discussions of McCain's and Obama's Iraq policies.

Can we do it?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 06:54 PM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The Bush administration did not lie about Al Quada and certainly did not say that Saddam was responsible for knocking down the World Trade Center. Every administration thats ever occupied the White House could be accused at one time or another of "selective use of sentences" from intelligence reports. While Ken Pollack has criticized the administrations handling of the war, he agrees with the administration on the much larger and strategic issue of removing Saddam from power.
Paul Wolfowitcz did not order members of the governement to investigate again if Saddam had links to the 1993 Trade Center Bombing? Check your facts. Wolfowitz and friends wanted anything they could muster to make their case including CHERRY PICKING sentences out of context from intel. There is a difference between selective use of intelligence reports and taking sentences that support your cause out of context from reports that did not support your cause. It leads to intel agents, who have worked their asses off quitting the agency they worked for, because their words are being twisted, taken out of context, and used to support things they did not intend their reports to support.

Pollack from his book supporting the removal of Saddam from Iraq on has consistently pointed out that the strategies this administration has used until recently, have been flawed and caused failures that were not necessary.

You have thrown Pollack around this forum since 2002. And guess what, I read Pollack faithfully, and you and your posts are the FURTHEST thing from Pollack.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 06:59 PM   #69
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
Ummm......

I forgot.....you are always right. I will wait to dialogue with someone who cares to dialogue.

Sting, seriously, how many of your posts in this thread have had anything to do with the campaign?

If the moderator does not think that the discusion of US national security interest in the Persian Gulf to include the policies both candidates supported over the past 8 years in relation to the Persian Gulf is not relevant to "ALL discussion of candidates Iraqi policies", I'm sure they will step in and mention that.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 07:15 PM   #70
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
Paul Wolfowitcz did not order members of the governement to investigate again if Saddam had links to the 1993 Trade Center Bombing? Check your facts. Wolfowitz and friends wanted anything they could muster to make their case including CHERRY PICKING sentences out of context from intel. There is a difference between selective use of intelligence reports and taking sentences that support your cause out of context from reports that did not support your cause. It leads to intel agents, who have worked their asses off quitting the agency they worked for, because their words are being twisted, taken out of context, and used to support things they did not intend their reports to support.
Sorry, but investigating something is not lying. I would hope that the intelligence community would be investigating such things among many others. Its funny, but Cherry Picking is precisely what critics of the administration have been doing the past 8 years.



Quote:
You have thrown Pollack around this forum since 2002. And guess what, I read Pollack faithfully, and you and your posts are the FURTHEST thing from Pollack.
This from someone who's concerned about the thread getting off topic. Ok, I have never claimed that I agree with Pollack on everything he has stated, but I do agree with him on what is the largest strategic issue here which is the decision to remove Saddam from power, which you do not. I've used Pollack's name in reference to the things we both agree on, the removal of Saddam from power and not leaving Iraq pre-maturely.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 07:21 PM   #71
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
So you disagree with Charles Krauthamer?

By the way you could say something along the lines of "it's not as simple as agree or disagree". . .and I'd accept that. But I'm looking for you to take an actual position on what he said rather than this admittedly masterfully evasive answer. I'm realizing for all the density of your posts, there's not a lot analysis going on. Let's see what you got. . .
Well, what does Charles Krauthamer mean by "seize the fruits" of war?
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 07:45 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Your correct, its not a lie to walk up to the line and lead the press to print suspicions at a time when the American public would not have supported an invasion of Iraq.

Wolfowitz Bombshell: Saddam Behind 9/11 Attacks and OKC Bombing

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...12.bergen.html


Sorry, it is hard to stay on topic when you keep misleading people in this forum. You claiming Pollack as being with you is like the administration claiming the CIA intel supported the invasion.Tell you what, you play nice, and I will stay on topic.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 07:57 PM   #73
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
Your correct, its not a lie to walk up to the line and lead the press to print suspicions at a time when the American public would not have supported an invasion of Iraq.

Wolfowitz Bombshell: Saddam Behind 9/11 Attacks and OKC Bombing

Sorry, it is hard to stay on topic when you keep misleading people in this forum. You claiming Pollack as being with you is like the administration claiming the CIA intel supported the invasion.Tell you what, you play nice, and I will stay on topic.

The public was already in support of removing Saddam with military force prior to 9/11 according to a gallup poll released earlier in the year, and the allegations that the administrations "cherry picked" evidence made the public support the war is just false. Opinion polls on the topic of whether to invade and remove Saddam in September of 2002, are roughly the same as polls done in January 2003.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/06/26/rel7c.pdf page 5

Unfortunately, your the only one misleading people if you think that my position on the removal of Saddam from power and the need to stay and rebuild Iraq afterwards is significantly different from Pollack's position on those issues. On the biggest issues in regards to US policy in Iraq, your the one thats in disagreement with Pollack.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 08:19 PM   #74
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Well, what does Charles Krauthamer mean by "seize the fruits" of war?
I find it amusing to see how difficult it is for you to provide a straightforward answer.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 08:31 PM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Please, post evidence that the US public supported going to war and explain why, if such support was there, the United States Congress did not have a vote for a formal declaration of war if the public was so very much in favor of using our troops for such action.

Anyone who looks up Pollack's articles and reads his books would agree that Pollack supported the removal of Saddam. Anyone who read his books and articles, would also agree with me that he has NEVER been supportive of the manner in which the war or the reconstruction has been handled. He has been forthright and honest about the failures of the Administration.

When are you signing up to go help reconstruct? Is there something that is stopping you from enlisting? Just curious. Someone as dedicated to the cause, must really want to do your part.

I on the other hand, may very well vote for Obama at this point. Having lost a friend that I served with, a friend from church, and a student of mine....I am tired of the war machine lying. Shaking things up a bit may make a difference.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
iraq

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com