34% - Page 9 - 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 04-25-2006, 08:32 PM   #121
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


1. January 16, 2002 -- over 200,000 in Washington DC alone
2, 3. October 26, 2002 -- over 100,000 in Washington DC; 50,000 in San Francisco
4. January 18, 2003 -- over 200,000 in San Francisco
5. February 15, 2003 -- sets a world record for the largest protest in human history involving millions upon millions of people around the globe including the United States
6. March 15, 2003 -- 50,000 in Washington DC
7. March 29, 2003 -- 50,000 in Boston in the biggest protest in that city since Vietnam
8. April 12, 2003 -- 30,000 in Washington DC
9. October 25, 2003 -- "tens of thousands" in various cities across the US (and that's being generous, since we have many, many cities)
10. October 17, 2004 -- 10,000 in Washington DC
11. January 20, 2005 -- thousands attend counter-inaugural rallies
12, 13, 14, 15. September 24, 2005 -- 150,000 in Washington DC, 15,000 in LA, 20,000 in San Francisco, 2,000 in San Diego


[q]I stated that their is no relevant or significant opposition to the war. The polls are irrelevant in that regard and are by themselves not proof of widespread opposition to the war.[/q]

you stated that opposition to the war was neither deep nor widespread. the continuation of the anti-war movement in combination with division amongst the Republicans as well as abysmal poll numbers on the presendent's handling of Iraq (let alone his overall performance rating) demonstrates that opposition to the war is both deep and widespread, and i would point to the massive shift amongst independents AWAY from Bush, and please not that in the most recent polls, 49% of the country strongly disapproves of Bush.

there's really not much to be debated here. the only reason that Bush hasn't totally changed course on Iraq is because that would be an admission of failure.



[q]If an election were held today, I think that Bush would still be in office. I think the poll numbers overstate the level of disapproval in the country. Poll numbers go up and down, and Democrats should be prepared to see Bush's numbers rise again.[/q]

the poll numbers have gone nowhere but down since November 2004. what happened to the mandate? what happened to the "majority" electing Bush in 2004 that you always punctuate with so many exclamation points?


[q]The poll numbers you have posted don't add up to anything though. They have not changed policy at all in regards to Iraq. Elections are important and they can have an impact on policy.[/q]


haven't changed at all?

[q]PRES. BUSH JOB APPROVALS
Now 1/2006 10/2005 11/2004
Iraq 30% 37% 32% 40%[/q]



[q]There is currently not a draft because there is simply no need for a draft given the current military commitments. The United States has 2,700,000 troops on active duty and in the Reserves. Of that number, 160,000 are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In terms of actual ground combat units, 21 Brigades out of a total of 88 are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, less than 25% of the force.[/q]

yes, which is why you don't see the same numbers on the streets as you did in 1968. if there WERE a draft, you'd see protest rallies far above and beyond what happened in 1968.

the rest is your usual cut-and-paste irrelevancies.


[q]The level of carnage you see is less, not because its not being reported, but because the level of carnage really is less than Vietnam.[/q]

when it comes to American troops, yes; not at all when it comes to Iraqi casualties.

but still, we do not see body bags of American soldiers. we do not see coffins. the administration has done everything it can to insulate the American public from the realities of this war.

however, i work just up the street from Walter Reed, so i get to see 20 year olds in wheel chairs or missing limbs having lunch at Pot Belly or Panera every day.
If opposition to the war was deep and widespread, there would have been no way that Bush could have won the 2004 election, let alone picked up seats in the House and Senate. Congress would be passing resolutions demanding the withdrawal of all US troops. There was such an amendment put up for a vote in Congress a few months ago and it got crushed.

How people vote, elections results, are vastly more important than any weekly poll number of a thousand people done by some newspaper or other organization.

Bush has not changed course on Iraq at all, not an inch. Its because the policy in place is working, although slowly with ups and downs. The only people who cannot see the progress that has been made over the past three years are those that are simply unwilling to acknowledge any accomplishments by the Bush administration for political reasons.

Yes, poll numbers change, but Bush policy on Iraq has not.

IraqibodyCount, the liberal organization that attempts to estimate Iraqi deaths claims that about 36,000 Iraqi's have died in the conflict to this point. Millions of Vietnamese died in the Vietnam war. The tonnage of bombs dropped in the Vietnam War is vastly in excess of the war in Iraq to include all explosives used by either side, whether its IED's, Missiles, Artillery shells, etc. In addition, the Vietnam War took place before the United States had state of the art precision weapons which dramatically cut down on unintended deaths.

In most of Iraq, there is no real serious fighting. Only 4 of the 18 provinces see anything resembling heavy fighting and even there, its nothing that is even close to Vietnam. The British military lost more troops in Northern Ireland during the early 1970s than they have lost in Iraq the past 3 years.

There is really no arguement that you can make that the war is hidden in this day and age of ultra media capabilities in the hands of individuals and organizations. There have been plenty of pictures of US soldiers carrying body bags in magazines as well as coffins of troops that have been returned to their hometowns. There is very little the government can completely censor in this day and age considering the scale of the event. If a western media outlet or the military don't have video of it, the insurgents will and it will be on the internet for anyone to view.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 09:10 PM   #122
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 01:41 AM
^ Haven't you learned anything from Bush? Facts and truth are not things that matter.
Just kidding.

Is the Iraqi war the Vietnam war? No. However, humans have this notion that we should progress. If Iraq was really just like Vietnam, Bush would have a 2% approval rating. People expect better from our president. They don't expect he will lie, manipulate the truth so that he can go to war. Yes, people expect a president to lie about sex, but not war.
How can you even say there is very little media censorship? Body bags/caskets are not allowed to be shown. I had a picture on myspace and was threatened to pull it down or I'd lose my profile. I work in the media, I know about the censorship.
The NSA wire-tapping scandal was known about during the election, yet the liberals at Jew York Times (I kid...meant no offense to Jews) sat on the article. I wonder why? What do you think the embedded journalist deal was all about?
Even Bush estimates that at least 30,000 Iraqis have lost their lives. His guess is between 30,000-70,000 "give or take." Can you believe he actually said that? How callous!
Plus, with the horrible effects of DU, there will be many more causalities to be suffered in the future. Our government will, of course, first deny this, and then like Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, will have to admit to not understanding the effects but using the material anyway. This will not come about for several years, though.
I live in a conservative area, and people here are made at Bush. This will mean more democrats in the Senate and House. Will there be enough democrats to swing the balance? Sadly, no.
__________________

__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 10:08 PM   #123
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueyedpoet
^ Haven't you learned anything from Bush? Facts and truth are not things that matter.
Just kidding.

Is the Iraqi war the Vietnam war? No. However, humans have this notion that we should progress. If Iraq was really just like Vietnam, Bush would have a 2% approval rating. People expect better from our president. They don't expect he will lie, manipulate the truth so that he can go to war. Yes, people expect a president to lie about sex, but not war.
How can you even say there is very little media censorship? Body bags/caskets are not allowed to be shown. I had a picture on myspace and was threatened to pull it down or I'd lose my profile. I work in the media, I know about the censorship.
The NSA wire-tapping scandal was known about during the election, yet the liberals at Jew York Times (I kid...meant no offense to Jews) sat on the article. I wonder why? What do you think the embedded journalist deal was all about?
Even Bush estimates that at least 30,000 Iraqis have lost their lives. His guess is between 30,000-70,000 "give or take." Can you believe he actually said that? How callous!
Plus, with the horrible effects of DU, there will be many more causalities to be suffered in the future. Our government will, of course, first deny this, and then like Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, will have to admit to not understanding the effects but using the material anyway. This will not come about for several years, though.
I live in a conservative area, and people here are made at Bush. This will mean more democrats in the Senate and House. Will there be enough democrats to swing the balance? Sadly, no.
If there was any evidence that Bush clearly lied about anything, he would have been impeached already. The fact that intelligence about certain things turned out to be inaccurate happens every day. That is not evidence of a lie.

Coffins are not allowed to be shown as they come from Iraq to Dover, but once they arive in their communties, they can be shown if the families allow it. Chris Matthews on MSNBC has shown scenes from several funerals.

As far as the internet, the US government has little if any ability to censor websites in other countries, let alone by terrorist and insurgents. They can't censor a live feed from Iraq. If reporters are filming a live event, your going to see it, period. Things suddenly happen without any planning. You would have seen more of what happened to the News Anchor who was wounded a few months ago if the camera had not been knocked out by the explosion as well.

This is the 21st century, and even in a state like China, your going to see and find out things.

More than 20,000 French civilians were killed by Allied bombing during the few days of the D-Day invasion of Normandy during World War II, does that make FDR and what the Allies did during World War II a mistake, a war crime, etc?

Have you forgotten how many people died under Saddam from his four invasions and attacks on other countries as well as his mass slaughter of Kurds, and Shia's in the hundreds of Thousands. To many people know what is happening in Iraq today, but are not educated on what happened under Saddam for 24 years.

All the countries of NATO have studied Depleted Uranium, and NATO has not collectively found any evidence to support many of the allegations about its effects. Training and proving grounds throughout the United States have seen the large use of Depleted Uranium since the 1970s with no effect on the nearby population.

That being said, it is unlikely that there has been any significant use of Depleted Uranium in Iraq since April of 2003 when Saddam's last Tanks and armored vehicles were destroyed. Most rounds being used now are either HE(High Explosive) or HEAT(High Explosive Anti-Tank) a round that can be used in both the anti-personal or anti-tank role. The insurgents and terrorist are usually on foot or at best in a light skinned vehicles. DU rounds are anti-armor rounds, and not used in the anti-personal role.

If there was a serious problem with DU, Tungsten could be used in its place and would penetrate and destroy most targets just as effectively. HEAT round which use shape charges would be effective for most targets as well. DU would only be a factor in penetrating the thickest and most advanced frontal armor protection found primarily on the lastest US and NATO tanks.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 10:20 PM   #124
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:41 PM
Despite all that STING says here, it looks to me like there is major Bush fatigue going on in the country today. Even his own party seems sick of him.

So the Dems apart from actually needing to come up with a believable platform, need to hang the huge albatross of Bush around the neck of every Republican candidate up for election in the fall. All of them. A vote for them is a vote for Bush.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 10:44 PM   #125
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
So the Dems apart from actually needing to come up with a believable platform, need to hang the huge albatross of Bush around the neck of every Republican candidate up for election in the fall. All of them. A vote for them is a vote for Bush.
The fatigue element is losing its effectiveness.

It would be better to focus on the platform - which raises the question: what is the pure Democratic (as opposed to the "Republican Lite" referenced in FYM) platform and is it in touch with the US public?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 10:47 PM   #126
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:41 PM
I don't see that they actually have any kind of platform.

Seriously.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 10:06 AM   #127
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,064
Local Time: 08:41 PM
And that's the number one reason why Bush and the Republican party have been so successful so far this decade. It's not that the country overwhelmingly supports them, but rather because the Democratic party has no clue what they stand for.

Perhaps if the Democrats had something more intelligent to say, more independent voters would lean their way...
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 10:13 AM   #128
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:41 PM
[q]If opposition to the war was deep and widespread, there would have been no way that Bush could have won the 2004 election, let alone picked up seats in the House and Senate. Congress would be passing resolutions demanding the withdrawal of all US troops. There was such an amendment put up for a vote in Congress a few months ago and it got crushed.[/q]


I’m sorry you so underestimate the American people. is it at all possible that people disagree with the war, especially now, three years later, because of the ineptitude and incompetence with which the post-war “planning” has been carried out? Could it also be that the American people, despite the pitiful 30% approval rating for Bush’s handling of Iraq, also realize that pulling out isn’t really an option? STING, you make huge errors not in your facts, but in the conclusions you infer from your facts.



[q]How people vote, elections results, are vastly more important than any weekly poll number of a thousand people done by some newspaper or other organization. [/q]

the 2004 election was about much more than just Iraq, and it also put Bush up in a one-to-one comparison with John Kerry. It wasn’t an approval of Bush, more of a preference expressed, barely, only a few percentage points, for Bush over Kerry. The poll numbers have also been very, very consistent – since the election, Bush has yet to go over 50%, and continues to tumble. Would he win today? Depends on who the opposition candidate is. Does this mean that the American people have a North Korean-like appetite for every policy Bush implements and sing songs of praise for his conquest in Iraq (which is the reality you keep trying to create)? Not in the slightest.


[q][Bush has not changed course on Iraq at all, not an inch. Its because the policy in place is working, although slowly with ups and downs. The only people who cannot see the progress that has been made over the past three years are those that are simply unwilling to acknowledge any accomplishments by the Bush administration for political reasons.

Yes, poll numbers change, but Bush policy on Iraq has not.[/q]

sadly, no one agrees with you. Iraq seems to be in the midst of a stalemate politically, with the presence of American troops being the only thing that is preventing an outright civil war. Is the war unwinnable? Hard to say. Is Iraq unoccupiable? Yes, probably, and some sort of solution might be possible, and Iraq might somehow pull this off, but the fact remains that NOTHING the administration has said would happen has happened. By the measures for success that were laid out by the administration themselves before the war, we have failure all around, and most of these failures were predicted by anti-war people such as myself. It was less that the removal of Saddam Hussein wasn’t a good idea, it was. It was that the removal of Saddam Hussein through invasion and occupation was doomed from the start.

But no one in the administration seemed to have time to care about things like history and/or culture.

[q]IraqibodyCount, the liberal organization that attempts to estimate Iraqi deaths claims that about 36,000 Iraqi's have died in the conflict to this point. Millions of Vietnamese died in the Vietnam war. The tonnage of bombs dropped in the Vietnam War is vastly in excess of the war in Iraq to include all explosives used by either side, whether its IED's, Missiles, Artillery shells, etc. In addition, the Vietnam War took place before the United States had state of the art precision weapons which dramatically cut down on unintended deaths. [/q]

here you go again – invoking Vietnam comparisons when they serve you, and then denying them when they do not.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 07:21 PM   #129
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]If opposition to the war was deep and widespread, there would have been no way that Bush could have won the 2004 election, let alone picked up seats in the House and Senate. Congress would be passing resolutions demanding the withdrawal of all US troops. There was such an amendment put up for a vote in Congress a few months ago and it got crushed.[/q]


I’m sorry you so underestimate the American people. is it at all possible that people disagree with the war, especially now, three years later, because of the ineptitude and incompetence with which the post-war “planning” has been carried out? Could it also be that the American people, despite the pitiful 30% approval rating for Bush’s handling of Iraq, also realize that pulling out isn’t really an option? STING, you make huge errors not in your facts, but in the conclusions you infer from your facts.



[q]How people vote, elections results, are vastly more important than any weekly poll number of a thousand people done by some newspaper or other organization. [/q]

the 2004 election was about much more than just Iraq, and it also put Bush up in a one-to-one comparison with John Kerry. It wasn’t an approval of Bush, more of a preference expressed, barely, only a few percentage points, for Bush over Kerry. The poll numbers have also been very, very consistent – since the election, Bush has yet to go over 50%, and continues to tumble. Would he win today? Depends on who the opposition candidate is. Does this mean that the American people have a North Korean-like appetite for every policy Bush implements and sing songs of praise for his conquest in Iraq (which is the reality you keep trying to create)? Not in the slightest.


[q][Bush has not changed course on Iraq at all, not an inch. Its because the policy in place is working, although slowly with ups and downs. The only people who cannot see the progress that has been made over the past three years are those that are simply unwilling to acknowledge any accomplishments by the Bush administration for political reasons.

Yes, poll numbers change, but Bush policy on Iraq has not.[/q]

sadly, no one agrees with you. Iraq seems to be in the midst of a stalemate politically, with the presence of American troops being the only thing that is preventing an outright civil war. Is the war unwinnable? Hard to say. Is Iraq unoccupiable? Yes, probably, and some sort of solution might be possible, and Iraq might somehow pull this off, but the fact remains that NOTHING the administration has said would happen has happened. By the measures for success that were laid out by the administration themselves before the war, we have failure all around, and most of these failures were predicted by anti-war people such as myself. It was less that the removal of Saddam Hussein wasn’t a good idea, it was. It was that the removal of Saddam Hussein through invasion and occupation was doomed from the start.

But no one in the administration seemed to have time to care about things like history and/or culture.

[q]IraqibodyCount, the liberal organization that attempts to estimate Iraqi deaths claims that about 36,000 Iraqi's have died in the conflict to this point. Millions of Vietnamese died in the Vietnam war. The tonnage of bombs dropped in the Vietnam War is vastly in excess of the war in Iraq to include all explosives used by either side, whether its IED's, Missiles, Artillery shells, etc. In addition, the Vietnam War took place before the United States had state of the art precision weapons which dramatically cut down on unintended deaths. [/q]

here you go again – invoking Vietnam comparisons when they serve you, and then denying them when they do not.
Yes, its likely that many people in 2006 are frustrated that the war is not over already and are fed up. I'd also say a large number of people despite their "opposition" to the war, do not want to see American troops pulled out. But you can't conclude from just some weekly opinion poll or polls that there is massive opposition to a degree like we saw in the Vietnam War.

Every election is always technically about more than one issue. But in the middle of a war, that is the issue that dominates all others period. There is nothing that is more costly or critical than war. Bush's approval rating in November 2004 actually matched his percentage in the popular vote, yet you claim the victory was not because people approved but because they simply prefered him over Kerry? I concede that there were some people who voted for Bush simply because they prefered him to Kerry and that there were even a few Republicans who voted for Bush despite their opposition to the war.

But the Democrats lost in November 2004 across the board for both the White House, Senate and House, and nothing the Democrats say to sugarcoat the results will change that fact. Of all the issues involved in any election, War is always the single biggest issue, if the country is in the middle of one at the time.

If no one agreed with my assesment of the war, the United States would have withdrawn from Iraq a long time ago. I base my assessment on the facts about casualties rates, troop levels, the building of the Iraqi military, the political process, as well as what the military says about the entire issue.

The political process is moving forward and a key stumbling block over the prime minister has been solved. These things take time. I'm puzzled why people think that such a political development process should be moving much faster. Iraq is already closer to forming a government than either Germany or Japan were 60 years ago at this time. These things are difficult and take time.

Is the war unwinnable? The only way the coalition could lose the war is to withdraw prematurely.


Is Iraq unoccupiable? Iraq has been occupied for the past 3 years! No place on Earth is unoccupiable given the right sized military force.

The only thing the administration officially said it would do prior to the war was to remove Saddam and build a new Iraq. I'm not including the carefully cherrypicked(by liberals) words from rambling press conferences by various members of the Presidents staff, at one time or another. When people asked the President in early 2003 how long that would take and how many casualties the coalition would suffer if it came to war, he could not give an answer. FDR did not give an answer either at any point about the cost of World War II, and I challenge you to find a President prior to any war that officially stated the full cost!



The Administration said that would remove Saddam from power and bring Iraq into compliance with the 17 UN resolutions that Saddam was in violation of. This has happened.

The Administration said it would have full elections for an interim government in Iraq in January 2005. This has happened.

The Administration said that a constitution would be written approved by all the parties. This has happened.

The Administration said elections for a permanent government would take place in December 2005. This has happened.

The Administration said it would build an Iraqi military that could defend Iraq from enemies inside and outside the country. This is in the process of happening. By the end of this summer, 75% of the country will be patrolled by Iraqi forces as opposed to coalition forces.


The anti-war movement said that 900,000 refugees would flood into other countries at the start of the war. It did not happen.

The anti-war movement claimed that the United States would lose 1 Battalion per hour in trying to take Baghdad. A few dozen troops were lost, the lowest casualty rate in the history of warfare in taking a city of Baghdad's size.

The anti-war movement claimed that the elections would fail. Iraq was to violent a place to hold elections, the country was not ready for democracy. The anti-war movement could not have been more wrong on this one.

The Anti-War movement ignores the sacrifices made every day by Iraqi people who join the new growing Iraqi military. They seem to lack an understanding of how important this process is for Iraq and its future. As success continues on the political front, they have to keep back peddling and coming up with reasons why the the whole thing won't succeed. Ironically, their comments often coincidently mirror what is said by Al Quada figures like Al Zarqawi about the situation in Iraq.

Have there been mistakes in Iraq, yes. But nothing that has strategically pushed things off the path of progress. Comments like "failure all around" and that "nothing" the administration has said would happen has happened are obviously grossly inaccurate.

The anti-war crowd were wrong in most of their predictions prior to the war about what it would take to remove Saddam as well as many of their predictions since he was captured.

The fact is, the only way to remove Saddam was through invasion, which would require an occupation afterwards. Those who think Saddam's regime could have been removed without invasion don't understand the military facts on the ground. They are not aware of what was tried in the 1990s covertly. They don't understand Saddam's interlocking system of 7 different Security agencies, some formed simply to spy only on other security agencies.

Saddam's regime had a military force of 430,000 troops, over 2,700 main battle tanks, over 2,000 armored personal carries, several hundred combat attack helicopters, several hundred combat aircraft. After 24 years of squashing any threat to his regime from within, defeating Iran, surviving the worlds longest and most intense form of sanctions(at least at the start), a weapons embargo, while maintaining by far the Persian Gulf's largest mechanized military force with the greatest power projection capabilities, were supposed to believe that somehow, lightly armed people with no ability to engage tanks would have been able to overthrow the regime with the help of a few CIA officers. This is Saddam's Iraq, not Serbia or any other country in history where people in the streets or small groups of armed people backed by the CIA would work. Many years ago, there were some that thought it could, and it was tried and failed miserably.

In order to overthrow Saddam's regime, you had to be able to defeat its military forces. For opposition forces to attempt that inside the country would be suicide as they actually found out the hard way. No country in close proximity to Iraq could do that. Israel could never conduct such a massive operation from its territory given the fact they would have to go through Jordon and would suddenly become vulnerable to Syrian counterattack from the north.

Outside the region, there was only one country that had the logistical capability to project the size forces necessary to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam's regime, and that country was the United States.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 01:47 AM   #130
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 07:41 PM
sting2, you never cease to amaze me.

and it terrifies me.
__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 02:56 AM   #131
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:41 AM
This reminds me of that time the we lost WW2 in the Battle of the Bulge, what a fiasco.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 10:37 AM   #132
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:41 PM
and ... the possibility for discussion fails. we can all cut-and-paste, too, STING, but a discussion it does not promote. there's no way into your post since it has nothing to do with anything but hearing yourself talk and spouting numbers and the poor conclusions you draw from them, lacking any sort of nuance or grasping of the complexity of the situation, the fact that one thing accomplished does not negate the things that have failed, and the fact that there were many ways to go about addressing a situation far different than an all-out unilateral invasion.

two elections, while certainly accomplishments in and of themselves, do not negate the 3 massive mistakes made by this administration that extend well beyond the streets of Iraq and will haunt us in the future:

1. the overestimation the competence of this particular government in very complex areas like WMD intelligence, and the bullying and fear instilled into the CIA by Cheney and Libby (who visited the Pentagon every single week in 2002) forced errors into a deeply fallible system. when doubts were raised, they were swiftly and arrogantly dismissed. thus, the WMD debacle, something has done far, far more damage to the war's legitimacy and fate than you have yet absorbed

2. the second error was the American narcissism so beautifully expressed in your posts. it's very simple: hegemony always provokes resentment, only now said resentments are as deep among our global friends as among our enemies, making alliances as hard as they are important. a case can be made of occasional unilateral action, but that makes it all the more imperative that we get things right. and the Bush Administration got it all wrong. too few troops, nothing resembling postinvasion planning, a deaf ear to criticism even from within the military. and, finally, they totally abdicated the moral high ground by enabling the abuse and torture of military detainees.

3. a total disregard for the importance of culture that thinly masked a deadly naiveté when it comes to complex, tribal, sectarian cultures.

now, tens of thousands, if not more, innocent Iraqis are dead. thousands of Americans are dead. tens of thousands of Americans have been greviously wounded, and the final result of this war might be the rise of Iran. yes, something resembling a democracy might come about in Iraq, but we also need to ask ourselves if this is a best-case scenario? is democracy at any cost worth it? is a democratically elected theocracy that murders gays, puts women behind the veil and strips them of rights, and maintains religious bloodlust for the destruction of Israel really all that preferable to the weakened regime of Saddam Hussein? even if it were, is it worth the costs in lives and dollars that have already been incurred?

and let's talk about Iran for a moment ... if anyone hated Hussein more than a Bush brother, it is the Iranians due to their losses in the Gulf War. however, after Desert Storm 1, the Iranians were fairly certain that Iraq was too weak to attack them, so they've spent their time covertly increasing their influence in southern Iraq.

the main chance that Iran saw to destroy their enemy Hussein was getting the Americans to invade Iraq. it is too simple to say that the Iranians led the Americans to invade, but they used their excellent intelligence network in Iraq to smooth the way for the American decision to invade proving the neocons all too easy to manipulate.

the Iranians led the Bushies to believe three things:

1. that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction programs.
2. that the Iraqis would not resist U.S. operations and would greet the Americans as liberators.
3. that there would be no post-war resistance in Iraq.

Iran wanted the US to defeat Hussein and then bear the burden (an enmity) of pacifying the Sunni regions of Iraq. they knew U.S. forces would bog down in Iraq so that, in due course, the
Americans would withdraw -- but only after the Sunnis were broken -- leaving behind a Shiite government ripe for heavy influence from Tehran.

credit must be given to Iraqi Shia for moving away from the Iranians just a bit, but the jihadists have now launched an anti-Shiite rampage in order to force a civil war in Iraq and drive the Sunnis back into an alliance with Iran.

so what will happen? we will see Iraq turn into the Finland of the Middle East. during the Cold War, the
Soviets did not turn Finland into a satellite, but they did have the right to veto members of its government, to influence the military and to require a neutral foreign policy. the Iranians want more, but they will keep the worst of the Baathists out of the government and exert control over Iraq's international behavior.

so what about the US? we will be in the region permanently, imagine 40,000 troops stationed in Iraq for the next 50 years next to a nuclearized Iran with a far greater sphere of influence over the entire region.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 10:47 AM   #133
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
YBORCITY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FLA
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and ... the possibility for discussion fails. we can all cut-and-paste, too, STING, but a discussion it does not promote. there's no way into your post since it has nothing to do with anything but hearing yourself talk and spouting numbers and the poor conclusions you draw from them, lacking any sort of nuance or grasping of the complexity of the situation, the fact that one thing accomplished does not negate the things that have failed, and the fact that there were many ways to go about addressing a situation far different than an all-out unilateral invasion.

two elections, while certainly accomplishments in and of themselves, do not negate the 3 massive mistakes made by this administration that extend well beyond the streets of Iraq and will haunt us in the future:

1. the gross overestimate the competence of this particular government in very complex areas like WMD intelligence, and the bullying and fear instilled into the CIA by Cheney and Libby (who visited the Pentagon every single week in 2002) forced errors into a deeply fallible system. when doubts were raised, they were swiftly and arrogantly dismissed. thus, the WMD debacle, something has done far, far more damage to the war's legitimacy and fate than you have yet absorbed

2. the second error was the American narcissism so beautifully expressed in your posts. it's very simple: hegemony always provokes resentment, only now said resentments are as deep among our global friends as among our enemies, making alliances as hard as they are important. a case can be made of occasional unilateral action, but that makes it all the more imperative that we get things right. and the Bush Administration got it all wrong. too few troops, nothing resembling postinvasion planning, a deaf ear to criticism even from within the military. and, finally, they totally abdicated the moral high ground by enabling the abuse and torture of military detainees.

3. a total disregard for the importance of culture that thinly masked a deadly naiveté when it comes to complex, tribal, sectarian cultures.

now, tens of thousands, if not more, innocent Iraqis are dead. thousands of Americans are dead. tens of thousands of Americans have been greviously wounded, and the final result of this war might be the rise of Iran. yes, something resembling a democracy might come about in Iraq, but we also need to ask ourselves if this is a best-case scenario? is democracy at any cost worth it? is a democratically elected theocracy that murders gays, puts women behind the veil and strips them of rights, and maintains religious bloodlust for the destruction of Israel really all that preferable to the weakened regime of Saddam Hussein? even if it were, is it worth the costs in lives and dollars that have already been incurred?

and let's talk about Iran for a moment ... if anyone hated Hussein more than a Bush brother, it is the Iranians due to their losses in the Gulf War. however, after Desert Storm 1, the Iranians were fairly certain that Iraq was too weak to attack them, so they've spent their time covertly increasing their influence in southern Iraq.

the main chance that Iran saw to destroy their enemy Hussein was getting the Americans to invade Iraq. it is too simple to say that the Iranians led the Americans to invade, but they used their excellent intelligence network in Iraq to smooth the way for the American decision to invade proving the neocons all too easy to manipulate.

the Iranians led the Bushies to believe three things:

1. that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction programs.
2. that the Iraqis would not resist U.S. operations and would greet the Americans as liberators.
3. that there would be no post-war resistance in Iraq.

Iran wanted the US to defeat Hussein and then bear the burden (an enmity) of pacifying the Sunni regions of Iraq. they knew U.S. forces would bog down in Iraq so that, in due course, the
Americans would withdraw -- but only after the Sunnis were broken -- leaving behind a Shiite government ripe for heavy influence from Tehran.

credit must be given to Iraqi Shia for moving away from the Iranians just a bit, but the jihadists have now launched an anti-Shiite rampage in order to force a civil war in Iraq and drive the Sunnis back into an alliance with Iran.

so what will happen? we will see Iraq turn into the Finland of the Middle East. during the Cold War, the
Soviets did not turn Finland into a satellite, but they did have the right to veto members of its government, to influence the military and to require a neutral foreign policy. the Iranians want more, but they will keep the worst of the Baathists out of the government and exert control over Iraq's international behavior.

so what about the US? we will be in the region permanently, imagine 40,000 troops stationed in Iraq for the next 50 years next to a nuclearized Iran with a far greater sphere of influence over the entire region.


What an Excellent summation of what is truly going on....

Cheers Irvine
__________________
YBORCITY is online now  
Old 04-27-2006, 02:50 PM   #134
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Great post Irvine.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 07:10 PM   #135
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:41 PM

President Bush works on a new home
Thursday with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.





Who is more desperate?
__________________

__________________
deep 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 08:41 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