An open letter to George W. Bush - 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 01-22-2009, 01:05 PM   #76
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:57 PM
thing is, i bet you most people at Gitmo are bad people. just legally process them, charge them with a crime, find them guilty, and lock them up.

and then tear down that fucking place because it stands a symbol of torture.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 01:56 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
thing is, i bet you most people at Gitmo are bad people. just legally process them, charge them with a crime, find them guilty, and lock them up.

and then tear down that fucking place because it stands a symbol of torture.
qft
__________________

__________________
Tiger Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:32 PM   #78
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 04:57 AM
I think the most important reason there were no more terrorist attacks after 9/11 is because even al-Qaeda reckoned Bush would do a better job bolloxing up the US than they could
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:54 PM   #79
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salome View Post
I think the most important reason there were no more terrorist attacks after 9/11 is because even al-Qaeda reckoned Bush would do a better job bolloxing up the US than they could


GWB has done more to destroy civil rights and the Constitution than OBL ever could.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 04:05 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
I don't know why you and Achtung Bono believe you know what's going on, I don't know why you just trust that these men are guilty. This administration hasn't done one thing to give you faith in Gitmo, it's been a clusterfuck from the beginning.
The problem is what consitutes as evidence? Does the guy have to actually be seen in the middle of killing a soldier on the battlefield before he's guilty or is he innocent if he gets caught before he has the chance to kill a soldier? We are fighting plain clothes terrorists. At least with a uniformed army you can capture them and put them in a jail until the war is over. With plain clothes terrorists the law wants to treat them at the same level as criminal U.S. citizens.

There's a point where the safety of the public comes first. Waiting until a war is over is safer for the troops. That is the first priority. Criminals aren't mobilized in a war so trying them ASAP is okay but when a war is going on and they can re-enter the battlefield again it's a danger to the soldiers to release them. Even if you don't believe in waterboarding or rendition to other countries it will test Obama on whether he wants to risk letting them go before the war is over. If GITMO is closed and they stay in a U.S. jail with no torture of any kind until the war is over that would be better than trying them and letting them go too soon. At least the soldiers can get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and the recidivist prisoners will have to put much more effort in trying to start a war again when there is a new government and security force on the ground. Then it becomes the problem of Afghanistan and Iraq to deal with their own terrorists.

Bush can be blamed for using Vietnam search and destroy tactics that are useless and prolonging the war by 3 to 3 1/2 years before the surge, since it delays the war by that much, but now that NATO is doing better we should give the troops the time to finish it off instead of putting captured combatants personal woes at the delay overtop the security of our soldiers.

Whatever Obama does I hope he at least waits for a handoff and withdrawal of troops before the detainees are sent back. Remember these are people caught in battle. It's not random people picked up.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 04:08 PM   #81
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:57 PM
Anyone who talks themselves into the War in Iraq making us safer can talk themselves into anything.

When did Iraq get more dangerous between January 20, 2001 and March 20, 2003 (or whenever the fuck we decided to give an ultimatum)? Why didn't Bush wait for the weapons inspectors to finish in Iraq? Why didn't Bush work with the UN? Why did Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction? Why did Bush suddenly change his mind halfway through and make it no longer about weapons of mass destruction when there were none? Why did Bush take three years to figure out that the strategy they put into place was entirely destructive? Why don't Republicans give a straight answer to these questions?

Until a straight answer without spin is given, defenders of the War in Iraq are Republican lackeys, spreading propaganda and misinformation.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 04:39 PM   #82
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
There's a point where the safety of the public comes first. Waiting until a war is over is safer for the troops.


will you tell us when the war is over?

what is your criteria? which war are you talking about?

or are you willing to live with endless war and live with people locked up forever without having being charged with a crime?

i think we all agree that there are mostly bad people at Gitmo. but i do not agree that they should be detained forever. let them go to trial and be done with it.

right now, Gitmo is among the Top 5 recruiting tools AQ uses to rally angry youth to their cause.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 04:57 PM   #83
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 09:57 PM
And I would not be surprised if most of those 61 who have returned to terrorism are far more militant about it now than they ever were prior to their lovely stay in Gitmo.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 05:10 PM   #84
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
I'm guessing with the wink that this was meant to be a joke(you don't often joke so I'm not sure), if not you missed my point by miles!!!
You think that today with improved technology, access to information, communications, it takes less time for the US, history to assess how well a President has done or whether or not they approve of something.

So, had such advantages existed decades earlier, Truman might have had a higher approval rating either as President or the new assessment about his time as President and the Korean war would not have taken as long. Correct?



Quote:
Well the argument of if the world is safer with or without Saddam probably won't be the question. This is something I'm pretty sure you will never understand, because honestly that's not the issue. In fact not even Rush or Hannity are making these types of accusations, that the left thinks the world would be safer with Saddam still in power.
Don't listen to Rush or Hannity, listen to what President Bill Clinton said before he left office:

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.


Anyone who has any basic knowledge of Persian Gulf History would realize that is the issue. The United States sent half a million men to the Persian Gulf because of Saddam's actions in 1990-1991. The United States attempted to set up the largest sanctions and weapons embargo ever created in the history of the world in attempt to try to contain Saddam. The country that the United States was most likely to go to war with after the 1991 Gulf War was Iraq, because of Saddam. The United States engaged periodically in military action against Saddam through out the 1990s. But ultimately, the containment strategy fell apart as neighboring nations were unwilling to enforce the sanctions and weapons embargo for economic reasons and other countries outside the region began breaking the sanctions regime for their own reasons.

The main threat to Persian Gulf Energy supply, vital to the survival of the global economy, was Saddam. All options short of a full scale invasion to remove this threat had been tried and failed. With the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo, the cost of military action in the future would only grow, and the risk that Saddam would obtain new capabilties to enhance his military forces would only grow as well.

As Bill Clinton pointed out before he left office, only through regime change could the threat be removed once and for all and that is precisely what Bush did.


Quote:
You still may have support for this war, but I'm guessing you are almost close to alone in your line of thinking and attack.
In the liberal bubble of FYM that is certainly true. Among the general public nearly 40% think removing Saddam was the right and necessary thing to do. Among members of the US military, the vast majority think it was the right and necessary thing to do. The publics view of the war is likely to change over time just as it did with respect to the Korean war.



Quote:
The question will not be if the world thought we would be safer... The question that the history books will speak of is was this war legal, what was the true motive, why wasn't there a cohesive global backing if this was so dire, and what did it have to do with the war on terror?
The history books are not going to ignore Saddam and his past history in the Persian Gulf prior to 2003 as you and liberals constantly do. The history books will recognize Saddam and his WMD's, his threats to the region, were in issue before Bush even came to office. History will also record what Bill Clinton said about the issue before he left office.

The issues you bring up, legality, motives, global backing, whether it had anything to do with the war on terror are side issues compared to the central issue which was Saddam and his threat to the region and the security of the world.

Legally, the operation was approved by multiple UN resolutions and clearly authorized by the Gulf War Ceacefire which Saddam was in violation of. If that was not the case, WHERE are the resolutions attempting to condemn the military invasion and call for the immediate withdrawal of all coalition forces? That don't exist because no one tried to do that. Instead, the United Nations has approved of the stationing of coalition forces in Iraq ever since the summer of 2003. If the operation were illegal as some claim, that would never of happened.

Motives, just look at Saddam's history in the region and long term global and US security needs in the region. US military action in the Persian Gulf from 1990 to today has had the same motive. Protect the regions energy resources from any and all threats. In 2002, do to the crumbling of sanctions and the weapons embargo and other aspects of containment, Saddams refusal to cooperate with the UN and verifiably disarm of all WMD, the US and its allies found it necessary to remove Saddam from power.


Global backing for the war was significant in the sense that they were dozens of countries that actively supported it, it had UN resolutions behind it, the occupation then received UN backing every year, and dozens of countries sent troops to support the occupation. Europes support of the occupation in terms of troop levels during the occupation was higher than it was during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. For the first time since World War II, Japan actually sent troops into a combat zone in Iraq. Compared to the 1991 Gulf War, non-US troops made up 15% of the forces in Iraq where as in 1991 they had been 25% of the force. A drop, but not a significant drop, plus it involved heavier European and East Asian participation.


As for the war on terror, Saddam has certainly engaged in his own forms of terrorism in the past, so to totally ignore the possibility of a potential link between Al Quada and Saddam would have been irresponsible. Regardless, the war was overwhelmingly justified without any links to Al Quada. Its only after Saddam's removal and the need to build a new Iraq that the issue of Al Quada certainly became a serious one. To withdraw prematurely and let Iraq descend into Chaos as the Democrats advocated would have played right into Al Quada's hands.


Quote:
And my humble guess, is that more information will slowly leak out over the years that this administration knew a little more than they admit now about not having WMDs or any real ties to the "war on terrorism".
Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration are still in agreement about Saddam and his WMD's to this day. But the issue never was specifically about Saddam had at point x in time, but his compliance with verifiable disarmament. By nearly every estimate in March 2003, he had failed to fully and completely verifiably disarm of all WMD. To this day, there are still thousands of stocks of unaccounted for WMD according to the inspections process started in the 1990s.

The fact is, the only way to insure that Saddam would never be able to use WMD or make new WMD again was by removing him. Even if you believe that Saddam did not have any WMD in March 2003(its been confirmed that he had production related facilities and materials that were violations of the Gulf War Ceacefire), how would the US and its allies know if he had WMD or not in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010? What about the vast amount of materials and equipment for WMD that could now freely go into Iraq because of the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo? The essential end of the sanctions and weapons embargo would also allow Saddam to re-equip his conventional military forces as well.

It was far better to remove Saddam in 2003 before he aquired greater capabilities that would have made that task much more difficult and costly.

The fact is, just as Bill Clinton stated before he left office, the only way to remove the threat was through regime change. The longer the United States and its allies waited to remove Saddam, the more costly such a removal would become and the risk to vital global resources would grow.


As Colin Powell said:

"It is not incumbent upon the United States or its allies to prove that Saddam has WMD, it is incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he does not".

That was the requirement that Saddam agreed to when he signed the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement in March 1991.

That is and has always been the issue.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 05:22 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Thanks to the Lord the world has been freed of another criminal administration. Let´s see if Bush sometime will be accused for breaking international law.

I am confident Hilary will have better chances of promoting the U.S. in compare of China or the E.U.

Obama has a long way to go to restore America´s image and we will see if actions follow words. I heard he already forbid waterboarding or stuff like that today? first day in office. Big headlines all over Europe.
__________________
hiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 05:26 PM   #86
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
can you think of any differences between Bush 2 and Clinton or Regan? i mean, more specifically, do you think the fact that Bush presided over the biggest mass murder in American history, manipulated intelligence to start an unnecessary war that's dragged on for 6 years, destabilized Pakistan, emboldened Iran, failed to get anywhere with Israel/Palestine, cut taxes and increased spending in a time of war, authorized torture, wildly expanded the powers of the executive branch, turned the DOJ into a tool of political revenge, and lost the city of New Orleans might have something to do with it? think of the hundreds of thousands of people that have died. perhaps that's why people booed?
Certainly, those that are ignorant and actually believe some of the untrue statements above probably booed.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 05:29 PM   #87
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
this is exactly it. the fact that Saddam is out of power is entirely besides the point, as is the discussion around the fact that how Saddam was removed from power was a colossal disaster.

what matters now is dealing with this new tinderbox that's been created in the middle of the most dysfunctional place on earth.
Once again, those who chose to remain ignorant of Persian Gulf history prior to 2003 will never understand why it became necessary to remove Saddam and how benificial that removal has been to vital US national security interest in the region.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 05:37 PM   #88
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,887
Local Time: 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
will you tell us when the war is over?
Harry Reid beat purpleoscar to the punch, almost two years ago.

The Surge had failed, and the Iraq war was lost.

Over.
__________________
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 05:39 PM   #89
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Certainly, those that are ignorant and actually believe some of the untrue statements above probably booed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Once again, those who chose to remain ignorant of Persian Gulf history prior to 2003 will never understand why it became necessary to remove Saddam and how benificial that removal has been to vital US national security interest in the region.
Accusing people arguing against you of ignorance purely based on the fact that they're arguing against is:

1. Unproductive.
2. Wrong.
3. A great way to piss people off and discourage discussion.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 05:57 PM   #90
Refugee
 
jesseu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 1,984
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
so only time will tell how Bush did. Frankly, I thought he did great. I don't think any president could have prevented 9/11. certainly not Al Gore
Al Gore would have had his head out of his ass rather than bush and would have taken the CIA report on possible terrorist attack before 911, more seriously. Anybody would have better brains than bush! Bush was just enjoying himself in texas just a little too much.
__________________

__________________
jesseu2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:57 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