GOP Traitors in a Time of War... - Page 3 - 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 08-18-2005, 03:26 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The United Nations passed three different resolutions authorizing the use of military force against Iraq if it failed to comply with the UN resolutions. In addition, since the invasion, the United Nations has passed another 3 resolutions approving the occupation!

Terrorist hate America. Many others around the world disagree with certain US policies, but many continue to work with the United States and send their own troops to support the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Japan has given several Billion dollars to the operations in Iraq as well as sending troops.

The United Kingdom has an entire Armored Division in Southern Iraq and is responisble for security and stability in that region. Poland, Ukraine, South Korea and Italy have all sent thousands of troops into Iraq.

Iraq today now has an opportunity that was impossible while Saddam was in power. They have the opportunity to develop into a strong democratic and prosperous country. The Planets security has been greatly enhanced by the removal of Saddam who was a threat to the planets large energy reserves located just across the Iraqi border in Kuwait and Suadi Arabia. Insuring that Iraq becomes a country that is not a threat to its neighbors and is a cooperative member of the international community will obviously enhance the security of the planet.

Its going to take a long time for Democracy to develop in Iraq, but the country already passed a hurdle that many on the left in here said was not possible. On January 30, 2005 over 8 million Iraqi's proved terrorist and foreign critics wrong when they woke up and voted in their countries first free election in decades.

No doubt, there will be terrorist launching attacks for years to come, followed by critics who will claim that that alone constitutes failure.


lovely. we've all heard these paragraphs before, and they have nothing to do with what i'm asking, and sounds like glittering, feel-good stuff cut-and-pasted from the Pentagon website.

where is your anger, STING? you love this war, you think it's a great idea, and you've got a million-and-one idealistic reasons for your support. where is your anger at those in charge of the war for screwing up the post-war so badly? if you support the war, where is your anger at the firing of Shinseki when he asked for more troops? if you support the war, where is your anger at the administration's failure to train an Iraqi army after abruptly dissolving it? if you support the war, where is your anger at the administration's inability to provide even a modicum of stability that would make things like the drafting of a Constitution, let alone the living of every day life, possible? if you support the war, where is your anger at the Defense Department's lowering of goals, changing the name of the "war on terror" to something far more vague, and plans to get out of Iraq? if you support the war, where is your anger at the administration for failing to understand that there is no Iraq, that Iraqis have no national identity but religious and ethnic identity?

your posts should not argue with people who opposed the war, but with people who screwed up your war.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:29 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
your posts should not argue with people who opposed the war, but with people who screwed up your war.
I guess it's more important to Sting2 to argue with the 'far left' on here.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:31 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


I guess it's more important to Sting2 to argue with the 'far left' on here.


i'm very serious though.

i think there are legitimate arguments to be made for the invasion of Iraq. i really do. i think we can say that the end of Saddam is a good thing. i think an election in a Middle Eastern country is a good thing. i think we can all agree that we want democracy in the Middle East.

however, i don't think this was the way to do that.

and i don't understand why people who want all this to happen waste their time defending an administration who, with each passing day, through their incompetence, have made these dreams ever more out of reach.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:41 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i suppose my question comes from my disappointment, if not outright outrage, at people (not necessarily you) who were very pro-war for very high and mighty reasons (establishment of a democracy in the heart of the Middle East! end US support of homocidal dictators! take down one of the earth's worst regimes!) who are still defending this administration's completely and totally inept conduct of the post-war.

if you really believed in the war, wouldn't you be demanding the heads of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bush on a platter for fucking it all up so royally?

instead, i hear excuses, excuses, excuses for this pathetically inept administration.
There have indeed been tactical mistakes made during the occupation. But the administration has been right on more of the major strategic issues than the opposition has. This is why Bush was re-elected as President in November 2004, by the first majority seen in a US election in 16 years.

Removing Saddam's regime and building a new country out of the mess that Saddam had made will be a long and difficult process. During such time, it will be rather easy for critics to point to various things and claim that the administration has failed. But on the larger and far more reaching issues, if one will take some time to examine them, one will see progress and that things are moving foward.

Fact: At this time last year, the Iraqi military had only 1 Battalion, and it was arguably unfit for combat. Today there are over 100 Iraqi Army Battalions and 10 of those Battalions are well trained enough that they are used often interchangebly with US and coalition Battalions.

There has been an election, and the country is moving towards its first constitution after which there will be an election to elect a permanent government.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:51 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
[B]Fact: At this time last year, the Iraqi military had only 1 Battalion, and it was arguably unfit for combat. Today there are over 100 Iraqi Army Battalions and 10 of those Battalions are well trained enough that they are used often interchangebly with US and coalition Battalions. [B]

Guess that shows your mindset loud and clear. 'Progress' involves building up a nice big fat military.

And by the way, stop implying that only leftists were against the Iraq war. I have said to you time and time again that there were/ are many, many conservative opponents of the Iraq war.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:52 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


There have indeed been tactical mistakes made during the occupation. But the administration has been right on more of the major strategic issues than the opposition has. This is why Bush was re-elected as President in November 2004, by the first majority seen in a US election in 16 years.

Removing Saddam's regime and building a new country out of the mess that Saddam had made will be a long and difficult process. During such time, it will be rather easy for critics to point to various things and claim that the administration has failed. But on the larger and far more reaching issues, if one will take some time to examine them, one will see progress and that things are moving foward.

Fact: At this time last year, the Iraqi military had only 1 Battalion, and it was arguably unfit for combat. Today there are over 100 Iraqi Army Battalions and 10 of those Battalions are well trained enough that they are used often interchangebly with US and coalition Battalions.

There has been an election, and the country is moving towards its first constitution after which there will be an election to elect a permanent government.

Bush's re-election has nothing to do with whether or not they have been "right" on strategy, pre- or post-war. it has everything to do with the American people's perspective on those issues, it is emphatically NOT empirical evidence that vindicates the administration's decision to invade. you continuously conflate the two.

if you want to talk about that, Bush is at 1968 Johnson approval levels (34% vs 32%) when it comes to the American people's approval of how he is conducting the war, particularly in light of little observable progress and increasing waves of violence.

many people have looked at the progress, or lack thereof, being made, and have decided that things are not getting better, they are getting worse and it's precisely because of religious and ethnic loyalties that were grossly underestimated by the administration. from a big mess, you can pull out bits and pieces and declare them progress, but it's nearly impossible to show any measurable benefits that the invasion of Iraq has given the United States. (Iran seems quite happy, though)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 04:07 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 01:16 AM
Yeah...I'm just gonna stay out of the meat and potatoes of this debate and simply say that I agree with this:

Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
No one has the right to make war, and no war is a "just" war. Obviously, some people think they have the right, which always leads to more pain and suffering one can imagine.
. I just wish people could start finding ways to solve problems without having to resort to wars to do so, too. But that's apparently too idealistic, I guess.

Also, I agree that both Democrats and Republicans have been known to botch things up regarding wars and whatnot in the past. Neither side is perfect.

*Shuts up now and meanders on over to the sidelines*

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 08-18-2005, 04:10 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




lovely. we've all heard these paragraphs before, and they have nothing to do with what i'm asking, and sounds like glittering, feel-good stuff cut-and-pasted from the Pentagon website.

where is your anger, STING? you love this war, you think it's a great idea, and you've got a million-and-one idealistic reasons for your support. where is your anger at those in charge of the war for screwing up the post-war so badly? if you support the war, where is your anger at the firing of Shinseki when he asked for more troops? if you support the war, where is your anger at the administration's failure to train an Iraqi army after abruptly dissolving it? if you support the war, where is your anger at the administration's inability to provide even a modicum of stability that would make things like the drafting of a Constitution, let alone the living of every day life, possible? if you support the war, where is your anger at the Defense Department's lowering of goals, changing the name of the "war on terror" to something far more vague, and plans to get out of Iraq? if you support the war, where is your anger at the administration for failing to understand that there is no Iraq, that Iraqis have no national identity but religious and ethnic identity?

your posts should not argue with people who opposed the war, but with people who screwed up your war.
My thoughts above were not cut and past from some Pentagon website nor have I ever said that I "love war". I've supported the war for realistic reasons having to do with longterm US and global security needs in the region. Realism, not idealism, is behind the main reasons for supporting the war.

Shinseski was not fired when he asked for more troops. The Iraqi army now has 100 battalions with 10 well trained enough that they can perform any mission that US battalion of Marines could. A year ago there was only one battalion.

Unfortunately, it may be news to you that of Iraq's 18 provinces, 14 of them have been peaceful for most of the past 2 years since the invasion. There is a serious insurgency going on in the 4 majority Sunni provinces where Saddam had the base of his support. Everyday life is possible in Iraq and over 20 million Iraqi's, primarily in the provinces that have limited or no insurgency, go about it every day. 8 million people voted in a public election on January 30. How was that possible if Iraq is in fact the way you describe?

There is an Iraqi identity. Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqi's died fighting Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. Whats more, most of them were Shia's who are supposedly loyal to Iran rather than Iraq depending on which critic you listen to. This is not to say there are no tribal divisions because there are. But just because you have these ethnic differences and tribal divisions does not mean there is no "Iraqi identity".

Helping Iraq develop into a democracy was something that the administration new was going to take a long time, with or without an insurgency in the Northwestern part of the country. Nation Building is a challenging task even under the best of circumstances. It took years to get South Vietnam to the point where it could defend itself with only limited US involvement. It would have taken several more years of that limited US involvement to insure that the country could defend itself independent of the United States from North Vietnam. Unfortunately, the US congress and public pulled the plug on US involvement in Vietnam before South Vietnam had reached that point where it could take care of itself. The result was the brutal invasion and occupation of South Vietnam by North Vietnam in 1975.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 04:33 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



Bush's re-election has nothing to do with whether or not they have been "right" on strategy, pre- or post-war. it has everything to do with the American people's perspective on those issues, it is emphatically NOT empirical evidence that vindicates the administration's decision to invade. you continuously conflate the two.

if you want to talk about that, Bush is at 1968 Johnson approval levels (34% vs 32%) when it comes to the American people's approval of how he is conducting the war, particularly in light of little observable progress and increasing waves of violence.

many people have looked at the progress, or lack thereof, being made, and have decided that things are not getting better, they are getting worse and it's precisely because of religious and ethnic loyalties that were grossly underestimated by the administration. from a big mess, you can pull out bits and pieces and declare them progress, but it's nearly impossible to show any measurable benefits that the invasion of Iraq has given the United States. (Iran seems quite happy, though)
There is NOTHING more important in a presidential election than the war itself. The most costly thing any President can do is take a nation to war. The most accurate guage of how people really felt in this country about the war in Iraq was the November 2004 election! It was not a "POLL" of 1,000 people with questionable polling questions. It was a presidential election where more than 120 million people VOTED! President Johnson did not participate in any Presidential election while American combat Units were on the ground in Vietnam, Bush was just recently in a presidential election with 20 Brigades of combat troops on the ground in Iraq and he won by the first majority ever seen in a presidential election since 1988!

There are plenty of measurable benefits from the invasion of Iraq if one understands the enormous consequences and risk the region and the planet had to suffer with while Saddam was in power the previous 24 years.

The fact is, one could list hundreds of things that show progress, but some people, for political or other reasons, are only interested in the bad things that happen and how it makes those that they are politically opposed to look.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 04:48 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I disagree with Pat Buchanan enough that I'd never vote for him, but his consistent candor makes you feel as if he actually believes what he says, rather than merely being political hypocrites...

...like all the other illustrious members of the GOP above.

This is my favorite quote:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Tell us, President Bush, what is your "exit strategy"?

Melon

Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL
Senator Inhofe (R-OK )
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
-Pat Buchanan (R)
-Michael Savage
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)
Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

I was disappointed and disagreed with the postions of the 13 people you qouted above on the Kosovo war back in 1999. But those 13 people are not representive of all Republicans on that issue back in 1999. Despite the fact that President Clinton had just been impeached and his party was the minority party in congress, many Republicans supported the presidents policy in Kosovo at that time.

The exit strategy in Iraq is to develop the Iraqi military so it can defend the country without the help of US troops, and to help the country develop politically and economically.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 05:17 PM   #41
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


There is NOTHING more important in a presidential election than the war itself. The most costly thing any President can do is take a nation to war. The most accurate guage of how people really felt in this country about the war in Iraq was the November 2004 election! It was not a "POLL" of 1,000 people with questionable polling questions. It was a presidential election where more than 120 million people VOTED! President Johnson did not participate in any Presidential election while American combat Units were on the ground in Vietnam, Bush was just recently in a presidential election with 20 Brigades of combat troops on the ground in Iraq and he won by the first majority ever seen in a presidential election since 1988!

There are plenty of measurable benefits from the invasion of Iraq if one understands the enormous consequences and risk the region and the planet had to suffer with while Saddam was in power the previous 24 years.

The fact is, one could list hundreds of things that show progress, but some people, for political or other reasons, are only interested in the bad things that happen and how it makes those that they are politically opposed to look.


you thoroughly misunderstand what happens in a presidential election. while it is the biggest issue, it is not simply a referrendum on only the war, nor can it be used as a gauge on whether or not the war was right or wrong, or good strategy or bad strategy. i can be used as an indication as to the American people's *understanding* of the benefits of the war, but little else.

i'd also argue that the election wasn't about the war in Iraq, but the question of "who will keep you safe"? two different things, linked things, but different things. also, you underestimate the lack of appeal of John Kerry. basically, you've simplified the election -- a hugely complex thing -- into a piece of information you can wield to make an argument. it's simply bad reasoning, and exclamation points do little for your argument.

LBJ didn't run for re-election in 1968. he knew he wouldn't win, just as Bush would probably not win if the election were held today.

i'm not arguing that the removal of Saddam had benefits, and that there were costs if he were to stay in power.

what i am trying to get at, STING, is the fact that you are unwilling to concede the fact that the administration has messed up your war, that they are pulling out before the Iraqi army is ready (the mere presence of batillions means little if they can't fight worth a damn or drop their weapons and run), that it was sold to the American people under now laughably bad, cherry-picked intelligence, that there are global consequences to this war that might outweigh the consequences of keeping Saddam in power, that we are stretched thing while Iran and North Korea grow their nuclear capabilities and China makes mean faces at Taiwan.

it's this kind of blinkered vision that the administration is guilty of, and that has lead us into the mess in the first place.

again, my question is this: you point to the many good things that this war could have accomplished, yet you do not hold the administration accountable for it's failure to accomplish any of these goals.

and as anyone will tell you, it's not a country's first democratic election that matters. it's the country's second, and third, and forth election that matters.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 09:16 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you thoroughly misunderstand what happens in a presidential election. while it is the biggest issue, it is not simply a referrendum on only the war, nor can it be used as a gauge on whether or not the war was right or wrong, or good strategy or bad strategy. i can be used as an indication as to the American people's *understanding* of the benefits of the war, but little else.

i'd also argue that the election wasn't about the war in Iraq, but the question of "who will keep you safe"? two different things, linked things, but different things. also, you underestimate the lack of appeal of John Kerry. basically, you've simplified the election -- a hugely complex thing -- into a piece of information you can wield to make an argument. it's simply bad reasoning, and exclamation points do little for your argument.

LBJ didn't run for re-election in 1968. he knew he wouldn't win, just as Bush would probably not win if the election were held today.

i'm not arguing that the removal of Saddam had benefits, and that there were costs if he were to stay in power.

what i am trying to get at, STING, is the fact that you are unwilling to concede the fact that the administration has messed up your war, that they are pulling out before the Iraqi army is ready (the mere presence of batillions means little if they can't fight worth a damn or drop their weapons and run), that it was sold to the American people under now laughably bad, cherry-picked intelligence, that there are global consequences to this war that might outweigh the consequences of keeping Saddam in power, that we are stretched thing while Iran and North Korea grow their nuclear capabilities and China makes mean faces at Taiwan.

it's this kind of blinkered vision that the administration is guilty of, and that has lead us into the mess in the first place.

again, my question is this: you point to the many good things that this war could have accomplished, yet you do not hold the administration accountable for it's failure to accomplish any of these goals.

and as anyone will tell you, it's not a country's first democratic election that matters. it's the country's second, and third, and forth election that matters.
War is such a big issue, that it sweeps many of the complexities of any presidential election to the side. The war was the biggest issue in the campaign and people had the opportunity to throw out George Bush 1) if they thought the invasion was the wrong course of action 2) if they thought Bush had mishandled the aftermath with the occupation. There is simply no better gauge of America's feelings about the war than the November 2004 election. No poll with less than 1,000 people would ever come close the the accuracy of a Presidential election with over 120 million people voting for who would be President for the next four years.

George Bush just won re-election 9 months ago. Since that time, Iraq has had its first free election in decades, has nearly developed a constitution, and now has a substantial military force. People claimed Bush would not win in 2004, so claims that he would not win now, especially with all the new accomplishments in Iraq and a stronger economy, run hollow.

I have already conceded that the administration has made some tactical mistakes in the war. But I can't concede that the administration has messed up the war or lossed the war. Those that make the claim that the administration has "failed" don't seem to understand how long it takes on average to achieve victory and success in such circumstances involving nation building, insurgency, and building a new Iraqi military force. The fact is, these things take longer than the brief 2 years that the country has been engaged in the conflict. Also, monthly casualty figures are a tiny fraction of the rate in the last longterm insurgency war the United States fought in Vietnam, so this too can't be used against the adminstration to claim that it has "failed".

The Democrats claims of failure by the Bush administration in the occupation begs the question, what would the Democrats have done differently and what would have been achieved in the same time frame of 2 years under their leadership. Nation Building is a complex and difficult task, and anyone who thinks Bush has failed is going to be hard pressed to prove that they could have accomplished more in such a small time frame under such conditions. Many of the Democrats said a January 30, 2005 election was too quick and would never happen, so there's one accomplishment we know would not of happened under Democratic leadership in the first couple of years.

The Iraqi military now has over 100 Battalions in uniform compared to just 1 Battalion a year ago. Of these 100 Battalions, 10 are considered as capable as any US Marine or US Army Battalion. By the summer of 2006, this number will grow, and by 2007 at the current rate, the Iraqi military will have 100 Battalions capable of fighting and dealing with all the same situations that US Battalions currently do.

More importantly is that the desire to fight for the new government and the new Iraq is widespread. Despite the fact that army recruiting centers are the #1 target of insurgent bombings, long lines outside these recruitment centers continue to persist. As much as you bad mouth the new Iraqi military, they have taken more casualties than the coalition forces combined and still continue to fight.

The central case for the war in Iraq still remains Saddam's failure to comply with multiple UN resolutions and to verifiably disarm of all WMD. It is a FACT, that Saddam never verifiably disarmed of 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard Gas, 500 pounds of Nerve Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells. The only thing that is laughable or cherry picked are the Democrats attempts to criticize the administration with some supporting intelligence reports that indeed turned out not to be accurate, but were 1) NEVER the central case for war 2) such intelligence is NEVER 100% accurate.

I'd like for you to explain why it would have been better to keep Saddam in power in light of all the things that had happened in the previous 24 years with Saddam in power. What global consequences of the war outweigh the consequences of keeping Saddam in power?


As far as the US military being stretched thin, some facts are in order:

The United States currently has 88 Army, National Guard and Marine brigades.

17 of these Brigades are in Iraq

4 of these Brigades are in Afghanistan

3 Brigades are in Okinawa ready to respond to any
Chinese moves against Taiwan

1 Brigade in South Korea

1 Brigade in Kosovo

1 Brigade in Bosnia


TOTAL: 27 Brigades deployed in combat or important security roles.

The remaining 61 Brigades are mainly in the United States with a few brigades in Germany, Italy, Japan(mainland), Kuwait, and some other temporary spots. While some of these Brigades may have just recently returned from Iraq, Afghanistan or other security deployments, all 61 of these Brigades are available for deployment anywhere in the world including Iraq.

Of the 39 National Guard Brigades that make up the total, only 4 Brigades are currently deployed outside of the United States. It is true that the burden on active duty units is far greater than the national guard, but it is false that the overall United States ground forces have been stretched thin.

The United States currently has the forces it needs to respond to crises in Taiwan, Korea, or Iran despite the large deployment to Iraq. There are currently 61 Brigades that could be rushed to any of these places if a sudden crises warrented their deployment.







"again, my question is this: you point to the many good things that this war could have accomplished, yet you do not hold the administration accountable for it's failure to accomplish any of these goals."

No, I have listed the many good things that the war HAS accomplished, but recognize the tactical mistakes that have been made in the process. The administration has accomplished many of its goals: it has removed Saddam's regime from power, given Iraq its first free election in decades, facilited the writing of a new constitution and the development of a new government, revitalized many parts of Iraq that were neglected under Saddam, and has built a new Iraqi army now composed of 100 Battalions. Thats a hell of a lot to have accomplished in only 2 years in this part of the world.




"and as anyone will tell you, it's not a country's first democratic election that matters. it's the country's second, and third, and forth election that matters."

When these elections succeed, I have no doubt that the Democrats will come up with new reasons to explain why the war and occupation is a failure.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 11:56 PM   #43
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


War is such a big issue, that it sweeps many of the complexities of any presidential election to the side. The war was the biggest issue in the campaign and people had the opportunity to throw out George Bush 1) if they thought the invasion was the wrong course of action 2) if they thought Bush had mishandled the aftermath with the occupation. There is simply no better gauge of America's feelings about the war than the November 2004 election. No poll with less than 1,000 people would ever come close the the accuracy of a Presidential election with over 120 million people voting for who would be President for the next four years.
C'mon be realistic. You can't honestly believe that war was the sole determining factor in this election. You know social issues was HUGE. You know homeland security was a key issue. Don't forget the "sit down and have a drink with" vote. People have many economic, social, and military reasons for voting for a President. It isn't just ONE issue.


Quote:
George Bush just won re-election 9 months ago. Since that time, Iraq has had its first free election in decades, has nearly developed a constitution, and now has a substantial military force. People claimed Bush would not win in 2004, so claims that he would not win now, especially with all the new accomplishments in Iraq and a stronger economy, run hollow.
If Bush has done all these amazing, incredible feats in the last 9 months, explain his horrible job approval rating. America must be seeing something is wrong, right?

Quote:
I have already conceded that the administration has made some tactical mistakes in the war. But I can't concede that the administration has messed up the war or lossed the war. Those that make the claim that the administration has "failed" don't seem to understand how long it takes on average to achieve victory and success in such circumstances involving nation building, insurgency, and building a new Iraqi military force. The fact is, these things take longer than the brief 2 years that the country has been engaged in the conflict. Also, monthly casualty figures are a tiny fraction of the rate in the last longterm insurgency war the United States fought in Vietnam, so this too can't be used against the adminstration to claim that it has "failed".
I guess Irvine is saying that SURE, I guess it was alright to take action against Saddam. BUT!, do you agree with the treatment of prisonors at Abu Ghraib? When you pick up the newspaper and read that, in one week, 30 soldiers from the same state died, do you think, "They are dying for a good cause. These men and women are really protecting the freedom of the citizens of the US."?

Quote:
The Democrats claims of failure by the Bush administration in the occupation begs the question, what would the Democrats have done differently and what would have been achieved in the same time frame of 2 years under their leadership. Nation Building is a complex and difficult task, and anyone who thinks Bush has failed is going to be hard pressed to prove that they could have accomplished more in such a small time frame under such conditions. Many of the Democrats said a January 30, 2005 election was too quick and would never happen, so there's one accomplishment we know would not of happened under Democratic leadership in the first couple of years.
Obviously the POLITICANS are gonna say that. They're clearly gonna say the elections won't be a success, they are POLITICIANS! That doesn't mean that every word that every Democratic congressman has uttered is the opinion of all Democrats. It's childish to assert that Democrats would not have achieved what the Republicans achieved, as there's no way of comparing. That's like saying that Al Gore would have been a better President than Millard Fillmore. You can't say that the Democrats would have failed at something they never did.

Quote:
The Iraqi military now has over 100 Battalions in uniform compared to just 1 Battalion a year ago. Of these 100 Battalions, 10 are considered as capable as any US Marine or US Army Battalion. By the summer of 2006, this number will grow, and by 2007 at the current rate, the Iraqi military will have 100 Battalions capable of fighting and dealing with all the same situations that US Battalions currently do.
Americans are still dying. Until Americans stop dying, how can we be confident that this war is a success? Especially when there's no way to forsee WHEN American troops can leave. It could be one year, two years, five years until the Iraqi army can control themselves.


Quote:
More importantly is that the desire to fight for the new government and the new Iraq is widespread. Despite the fact that army recruiting centers are the #1 target of insurgent bombings, long lines outside these recruitment centers continue to persist. As much as you bad mouth the new Iraqi military, they have taken more casualties than the coalition forces combined and still continue to fight.
Like I said earlier, no one knows when the Iraqi army will be ready. Therefore, you can't deny that Americans COULD POSSIBLY be dying in Iraq for many years to come.

Quote:
The central case for the war in Iraq still remains Saddam's failure to comply with multiple UN resolutions and to verifiably disarm of all WMD. It is a FACT, that Saddam never verifiably disarmed of 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard Gas, 500 pounds of Nerve Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells. The only thing that is laughable or cherry picked are the Democrats attempts to criticize the administration with some supporting intelligence reports that indeed turned out not to be accurate, but were 1) NEVER the central case for war 2) such intelligence is NEVER 100% accurate.
President Bush was NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY, "Saddam Hussein sought significant quanitites of uranium from Africa". He did. They were picking and choosing which intelligence to keep and which to ignore.


Quote:
I'd like for you to explain why it would have been better to keep Saddam in power in light of all the things that had happened in the previous 24 years with Saddam in power. What global consequences of the war outweigh the consequences of keeping Saddam in power?
It's a good point. Many people are better off without Saddam in power. But is that worth American deaths? Is it our duty to destroy all bad dictators? Why didn't we attack him earlier in 2000 or 2001? He was a bad dictator then. Fidel is bad. Why not declare war on him. It would've been more convenient. I don't wanna come off as a smart alec, but I really DON'T UNDERSTAND why we needed to take such forceful and unilateral action against him. Was there any specific thing he did that put the USA's safety/liberty at risk? War is supposed to be a LAST RESORT. Did the US have no choice but to declare war on Iraq or else the freedom of our country would have been compromised? I really don't know how you can answer yes to any of these.


Quote:
As far as the US military being stretched thin, some facts are in order:

The United States currently has 88 Army, National Guard and Marine brigades.

17 of these Brigades are in Iraq

4 of these Brigades are in Afghanistan

3 Brigades are in Okinawa ready to respond to any
Chinese moves against Taiwan

1 Brigade in South Korea

1 Brigade in Kosovo

1 Brigade in Bosnia


TOTAL: 27 Brigades deployed in combat or important security roles.

The remaining 61 Brigades are mainly in the United States with a few brigades in Germany, Italy, Japan(mainland), Kuwait, and some other temporary spots. While some of these Brigades may have just recently returned from Iraq, Afghanistan or other security deployments, all 61 of these Brigades are available for deployment anywhere in the world including Iraq.

Of the 39 National Guard Brigades that make up the total, only 4 Brigades are currently deployed outside of the United States. It is true that the burden on active duty units is far greater than the national guard, but it is false that the overall United States ground forces have been stretched thin.

The United States currently has the forces it needs to respond to crises in Taiwan, Korea, or Iran despite the large deployment to Iraq. There are currently 61 Brigades that could be rushed to any of these places if a sudden crises warrented their deployment.
These facts are cute, but I can't believe what you're saying. Are you trying to suggest that the US in it's current military situation could go to war with another country???? Actually 2 more countries with your math. We could get rid of the whole "axis of evil"! (Another brilliant move by this administration). C'mon....you can't believe that the US is capable of war with another country. People are serving their second, third, and fourth tours in Iraq. The brigades that are in the United States CAME HOME from Afghanistan and Iraq and want to STAY ALIVE with their FAMILIES. They already served this country nobly. We can't just send them wherever.



Quote:
No, I have listed the many good things that the war HAS accomplished, but recognize the tactical mistakes that have been made in the process. The administration has accomplished many of its goals: it has removed Saddam's regime from power, given Iraq its first free election in decades, facilited the writing of a new constitution and the development of a new government, revitalized many parts of Iraq that were neglected under Saddam, and has built a new Iraqi army now composed of 100 Battalions. Thats a hell of a lot to have accomplished in only 2 years in this part of the world.
But at what cost? Why did so many Americans have to die? Were they protecting our freedom? And don't start talking about 9/11 because a) many investigations by the 9/11 commission, CIA, etc. have said Saddam wasn't connected with 9/11 and b) the terrorists that are killing Americans now WENT there AFTER they realized we had ground forces in Iraq (without sufficient body armor and protection). The fact is, Americans dying in Iraq aren't protecting our freedom and safety.

Quote:
When these elections succeed, I have no doubt that the Democrats will come up with new reasons to explain why the war and occupation is a failure.
So you undoubtedly believe in the partisan politics in America.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-19-2005, 11:38 AM   #44
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 07:16 AM
How did this fall to page 2 so quickly?
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-19-2005, 11:42 AM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14
How did this fall to page 2 so quickly?
It's been a busy day here in FYM.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 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