GOP Traitors in a Time of War... - Page 5 - 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 08-24-2005, 10:16 PM   #61
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Hey Sting, would you support Al Gore if he went to war in Iraq? If he went there, and no weapons of mass destruction were found, I'll bet you'd be mad. If we went there and had no kind of exit strategy, and no clue as to when our troops could come home, wouldn't you question his decision making?
__________________

__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 11:20 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14
Hey Sting, would you support Al Gore if he went to war in Iraq? If he went there, and no weapons of mass destruction were found, I'll bet you'd be mad. If we went there and had no kind of exit strategy, and no clue as to when our troops could come home, wouldn't you question his decision making?
Given the situation that the USA and the rest of the world was faced with in regards to Saddam in 2002, I would support any President that made the decision to remove Saddam from power because doing so was in the vital national security interest of the United States and also in the vital global security interest of the planet. The coalition did not invade Iraq in order to search for WMD, it invaded Iraq because Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD per the UN resolutions, the fact that no WMD has been found by coalition forces is irrelevant to the need to take military action to insure that Saddam's regime was completely disarmed.

Did Abraham Lincoln have any clue as to when the Civil War would be over? Did FDR know precisely when the Axis would be defeated? As long as who ever was the President initiated a nation building process as well as developing Iraq's military and security services to the level that they could take over the role that the US and coalition military currently performs there, then I would indeed support that President.

The fact is, Bush launched the war because it was in the vital security interest of the region and the world that Saddam be removed. Saddam's regime has been removed from power and the UN resolutions, vital to the security of the region, have finally been fully enforced. There is a clear exit strategy which involves the political, economic and military development of Iraq so that it can stand on its own and handle any security problems without being dependent on US and coalition forces. Any President that has done what Bush has done would have my support.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 11:44 PM   #63
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 174
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Let's send all of the GOP to the gallows!! Am I right, or am I right?
__________________
theblazer is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 01:15 AM   #64
The Fly
 
s_tielemans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of Wa

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Really, George Bush is a dictator? I think even the "far left" here at FYM would not even go that far.

George Bush has launched unprovoked invasions and attacks on four different countries? Iraq and Afghanistan were not unprovoked invasions, but if you could name just one, that would be interesting.
I said he's on his way. He probably won't have time to reach four, but I disagree with you on the Iraq invasion. It was unprovoked, however the difference is that there was a clear build-up. It wasn't a surprise attack.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

George Bush has used WMD more times than any leader in history? George Bush has never used WMD even once.
I'd call a daisy-cutter a weapon of mass destruction, a conventional one, but something that blows up a mountain qualifies for me.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
George Bush has threatened the worlds energy supply with seizure and sabotage? On the contrary, Bush's policies and well as the policies of early presidents have increased the energy supply available to the planet as well as making it more secure from disruption.
Seizure of the worlds energy supply is maybe not exactly what the US is doing right now, but they are certainly trying to gain control over it. Now there are large american interests in Kuwait, Saudi-Arabia AND Iraq. None of them respect human rights in any way, but the US don't care.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
George Bush has murdered over 1.7 million people? He may have mangled the english language 1.7 million times, but Bush has not murdered anyone.
Simply the way you look at it, isn't it? When you think the war in Iraq is just, then you could uphold that the thousands bomb to pieces are justified. Oh, and that the innocent people bombed to death are "collateral damage". Whoever thought of describing killing innocent people this way should seek professional help!
And again, I said he's on his way

But there are of course the simple issues like upholding the Geneva conventions for POW's or (if you see the people held by the US as terrorist suspects) giving suspects a fair trial (within 50 years if possible, please). Controlling the media is right up there as well. He isn't going to shut networks down, but the level of information given to networks varies by popularity with the government. Therefore the most poular networks get the scoops. Also there is pressure to show or not show certain footage. There were some clips of US Marines going to work on prisoners, that were shown in europe and not in the US (they're probably shown on the internet though, but not officially).

As I said, this US government is on its way of turning their democracy and freedom into a travesty of the real concept.
The attack on Afghanistan was a just response on the 9-11 attacks, as it was clear the masterminds of this were there. But I'm afraid it's pretty clear they are STILL there. Bush really, really wanted to make a link with Iraq and made one up. Islam fundamentalist groups were as much of a threat to the Saddam regime as to the other dictatorships in the region.

Now, I'm gonna post this and hope this quote/unquote has worked
__________________
s_tielemans is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 10:54 AM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,062
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The point I was trying to make with the question was that there never has been a coalition in history that involved all those countries(Germany, France, Russia, China) so to expect the current coalition to only be a real coalition if all those countries are involved is absurd.
The allied forces in WWII was indeed a united coalition against the Axis powers. I would say that since the major countries were involved together, that is a true coalition. That isn't the case now.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 06:25 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time o

Quote:
Originally posted by s_tielemans


I said he's on his way. He probably won't have time to reach four, but I disagree with you on the Iraq invasion. It was unprovoked, however the difference is that there was a clear build-up. It wasn't a surprise attack.



I'd call a daisy-cutter a weapon of mass destruction, a conventional one, but something that blows up a mountain qualifies for me.


Seizure of the worlds energy supply is maybe not exactly what the US is doing right now, but they are certainly trying to gain control over it. Now there are large american interests in Kuwait, Saudi-Arabia AND Iraq. None of them respect human rights in any way, but the US don't care.



Simply the way you look at it, isn't it? When you think the war in Iraq is just, then you could uphold that the thousands bomb to pieces are justified. Oh, and that the innocent people bombed to death are "collateral damage". Whoever thought of describing killing innocent people this way should seek professional help!
And again, I said he's on his way

But there are of course the simple issues like upholding the Geneva conventions for POW's or (if you see the people held by the US as terrorist suspects) giving suspects a fair trial (within 50 years if possible, please). Controlling the media is right up there as well. He isn't going to shut networks down, but the level of information given to networks varies by popularity with the government. Therefore the most poular networks get the scoops. Also there is pressure to show or not show certain footage. There were some clips of US Marines going to work on prisoners, that were shown in europe and not in the US (they're probably shown on the internet though, but not officially).

As I said, this US government is on its way of turning their democracy and freedom into a travesty of the real concept.
The attack on Afghanistan was a just response on the 9-11 attacks, as it was clear the masterminds of this were there. But I'm afraid it's pretty clear they are STILL there. Bush really, really wanted to make a link with Iraq and made one up. Islam fundamentalist groups were as much of a threat to the Saddam regime as to the other dictatorships in the region.

Now, I'm gonna post this and hope this quote/unquote has worked
The 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement required Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD or face RENEWED military action to insure that he was disarmed. In March 2003, Saddam was in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement in this regard and the United States and the coalition invaded as authorized by the United Nations Ceacefire agreement and resolutions. Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD was the provication for military action. So claiming that the invasion was unprovoked is false.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are weapons who's destructive power are difficult to control. The daisy cutter is a powerful weapon, but its destruction can be contained to a certain area. The effects of Nuclear, Chemical, and Bio weapons often cannot be contained despite the best efforts to a particular area.

There are large American interest in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as well as Iraq. There are large Chinese interest in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. There are large European interest in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. There are large South American interest in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. The entire planet has equal interest in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq because the entire planet uses oil for its energy, most of which comes from this area. The global price of energy depends on Supply and Demand factors. Most of the supply of global energy is in the Persian Gulf. If the rest of the planet was suddenly cut off from this supply of energy, it would be an incaculable disaster for the entire planet. What the United States is doing in Iraq is insuring that the planets energy supply remains safely available for the rest of the planet to use at a stable price. This helps everyone, especially poorer people who would be unable to afford energy to heat their home or fill up their car, if energy reserves in the Persian Gulf were cut off from the rest of the planet. The United States, China, Europe, South America, Japan all benefit when the energy supplies in the Gulf is safe and secure.

I believe you said the war in Afghanistan was justified right? Didn't innocent people die there? Was the liberation of France in World War II justified? Did you know that 20,000 innocent French civillians died in the first days of the D-Day invasion?

If you think Bush is a dictator for his conduct of the war, the then I wonder what you thought of FDR back in World War II?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 08:44 PM   #67
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Given the situation that the USA and the rest of the world was faced with in regards to Saddam in 2002, I would support any President that made the decision to remove Saddam from power because doing so was in the vital national security interest of the United States and also in the vital global security interest of the planet. The coalition did not invade Iraq in order to search for WMD, it invaded Iraq because Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD per the UN resolutions, the fact that no WMD has been found by coalition forces is irrelevant to the need to take military action to insure that Saddam's regime was completely disarmed.

Did Abraham Lincoln have any clue as to when the Civil War would be over? Did FDR know precisely when the Axis would be defeated? As long as who ever was the President initiated a nation building process as well as developing Iraq's military and security services to the level that they could take over the role that the US and coalition military currently performs there, then I would indeed support that President.

The fact is, Bush launched the war because it was in the vital security interest of the region and the world that Saddam be removed. Saddam's regime has been removed from power and the UN resolutions, vital to the security of the region, have finally been fully enforced. There is a clear exit strategy which involves the political, economic and military development of Iraq so that it can stand on its own and handle any security problems without being dependent on US and coalition forces. Any President that has done what Bush has done would have my support.
So if a democrat went to war, you can honestly say you'd fully support him?
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 01:18 AM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14


So if a democrat went to war, you can honestly say you'd fully support him?
I already have, I supported Clinton in both Bosnia and Kosovo.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 06:09 AM   #69
The Fly
 
s_tielemans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Ti

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement required Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD or face RENEWED military action to insure that he was disarmed. In March 2003, Saddam was in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement in this regard and the United States and the coalition invaded as authorized by the United Nations Ceacefire agreement and resolutions. Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD was the provication for military action. So claiming that the invasion was unprovoked is false.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are weapons who's destructive power are difficult to control. The daisy cutter is a powerful weapon, but its destruction can be contained to a certain area. The effects of Nuclear, Chemical, and Bio weapons often cannot be contained despite the best efforts to a particular area.

There are large American interest in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as well as Iraq. There are large Chinese interest in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. There are large European interest in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. There are large South American interest in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. The entire planet has equal interest in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq because the entire planet uses oil for its energy, most of which comes from this area. The global price of energy depends on Supply and Demand factors. Most of the supply of global energy is in the Persian Gulf. If the rest of the planet was suddenly cut off from this supply of energy, it would be an incaculable disaster for the entire planet. What the United States is doing in Iraq is insuring that the planets energy supply remains safely available for the rest of the planet to use at a stable price. This helps everyone, especially poorer people who would be unable to afford energy to heat their home or fill up their car, if energy reserves in the Persian Gulf were cut off from the rest of the planet. The United States, China, Europe, South America, Japan all benefit when the energy supplies in the Gulf is safe and secure.

I believe you said the war in Afghanistan was justified right? Didn't innocent people die there? Was the liberation of France in World War II justified? Did you know that 20,000 innocent French civillians died in the first days of the D-Day invasion?

If you think Bush is a dictator for his conduct of the war, the then I wonder what you thought of FDR back in World War II?
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on the legitimacy of the invasion. You keep saying the UN resolutions were breached, but that point of view was shared by the US and UK alone. Blix was furious the US didn't want to hear his reports that Iraq was complying and was basing its policies on its own intelligence (and what a fine job they did, didn't they?).

I will accept your point of the daisy-cutter not being a WMD. You're probably absolutely right there.

The interest of the people in a source of energy in a certain region can NEVER be a justification to invade the country that controls that source of energy. They are sitting in a desert on a sea of oil, that means they're lucky and we're not. They have the right to do whatever they want with their oil, whether we like it or not. The US would probably have to produce more oil from sensitive areas, buy from russia, or cut back on oil use (or a combination). But do not try to tell me that I should be happy that the US invaded because it keeps the oil price at a steady level because I'm not. I didn't ask the US army to save my petrol, thank you. The disaster now is bigger in my opinion.

For the WW2 point: you almost had me. I almost thought the response was a logical one. But it isn't Yes people get killed during wars, and even innocent civilians (and yes, I do know a lot of european civilians got killed in WW2). There is a bit of a difference though between WW2 and the Iraq war. France was a country under German occupation. They asked the americans to help. Much like Kuwait did in the first Gulf war. It's another thing to invade a nation because you don't like the leadership there. If that would become common practice the US would face a few. Surely you must see a tiny difference between the war Germany was waging in the 1940's and invading Iraq. If not, it's going to be quite difficult for me to change your opinion!
__________________

__________________
s_tielemans 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 09:07 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