--> All discussion of candidates' Iraq policies here - Page 6 - 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, 08:45 PM   #76
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
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.
Knock yourself out

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

Congress has not had a formal declaration of war since 1941. So if your really concerned about that, you can be raising hell with just about every military action that the United States has taken since World War II.

I agree that Pollack has been critical of the administration on its handling of the war, but on the most important points, the need to remove Saddam and the need to stay and finish rebuilding Iraq so it can sustain itself, Pollack agrees with the Bush administration.

Nice to know your still into the irrelevant stereotyping of people you know nothing about.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 08:50 PM   #77
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
I agree that Pollack has been critical of the administration on its handling of the war, but on the most important points, the need to remove Saddam and the need to stay and finish rebuilding Iraq so it can sustain itself, Pollack agrees with the Bush administration.
And on several other critically important areas, Pollack disagrees with the Bush administration. One could certainly argue that the execution of a plan is just as important as the plan itself.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 08:51 PM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
and the allegations that the administrations "cherry picked" evidence made the public support the war is just false.

Allegations ???? That must explain why the Office of Special Plans within the Defense Department was reprimanded for behaving inappropriately in its role up to the war. Hahahahah tell me they were not reprimanded for "cherry picking"!!!!! Please

This administration created the ability to lie through this Office. The transfer of power from the CIA to the DOD and Rummy led to this mess. Unbiased reports from the CIA were run through this office, interpreted and chopped up, to bolster an already determined course of action.

The CIA presented information that could have prevented the bullshit reconstruction from being the disaster it has been. But, this administration did not was unbiased reports. They wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. SO why was the Office of Special Plans reprimanded????
__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 08:53 PM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Knock yourself out

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

Congress has not had a formal declaration of war since 1941. So if your really concerned about that, you can be raising hell with just about every military action that the United States has taken since World War II.
.

Pollack called for a formal declaration of war as part of what he felt was important for this country before taking action against Saddam.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 08:54 PM   #80
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 07:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
Allegations ???? That must explain why the Office of Special Plans within the Defense Department was reprimanded for behaving inappropriately in its role up to the war. Hahahahah tell me they were not reprimanded for "cherry picking"!!!!! Please

This administration created the ability to lie through this Office. The transfer of power from the CIA to the DOD and Rummy led to this mess. Unbiased reports from the CIA were run through this office, interpreted and chopped up, to bolster an already determined course of action.

The CIA presented information that could have prevented the bullshit reconstruction from being the disaster it has been. But, this administration did not was unbiased reports. They wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. SO why was the Office of Special Plans reprimanded????
Dread, dread, dread. All this is completely irrelevant. And I'll tell you why: Resolution 1441, man. I mean...seriously, Resolution 1441.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 08:56 PM   #81
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:00 PM
52-42 is overwhealming support to send troops into battle? Please. I thought you were going to show me something that supported you. It explains why Congress did not vote for formal war.

Seems like it was probably within the margin of error...hehe....I give...your right.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:00 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Dread, dread, dread. All this is completely irrelevant. And I'll tell you why: Resolution 1441, man. I mean...seriously, Resolution 1441.
I know....

Somewhere in the forum are posts I made linking to legal opinions about Resolution 1441. Hehe....

Up until the vote authorizing the occupation, everything was illegal....but I digress.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:05 PM   #83
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
Allegations ???? That must explain why the Office of Special Plans within the Defense Department was reprimanded for behaving inappropriately in its role up to the war. Hahahahah tell me they were not reprimanded for "cherry picking"!!!!! Please

This administration created the ability to lie through this Office. The transfer of power from the CIA to the DOD and Rummy led to this mess. Unbiased reports from the CIA were run through this office, interpreted and chopped up, to bolster an already determined course of action.

The CIA presented information that could have prevented the bullshit reconstruction from being the disaster it has been. But, this administration did not was unbiased reports. They wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. SO why was the Office of Special Plans reprimanded????
Your totally missing the point. Whatever you think of the "Office Of Special Plans" their work did not change the public's view on the need for military action based on polling done from early 2001 prior to 9/11 all the way through the initial debate about going to war in the last half of 2002 and early 2003. In addition, the administrations case for war did not rest on this particular line in a speech or information put out by the Office Of Special Plans. If you actually understand the definition of the word, lie, you'll realize that none of the important decision makers in the administration lied about the case for war against Iraq.

Invading a country like Iraq is an enormous undertaking even without having to deal with a large insurgency. Even the best executed plan for post war reconstruction was going to face large cost given the insurgency.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:07 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:00 PM
If your belief that 52% (within the margin of error) prior to 9/11 is the American people supporting an invasion of Iraq, we have nothing to discuss. I do not. I think it wrong to take a poll of 1200 or so people and claim 52% demonstrates that this administration had the American public behind it. And you miss the point, that their OWN ACTIONS and BEHAVIORS demonstrate that they did not have the full support of the country.

There was no need to invade at that time. There was plenty of time to gain true international support. There was plenty of time to READ THE CIA REPORTS that said we needed more troops from the start to reconstrucct. On and on and on. THEY cherry picked to make the case they were CORRECT ON EVERYTHING. And they have been wrong on almost everything surrounding Iraq.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:09 PM   #85
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
Pollack called for a formal declaration of war as part of what he felt was important for this country before taking action against Saddam.

Hmmm, but he did not think that was necessary for Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, the first Persian Gulf War? Interesting.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:11 PM   #86
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
52-42 is overwhealming support to send troops into battle? Please. I thought you were going to show me something that supported you. It explains why Congress did not vote for formal war.

Seems like it was probably within the margin of error...hehe....I give...your right.
Majority support, I never said anything about overwhelming support, and that was BEFORE 9/11.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:12 PM   #87
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
I know....

Somewhere in the forum are posts I made linking to legal opinions about Resolution 1441. Hehe....

Up until the vote authorizing the occupation, everything was illegal....but I digress.

The key word there being opinions. In addition, no attemt by any UN member state to protest the invasion through a resolution, call for its suspension. Nothing.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:24 PM   #88
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
If your belief that 52% (within the margin of error) prior to 9/11 is the American people supporting an invasion of Iraq, we have nothing to discuss. I do not. I think it wrong to take a poll of 1200 or so people and claim 52% demonstrates that this administration had the American public behind it. And you miss the point, that their OWN ACTIONS and BEHAVIORS demonstrate that they did not have the full support of the country.
The poll prior to 9/11 is not significantly different from all the polls that were done in 2002, as well as January 2003. Its outside of the margin of error when measuring the number of people in support of such an invasion vs. those opposed to. Even if it was within the margin of error, that in its self would still be significant given the time period when the poll was taken. The actions and behaviors of the administration simply demonstrate the fact that they were trying to build as much support for their cause as they possibly could, which one would expect ANY administration to do on the issue of war.


Quote:
There was no need to invade at that time. There was plenty of time to gain true international support. There was plenty of time to READ THE CIA REPORTS that said we needed more troops from the start to reconstrucct. On and on and on. THEY cherry picked to make the case they were CORRECT ON EVERYTHING. And they have been wrong on almost everything surrounding Iraq.
Waiting longer to remove Saddam would have only cost more American lives and made the occupation more difficult. With the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo against Saddam by 2002, it was only a matter of time before Saddam would be able to obtain large quantities of more advanced weapons that would make any US invasion far more costly and there by the occupation more difficult as well.

By the summer of 2003, the size of the force in Iraq reached the size that it has been over the entire occupation with the exception of the Surge.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:33 PM   #89
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
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.


some of us have been saying this since 2004.

i think you're one of those -- you realize the situation in the Persian Gulf and Iraq, and yet reject the false choice that STING and the administration presented us with.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:42 PM   #90
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 08:00 PM
yo, Dread.

clear out some of your old PMs.

i gots something i want to say to you.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 08:00 PM.


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