34% - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-04-2006, 01:21 PM   #181
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The United States is in the middle of a war and most Democrats unfortunately are doing everything they can to hinder the war. Its this resistence that the insurgents in Iraq and Al Quada are looking for. They do not possess the strength to defeat the US military in combat. What they can do is increase the cost for the United States and hope that this cost impacts political events within the country to a degree that they can force the United States to withdraw before it has accomplished its mission. Their victory gauge for them is the level of protest across the country as well as any other type of political opposition to the current policy which could result in their ultimate goal of a pre-mature US military withdrawal without having accomplished its goals.

I think Bush did a pretty good job of hindering this war himself when he pre-maturely entered into a war with almost no occupation plan. That is what's killing this war, shitty planning.

And your insurgents driving up the cost of war theory is hilarious, but it's a great fear device to make those protesters feel guilty.

The insurgency didn't go into a war thinking we can't win this but we can drive their costs up. Hey look, they're protesting, our plan is working!!!

If they were working with this type of strategy, knowing they couldn't win. They would have allowed us to topple Saddam, allow an effortless and quick rebuilding and once our presence was gone take over Iraq. This process would allow for much less rebuilding on their part.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 01:43 PM   #182
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




while i disagree, i have no actual problems with your post. except for this part.

the right of people to protest the war is exactly what we say we are fighting for (after the rationale for war magically morphed from Saddam is a threat/Saddam is a threat because he has WMDs/we want to bring democracy to Iraq) and for you to criticize people for exercising their rights and thereby demonstrating not just the right to their opinions but the vibrancy of this democracy as some sort of fifth column is anti-American at it's core. for you to say that protestors are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, for you to say that Bin Laden looks at protestors and views each of them as a victory ... well, that is the jihadist mindset, and it's ironic for you to apply it to your own worldview since it seems as if THAT is evidence of the terrorists "winning." we'll win in the greater struggle against radical Islamism because we hold onto our ideals, because we do have better ideas, because our way of life is simply better than religious totalitarianism, and protest is a crucial part of what it means to be a citizen in a democratic society: alert, aware, informed, and always, always questioning.

i am proud that we did not put Moussaoui to death. i am proud that the lowest of the low, the worst of the worst, still gets a fair trial and due process. i am glad that there are still some Republicans (like McCain) who do not endorse torture like the Bushies. i am proud that the American people, and especially anti-war protestors like myself, are out there in the streets with a comprehensive understanding of the situation and understand that protesting against a war isn't cheering for the enemy, it isn't protesting against the troops, that it is an act of love for the country, that criticism is belief that the country can yet meet its ideals, and that, for all the awfulness that has happened, we will win because we deserve to win because a liberal democracy really is the best system we have.

and your comments above are abusive in the extreme to the very foundations of liberal democracy.

victory for "the enemy" will not be won in regular combat terms, you are correct. it will be won the way in which all occupations are won: thorugh time. unwanted occupations are destined to fail, especially in this region of the world. we're going to see a continuing slow, steady trickle of dead bodies (actually, we won't see them, since coffins are hidden by the military) out of Iraq with little measurable progress. so many dead, so much spent, so little accomplished, and such a potentially worthy mission squandered by a president who scheduled a war on an election timetable and a defense secretary who wanted to make some sort of ideological point that 150,000 troops were enough to occupy a region of 20 million people imbued with ethnic hatred that goes back thousands of years.
I never once said that I did not agree with ones right to protest, or that it was wrong for people to speak up about what they believe in. I support everyones right to do that.

At the same time, it is a fact that often insurgency's lack the ability to defeat a professional military in combat and there for must simply rely on increasing the cost to that country to a point that the country no longer feels the cost is worth it and withdraws. Its the tactic that the North Vietnamese employed in order to try and get the United States out of South Vietnam.


The insurgence look at news in the United States and tailor their attacks to produce the maximum effect on the population in order to influence policy makers to change policy. Al Quada took out all of Spain's military forces in Iraq without firing a single shot at them. They bombed the railway stations in Madrid knowing there was an election coming up and that killing enough people would scare the population into supporting the opposition party which wanted a withdrawal from Iraq. Its an extreme case, but it worked. A few days later, Spains voters went to the voting booth and put the opposition government in power. Spains troops were withdrawn from Iraq shortly after that. The government was headed towards a victory prior to the bombing.

"Unwanted occupations" are not destined to fail. If they were, there would be no history of Empires lasting for century's. Hell, most countries today would not exist, even the United States in a sense.

But thats besides the point because the current occupation in Iraq is FAR from being unwanted. 80% of the country wants the United States and coalition forces to remain to build a new Iraq. There is more support in Iraq for staying the course than there is in the United States.

The people who don't realize what has been accomplished so far in Iraq simply don't appreciate what Iraq was like before the coalition invaded. They don't understand what 24 years of Saddam did to the country. It takes more than 3 years to rebuild a country that was ruled by Saddam for a quarter century. People expect to see Disneyland Baghdad after one year, but no reconstruction of such a war torn and dominated country can creat those types of results that fast.

2 years ago, the Iraqi military had less than 1,000 people in it. Now it has nearly 100,000 and they will soon be patrolling and securing 75% of the country by the end of this coming summer. That is a massive accomplishment! Despite constant attacks on Iraqi oil facilities, Iraq is now close to its prewar production levels which will be vital to rebuilding the country. How can anyone ignore the 2 free Iraqi elections that happened in which most of the country turned out to vote despite all the threats. Liberals in this country claimed the elections would fail. They were wrong! They also said the Iraqi's would never agree on a constitution. They were wrong! Iraqi's just passed another hurdle by finally agreeing on a Prime Minister. There are more hurdles to come, but Iraq is moving forward. Someday, your going to have to aknowledge these things if your the least bit objective. Lots of progress has been made over the past 3 years and more will be made over the next 3 years as well. But its a difficult process that will always present rather easy opportunities for criticism.

The most important goal, the removal of Saddam's regime was accomplished over three years ago and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Gulf States, where a majority of the planets energy supply comes from, have been enjoying a level of security they have not experienced in decades because of that fact.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 01:45 PM   #183
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




Powell is a very good, loyal soldier, and picks his words very carefully.
Does not change the fact that he supported the removal of Saddam through military invasion as well as staying the current course in Iraq until Iraqi's can handle the security situation by themselves.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 02:26 PM   #184
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I think Bush did a pretty good job of hindering this war himself when he pre-maturely entered into a war with almost no occupation plan. That is what's killing this war, shitty planning.

And your insurgents driving up the cost of war theory is hilarious, but it's a great fear device to make those protesters feel guilty.

The insurgency didn't go into a war thinking we can't win this but we can drive their costs up. Hey look, they're protesting, our plan is working!!!

If they were working with this type of strategy, knowing they couldn't win. They would have allowed us to topple Saddam, allow an effortless and quick rebuilding and once our presence was gone take over Iraq. This process would allow for much less rebuilding on their part.
Its not hilarious but a well known fact that has been studied by the professional military for years. It is known as "4th Generation Warfare".

If the insurgency had allowed an effortless and quick rebuilding process to follow, the United States would have accomplished all its goals and it would be impossible for the insurgency to do much at all by that point. Allowing Iraq to rebuild its economy and a stable democratic government with a military capable of defeating any internal forces, would make it impossible for an insurgency to accomplish anything.

The largest pool of potential recruits any insurgency will ever have is when things are difficult and uncertain for the population. Allowing the United States to quickly rebuild Iraq would take away the insurgents key recruiting tool. With only a small group of individuals facing a stable Iraqi government, strong Iraqi military as well as people who were relatively well off compared to years ago, would be a fruitless effort.

The insurgency had to strike when it did as prospects for success would only diminish over time if they did not. Iraqi government, military and society was at its weakest point in the summer of 2003. In fact, the military and government did not exist at that point. That is the perfect climate for insurgents. If they could force a pre-mature withdrawal of coalition forces then they could sieze the country.

But as the coalition help to successfully build the Iraqi government, military and economy, coalition forces will be able to withdraw and the insurgents will not be able to win in an environment where there is a relatively stable government, strong military, and improving economy.

The insurgent strategy is to avoid as much as possible, direct military contact with US or coalition forces, because they always lose in such cases. The insurgents in Iraq can only come out openly in places where coalition or Iraqi forces are not present. They have never been able to mass enough force to take a single town or villiage that was occupied by coalition or Iraqi forces.

The only option insurgents have is to drive up the cost through their bomb attacks and other activities in the hopes that people back in the United States will demand a pre-mature withdrawal. From a purely military perspective, the casualties the insurgents have inflicted on coalition troops are not significant. From a political perspective they are significant given the protest and amount of political pressure there is in the United States for a pre-mature withdrawal. But as long as the United States and Coalition stay in Iraq, the insurgents have zero chance of winning. In addition, over time, as the Iraqi government, military, and economy grow, it will become impossible for insurgents to win even with the withdrawal of coalition forces!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 01:08 PM   #185
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 03:19 AM
I'll just put this here seriously though, who would pick something like that as the best moment in his Presidency?

BERLIN (Reuters) - President Bush told a German newspaper his best moment in more than five years in office was catching a big perch in his own lake.

"You know, I've experienced many great moments and it's hard to name the best," Bush told weekly Bild am Sonntag when asked about his high point since becoming president in January 2001.

"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound perch in my lake," he told the newspaper in an interview published on Sunday.

Bush said the worst moment was September 11 when hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

"In such a situation it takes a while before one understands what is happening," Bush said. "I would say that this was the hardest moment, once I had the real picture before my eyes."

Because Bild could not immediately furnish English quotes, Bush's comments were translated from the German. The paper said the White House planned to release an authorized English version of the interview on Monday.



about.com

"It brings to mind Bush's equally idiotic response from a couple of years ago when he was asked to name the biggest mistake he'd made, and he said this:

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it…I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet….I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 01:15 PM   #186
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 03:19 AM
By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval rating has slumped to 31% in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, the lowest of his presidency and a warning sign for Republicans in the November elections.

The survey of 1,013 adults, taken Friday through Sunday, shows Bush's standing down by 3 percentage points in a single week. His disapproval rating also reached a record: 65%. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

"It is a challenging political environment," acknowledges Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, "but we are confident that ultimately voters in November will recognize that a Democrat Congress would simply not be equipped to ensure either economic or national security for our nation."

Bush's fall is being fueled by erosion among support from conservatives and Republicans. In the poll, 52% of conservatives and 68% of Republicans approved of the job he is doing. Both are record lows among those groups.

Moderates gave him an approval rating of 28%, liberals of 7%.

"You hear people say he has a hard core that will never desert him, and that has been the case for most of the administration," says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin who studies presidential approval ratings. "But for the last few months, we started to see that hard core seriously erode in support."

Only four presidents have scored lower approval ratings since the Gallup Poll began regularly measuring it in the mid-1940s: Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush. When Nixon, Carter and the elder Bush sank below 35%, they never again registered above 40%.

Truman twice sank into the low 30s and then rose into the 60s, but the third time his rating fell, it stayed below 40% as well.

"Historically it's been pretty devastating to presidents at this level," Franklin says. Even Republican members of Congress are "now so worried about their electoral fortunes in November that he has less leverage with them than he normally would with his own party controlling Congress."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 01:00 AM   #187
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 02:19 AM
quick sting!

say something hilariously predictable about how these polls while on the surface suggest a bush/republican free-fall, the true between-the-lines info actually suggests they've never been in better shape.

really, i'm surprised you haven't said anything already.
__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 08:26 AM   #188
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 03:19 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1604495.shtml


"The only area where Mr. Bush's approval rating is not at an all-time low is fighting terror: approval is at 46%.

Congressional Republicans get an eviscerating review in this poll. The GOP gets a favorability rating of 37%, exactly 20 percentage points lower than where it was in 1994. Inversely, Democrats in Congress had a favorability rating increase of 11 percentage points over what it was in 1994.

On the issues of Iraq and gas prices, the poll shows that the public believes Democrats are doing a better job. For instance, on Iraq, 48% said the Democratic Party is better while only 30% thought the Republican Party is. On keeping gas prices low, the disparity is even more pronounced: 57% say the Democrats perform better, while only 11% say the Republicans do.

Democrats also surpass Republicans in their work on issues such as prescription drug costs, improving health care and immigration, among others.

However, Republicans get a better assessment than Democrats in dealing with terrorism: 40% prefer the GOP's handling of the issue while 35% prefer the Democratic Party's."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 12:09 PM   #189
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 03:19 AM
Quote:
By a vote of 111 to 42, the residents of Hanover, New Hampshire became the first people in the Live Free or Die State to approve a petition calling for the impeachment of President Bush and VP Cheney over the illegal and unconstitutional NSA spying program.
Great news for the Republicans.

Still doing super-duper!
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 01:05 PM   #190
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
J. Michael Luttig Resigns From Appeals Court

By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 10, 2006; 12:03 PM

Appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig, a leading conservative jurist and a short-list Bush administration candidate for the Supreme Court, announced today that he is resigning from the bench to serve as senior vice president and general counsel of The Boeing Co.

Luttig, who sits on the Richmond-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, wrote the most important appellate decision yet in support of the Bush administration's powers to detain individuals without recourse to ordinary legal protections.

However, he had a significant falling-out with the Bush Justice Department earlier this year when he protested, in a follow-up opinion, what he suggested was the administration's inappropriate manipulation of the legal system in order to avoid a further Supreme Court test of the president's wartime authority.

His public thrashing of the Justice Department was known to have been deeply upsetting to political appointees in the department.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 02:22 PM   #191
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:19 AM
"Public thrashing" of the Justice Department? He must have been already working on the Boeing position when he decided to make a public attack.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 02:29 PM   #192
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
"Public thrashing" of the Justice Department? He must have been already working on the Boeing position when he decided to make a public attack.
Could not be an honest opinion?

perhaps, he is the 20th hi-jacker? too.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 02:33 PM   #193
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Guantanamo should be closed: UK Attorney General

Wed May 10, 2006 1:23pm ET8

LONDON (Reuters) - The British government's top legal adviser called on Wednesday for the closure of the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, which he said had become a symbol of injustice.

"The existence of Guantanamo Bay remains unacceptable. It is time, in my view, that it should close," Attorney General Peter Goldsmith said of the naval base in Cuba where up to 500 foreign terrorism suspects have been held.

In the most outspoken criticism of Guantanamo yet by a senior British official, he said it would be right as a matter of principle to close the center and added: "I believe it would also help to remove what has become a symbol to many -- right or wrong -- of injustice.

"The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, liberty and of justice deserves the removal of this symbol," he said in a speech in London.

Human rights groups around the world have condemned Washington's use of indefinite detentions without charge and want Guantanamo to close..
Now, we need an explantion for this guy?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 12:55 AM   #194
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 03:19 AM
Quote:
President Bush's job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an "excellent or pretty good" job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January.
Heckuva job, George!
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 01:08 AM   #195
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 02:19 AM
sting2, i'm startled you haven't come in to defend our supreme holy leader! surely these polls are merely an attempt by the liberal media to tarnish his divine handling of the winnable war on terror??? please, drown us all with irrelevant information that will go on and on for eleventy pages that noone will read nor care about, before we get scared!

save us from this liberal garbage, i beg of you!!!
__________________

__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
 

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 03:19 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