Did Bush Get it Right???? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-11-2010, 02:20 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
ultimately the failures in new orleans will always taint the bush legacy, even if iraq turns out all rosey.
This. The reasons for the breakdown in New Orleans are myriad, but this really was where the tide turned for Bush and his team in the court of public opinion. Backslapping while the Ninth Ward flooded was inexcusable.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 09:38 AM   #17
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,354
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
This. The reasons for the breakdown in New Orleans are myriad, but this really was where the tide turned for Bush and his team in the court of public opinion. Backslapping while the Ninth Ward flooded was inexcusable.
yea it's when he completely lost me... i was teetering on the fence for a while leading up to it, but new orleans completely turned me off.

while there are certainly many people from across all parties who fucked up in new orleans, including their dipshit mayor (a democrat, mind you)... the inability for the federal goverment to mobilize in a timly fashion and simply let the place drown for days is 100% inexcusable and a fuck up of massive proportions.

no matter where you fall on the political asile, you have to agree with that... if you don't, you're nothing more than a sheep who simply nods your head to whatever your ideological blowhard leader tells you to do.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 10:42 AM   #18
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
 
UberBeaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the most serious...douch hammer ever
Posts: 20,318
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
.. the inability for the federal goverment to mobilize in a timly fashion ...
I think the problem was that they did in fact organize in a Timly fashion.

__________________
UberBeaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 10:48 PM   #19
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Only time will tell on how the story gets told, I think this writer seems to not be taking everything into consideration.

Iraq is not stable, we wouldn't still be there if it was, how fair are the elections right now, and when will the country become stable? Just to name a few.
Iraq is actually very stable relative to the situation in January 2007 when your man Obama decided the United States should pull out all of its troops by March 31, 2008. Bush went the opposite direction and surged troops in Iraq to over 170,000. The results prove he was indeed correct in taking that action, and Obama's position at the time has proven to be wrong and ignorant. President Obama has even admitted this.

How fair are the elections? To early to tell, but the vast majority of Iraqi people are supportive of the process. Its certainly more fair and desirable than keeping SADDAM in power, which is the liberal alternative to all of this.


Quote:
The story could be told one of many different ways, if stability is maintained and we get to leave under Obama's watch the story can easily go like this: Bush fucked up and Obama cleaned up his mess.

There would have been a real mess if Obama had his way in 2007 and all US combat troops were out of the country by March 31, 2008. Obama's idea's on Iraq were wrong and ignorant. As the situation improved during and after the Surge, Obama started to slowly move toward Bush's position on Iraq. Since becoming President on January 20, 2009, Obama has adopted every Bush policy on Iraq. He also held on to Bush's Secretary Of Defense, Robert Gates, which is a first in US history with a change of party in the White House.

To those that are informed and objective, the record will show that Bush struggled but got it right, and Obama FOLLOWED Bush policy to the T!
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 10:58 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
62%? isn't that higher than the us turnout?






incidentally, i love how the goalposts and reasons for invading iraq keep getting moved.
Don't worry, no one is going to forget that the chief reason for invading Iraq was to remove SADDAM's Regime from power. Anyone still want to defend the idea of keeping Saddam in power?
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 11:00 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
just pointing this out.

and i generally like Frum, as right wingers go.
Oh of course, because only a "right winger" would say such things about Iraq.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 11:43 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
BVS and Deep said it all. Inconclusive so far, and if they move toward a thriving democracy, all reasonable people can agree its a good thing.
A good thing that would not exist if the United States had left SADDAM's regime in power. What would leaving Saddam in power mean for the region, the world, and the people of Iraq?

Quote:
Frum's premise that the elections are both honest AND the results reflect who ultimately rules the country.
Well, what are your objections to this specifically?

Quote:
Still difficult to measure when we are over there, when the level of violence is high and the regional differences remain.
There are always going to be regional differences. Even stable democratic countries have regional differences. You consider the level of violence high? Relative to what? There have been some months recently when the murder rate in Iraq is lower than the murder rate in the United States.

For 2009, 16,000 people were murdered in the UNITED STATES, 2,800 were murdered in Iraq. While the per capita rate is still higher in Iraq, it is still dropping.

Quote:
.The Kurdish areas still will not accept Iraqi troops, right in this article it talks about a shiite-sunni split in voting between Al Maliki and Allawi. Every country is polarized, few successful democracies are polarized along religious or ethnic lines.
Well, there would not be an Iraqi Army and certainly no acceptance of one in the Kurdish area's if your man Obama had succeeded in pulling out all US troops back in 2007. Iraqi troops have not been in these Kurdish area's since 1990.

I think the Iraqi military will be allowed back into these area's eventually, but it will take time. Saddam did a lot of damage to relationships with the Kurds.

Both Al Maliki and Allawi are shiite's. Allawi of course is more heavily supported by Sunni's than Maliki is, but both are the front runners across most of the country which shows the so called Sunni-Shiite divide is not what it used to be.

One could argue that Northern Ireland and Bosnia have longer and deeper divisions than what is seen between Sunni Arab Muslims and Shia Arab Muslims in Iraq.


Quote:
Lebanon has obviously had its issues, mostly associated with undue influence from Syria, but as for democracies, it is crazy to say Iraq will be anywhere close to as advanced as Lebanon is now in the next 5 or 10 years. That is not possible. Beirut is(was to more of an extent years ago) a modern city with modern institutions, Lebanon has a strong national identity, etc. It was not called the "Paris of the East" for nothing.
Well, lets look at this objectively. According to the United Nations Human Development index, Lebanon ranks #83 in standard of living as of 2007. Iraq based on known results ranks at about #130, roughly equal with Morocco. Realize again that the latest data available is from 2007. Iraq today is obviously doing much better than it was in 2007, while Lebanon is roughly the same.

By the year 2020, it would not be far fetched to say that Iraq will be doing as well, or nearly as well as Lebanon. Iraq has something special which Lebanon does not, OIL! As Iraq's oil industry develops in the coming years and the price of oil naturally increases, Iraq could add considerable wealth to the country by 2020. As stability increases along with wealth, these factors will have dramatic impacts on education and health within the country.

I would say its unlikely that things will improve that rapidly, but it is certainly possible!


Quote:
One thing that is still glossed over with respect to Iraq is the level of Iranian influence in that government. Now Ahmadinijead obviously started out as an antagonist, a bad guy, an anti American, a bigoted fool, an ideologue, etc but he has only gotten 10000 times worse as time has gone on! I am not so worried about the nuclear program, they are getting sanctioned and isolated for it, and they are still years away by any objective measurement. However, the curtailment of democracy in what is largely a moderate, young society ready to join the global economy is a major negative for the region. It becomes even worse when you look at the level of influence they have in Iraq.
Well how much influence does Iran really have in Iraq? Has Iran had any troops in Iraq since the 1980s? Nope. Is Iran contracted to sell the Iraqi military weapons and equipment there by making them logistically dependent on them for such things? Nope.

On the other hand, the United States has had over 100,000 troops in Iraq for over 7 years now. In addition, there are thousands of US civilian personal working various different fields to help rebuild the country. US and Western firms are bidding to help Iraq develop and rebuild its oil fields. When you look at all of the major military and economic factors in Iraq today, Iran is not really involved in them aside from being a neighboring country with a normal amount of cross border trade.

The United States equiping and supplying the new Iraqi military which automatically makes the newly Iraqi military logistically dependent on the United States. This is one of the ties that bind Iraq and the United States together for which Iran has nothing comparable. It gives the United States a certain level of influence that Iran does not have in Iraq.

Take a look at the Political parties in the lead in the current election. Maliki and Alawi both benefit from multi-ethnic support and are in the lead. Sadr and the other Shia religious groups that Iran tends to support are behind. The key to power in the future Iraq is multi-ethnic and multi-relgious support. The party that cannot cross the sectarian divide to form partnerships will never be the ruling party. Kurds, Sunni Arab's, and the more Secular Shia Arab's do not support Iran and feel threatened by any Iranian attempts to influence events in Iraq. They form the majority, the Shia Arab's that are friendly with Iran do not.

Quote:
So a couple things become obvious:

1.)Whatever the result in Iraq, good or bad, lets all hope good, creating some kind of flourishing democracy was never the justification for spending $1 trillion, getting 4000plus troops killed, letting AQ regroup in Afghanistan, and everything else that came with the Iraq war.
AQ was able to regroup because of the sanctuaries it had just across the border in Afghanistan. Invading and removing Saddam from power had NOTHING to do with that.

Total spending on Iraq is currently $708 Billion dollars after 7 years, essentially, $100 Billion dollars a year. Thats less than 1% of US GDP each year and makes the the current war in Iraq one of the cheapest the United States has ever fought in its history.

More importantly, what would have been the COST of NOT removing SADDAM's regime from power? How many US soldiers would have been killed in a future war against Saddam who would have been able to re-arm and re-equip his military since the collapse of global economic sanctions against him after the year 2000?


Quote:

No family of a soldier that has been killed in this war would have supported sending their kids into Iraq if the reason given was "so that Iraq may or may not have something that looks like the very loose standard for democracy in the Middle East 10 or 15 years down the road."

That is still very much in question obviously, while what is certain and irreversible is that their sons and daughters are never coming home, never getting married, never having kids. It was not worth anyone's life, never mind an 18 year old's with his whole life in front of him.
This naively and ignorantly ignores the consequences of leaving Saddam in power! Again, Saddam was a dictator that by 2003 had gotten out from under the sanctions regime built to help contain him. More time in power from then on would have allowed him to buy and equip his military on the international market with all kinds of new advanced weapons. Virtually no sanctions combined with enormous oil wealth eventually would equal a flood of new advanced military equipment into Saddam's arsonal making any war with him in the future, much more costly in lives and money.




Quote:
If Iraq turns into a strong democracy, it will be do to the Iraqi people setting aside their differences and working together. If they do, the whole world myself included will be happy for them.
Any informed and objective person will always mention the role that the US military played in removing SADDAM and rebuilding the country. None of this would be possible with Saddam still in power. The US military removed Saddam from power. Rebuilding the country at the current rate over the past 7 years would not have been possible without the US military. Its unbelievable how liberals always seem to avoid giving credit to the US military when it comes to the situation in Iraq.


Quote:
Lets not pretend, however, that a US invasion was the only thing that could have led to this. Saddam in 2003 was presiding over a greatly weakened Iraq- militarily, economically, etc and many intelligence officials in the US and elsewhere have stated publicly that they were on their way out. No one knows whether or not Saddam's sons would have been feared the way he was, etc.
Name one US intelligence official who stated that Saddam was on the way out 2002! Who do you think would replace SADDAM in his regime? Why would that be better or any different? If anything, Saddam's sons were more feared than Saddam given their wild behavior.

Iraq had been weakened militarily and economically from the first gulf war, but neither of those things were permanent. The collapse of the sanctions and weapons embargo regime on Saddam after the year 2000 meant that Saddam could easily, with time, strengthen both. The only possible way of stopping Saddam without regime removal was through containment. The key component of containment was a large full proof sanctions and weapons embargo regime. But that key component of containment was essentially gone by 2003 thanks to countries like Syria, Iran, Jordan, even Turkey, as well as France, Russia and China just to name a few.

The collapse of the sanctions and weapons embargo alone made the removal of Saddam's regime a necessity.

Quote:
2.)Given the state of affairs in Iran now, it is disingenuous to increase their influence anywhere and call this some kind of grand success
US influence in Iraq has increased far more than any Iranian influence. The Iraqi military is equipped, supplied and trained by the US military, not the Iranian military. Its US and western firms that are rebuilding and developing Iraq's Oil fields, not the Iranian government or any Iranian companies. The majority of Iraqi's are anti-Iranian as opposed to being pro-Iranian. Lets not forget that one of the bloodiest wars in Middle East history was fought between Iraq and Iran during the 1980s. Iran's current influence in Iraq is overstated.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 01:42 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
For 2009, 16,000 people were murdered in the UNITED STATES, 2,800 were murdered in Iraq. While the per capita rate is still higher in Iraq, it is still dropping.
Using these numbers, shouldn't it be about twice as high in Iraq?
US population is at least 12 times larger.
12 times 2,800 is 33,600
Which is more than double the amount of murders in the US in 2009, according to these numbers.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 02:25 AM   #24
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Using these numbers, shouldn't it be about twice as high in Iraq?
US population is at least 12 times larger.
12 times 2,800 is 33,600
Which is more than double the amount of murders in the US in 2009, according to these numbers.
Actually its 10.61 times larger.

Iraq Population as of July 2009 is estimated at: 28,945,569. Iraq is currently the 40th largest country in population out of the 195 independent countries on the planet.

United States population as of July 2009 is estimated at: 307,212,123


So the murder rate in 2009 was about 1.85 times higher in Iraq than the United States, which, for a country that is considered to be a "war zone", is amazing!
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 02:41 AM   #25
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Regardless of Iraq, practically everything else that Bush did is spiraling out of control even worse from year-to-year which is why he continues to look worse and worse in hindsight. It is funny though that a potentially thriving Iraq in a few decades could be in praise of Bush and that it will be looked at his greatest triumph.
Well, it will be interesting to compare the average unemployment rate under Obama at the end of 2012 compared to the average unemployment rate under Bush. Bush is in the 5% range for his time in office. Obama is currently at 9.3% with his 14 months in office.

The reason many who opposed Bush during his time in office was because of Iraq and they often claimed it was his "greatest failure". Yet, more and more people are starting to acknowledge that the opposite is more accurate and likely.

Bush was successfully re-elected as President with the first majority in the popular vote since 1988. Will Obama even be re-elected in 2012?
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 03:00 AM   #26
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post

... but there will still be no weapons of mass destruction, which ultimately were the reasons for going to war in the first place.

so bush could look much better down the road... but the only way he'd look justified is if somehow the original justifications for going to war were proven to be true... like all of a sudden they find out that there's a ton of biological warfare buried under 50 feet of sand and shit.
The reasons for going to war involved Saddam's violations of 17 UN security council resolutions passed under chapter VII rules. This did involved the verfiable disarmament of all WMD which had been a requirment placed on Saddam since the end of the 1991 Gulf War.

Saddam's past and current behavior in 2003, the collapse of the the key means of containing him without military force which were the sanctions and weapons embargo, his proximity to the vital oil fields that are key to the global economy, his past use of WMD, his failure to account for stocks of past known WMD, were all just as important as intelligence about his current WMD activities.

While WMD weapons were not found in 2003 or after, that alone does not prove that Saddam did not have or produce any in the years before he was removed.

In addition, while WMD weapons were not found, facilities and programs related to the production of WMD that were violations of UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement were found! These things were hidden from UN inspectors and were not found until months after Saddam was removed.

What so many here seem to forget, is that the fact that Saddam did not use or have any WMD to use, during the invasion on US troops or cities full of innocent civilians in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel, is a good thing.

It makes little sense to have waited for Saddam to accumulate massive stocks of WMD, before invading and removing him, that could be used to inflict heavy casualties on US and coalition troops as well as slaughter hundreds of thousands or millions of people in other countries.

The objective here was to PREVENT Saddam from doing the things he had done in the past, not wait for him to do it again before acting. The means to do that without military force collapsed when the key means of containment, the sanctions and weapons embargo, collapsed. After that, invasion and regime change became a necessity, regardless of what the intelligence said about Saddam's WMD capability during a single year or month.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 03:10 AM   #27
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 07:38 PM
The reason for the invasion was not merely to remove Saddam from power. That begs the question, why? And the answer was because he supposedly possessed WMD and ties to Al Qaeda and he posed a threat. No one liked him, no one would defend him(save Ronald Reagan, HW Bush and Rumsfeld in the 80s) but no one in their right mind would have ever accepted the premise that we need to get 4000+ troops killed just to change the government in Iraq. Dick Cheney was asked in 1991 why the US did not go and take Baghdad and he responded that the analysis in the Bush I administration went something like this: "how many American lives is a neutralized, weakened Saddam Hussein worth?" "Not that damn many" was the universal consensus until Bush II cooked up a WMD scare.

No one would have gone along with the war if the stated reason was to remove Saddam. The stated reason was WMD and AQ in case sheep like Strongbow didn't notice the whole public media blitz by the Bush Administration on the topic. Wolfowitz admitted they needed the WMD pretext, etc. Bush has even said they would not have gone to war without WMD(which he is full of it, he knew there were no weapons, but he still maintains he was just lied to).

I am not willing to defend Saddam, but as long as he posed no threat to us or his neighbors, which it has been factually proven, he did not, then him being in power was not our problem. Leave him there, his shelf life was not estimated to be that long anyway.

Strongbow: Stop responding to my posts, you are still distorting everything(just look at how you quoted Frum's premise and acted as if I was questioning it, when my post clearly said I was not) and have no idea what you are talking about. You're a blind sheep and a propagandist, and you have once again been caught out bullshitting.

Iraq has been factually proven to have posed no threat to us or the region, and this was the reason given for the invasion

Strongbow, you have proven over time that you are

1.)Stupid
2.)A sheep
3.)A child who cannot accept the fact that some people want nothing to do with you. I've ignored you and you still want the last word.
4.)3 proves that you have done nothing with your life(certainly never been near a war zone like many in my family) and need to seek validation on a forum.
5.)A bullshit artist of the highest order
6.)Someone who can't let things go. I have been told to just ignore you, and I'd like to, but not when you don't play even by that agreement and still attempt to rebut my posts. I don't care if its against the rules or not, it is in bad taste and shows you are a bitter, petty person. I have been told I will never get anywhere with you so I should just drop it, but drop it is a 2 way street. I've gotten plenty of places with you because I have factually rebutted all of the falsehoods you try and get away with here. The official policy is obviously to just stop calling them out and let them go unanswered, then nothing is said when you try and rebut people who have ignored you.

A policy that should be changed, but that is another discussion I will be having.

So if you want to do something in bad tast, I will,....................


7.)MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU ARE JUST OVERALL A PATHETIC PIECE OF SHIT.

The above will get me in all kinds of trouble, but I have tried to end things with you the official, nice way through the means available here. I've tried to be the bigger person and put you on my ignore list, but then I find out that what other posters have warned about is true, you still put words in people's mouths and take what they say out of context even when they can't see the posts. Do that to other people and they just deal with it, do it to me and I am going to tell you EXACTLY the kind of person it shows you are.

I am sorry everyone else has to read this rant, everyone has heard the word "shit' before but I am well aware I am not using it in a nice context here. It is just I am at the end of the rope with this Strongbow/Sting dingbat and feel his actions fit the name I have called him.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 03:12 AM   #28
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I think most of this is true, but I'd like to add two things.

One, Bush and Co brought upon themselves a lot of the "quick results" backlash because they pretty much sold it that way, that we'd be in and out.

Two, I think it will make other nations pause(except Palin who's ready to do it again) in the future when someone wants to wage another war of choice/ nation building venture.
Removing Saddam was a necessity given that the means to contain him without military force had collapsed. It was far more necessary than US military action in Bosnia and Kosovo in terms of United States Security. The use of military force and nation building whether it be in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, or Iraq always involve cost that need to be weighed against the cost and consequences of not acting.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 04:35 AM   #29
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
The reason for the invasion was not merely to remove Saddam from power. That begs the question, why? And the answer was because he supposedly possessed WMD and ties to Al Qaeda and he posed a threat. No one liked him, no one would defend him(save Ronald Reagan, HW Bush and Rumsfeld in the 80s) but no one in their right mind would have ever accepted the premise that we need to get 4000+ troops killed just to change the government in Iraq. Dick Cheney was asked in 1991 why the US did not go and take Baghdad and he responded that the analysis in the Bush I administration went something like this: "how many American lives is a neutralized, weakened Saddam Hussein worth?" "Not that damn many" was the universal consensus until Bush II cooked up a WMD scare.
Well, the rather simplistic and often used liberal arguement is that intelligence that said he had WMD in 2003 and alleged ties to Al Quada were the only reason for removing him.

Sorry but thats only part of it. His past behavior and actions, prior use of WMD, as well as the collapse of the sanctions and weapons embargo which were the key means of containing him without the use of military force were just as important.

The Bush senior administration left Saddam in power back in 1991 because it was believed that his survival beyond five years was virtually impossible. That caculation proved to be wrong. What also proved to be wrong was that the internation community could contain Saddam indefinitely through a full proof sanctions and weapons embargo regime. That collapsed after the year 2000. With the key element of containment essentially gone, regime change became a necessity, regardless of what intelligence said about Saddam's WMD in 2002.

Quote:
No one would have gone along with the war if the stated reason was to remove Saddam. The stated reason was WMD and AQ in case sheep like Strongbow didn't notice the whole public media blitz by the Bush Administration on the topic. Wolfowitz admitted they needed the WMD pretext, etc. Bush has even said they would not have gone to war without WMD(which he is full of it, he knew there were no weapons, but he still maintains he was just lied to).
A USA TODAY/ GALLUP POLL from February 2001, nearly 7 months before the 9/11 attacks, already showed that a majority of Americans supported the use of military force to remove Saddam from power.

From February 19-21, 2001 the CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL found the following:

Would you favor or oppose sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?

FAVOR: 52%
OPPOSE: 42%
NO OPINION: 6%

Here is the link:

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

Then go to page 5.


Saddam was in violation of the UN Security Council Resolutions as well as the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement which required Saddam to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD or face military action to accomplish that. After what Saddam did in the 1980s and early 1990s, the goal here is PREVENTION, which means not waiting for Saddam to accumulate band weapons and use them, before taking action.


Quote:
am not willing to defend Saddam, but as long as he posed no threat to us or his neighbors, which it has been factually proven, he did not, then him being in power was not our problem. Leave him there, his shelf life was not estimated to be that long anyway.
If Saddam posed no threat to any of his neighbors, why was he supposed to be under the most extensive sanctions and weapons embargo regime in history?

Why did the United States extensively Bomb Iraq in December 1998? Why did Clinton state that Saddam was in fact a THREAT to the region and his neighbors in December 1998?

Why did Clinton and his wife both support the invasion and state so publically in March 2003?

It was still a fact that Saddam even with just his conventional military strength, posed a serious threat to a little country like Kuwait. But then combine that with the collapse of the weapons embargo and sanctions regime after 2000, Saddam's continued defiance on multiple UN resolutions, yes intelligence from both the United States and other countries that he possessed and was building new weapons, and it becomes and overwhelming necessity to remove him. Waiting for Saddam to accumulate new weapons conventional or unconventional, thanks to the near complete collapse of sanctions and the weapons embargo would have been a terrible option and would have meant any US military action in the future would be far more costly.


Quote:
Iraq has been factually proven to have posed no threat to us or the region, and this was the reason given for the invasion

YouTube - President Clinton orders attack on Iraq


"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.







Quote:
Strongbow: Stop responding to my posts, you are still distorting everything(just look at how you quoted Frum's premise and acted as if I was questioning it, when my post clearly said I was not) and have no idea what you are talking about. You're a blind sheep and a propagandist, and you have once again been caught out bullshitting.



Strongbow, you have proven over time that you are

1.)Stupid
2.)A sheep
3.)A child who cannot accept the fact that some people want nothing to do with you. I've ignored you and you still want the last word.
4.)3 proves that you have done nothing with your life(certainly never been near a war zone like many in my family) and need to seek validation on a forum.
5.)A bullshit artist of the highest order
6.)Someone who can't let things go. I have been told to just ignore you, and I'd like to, but not when you don't play even by that agreement and still attempt to rebut my posts. I don't care if its against the rules or not, it is in bad taste and shows you are a bitter, petty person. I have been told I will never get anywhere with you so I should just drop it, but drop it is a 2 way street. I've gotten plenty of places with you because I have factually rebutted all of the falsehoods you try and get away with here. The official policy is obviously to just stop calling them out and let them go unanswered, then nothing is said when you try and rebut people who have ignored you.

A policy that should be changed, but that is another discussion I will be having.

So if you want to do something in bad tast, I will,....................


7.)MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU ARE JUST OVERALL A PATHETIC PIECE OF SHIT.

The above will get me in all kinds of trouble, but I have tried to end things with you the official, nice way through the means available here. I've tried to be the bigger person and put you on my ignore list, but then I find out that what other posters have warned about is true, you still put words in people's mouths and take what they say out of context even when they can't see the posts. Do that to other people and they just deal with it, do it to me and I am going to tell you EXACTLY the kind of person it shows you are.

I am sorry everyone else has to read this rant, everyone has heard the word "shit' before but I am well aware I am not using it in a nice context here. It is just I am at the end of the rope with this Strongbow/Sting dingbat and feel his actions fit the name I have called him.

This is a message board where people come to discuss issues. ISSUES. Some people are for a policy other people are against it. Either way, everyone here is free to take a position on a certain policy issue, respond to someone elses comments on a certain policy issue, etc. If you don't want to read someone else's opinion on an issue thats just fine. You can also put them on your ignore list.

But the above rant does not involve any issues being discussed at all and contributes nothing to the thread and certainly does not strengthen any of your opinions or views on the topic. If anything it weakens them.

Everyone that is a member of this forum is free to respond to any message on the topic that gets posted. If someone else's opinion upsets you, you don't have to read it and can certainly put them on your ignore list, but that is your choice.

Generally, it should be possible for two people or a group of people that have opposite opinions about an issue to discuss and debate it in a civil manner. The problem generally comes when one person for whatever the reason, leaves the topic or issue and begins to discuss the forum member rather than the issue.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 12:40 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
7.)MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU ARE JUST OVERALL A PATHETIC PIECE OF SHIT.
I've never done this before, but... hey, uh, mods?
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The legacy of President George W. Bush CTU2fan Free Your Mind 653 09-04-2013 10:50 PM
The Tea Party the iron horse Free Your Mind Archive 1005 06-28-2010 08:36 PM
Obama General Discussion diamond Free Your Mind Archive 1009 06-28-2010 01:03 AM
Sarah Palin resigns as Governor VintagePunk Free Your Mind Archive 1005 04-05-2010 05:30 PM
Go Scott Brown! Dreadsox Free Your Mind 324 02-06-2010 09:14 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 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