Facts better for GOP in O8 than 06: by Michael Barone - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-24-2008, 04:20 PM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

you don't have discussions with anyone other than the arguments you first fabricate and then try to rebut.
QFT
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 09:17 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
[q]GAO has produced many laughable reports over the past 3 decades. Just look at who the public trust more, the US military or the Democrat congress. They trust the Democrat congress even less than they do Bush based on current approval ratings. Also, the Treasury Departmant and State Department disagree with the GAO report as well. I guess they must be lying too right?
[/q]


you know what's laughable? you don't have discussions with anyone other than the arguments you first fabricate and then try to rebut.

still, it's not much more laughable than the "imminent threat" posed by non-existent WMDs.

as for congressional approval ratings ... please. congressional approval ratings are *always* low, but Bush's approval ratings are record-breakingly low.

but, go ahead, trot out more arguments from your imaginary other side, and then rebut those. it's all you ever do.
Why not stick to the topic or issues as opposed to discussing and making up things about other people in the forum? Its the grown up thing to do.

Saddam's past behavior, violations of international law, war, and threat to Persian Gulf Oil was anything but non-existent.

Congress's ratings have only dropped since the Democrats took over.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 09:25 PM   #18
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Saddam's past behavior, violations of international law, war, and threat to Persian Gulf Oil was anything but non-existent.
But that's not what the Bush administration used to sell the war and you know it. They pushed the WMD angle above all others. The smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud, the imminent threat, etc. And no matter how you spin it, Saddam was not an imminent threat.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 09:59 PM   #19
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
But that's not what the Bush administration used to sell the war and you know it. They pushed the WMD angle above all others. The smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud, the imminent threat, etc. And no matter how you spin it, Saddam was not an imminent threat.
Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions which was more than enough to justify military action and both Bill Clinton and his wife agreed. Yep, plenty of people in the international community stated that Saddam posed no imminent threat to Kuwait in July 1990. The international community learned an important lesson the hard way in 1990-1991 which is why the red line for further military action against Saddam would be based on compliance with UN resolutions not an actual attack on one of his neighbors. The international community had already gone through that and was not about to go through it again, which is why the resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN allowing for the use of military force to bring about the enforcement of the resolutions. The world is a safer place with Saddam out of power in Iraq. Its only Barack Obama and the Democrats that have decided to repeatedly mourn his removal from power on the campain trail.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 10:06 PM   #20
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 02:28 AM
OMG, please repeat the UN resolutions again! We here at FYM have never heard of those before, and we'd love it if you could repeat them at every possible opportunity! Say, do you think you could just put those in your signature?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Its only Barack Obama and the Democrats that have decided to repeatedly mourn his removal from power on the campain trail.
You really are something else, Sting. Disagreeing with going into Iraq is not, in any way shape or form, the same as mourning his removal.

The fact remains, as was made perfectly clear to everyone without blinders on once we had invaded and removed Saddam, he was not an imminent threat and had no WMDs. The Bush administration's major reason it sold the American people for this war was false. You continue to evade this by throwing up UN resolutions, but it doesn't change the facts.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 10:36 PM   #21
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 12:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Disagreeing with going into Iraq is not, in any way shape or form, the same as mourning his removal.
But I got an email saying that was true.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 11:19 PM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Why not stick to the topic or issues as opposed to discussing and making up things about other people in the forum? Its the grown up thing to do.

Saddam's past behavior, violations of international law, war, and threat to Persian Gulf Oil was anything but non-existent.

Congress's ratings have only dropped since the Democrats took over.


congress's ratings have dropped due to the democratic failure to end the war in Iraq.

Saddam's behavior was effectively contained and the sense of crisis was fabricated due to the administration's decision to hype the non-existent threat of WMDs in order to use the fear and pain from 9-11 to win support from the American public to invade Iraq. evidence of Saddam's purported threat to the region, especially given his 11 year containment, would never have convinced the American public, nor the rest of the world.

you consistently cite what you think others are "saying" about this, that, and the other. and then you rebut the arguments you imagine are out there without ever addressing what's actually happening in the forum.

example: [q]Its only Barack Obama and the Democrats that have decided to repeatedly mourn his removal from power on the campain trail[/q]

mourn his removal from power? are you hoping that someone is going to take that statement seriously? you'll notice that very few people actually engage you on these topics -- especially when compared to other posters -- because you post as if no one else is in the room and you consistently sidestep their arguments in favor of ones you've already fabricated.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 11:20 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions which was more than enough to justify military action and both Bill Clinton and his wife agreed. Yep, plenty of people in the international community stated that Saddam posed no imminent threat to Kuwait in July 1990. The international community learned an important lesson the hard way in 1990-1991 which is why the red line for further military action against Saddam would be based on compliance with UN resolutions not an actual attack on one of his neighbors. The international community had already gone through that and was not about to go through it again, which is why the resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN allowing for the use of military force to bring about the enforcement of the resolutions. The world is a safer place with Saddam out of power in Iraq. Its only Barack Obama and the Democrats that have decided to repeatedly mourn his removal from power on the campain trail.


if this is so compelling, why did the administration hype the WMD information and then blame the CIA for misleading them?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 11:22 PM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
You continue to evade this by throwing up UN resolutions, but it doesn't change the facts.


there's also the little known fact that it is the UN and specifically the UN Security Council that decides exactly how it will enforce it's own resolutions, and not the United States.

but, hey, why let details like that stop us when were droning into a bullhorn?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 11:29 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Effective counterinsurgency and nationbuilding strategies are yielding success in Iraq and will continue to do so provided the mission is not abandoned. The same efforts are under way in Afghanistan. No one is suggesting that the United States withdraw from Afghanistan before its ready to handle its problems on its own, nor should anyone be suggesting the United States should withdraw from Iraq before it is ready to stand on its own.


so, aside from the "hire and hide" techniques that you call "counterinsurgency" and the consistent moving of the goalposts to measure the political progress that was always the stated goal of The Surge (still today just a tactic, not a strategy), i do wonder, is the building of 50-60 large, permanent bases in Iraq part of getting that country to stand on it's own?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 11:46 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 12:28 AM
I the idea that if you disapprove of Saddam ruling Iraq, that means you automatically need to support several hundred thousand troops invading and occupying Iraq for the next 5-10 years. There are no other alternatives, there were no other alternatives.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 11:55 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
I the idea that if you disapprove of Saddam ruling Iraq, that means you automatically need to support several hundred thousand troops invading and occupying Iraq for the next 5-10 years. There are no other alternatives, there were no other alternatives.


this is the false choice that STING -- and George Bush -- have been presenting the world for the past 4-5 years.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 08:49 AM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Its only Barack Obama and the Democrats that have decided to repeatedly mourn his removal from power on the campain trail.
Complete and utter shit, it's nothing but trolling really...

It's crap like this and what Irvine explained earlier about how you only responsd to the opposition you make up, make your posts hardly worth the glance anymore.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:05 AM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:28 AM
so, coming at this in the morning with a night's sleep and a workout behind me, i suppose i really have to say that i am genuinely puzzled and a little sad.

this is post 14,427 and i think i can count on one hand the number of posters -- 3, to be exact -- that i've been unable to have a productive exchange with. and #1 on that list is, obviously, STING. the other two were little spats in LS (not worth mentioning) and EYKIW (when someone refused to consider that, shock, Boy is loaded with sexual ambiguity and that "twilight" is about being approached by a guy).

so i really don't think i'm the problem here. or not the only problem. i think all anyone really wants is interesting, productive dialog, and, yes, possibly to score some points for their "team," but it amazes me how in every single thread on this topic things go instantly downhill in civility, tone, and quality the moment certain posts are re-posted.

just an observation.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 11:04 AM   #30
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
OMG, please repeat the UN resolutions again! We here at FYM have never heard of those before, and we'd love it if you could repeat them at every possible opportunity! Say, do you think you could just put those in your signature?



You really are something else, Sting. Disagreeing with going into Iraq is not, in any way shape or form, the same as mourning his removal.

The fact remains, as was made perfectly clear to everyone without blinders on once we had invaded and removed Saddam, he was not an imminent threat and had no WMDs. The Bush administration's major reason it sold the American people for this war was false. You continue to evade this by throwing up UN resolutions, but it doesn't change the facts.

The UN resolutions were both the Clinton administrations and Bush administrations central case for military action against Iraq. They explain the threat Saddam posed to the region and why military action was a necessity to bring about compliance.

Its funny, but on your part you keep on repeating the same old rubbish that Saddam was not a threat and "had no WMD"s. But the fact of the matter is that the Saddam NEVER verifiably disarmed of thousands of stocks of WMD, and never had any intention of fully complying with the United Nations on the issue of WMD and continued to claim Kuwait as being part of Iraq. Its only correct to say that the coalition did not find WMD's not that Saddam did not have any, especially when thousands of stocks of WMD remain missing to this day according to UN weapons inspectors.

More important is the fact that whether Saddam was a threat or not was defined by his behavior and his compliance with the UN resolutions and Gulf War Ceacefire agreement, not his mere technical capabilities at one time or another which could change on a dime. Even if it were indeed true that Saddam did not have actual WMD in March of 2003, the UN inspectors did find multiple programs related to the production of WMD that Saddam hid from inspectors in 2002 and 2003, which he could have shown them if he were serious about disarmament. Its rather naive to believe that if Saddam had been left in power as Barack Obama wished, that he would never have developed significant WMD capabilties again since all the evidence in the aftermath shows that he maintain the capabilities to produce such weapons in addition to having thousands of unaccounted for stocks of WMD.


After the 1991 Gulf War, the threat from Saddam was defined by his compliance or lack of compliance with the UN resolutions. Saddam never complied and never had any intention of complying and given the threat that posed to the region especially Kuwait, he had to be removed and the only way to do that given the failure of sanctions and other means of containment as well as covert military action, was through a full scale invasion.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow 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 03:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com