And the chaos continues...day of death in Baghdad - Page 11 - 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 04-21-2007, 05:24 PM   #151
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


You may or may not get this,
but here goes.

Using that convoluted statement to support your arguments,
may lead one to believe that the rest of your examples are just as worthless.
Its a simple fact that the American people could have removed George Bush in 2004 if they did not like the invasion of Iraq or the mission there after. At that point in time, the American people by the first majority since 1988 re-elected George Bush. It does not surprise me that many people don't get this, or simply dismiss it. Although the November 2006 elections are an important indicator that peoples feelings have changed, it does not change what happened in 2004. This is not a President that has simply done anything that he has wanted. He has recieved the approval of the American people twice, received the approval of congress on a wide variety of issues and has received approval from the United Nations on US led missions around the world.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2007, 06:13 PM   #152
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 04:54 PM
You really do seriously think George W. Bush is a great leader, don't you?
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 04-21-2007, 06:49 PM   #153
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:24 PM
and "war time" presidents are usually incredibly popular due to the rally around the flag effect -- look at FDR's extended presidency. it's a great re-election strategy, put troops in harm's way. and even still, with troops in harms way, only 3 years after the worst attack on American soil (and with a convention in that specific city), Bush eeked out a 2nd electoral victory, one of the closest in history, which was not at all the plan. 2004 was supposed to be a blow out of Regan proportions, which is why Iraq was manufactured to fit the electoral timetable (and then we have complaints about remving troops due to politics! hilarious!)

a resounding endorsement of a policy, this was not, as opposed to 2006, which was a resouding rejection of everything associated with Bush. and his approval ratings haven't been above 50% since the election, and have plummeted into the low 30's where they've stayed.

but you only notice this if you understand context and conditions
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-21-2007, 07:50 PM   #154
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Irvine, you forget, Bush did not win in 2004. He had 300,000+ votes, most of them newly registered young people from the spring and summer, thrown off the rolls or their votes electronically destroyed with the Diebold machines., in Ohio. 2000, Florida; 2004, Ohio. They did their research, determined where the trouble spot was going to be, and acted accordingly. Are you starting to use the Orwellian phrase "re-elected_" too? And do you really believe that the 2006 elections promise a better voting future? They didn't plan 2006 far enough ahead. And as we are seeing with Gonzales, they tried to alter the results posthumously when they realized their msitake too late (firing the 8 judges who refused to stir up bogus s**t at Bush's behest. Their pro-Bush replacements are still on the job and in 2008 will be very useful in those 8 states, just as governor Blackwell was in Ohio in 2004.) They're "planning" 2008 now I'll bet, the stakes will be even higher if possible.
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 01:00 AM   #155
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040
Irvine, you forget, Bush did not win in 2004. He had 300,000+ votes, most of them newly registered young people from the spring and summer, thrown off the rolls or their votes electronically destroyed with the Diebold machines., in Ohio. 2000, Florida; 2004, Ohio. They did their research, determined where the trouble spot was going to be, and acted accordingly. Are you starting to use the Orwellian phrase "re-elected_" too? And do you really believe that the 2006 elections promise a better voting future? They didn't plan 2006 far enough ahead. And as we are seeing with Gonzales, they tried to alter the results posthumously when they realized their msitake too late (firing the 8 judges who refused to stir up bogus s**t at Bush's behest. Their pro-Bush replacements are still on the job and in 2008 will be very useful in those 8 states, just as governor Blackwell was in Ohio in 2004.) They're "planning" 2008 now I'll bet, the stakes will be even higher if possible.
Do you seriously believe this stuff?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 01:02 AM   #156
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
You really do seriously think George W. Bush is a great leader, don't you?
Actually, I think history will be kind to him. History usually favors the risk takers.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 03:14 AM   #157
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 07:24 AM
HA! history will be kind to him? I think he's going down in history as the most bumbling slightly retarded biggest mistake the US ever elected as a president - who was so weak that he could be swayed by any person in his cabinet - who directions lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, who inflamed the hatred of millions more and who started the ball rolling (actually pushed it over the cliff) on making americans the most armed to the teeth jittery paranoid people on earth.

He's screwed up so much, lied about so much, caused so much anger and frustration, almost polaxed a nation, and WORST OF ALL gave voice to the most hatred spewing, completely off tangent, scariest shit on earth - the neo conservative.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 09:59 AM   #158
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

Actually, I think history will be kind to him. History usually favors the risk takers.
I think history favors risk takers who balance that risk taking with a proper measure of humility rather than arrogance- and admission of, rather than denial of, mistakes and faults.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 10:24 AM   #159
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
HA! history will be kind to him? I think he's going down in history as the most bumbling slightly retarded biggest mistake the US ever elected as a president - who was so weak that he could be swayed by any person in his cabinet - who directions lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, who inflamed the hatred of millions more and who started the ball rolling (actually pushed it over the cliff) on making americans the most armed to the teeth jittery paranoid people on earth.

He's screwed up so much, lied about so much, caused so much anger and frustration, almost polaxed a nation, and WORST OF ALL gave voice to the most hatred spewing, completely off tangent, scariest shit on earth - the neo conservative.
Much of what you listed here was said of Abraham Lincoln by the Copperheads (google them and Civil War).

If we somehow succeed in bringing some semblance of peace in the Middle East in the next decade or two - history will certainly throw some credit in W's direction. And that thought seems to frustrate people so much that they would rather see the United States lose than see George W win. Which is what I see when I see posts and news stories like this and which is why I responded to it.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 12:58 PM   #160
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


And that thought seems to frustrate people so much that they would rather see the United States lose than see George W win. Which is what I see when I see posts and news stories like this and which is why I responded to it.
You can keep repeating this, but saying something over and over doesn't make something true.

Why don't you actually try backing this up, you've been asked several times, now why don't you actually try.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-22-2007, 01:51 PM   #161
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:24 PM
[q]Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy
By Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.

In a reflection of the need for more U.S. troops, the Pentagon decided earlier this month to increase the length of U.S. Army tours in Iraq from 12 to 15 months. The extension came amid speculation that the U.S. commander there, Army Gen. David Petraeus, will ask that the troop increase be maintained well into 2008.

U.S. officials don't say that the training formula - championed by Gen. John Abizaid when he was the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and by Gen. George Casey when he was the top U.S. general in Iraq - was doomed from the start. But they said that rising sectarian violence and the inability of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to unite the country changed the conditions. They say they now must establish security while training Iraqi forces because ultimately, "they are our ticket out of Iraq," as one senior Pentagon official put it.

Casey's "mandate was transition. General Petraeus' mandate is security. It is a change based on conditions. Certain conditions have to be met for the transition to be successful. Security is part of that. And General Petraeus recognizes that," said Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, commander of the Iraq Assistance Group in charge of supporting trained Iraqi forces.

"I think it is too much to expect that we were going to start from scratch ... in an environment that featured a rising sectarian struggle and lack of progress with the government," said a senior Pentagon official. "The conditions had sufficiently changed that the Abizaid/Casey approach alone wasn't going to be sufficient."

Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who's in charge of training Iraqi troops, said in February that he hoped that Iraqi troops would be able to lead by December. "At the tactical level, I do believe by the end of the year, the conditions should be set that they are increasingly taking responsibility for the combat operations," Dempsey told NBC News.

Maj. Gen. Doug Lute, the director of operations at U.S. Central Command, which oversees military activities in the Middle East, said that during the troop increase, U.S. officers will be trying to determine how ready Iraqi forces are to assume control.

"We are looking for indicators where we can assess the extent to which we are fighting alongside Iraqi security forces, not as a replacement to them," he said. Those signs will include "things like the number of U.S.-only missions, the number of combined U.S.-Iraqi missions, the number where Iraqis are in the lead, the number of Joint Security Stations set up," he said.

That's a far cry from the optimistic assessments U.S. commanders offered throughout 2006 about the impact of training Iraqis.

President Bush first announced the training strategy in the summer of 2005.

"Our strategy can be summed up this way," Bush said. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

Military leaders in Baghdad planned to train 325,000 Iraqi security forces. Once that was accomplished, those forces were to take control. Casey created military transition teams that would live side by side with their Iraqi counterparts to help them apply their training to real-world situations.

Throughout 2006, Casey and top Bush administration leaders touted the training as a success, asserting that eight of Iraq's 10 divisions had taken the lead in confronting insurgents.

But U.S. forces complained that the Iraqi forces weren't getting the support from their government and that Iraqi military commanders, many who worked under Saddam Hussein, weren't as willing to embrace their tactics. Among everyday Iraqis, some said they didn't trust their forces, saying they were sectarian and easily susceptible to corruption.

Most important, insurgents and militiamen had infiltrated the forces, using their power to carry out sectarian attacks.

In nearly every area where Iraqi forces were given control, the security situation rapidly deteriorated. The exceptions were areas dominated largely by one sect and policed by members of that sect.
[/q]



__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-22-2007, 04:54 PM   #162
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:24 PM
Quote:
Minnesota National Guard mission in Iraq extended

by Mark Zdechlik, Minnesota

The president's escalation of the war in Iraq will come from extending the tours of some National Guard units, including one based in Minnesota.

St. Paul, Minn. — About 2,600 Minnesota National Guard troops will be staying in Iraq longer than they expected.

The Minnesota soldiers in the 1st Brigade, 34th Infantry Division, were supposed to come home in March after a year-long deployment, but they will stay longer as part of the president's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The Guard didn't immediately know the duration of the extended duty.
/\ Some have to stay longer



\/ but some get to come home early.


Quote:



2 GIs killed in Baghdad
Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:57:26

Two US soldiers have been killed and four wounded in Baghdad, taking the level of American military losses in April alone to 57 dead.

The US Military's Sunday report says both soldiers were attacked and killed in separate incidents on Saturday.

One soldier died and another was wounded when their combat patrol was attacked with small arms fire in an eastern section of Baghdad.

Another soldier was killed and three more wounded when their vehicle came under a coordinated attack in southwest Baghdad which included a roadside bomb and was followed by small arms fire.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 05:07 PM   #163
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy
By Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.

In a reflection of the need for more U.S. troops, the Pentagon decided earlier this month to increase the length of U.S. Army tours in Iraq from 12 to 15 months. The extension came amid speculation that the U.S. commander there, Army Gen. David Petraeus, will ask that the troop increase be maintained well into 2008.

U.S. officials don't say that the training formula - championed by Gen. John Abizaid when he was the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and by Gen. George Casey when he was the top U.S. general in Iraq - was doomed from the start. But they said that rising sectarian violence and the inability of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to unite the country changed the conditions. They say they now must establish security while training Iraqi forces because ultimately, "they are our ticket out of Iraq," as one senior Pentagon official put it.

Casey's "mandate was transition. General Petraeus' mandate is security. It is a change based on conditions. Certain conditions have to be met for the transition to be successful. Security is part of that. And General Petraeus recognizes that," said Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, commander of the Iraq Assistance Group in charge of supporting trained Iraqi forces.

"I think it is too much to expect that we were going to start from scratch ... in an environment that featured a rising sectarian struggle and lack of progress with the government," said a senior Pentagon official. "The conditions had sufficiently changed that the Abizaid/Casey approach alone wasn't going to be sufficient."

Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who's in charge of training Iraqi troops, said in February that he hoped that Iraqi troops would be able to lead by December. "At the tactical level, I do believe by the end of the year, the conditions should be set that they are increasingly taking responsibility for the combat operations," Dempsey told NBC News.

Maj. Gen. Doug Lute, the director of operations at U.S. Central Command, which oversees military activities in the Middle East, said that during the troop increase, U.S. officers will be trying to determine how ready Iraqi forces are to assume control.

"We are looking for indicators where we can assess the extent to which we are fighting alongside Iraqi security forces, not as a replacement to them," he said. Those signs will include "things like the number of U.S.-only missions, the number of combined U.S.-Iraqi missions, the number where Iraqis are in the lead, the number of Joint Security Stations set up," he said.

That's a far cry from the optimistic assessments U.S. commanders offered throughout 2006 about the impact of training Iraqis.

President Bush first announced the training strategy in the summer of 2005.

"Our strategy can be summed up this way," Bush said. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

Military leaders in Baghdad planned to train 325,000 Iraqi security forces. Once that was accomplished, those forces were to take control. Casey created military transition teams that would live side by side with their Iraqi counterparts to help them apply their training to real-world situations.

Throughout 2006, Casey and top Bush administration leaders touted the training as a success, asserting that eight of Iraq's 10 divisions had taken the lead in confronting insurgents.

But U.S. forces complained that the Iraqi forces weren't getting the support from their government and that Iraqi military commanders, many who worked under Saddam Hussein, weren't as willing to embrace their tactics. Among everyday Iraqis, some said they didn't trust their forces, saying they were sectarian and easily susceptible to corruption.

Most important, insurgents and militiamen had infiltrated the forces, using their power to carry out sectarian attacks.

In nearly every area where Iraqi forces were given control, the security situation rapidly deteriorated. The exceptions were areas dominated largely by one sect and policed by members of that sect.
[/q]



__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 05:29 PM   #164
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and "war time" presidents are usually incredibly popular due to the rally around the flag effect -- look at FDR's extended presidency. it's a great re-election strategy, put troops in harm's way. and even still, with troops in harms way, only 3 years after the worst attack on American soil (and with a convention in that specific city), Bush eeked out a 2nd electoral victory, one of the closest in history, which was not at all the plan. 2004 was supposed to be a blow out of Regan proportions, which is why Iraq was manufactured to fit the electoral timetable (and then we have complaints about remving troops due to politics! hilarious!)

a resounding endorsement of a policy, this was not, as opposed to 2006, which was a resouding rejection of everything associated with Bush. and his approval ratings haven't been above 50% since the election, and have plummeted into the low 30's where they've stayed.

but you only notice this if you understand context and conditions
Well, if that was the case, LBJ would have ran for re-election. Winning by 3 million votes and the first majority for a President since 1988 is not eeking out a victory. The Summer of 2004 had a number of high grossing films with plenty of anti-Iraq war rubbish like Michael Moores film. Most polsters expecially democratic leaning ones were predicting Bush would lose in 2004. The election results stood in stark contrast to what much of the media had been predicting.

Any Presidential election, especially one that comes in a middle of a war with the highest turnout in US history, is always an endorsement of the war if the incumbent is re-elected.

The 2006 congressional election had a much smaller turnout and always involve some issues that are more about local politics rather than national or international politics. While its clear the public's perception about the war had changed, it is not on the level of a presidential election, especially one that had the highest turnout in history. Plus, the party out of power should have regained control of one or both houses of congress in 2002, or at least by 2004. The Republicans nearly held on to the Senate in 2006 only losing by a few thousand votes in Virginia.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 05:44 PM   #165
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
HA! history will be kind to him? I think he's going down in history as the most bumbling slightly retarded biggest mistake the US ever elected as a president - who was so weak that he could be swayed by any person in his cabinet - who directions lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, who inflamed the hatred of millions more and who started the ball rolling (actually pushed it over the cliff) on making americans the most armed to the teeth jittery paranoid people on earth.

He's screwed up so much, lied about so much, caused so much anger and frustration, almost polaxed a nation, and WORST OF ALL gave voice to the most hatred spewing, completely off tangent, scariest shit on earth - the neo conservative.
Under Bush's presidency, the United States has kept one of the highest standards of living in the world with record low unemployment. The United States has removed one of the worst regimes in the world, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, responsible for giving Al Quada a safe Haven from where they trained and organized their terror operations around the world. The current occupatin of Afghanistan is the most successful occupation of that country in its 5,000 year history. Never before has Afghanistan had such an excellant opportunity for a bright future.

In Iraq, one of the planets worst aggressors and murder's has been removed from power. Saddam had murdered over 1.7 million people while in power, threatened the planets energy supply with siezure and sabotage, used WMD more times than any leader in history, failed to comply with 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations, failed to verifiably disarm of thousands of stocks of WMD, launched 4 unprovoked invasions and attacks on country's in the middle east. Seldom has there been a better case in history for the regime change.

Despite current political perceptions, history always has a way of looking back at issues from a more objective standpoint untainted by the current political wind of the moment. That is why Harry Truman today is regarded as one of the greatest Presidents in history despite leaving office with only a 22% approval rating.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 03:24 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