34% - Page 15 - 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 05-13-2006, 06:32 PM   #211
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Compare the differences in how much it cost us...
Not taking action in Afghanistan to stop Al Quada and the Taliban, 9/11.

As for Saddam the cost of not removing him could be potentially far greater. Remember, this is a leader that had invaded and attacked four different countries, used WMD more times than any leader in history, and was idealy positioned to seize or sabotage the majority of the planets energy supplies. That in turn would cost the planet Trillions of dollars as the planets economy would collapse. Kicking this problem down the road to the next administration was inexcusable.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-13-2006, 07:18 PM   #212
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Not taking action in Afghanistan to stop Al Quada and the Taliban, 9/11.
It took how many people total to execute 9/11? We'll never stop terrorism completely, it's impossible. No one can make such a statement, that 9/11 wouldn't have happened. 9/11 could have been stopped if we weren't asleep here in our own land.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

As for Saddam the cost of not removing him could be potentially far greater. Remember, this is a leader that had invaded and attacked four different countries, used WMD more times than any leader in history, and was idealy positioned to seize or sabotage the majority of the planets energy supplies. That in turn would cost the planet Trillions of dollars as the planets economy would collapse.
Gosh and here I thought it was because he had WMDs and ties to 9/11.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Kicking this problem down the road to the next administration was inexcusable.
You mean like Bush Sr.?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-13-2006, 09:37 PM   #213
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
It took how many people total to execute 9/11? We'll never stop terrorism completely, it's impossible. No one can make such a statement, that 9/11 wouldn't have happened. 9/11 could have been stopped if we weren't asleep here in our own land.
It took quite a network of people to pull it off. Money, logistics, planning, training, etc.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-13-2006, 10:24 PM   #214
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


It took how many people total to execute 9/11? We'll never stop terrorism completely, it's impossible. No one can make such a statement, that 9/11 wouldn't have happened. 9/11 could have been stopped if we weren't asleep here in our own land.




Gosh and here I thought it was because he had WMDs and ties to 9/11.



You mean like Bush Sr.?
Where do you think the funding and planning came from? What was the main headquarters and training grounds for Al Quada prior to 9/11? If the situation in Afghanistan was irrelevant as you seem to be claiming, the United States would not have 20,000 troops on the ground there, and NATO certainly would not have 14,000 troops there as well.

Saddam did have WMD's. He failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, 500 pounds of Sarin gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells according to United Nations Inspectors.

It was never incumbent upon the United States, another member of the coalition or United Nations to find these stocks of WMD. It was incumbent upon Saddam to hand them over or show where such stocks were dismantled if they in fact were dismantled. This it what Saddam agreed to do in March 1991 when he signed the Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement. Verifiable Disarmament was never achieved prior the invasion, despite the fact that other countries cooperating with the United Nations achieved full disarmament of such stocks in less than a year or two. Saddam had still failed to comply with a single UN Security Council Resolution when the invasion started on March 19, 2003 , a full 12 years after he agreed to fully and verifiably disarm of all WMD.



Bush Sr. had enough difficulty convincing the congress to actually approve of military action to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Where did all the opposition come from, you guessed it, the DEMOCRATS! Despite the fact that the whole world saw the necessity of removing Saddam's military from Kuwait, almost all the Democrats in the House and Senate voted against the resolution. The resolution passed by a couple of votes, but if the action had called for the manditory removal of Saddam at the time, it would never have passed given how difficult it was to pass a resolution to just remove Saddam's military from Kuwait, thanks to the liberals.

Bush Sr. did the best that he could with the political realities at the time. There was a lot of political opposition at home to the war from the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress. Also, Late 1990/early 1991 was a very different time. The Cold War was ending, but there were still problems and the chance that a sudden reversal could occur. Given that factor, it would have been unwise to have maintained a large military force rebuilding Iraq if the situation in Europe took a turn for the worse and the Soviet threat re-emerged. So many people forget the Coup against Gorbachev in August of 1991. If it had succeeded, the world would be a very different place today.



In any event, Saddam actually was complying with the resolutions and ceacefire agreement in 1991 and 1992. It was during the Clinton Administration that he stopped complying in the mid-1990s.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-13-2006, 11:21 PM   #215
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

thanks to the liberals.
Dem bastards are responsible for everything.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 05-14-2006, 03:48 AM   #216
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


It took quite a network of people to pull it off. Money, logistics, planning, training, etc.
I agree, but it didn't take the whole Al Quada network.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-14-2006, 04:49 AM   #217
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:23 PM
No it did not, the idea of Al Qaeda being behind every act of Islamic terrorism is a fallacy, the most obvious examples that run counter to this are Madrid and London, cases where motivated young Muslim men acting together were able to inflict significant damage without overarching command and control structure.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-14-2006, 09:03 AM   #218
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,885
Local Time: 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
You mean like Bush Sr.?
Would you have supported regime change in 1991?
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 05-14-2006, 05:05 PM   #219
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


Would you have supported regime change in 1991?
I wasn't able to vote in 91.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-15-2006, 08:42 AM   #220
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:23 PM
It's 74 to 26 so far on the cnn.com poll that Clinton was more honest as President

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...oll/index.html

(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.



(Reuters)First lady Laura Bush said on Sunday she does not believe opinion polls showing her husband's approval ratings at record low levels.

Interviewed on Fox News Sunday, Laura Bush said she did not think people were losing confidence in President George W. Bush, despite a series of polls showing support for him at its lowest point in his five-year presidency and among the lowest for any president in the past 50 years.

"I don't really believe those polls. I travel around the country. I see people, I see their responses to my husband. I see their response to me," she said.

"As I travel around the United States, I see a lot of appreciation for him. A lot of people come up to me and say, 'Stay the course'."

Many recent polls have put Bush's job approval rating below 35 percent. One, the Harris poll, published last Friday, measured his approval at 29 percent, the first time any survey has put his support below the 30 percent mark. Two other polls published last week put his job approval at 31 percent.

In a separate interview on ABC's "This Week," Laura Bush said her husband's popularity was suffering because the country had been through a difficult year.

We've had a very, very difficult year, starting with the hurricane last September, but already because of the terrorist attack in 2001 and then the war on terror since then," she said. "He's the one that has to make the hard decisions. And, of course, they don't please everyone."

Mrs. Bush complained that when her husband's popularity was high, newspapers did not put that on the front page. Now it was low, they took great delight in highlighting the fact.

Asked if she thought the media had been unfair, Mrs. Bush said: "No, I don't think it's necessarily unfair. I think it's just, you know, I think they may be enjoying this a little bit."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 09:48 AM   #221
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 10:23 PM
[q]Mrs. Bush: Don't Campaign on Marriage Ban

By NEDRA PICKLER
The Associated Press
Sunday, May 14, 2006; 10:43 PM

WASHINGTON -- Some election-year advice to Republicans from a high-ranking source who has the president's ear: Don't use a proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage as a campaign tool.

Just who is that political strategist? Laura Bush.

The first lady told "Fox News Sunday" that she thinks the American people want a debate on the issue. But, she said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously."

"It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue _ a lot of sensitivity," she said.

The Senate will debate legislation that would have the Constitution define marriage as the union between a man and a woman early next month, Majority Leader Bill Frist said on CNN's "Late Edition."

President Bush supports the amendment, but Vice President Dick Cheney does not. Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a lesbian and has been speaking out against the marriage amendment as she promotes her new book, "Now It's My Turn."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051400377.html

[/q]



even his wife wants to distance herself from his policies, particularly one as spiteful and anti-family as this.

good for her.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 03:06 PM   #222
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
It's 74 to 26 so far on the cnn.com poll that Clinton was more honest as President

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...oll/index.html

(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.


ah, nostalgia for the Clinton years ... the halcyon days of effective foreign policy (Serbia), worldwide respect for the president, and enormous prosperity.

Gore/Warner 2008.

i'm serious.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 05:42 PM   #223
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




ah, nostalgia for the Clinton years ... the halcyon days of effective foreign policy (Serbia), worldwide respect for the president, and enormous prosperity.

Gore/Warner 2008.

i'm serious.
I think its simply more nostalgia for the post-cold war/pre-9/11 world. Most Americans opposed involvement in both Bosnia and Kosovo, conflicts that had little to do with US national security relative to Saddam's Iraq. The break down of containment in the late 1990s and the failure to bring Saddam into compliance with UN Security Council resolutions gave the world the situation we see today in Iraq. Everyone forgot about Afghanistan when the Soviets left, and all Clinton did was fire a couple dozen Cruise Missles one day in August of 1998 hitting abandoned tents and caves. There was certainly enormous prosperity, but todays GDP growth rates and the unemployment rate or roughly equal to this same point in Clintons Presidency and will likely surpass the best economic performance of the Clinton years before Bush leaves office, making it the best economic performance in the country's history.

Clinton definitely has worldwide respect as President, but that type of award is easier to get in peaceful times when difficult decisions are not made or are passed on to other administrations to deal with.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 06:00 PM   #224
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 11:23 PM
Gore's good for me.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 06:07 PM   #225
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I think its simply more nostalgia for the post-cold war/pre-9/11 world. Most Americans opposed involvement in both Bosnia and Kosovo, conflicts that had little to do with US national security relative to Saddam's Iraq. The break down of containment in the late 1990s and the failure to bring Saddam into compliance with UN Security Council resolutions gave the world the situation we see today in Iraq. Everyone forgot about Afghanistan when the Soviets left, and all Clinton did was fire a couple dozen Cruise Missles one day in August of 1998 hitting abandoned tents and caves. There was certainly enormous prosperity, but todays GDP growth rates and the unemployment rate or roughly equal to this same point in Clintons Presidency and will likely surpass the best economic performance of the Clinton years before Bush leaves office, making it the best economic performance in the country's history.

Clinton definitely has worldwide respect as President, but that type of award is easier to get in peaceful times when difficult decisions are not made or are passed on to other administrations to deal with.


nope. it's nostalgia for Clinton. the man is loved, and continues to grow in stature, particularly around the world.

i know you like to pin everything on Clinton, or "the liberals," but the fact of the matter is that Bush sits at 29% -- and i'm not even going to touch the convenient presentation of "reality" in the post above (since we all know that reality has a liberal bias) about sanctions and containment and the wild overestimation of the nation's unsustainable economic growth particularly given a 9 trillion debt with no way to pay for it and an exploding right-wing moralistic, Christianist nanny state, pornographic farm subsidies, and more pork than a sow fest, the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, the grossly unequal distribution of wealth, the 40m without health care insurance, and we could go on and on and on and on and on.

it might be more accurately be read as a desire for divided government that has usually resulted in some of the best decisions the nation has ever made, when a president and Congress are at odds with one another.



oh, and the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 ...
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 10:23 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