And the chaos continues...day of death in Baghdad - Page 16 - 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 04-25-2007, 10:25 PM   #226
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Diemen, your links would probably matter if you were Joe America, but seeing as how you're not, it's probably terrorist propaganda (from the left).
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-25-2007, 10:36 PM   #227
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Well, and this is just me, I have a feeling the author of the first article might even be more well versed on the matter than our dear own Sting:

Quote:
Bruce Riedel is a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He retired last year after 29 years with the Central Intelligence Agency. He served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council (1997-2002), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs (1995-97), and National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Intelligence Council (1993-95).
But since he is not calling for rigid loyalty to the Bushies, he obviously cannot be taken seriously.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 10:37 PM   #228
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:58 PM
[Q]These programs were never presented to inspectors prior to the invasion further showing Saddam's intentions. With the collapse of sanctions and the weapons embargo, it was only a matter of time before Saddam would successfully re-arm with more advanced conventional and non-conventional weapons.[/Q]

And while it was only a matter of time in Iraq......LOL Iran and Korea have done....

Ahhh never mind.......

Where is Osamamamamamamama?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 11:43 PM   #229
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
And the broken record continues. Some may even call it consistency. Just like Bush, Sting here believes the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday! (thank you, Mr. Colbert)

A few interesting articles worth reading:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200705...ikes-back.html - Al Qaeda Strikes Back

Very lengthy and in depth article, but here is their quick summary:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...064703,00.html - The last thing the Middle East's main players want is US troops to leave Iraq

The gist of the second is this:
Mistakes made during the occupation don't change the necessity of removing Saddam. Bruce Riedel's article Foreign Affairs presumes that the invasion of Iraq is to blame for Al Quada's existence after 9/11 without ever really explaining that. He seems to have amnesia about what Al Quada did prior to 9/11 or any US invasion of Iraq. He also seems to forget that US troops can't be deployed inside Pakistan and that most US forces(heavy armored and mechanized divisions) used in the invasion of Iraq would never be used in the mountains of Afghanistan or some man hunt in another country. He fails to mention that Al Quada attacks within Afghanistan are almost non-existent and the fact that in the long run, stability in Iraq is a higher priority than stability in Afghanistan. He essentially dodges the issue of Al Quada in Iraq and what to do about them with two paragraphs. Two paragraphs devoted to the area of greatest Al Quada activity. His solution for Al Quada in Iraq are Shia and Kurdish Militia's and the Sunni area's lack of resources. Al Quada did not set up their HQ in Afghanistan because it was rich in resources, nor were other militant groups in the country able to deal with them.

The fact of the matter is, developing a stable Iraq is actually a higher priority for US national security than developing a stable Afghanistan, although doing both is important. Those that support a pre-mature withdrawal of Iraq will simply destabilize a country that borders two country's vital to US national security. In addition, Al Quada will finally have the state within a state that they had prior to 9/11 with the pre-mature withdrawal of US combat forces from the country. The entity that will benefit most from a pre-mature withdrawal from Iraq is Al Quada.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 12:06 AM   #230
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 09:58 PM
STING, that's gold.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 12:43 AM   #231
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]These programs were never presented to inspectors prior to the invasion further showing Saddam's intentions. With the collapse of sanctions and the weapons embargo, it was only a matter of time before Saddam would successfully re-arm with more advanced conventional and non-conventional weapons.[/Q]

And while it was only a matter of time in Iraq......LOL Iran and Korea have done....

Ahhh never mind.......

Where is Osamamamamamamama?
Yep, but North Korea has not invaded another country in 57 years! North Korea has never used WMD of any kind against another country. North Korea does not border an area that has the majority of the planets oil reserves. North Korea has had two nuclear weapons since 1994 plus chemical and biological weapons before that. More importantly, they have for decades built thousands of artillery implacements within easy range of Seoul South Korea, 30 miles away, and could shell the city at the outbreak of any hostilities causing hundreds of thousands of deaths on the first day, perhaps millions in a metropolitan area of 10 million people. The thousands of North Korean artillery emplacements that are within easy range of Seoul are built into the mountain sides and protected by extensive fortifications that been built up over decades. Even if North Korean behavior outside of the development of their military capabilities justified an invasion, which it does not, its unlikely anyone would attack North Korea given the cost Seoul South Korea would immediately suffer, millions of casualties. North Korea has had an effective deterent for decades now and its part of the reason why the Clinton administration never seriously considered military action back in 1994.

North Korea's behavior against other countries since the Korean War has not posed the national security risk that Saddam's behavior against other countries did. Its not the mere possession of a certain weapons capability that makes Saddam or any other leader a threat to national security, it is their foriegn policies and behavior + such capabilities that makes them a threat. North Korea is not the only country to develop WMD or nuclear weapons.

Iran's behavior is certainly more of a problem than North Korea, but they still choose to operate against other country's through proxy's primarily rather than acting against them directy. Iran has not actually launched an unprovoked invasion of another country since 1856 when they invaded Afghanistan taking Herat 150 years ago. A very different history indeed from Saddam in regards to direct foreign invasions and attacks on other countries. Iran has much smaller and weaker conventional armored and mechanized forces important in projecting military strength beyond ones borders as well as making the most effective use of many types of WMD. Iran is also not as well positioned as Iraq is to sieze much of the planets oil reserves. Another factor is that Iran essentially has two governments. The centralization of all power in one leaders hands as it existed under Saddam is not present in Iran. You have the regular government and the Mullahs. You then have a reform movement(although often surpressed) within the country.

While its true that Iran is making progress on the nuclear front, it does not pose the same risk that Saddam did given Saddam's past behavior. Saddam's behavior and the failure of containtment made regime change a necessity. Iran currently does not pose the threat that Saddam's regime came to pose to the region given a variety of factors. Iran still does pose a threat, and no one should be ruling out military action, but even with nuclear weapons, given Iran's behavior is much more conservative than Saddam's, Iran simply does not pose the same level of threat that Saddam did.

Saddam invaded and attacked four different countries. Threatened the majority of the planets oil reserves with siezure and sabotage that would cause a worldwide economic depression. Saddam used WMD more times than any leader in history. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Saddam had total control within the country. There was no reform movement or essentially a competing 2nd government to deal with. Saddam acted directly and not through proxy's. Saddam acted against other countries when the odds were clearly not in his favor. He proved to be a mis-caculator and a risk taker. All of these things and others made regime change a necessity in Iraq in 2003. Most of the same issues are not present with either North Korea or Iran which is why the need for military intervention in those country's is much lower or non-existent then and currently relative to Saddam's Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 12:49 AM   #232
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Mistakes made during the occupation don't change the necessity of removing Saddam. Bruce Riedel's article Foreign Affairs presumes that the invasion of Iraq is to blame for Al Quada's existence after 9/11 without ever really explaining that. He seems to have amnesia about what Al Quada did prior to 9/11 or any US invasion of Iraq. He also seems to forget that US troops can't be deployed inside Pakistan and that most US forces(heavy armored and mechanized divisions) used in the invasion of Iraq would never be used in the mountains of Afghanistan or some man hunt in another country. He fails to mention that Al Quada attacks within Afghanistan are almost non-existent and the fact that in the long run, stability in Iraq is a higher priority than stability in Afghanistan. He essentially dodges the issue of Al Quada in Iraq and what to do about them with two paragraphs. Two paragraphs devoted to the area of greatest Al Quada activity. His solution for Al Quada in Iraq are Shia and Kurdish Militia's and the Sunni area's lack of resources. Al Quada did not set up their HQ in Afghanistan because it was rich in resources, nor were other militant groups in the country able to deal with them.

The fact of the matter is, developing a stable Iraq is actually a higher priority for US national security than developing a stable Afghanistan, although doing both is important. Those that support a pre-mature withdrawal of Iraq will simply destabilize a country that borders two country's vital to US national security. In addition, Al Quada will finally have the state within a state that they had prior to 9/11 with the pre-mature withdrawal of US combat forces from the country. The entity that will benefit most from a pre-mature withdrawal from Iraq is Al Quada.
Wow have you ever missed the point (again). And do I detect some petulance in your dismissal? (it shows emotion?)

You keep bringing up premature withdrawals, too, though this article did touch on that at all. It spoke about addressing other problems that would more effectively fix the Al Qaeda issue than trying to take them on in the streets of Baghdad.

While it is certainly true that Al Qaeda would benefit from a premature withdrawal, it is also undoubtedly true that Al Qaeda has already benefitted greatly and will continue to benefit greatly from our continued presence IN Iraq. You'd have to be blind not to see that. What is very debatable, however, is what gives Al Qaeda greater benefit, our absence or our presence?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 02:28 AM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 05:28 PM
Quote:
Iraqi casualty figures withheld to avoid 'very grim' picture: UN official
Last Updated: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 | 5:19 PM ET
The Associated Press

The Iraqi government withheld recent casualty figures from the United Nations, fearing they would be used to present a grim picture of Iraq that would undermine the coalition's security efforts, UN officials said Wednesday.

Working with its own figures, the UN released a new human rights report saying that sectarian violence continued to claim the lives of a large number of Iraqi civilians in both Sunni and Shia neighbourhoods of Iraq's capital, despite the coalition's new Baghdad security plan.

Begun Feb. 14, the security plan has increased U.S. and Iraqi troop levels in the capital.

The Iraqi government quickly responded by calling the UN report "inaccurate" and "unbalanced."

The UN Assistance Mission for Iraq report said civilian casualties in the daily violence between Jan. 1 and March 31 remained high, concentrated in and around Baghdad.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...alty-figs.html




Bush vs Bush

^Jon Stewart makes an interesting point here.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...he-daily-show/

Jon Stewart vs John McCain on Iraq


Fascist America in 10 easy steps
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 03:39 PM   #234
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Wow have you ever missed the point (again). And do I detect some petulance in your dismissal? (it shows emotion?)

You keep bringing up premature withdrawals, too, though this article did touch on that at all. It spoke about addressing other problems that would more effectively fix the Al Qaeda issue than trying to take them on in the streets of Baghdad.

While it is certainly true that Al Qaeda would benefit from a premature withdrawal, it is also undoubtedly true that Al Qaeda has already benefitted greatly and will continue to benefit greatly from our continued presence IN Iraq. You'd have to be blind not to see that. What is very debatable, however, is what gives Al Qaeda greater benefit, our absence or our presence?
We talk about Al Qaeda benefiting or not; does it even exist? Is there a unified organisation run by Bin Laden and Zawahiri from wherever they are that makes strategic decisions? Or is it just any Muslim with a beef and a kalashnikov (or for that matter an internet connection and a pile of ammonium nitrate in some unassuming community where they have lived their whole lives).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 05:07 PM   #235
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 05:28 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...aeus-iraq.html

Quote:
"Iraq is in fact the central front of al-Qaeda's global campaign. Al-Qaeda-Iraq remains a formidable foe with considerable resilience and a capability to produce horrific attacks," he said.

"This group's activities must be significantly disrupted, at the least, for the new Iraq to succeed. The key to success is disrupting their attacks."
So let's see, Bush attacked Afghanistan to eradicate Al Qaeda and the Taliban but they just moved to the mountain communities along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and continue to exist. And now, Iraq which had nothing to do with the 9/11 or Al Qaeda is now the central front for Al Qaeda. How very thoughtful of the Bushies to setup another place for Bin Laden and his ilk to carry on their mission.

Quote:
In a briefing to reporters at the Pentagon in Washington D.C., Gen. David Petraeus said the war in Iraq is the "the most complex and challenging I have ever seen."
Thanks for the insight, starboy!! Some people make it sound as simple as we good, they bad, we attack them, we win. Remember that guerrilla war some critics mentioned before the war started about how U.S forces would be drawn into a street by street war, well, here we are. All the nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, jet fighters and other billion dollar expenses are as useless in this conflict as eunuchs in a whorehouse.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 03:13 PM   #236
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
[ All the nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, jet fighters and other billion dollar expenses are as useless in this conflict as eunuchs in a whorehouse.
What about the glasses-wearing security-kittens?
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 03:17 PM   #237
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:58 AM
Quote:
All the nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, jet fighters and other billion dollar expenses are as useless in this conflict as eunuchs in a whorehouse.
Compared to other asymetrical conflicts the Iraq War has low casualties for American troops and a big part of that is because of unmanned drones, satellite tracking systems, communication and sensors; the next stage is going to be full automation and when it is reached it takes a lot less political capital to go to war; who weeps for the dead robot?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 07:17 PM   #238
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Wow have you ever missed the point (again). And do I detect some petulance in your dismissal? (it shows emotion?)

You keep bringing up premature withdrawals, too, though this article did touch on that at all. It spoke about addressing other problems that would more effectively fix the Al Qaeda issue than trying to take them on in the streets of Baghdad.

While it is certainly true that Al Qaeda would benefit from a premature withdrawal, it is also undoubtedly true that Al Qaeda has already benefitted greatly and will continue to benefit greatly from our continued presence IN Iraq. You'd have to be blind not to see that. What is very debatable, however, is what gives Al Qaeda greater benefit, our absence or our presence?
Its rather disappointing to see someone almost completely dodge the issue of what to do about the area of greatest Al Quada activity and discuss at length the need to reinforce an area that is nearly devoid of Al Quada activity as well as other issues.

Its not about picking which problem to address, but addressing all the problems that threaten US and global security. Fighting Al Quada in area's where it currently does not really exist will not solve the problem of Al Quada. If you send three Airborne and light infantry brigades to Afghanistan, how exactly do you expect them to target Al Quada when there not even there? What impact will that have on Iraq where there are large numbers of Al Quada, plus its the area of greatest activity for the organization?

The United States and coalition's continued presence in Iraq to help stabilize the country and develop and effective Iraqi government and military is the only way to defeat Al Quada in Iraq. Al Quada does not benefit from the presence of US troops in Iraq anymore than it benefits from the presence of US troops any where else in the world including Afghanistan.

What do you think the best way for insuring that Al Quada never establishes a base in Afghanistan again in the near future should be, the quick withdrawal of US troops or a continued US troop presence to develop the country so it can provide for its own security? The issue is the same with Iraq. The best way to defeat Al Quada is by continuing the nationbuilding projects underway in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Abandoning the mission in Iraq will provide Al Quada with their first true safe haven given the current relative weakness of the Iraqi government and other groups that would remain in the country after a 2008 pullout.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 07:35 PM   #239
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:58 AM
Actually AQ staying in Iraq isn't a problem, all those young men going back home to the Gulf States and then onto the world with know-how of how to make bombs and a powerful will to do so is.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 07:43 PM   #240
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...aeus-iraq.html



So let's see, Bush attacked Afghanistan to eradicate Al Qaeda and the Taliban but they just moved to the mountain communities along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and continue to exist. And now, Iraq which had nothing to do with the 9/11 or Al Qaeda is now the central front for Al Qaeda. How very thoughtful of the Bushies to setup another place for Bin Laden and his ilk to carry on their mission.



Thanks for the insight, starboy!! Some people make it sound as simple as we good, they bad, we attack them, we win. Remember that guerrilla war some critics mentioned before the war started about how U.S forces would be drawn into a street by street war, well, here we are. All the nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, jet fighters and other billion dollar expenses are as useless in this conflict as eunuchs in a whorehouse.
The United States has multiple security issues that need to be addressed of which Al Quada is one. The invasion of Afghanistan was needed to remove what was then an Al Quada safe haven as well as a government that was protecting them. That has been accomplished. There is virtually no Al Quada activity in Afghanistan now. The issue with Pakistan is difficult and complex, but the Pakistani government has been able to capture a large number of Al Quada's leadership there. Because of the political situation in Afghanistan, US military forces are not allowed to go across the border into Pakistan.

Iraq was invaded because it was necessary to remove the regime of Saddam despite the cost in doing so. Provided the United States does not pre-maturely withdraw from Iraq, it will develop a government and military that will be able to handle its own internal security matters including Al Quada. Pre-mature withdrawal as most Democrats propose, will set up the safe haven Al Quada has been looking for since it lost its safe haven in Afghanistan.

Some level of guerrilla war or insurgency is what any country faces when it is involved in an occupation of another country. Thats exactly what the United States and coalition faced as it prepared to invade Afghanistan. Just look at Afghanistan's history prior to 9/11. That fact does not change the necessity of regime change in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Jet fighters on the contrary have been very useful in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you know what actually ended up killing Al Zarqawi in Iraq? US aircraft, drones, Attack Helicopters are constantly patroling various parts of Iraq and are ready to respond to the needs of coalition, Iraqi and Afghani forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been vital in finding and detecting the emplacement of IED's in roads and their quick response in destroying such targets has saved thousands of lives!
__________________

__________________
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 03:58 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