34% - Page 21 - 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 06-14-2006, 01:47 AM   #301
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 07:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
He was crossing the border back and forth, according to local media reports.

Karadzic is still believed to be in Bosnia. Why isn't NATO picking him up?
Maybe because they don't know where he is? I'd say its unlikely that Karadzic is in Bosnia regardless of reports saying that he is there. Catching a single individual can be very difficult, no matter where that person might be located.
__________________

__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 09:30 AM   #303
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 02:04 AM
firstly, all your quotes, save for the first one, were *after* the fall of Baghdad -- please show me a quote that mentioned the difficulty in rebuilding during the sales pitch of the war that happened between Labor Day 2002 and February of 2003 (and note that Andrew Card wanted to wait until after Labor Day to start selling the war because, paraphrased, you don't introduce a new product until after Labor Day).

anway, if you want quotes ...


"Mr. Russert: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

Vice President Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." [Dick Cheney 3/16/03]

“We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” [Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

“And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they’ve been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.” [Richard Perle, 9/22/03]

“[T]he American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” [Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03]

“I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” [Dick Cheney, 6/20/05]

"We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." [Dick Cheney, 2002]



and then there's this from, arguably, the most conservative newspaper in the US...

[q]U.S. lacked plan for rebuilding Iraq, report says
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 28, 2006


The Bush administration never drew up a comprehensive plan for rebuilding Iraq after the March 2003 invasion, which contributed to a severe shortage of skilled federal workers in Baghdad and to the mismanagement of the country's oil money, according to a new government report.
"There was insufficient systematic planning for human capital management in Iraq before and during the U.S.-directed stabilization and reconstruction operations," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, in a new "lessons learned" report released yesterday. "The practical limitations ensuing from this shortfall adversely affected reconstruction in post-war Iraq."
The Pentagon's initial plans for reconstruction crumbled when it encountered an unexpected foreign and domestic insurgency that looted the country, sabotaged electric and water service, and killed hundreds of Americans and Iraqis in 2003 after the ouster of dictator Saddam Hussein

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2546-2603r.htm

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 09:33 AM   #304
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


I never said the administration said it was going to be difficult, you said it was always going to be an extraordinarily difficult task. In light of that then, how can you say Bush has done such a terrible job when you admit it was always going to be extraordinarily difficult?


Bush has done a terrible job because he underestimated how difficult it was going to be, thus making it many times more difficult than it had to be.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 09:42 AM   #305
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 02:04 AM


ah, yes. this was from the "Mission Accomplished" speech.

indeed.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 10:37 AM   #306
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 02:04 AM
[q]The persistent threat posed by Saddam Hussein is permanently gone, the ethnic tensions in Iraq would have occured after any power shift and in the absence of the coalition the forces most likely to step in would have been Iran, Syria and Turkey. Iraq now has a democractically elected government that is allied with the United States in the GWOT and has an army that is getting stronger and more self-sufficient every day - the best course to get US troops out is supporting the elected government of the Iraqi people. Saddam has WMD programs which were ready for the time when sanctions were lifted, he was buying banned weapon systems up to the start of the war with money scammed from oil for food such as the North Korean missiles,.[/q]


Yes, we can say that these are good things, but we also have to look at what has been the cost of accomplishing these things. I think it’s simply bad thinking to present an either/or situation, and I think we both agree that Iraq would be in a state of all-out Civil War if not for US and British troops on the ground, sort of like the little Dutch boy and the dyke.

It’s very simple: all these accomplishments mean nothing if basic stability and security cannot be provided for people living in a post-dictatorship. I find the notion that the US is the only political model for the world to be offensive. Most people want economic and physical security first, as well as employment and basic human rights. Such things can be seen as great steps towards democratization, but a rush towards “democracy” at any cost in nations with no history of pluralism, no moderate political parties, and deep religious and ethnic divisions is almost asking for the legitimization of whichever strongman or religious thug “wins” the election.

We’ve also seen the igniting of Arab nationalism in many countries across the Middle East (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...99.html?sub=AR)

Quote: [q][ The war in Iraq has generated some of the most startling images in the Middle East today: a dictator's fall, elections in defiance of insurgent threats and carnage on a scale rarely witnessed. Less visibly, though, the war is building a profound legacy across the Arab world: fear and suspicion over Iraq's repercussions, a generation that casts the Bush administration's policy as an unquestioned war on Islam, and a subterranean reserve of men who, like Abu Haritha, declare that the fight against the United States in Iraq is a model for the future.[/q]

All the things you point out are true, but none of them constitute the “clear and present danger” or even a “grave and gathering threat” to the United States or to the UK. And this is the heart of the issue. There’s no question that some sort of international reckoning with SH was inevitable, but in order for the American public to have supported an all-out invasion of Iraq conducted mostly by American troops (and inevitable casualties), a sense of crisis and threat not only had to be created, but the specter of mushroom clouds and nukes floated on a barge up the East River to level Manhattan had to be instilled in the minds of the American public. Further, since no one wants a Vietnam, the public had to be reassured that it would be fairly quick and easy, that we’d be liberators, that the oil would pay for the reconstruction, that centuries of ethnic tensions could be dropped and Iraqis would suddenly discover modernity. Simply voting in an election doesn’t mean that tribal hatreds and beefs have been dropped.

Currently, we have 12,000 Iraqi deaths a year. We’re almost at 2,500 Americans killed. Close to 20,000 have been maimed (and I see legless and armless soldiers every week at lunchtime). Iran is in a much more influential position now than in 2002, and we are in a comparatively weaker situation to deal with them than we were in 2002.

We also need to look at what the occupation of Iraq has done to the region and to the world. I have already pointed out the drop in US credibility, which is of great concern, particularly because it is US leadership (predicated upon credibility) that will help the world face it’s biggest contemporary challenge: managing the rise of China and India, combating global AIDS, combating global warming, and brokering the creation of a Palestinian State. All of these tasks will be harder due to the damage Bush has inflicted on the international reputation of the US, making us seem more like the old USSR – from Abu Ghraib, to Gitmo, to the condoning of torture, to the secret prisons across Eastern Europe, and the rather obvious fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq, which undercuts the entire case for war as presented to the American public and the world at large. this is a big deal. The case for war as made to the public had nothing to do with UN Resolutions and securing oil fields. It had everything to do with WMDs.



[q]The "narrative" that the stoppers are pushing don't gel with their own predictions pre-war , namely those of mass casualties (tens of thousands coalition troops, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's), mass exodus (millions of refugees) and inability of the Iraqi people to vote in elections because "it isn't in their culture". This coupled with a severe case of Vietnam attatchment syndrome which declares any foreign action a Vietnam-redux regardless of the actual conditions or forces has resulted in consistently wrong predictions (e.g. the actual time it took to topple the regime, taking Baghdad, casualties, elections, ratification of constitution, cabinets).[/q]


I wasn’t on FYM leading up to the war, but I can honestly say that I was never concerned with the war itself, or at least the first stage of the war. I believed Clinton when he said that he thought it would take about a week to overrun the Iraqi military. I was always concerned most with the damage to the US’s international reputation, the scary view that war is an acceptable (even preferable) foreign policy tool, as well as the difficulty in occupying a Muslim nation (Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn rule”).

anyway, I enjoy debating with you. It’s refreshing to hear actual arguments and engaged commentary instead of convenient numbers punctuated with exclamation points.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 03:57 PM   #307
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 07:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




Bush has done a terrible job because he underestimated how difficult it was going to be, thus making it many times more difficult than it had to be.
But could something that would have been many times less difficult than the current situation still be considered "extraordinarily difficult", especially when compared to other conflicts?
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 05:21 PM   #308
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


But could something that would have been many times less difficult than the current situation still be considered "extraordinarily difficult", especially when compared to other conflicts?

it really seems like you're beating a dead horse here ... yes, a western power occupying a muslim nation was always going to be extremely difficult (if you're going to simply challenge the adjectives, i.e. "extraordinarily vs. very vs. extremely," then i'm not playing) and it would have taken a deft grasp of diplomacy to pull it off, not to mention Muslim troops on the ground (Egypt, Pakistan, perhaps some Jordanians).
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 09:42 AM   #309
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:04 AM
His "banter" is funnier than a barrel of monkeys, how charming


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/14/...porter-shades/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-...a_b_22983.html

http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/...ok_mighty.html

He apologized to the blind man, at least he had the class to do that. Props to him for that

(AP) --

President Bush, who often teases members of the White House press corps, apologized Wednesday after he poked fun at a reporter for wearing sunglasses without realizing they were needed for vision loss.

The exchange occurred at a news conference in the Rose Garden.

Bush called on Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten and asked if he was going to ask his question with his "shades" on.

"For the viewers, there's no sun," Bush said to the television cameras.

But even though the sun was behind the clouds, Wallsten still needs the sunglasses because he has Stargardt's disease, a form of macular degeneration that causes progressive vision loss. The condition causes Wallsten to be sensitive to glare and even on a cloudy day, can cause pain and increase the loss of sight.

Wallsten said Bush called his cell phone later in the day to apologize and tell him that he didn't know he had the disease. Wallsten said he interrupted and told the president that no apology was necessary and that he didn't feel offended since he hadn't told anyone at the White House about his condition.

"He said, `I needle you guys out of affection,'" Wallsten said. "I said, 'I understand that, but I don't want you to treat me any differently because of this.'"

Wallsten said the president said he would not treat him differently, so Wallsten encouraged him to "needle away."

"He said, `I will. Next time I'll just use a different needle,'" Wallsten said.

Wallsten said he thought that was a pretty good line. And his only complaint is that the president didn't answer his question at the news conference.

Wallsten, who is also author of a book coming out next month titled "One Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century," had asked about White House credibility now in the aftermath of top aide Karl Rove having been cleared in the CIA leak investigation. But Bush said he wouldn't comment with another top White House aide still facing prosecution in the case.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen 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 02:04 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