Guantanamo: the American Gulag - Page 10 - 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 05-31-2005, 05:22 PM   #136
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:50 AM
From what I can tell, it seems a few things are very factual.
-Saddam failed to verifiably disarm, as according to the resolutions set by the UN
-The UN though, then never actually said "OK, US, go ahead, he has breached them, we support you"
-The US went in, with the belief that the WMD would be found, but, for whatever reason, they were not.
-No one knows where the WMD are. Surely it would not be easy to hide either them or the remains. I know we are talking about a fair geographical region, but if they existed, they or the remnant would have to be somewhere, right?

So this leads us to the unknowns.
-Was the information the US had, on the existance of the WMD false or incomplete? Please lets avoid yet another argument on whether the US knew this or not.
-Has sheer bad luck prevented the weapons which Saddam never proved he got rid of, prevented them being found? Or did they never actually exist?
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 05:23 PM   #137
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Afghanistan has been huge success by almost any measure. The United States has removed the Taliban/Al Quada government from power and installed a democracy in Afghanistan in just 3 years. If one understands the history of Afghanistan, one understands just how successful this operation has been. Afganistan has never had a democratically elected government in its 5,000 year history. The United States has succeeding in accomplishing this great goal with a very small number of cuasualites. So far less than 100 US troops have been killed in Afghanistan by hostile fire. Compare that to the Soviet Occupation at this point in the 1980s when the Soviets had suffered over 6,000 killled by hostile fire and not succeeded in their goals.

The American people indeed agreed and re-elected President Bush.
Yet the only reason we invaded Afghanistan was because they were harboring terrorists and would not cooperate. Let's say the Taliban had cooperated fully with the U.S. (I know it never would have happened, but let's just hypothesize) - the Taliban would still be running the country. Our main goal was Al Quaida - the Taliban only became a focus when it became very much apparent that they would not help us. So while the accomplishments of setting up a democratic country are commendable, we have failed so far in our primary objective for going there in the first place.
__________________

__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 05:25 PM   #138
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Bush's re-election after 4 years in office washes the 2000 election a way except for hardcore liberals.

Lets remember that the Majority of Americans did not vote for Clinton in 1996 or in 1992!
History does not wash away.

And yes, Clinton was a minority president. No argument there. But that is a bit different from a president who didn't even win the popular vote.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 05:31 PM   #139
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 03:50 PM
1 and 2. I was not talking about the case for war, but about the lies. I will not reply to some of your misconceptions like "the Bush admin,. trying to defend .. the whole world". We were having the discussion about what an attack means compared to defense about two years ago, and obviously you still don´t get the point and I haven´t changed opinion. I recommend encyclopedias like the Oxford English one instead, where you will find definitions.

Needless to say the rest of the world, except of the coalition countries, did not see that kind of defense and did not feel threatened by Iraq at all.

Also, either you can be sure of something and guarantee it, or you can not. They said they were sure and guaranteed. Up to today there were no WMDs found. Those people in the administration have to take the responsibilities of what they were so sure of. To blame the intelligence later on is just chicken hearted. I can only wonder how you, coming from a military family, fail to see that total absence of guts and integrity.

4. I knew you´d take it personal. What a pity.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 05:37 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 10:20 AM
I have to back up whenhiphop here, Sting. I have seen you post that quote about verifiably disarming stuff so many times it should be your signature.

But you seem to be well-informed about your opinion which I disagree with almost 100% of the time.

But we need debate, not blind conformity in our society so keep it up except for the resolutions thing, we got the point.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:02 PM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
From what I can tell, it seems a few things are very factual.
-Saddam failed to verifiably disarm, as according to the resolutions set by the UN
-The UN though, then never actually said "OK, US, go ahead, he has breached them, we support you"
-The US went in, with the belief that the WMD would be found, but, for whatever reason, they were not.
-No one knows where the WMD are. Surely it would not be easy to hide either them or the remains. I know we are talking about a fair geographical region, but if they existed, they or the remnant would have to be somewhere, right?

So this leads us to the unknowns.
-Was the information the US had, on the existance of the WMD false or incomplete? Please lets avoid yet another argument on whether the US knew this or not.
-Has sheer bad luck prevented the weapons which Saddam never proved he got rid of, prevented them being found? Or did they never actually exist?
In resolution 1441, authorization is given to use military force if Saddam failed to comply. The UN never explicitly said in 1991 for the coalition to remove Saddam from Kuwait with military force, yet everyone recoganizes that is what was meant. The United States authored resolution 1441 and it does authorize military force if Saddam failed his one last chance to comply which he did shortly after UN inspectors landed and he failed to roll out or show where his unaccounted for stockpiles were.

In addition the United Nations has passed 3 UN resolutions since the invasion of Iraq approving the occupation. That would be impossible if the UN felt the invasion that resulted in the occupation was illegal. I don't recall anyone in the UN trying to approve Saddam's occupation of Kuwait in 1991.

Also, it would have absurd to pass a resolution against someone like Saddam without the threat of military action if he failed to comply.



As far as the WMD and the remains go, most of it is very small in size with the exception of the artillery shells and it would be very easy to hide it anywhere so it could not be found.

It is a fact that Saddam had this WMD at some point, all the UN inspectors agree on that point. The only question is when did he dismantle them if in fact he did dismantle them and where are the remains or the intact materials.

Most of the information the USA had on Iraq's stockpiles came from the UN inspectors. Saddam could easily have hid the stockpiles so that no one would be able to find them. The alternative explanation is that Saddam dismantled the WMD without showing the UN inspectors and then neglected to record where they were dismantled. Hans Blix believes this theory.

It is simply impossible to find something that was either purposely(if as many believe Saddam was hiding his WMD) or randomly(if one believes Saddam would dismantle his own WMD without telling the UN and neglect to keep records on the dismantlement) buried several hundred feet underground in a country the size of Iraq. One cannot dig up every square foot of the entire country in order to find the WMD or the remains.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:07 PM   #142
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


Yet the only reason we invaded Afghanistan was because they were harboring terrorists and would not cooperate. Let's say the Taliban had cooperated fully with the U.S. (I know it never would have happened, but let's just hypothesize) - the Taliban would still be running the country. Our main goal was Al Quaida - the Taliban only became a focus when it became very much apparent that they would not help us. So while the accomplishments of setting up a democratic country are commendable, we have failed so far in our primary objective for going there in the first place.
The Primary objective in invading Afghanistan was the dismantlement of the large Al Quada base in Afghanistan. The United States military has been successful in that task. In order to prevent Al Quada or the Taliban from regaining a base in Afghanistan, the development of a stable democratic government is an important component in preventing their return.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:12 PM   #143
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Do you understand the RULES you agreed to when you became a member of this forum? Are the MODS reading this?
In general....I support and understand the decisions of the MOD team....I am wondering the same thing here.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:15 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 02:50 PM
STING, can you explain why only months before the 9/11 attacks, many members of the Bush Admin were telling everyone that Iraq was no threat, had no capability to do anything etc ?

I'd go and find the quotes but I'm at work and really should be doing something else I'm sure you know the ones I mean. Powell, Rice etc etc.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:16 PM   #145
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Can you get a little more concrete. I have the weird shadowy feeling you are finger pointing at me, but I am not sure. Could you please confirm.

The sentence is kind of.. unfinished, btw. If... then what?

pax, I don´t understand why you closed the thread started by me. Can you explain?

The current FYM mentality reminds me of a smeary eye-for-an-eye campaign. Shame on those who follow that mentality.

Dreadsox, I am waiting for your reply.
Shame on those who have to continuously ruin memorial threads.

If you fit the bill so be it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:23 PM   #146
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The Primary objective in invading Afghanistan was the dismantlement of the large Al Quada base in Afghanistan. The United States military has been successful in that task. In order to prevent Al Quada or the Taliban from regaining a base in Afghanistan, the development of a stable democratic government is an important component in preventing their return.
Sting2, I admire your passion and knowledge for these types of things. Seriously, I do.

But nobody, not even you, will ever convince me that the war in Afghanistan has been a success when Al Quaida still thrives there along the Pakistan border, and when Osama bin Laden is still out there.

I am very proud of the United States military and special forces. I am NOT very proud of how our leaders have handled the situation. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise that we couldn't have captured bin Laden by now, despite the location and the ruggedness of the terrain.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:24 PM   #147
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
STING, can you explain why only months before the 9/11 attacks, many members of the Bush Admin were telling everyone that Iraq was no threat, had no capability to do anything etc ?

I'd go and find the quotes but I'm at work and really should be doing something else I'm sure you know the ones I mean. Powell, Rice etc etc.
9/11 changed that...

People in this thread are quoting the US and British intelligence agencies as lying.

The French and German intelligence agencies also believed there were WMD. If my memory serves me correctlyu German intlelligence had him aquiring the bomb in 2006. Sting may have a better feel for this.

The other factor the Koffi (No scandals) Anon (SPELLING) would love us to forget is the NUMBER of nations on the security council willing to ignore the fact that resolutions were being viiolated because of the food for oil SCEME.

Now, my thinking....sorry, but the UN Security council is not who I elect to protect me. I elect the President, and unfortunately when the entire world believes there are WMD, and he has had a decade to comply.....time is UP. If they are there or not, I was not willing to take a chance that the UN was going to help protect my country.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:27 PM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
1 and 2. I was not talking about the case for war, but about the lies. I will not reply to some of your misconceptions like "the Bush admin,. trying to defend .. the whole world". We were having the discussion about what an attack means compared to defense about two years ago, and obviously you still don´t get the point and I haven´t changed opinion. I recommend encyclopedias like the Oxford English one instead, where you will find definitions.

Needless to say the rest of the world, except of the coalition countries, did not see that kind of defense and did not feel threatened by Iraq at all.

Also, either you can be sure of something and guarantee it, or you can not. They said they were sure and guaranteed. Up to today there were no WMDs found. Those people in the administration have to take the responsibilities of what they were so sure of. To blame the intelligence later on is just chicken hearted. I can only wonder how you, coming from a military family, fail to see that total absence of guts and integrity.

4. I knew you´d take it personal. What a pity.
I understand why the United States and the coalition invaded Iraq and why the invasion was legal, a necessity for international security, and morally justified as well.

That you along with people in other countries do not understand that or agree with that is hardly surprising.

Based on the intelligence the administration had, they were sure that once US troops had taken Baghdad they would find the WMD in certain places. The intelligence turned out to be incorrect which often happens, but it was NOT the central case for war. The Central case for war was the resolutions and the verifiable disarmament of Saddam's WMD. The administration does take the responsiblitity for everything that happens and it made the best decision possible based Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm and the intelligence it had. The American people then approved this and re-elected the administration to another four years in office.



4. I'll ask this again, Have you read what the FAQ/RULES of this forum says about infering that someone is a 5 y.o., mentally insane, stupid, or any other similar comments?

Its a pity when any one suffers the consequences of failing to follow the clearly stated rules of the forum in regards to such matters.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:34 PM   #149
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I understand why the United States and the coalition invaded Iraq and why the invasion was legal, a necessity for international security, and morally justified as well.

That you along with people in other countries do not understand that or agree with that is hardly surprising.
I have always admired your steadfast dedication to this topic, but mainly because of the patience and tact you argue your points with. I have no doubt this thread has been reporte already and actions will be taken if they haven't already against the personal slights to you.

But without going into any personal attack, why do you state this, the quoted section? Do you think those opposing it are not seeing it, or do you feel they do not agree with the legal standpoint, the international security, and the moral justification?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:36 PM   #150
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
STING, can you explain why only months before the 9/11 attacks, many members of the Bush Admin were telling everyone that Iraq was no threat, had no capability to do anything etc ?

I'd go and find the quotes but I'm at work and really should be doing something else I'm sure you know the ones I mean. Powell, Rice etc etc.
That is mistating what they said. It is true that so far at that point, US military forces in the region along with the sanctions and embargo had been enough up to that point to prevent Saddam from invading or attacking another country.

No one said that Iraq was not a threat. If that were the case, sanctions and the embargo would be lifted, and 20,000 US troops in the region would have been withdrawn.

In addition, no one claimed that SADDAM had complied with any of the resolutions. No one said Saddam did not have any WMD and that the disarmament process was no longer needed.

Its strange that people who often oppose the administration will use these quotes and then others who also oppose the administration will use other quotes to show that Bush from day 1 was interested in only one thing, invading Iraq.
__________________

__________________
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 08:50 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