in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ... - Page 12 - 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 09-14-2007, 12:50 PM   #166
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Isn't that what Bush just announced?
No.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 12:53 PM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:30 PM
hmmmm.....not exactly what I would consider objective reporting.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 12:59 PM   #168
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 12:30 AM
Did you just say 'Isn't that what Bush just announced'?

NO.

Bush announced a sort of phased withdrawal with the goal of getting troop levels down to pre-surge levels.

It should be phased withdrawal with the goal of getting MOST or ALL of our forces OUT of there. Period.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 01:02 PM   #169
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


hmmmm.....not exactly what I would consider objective reporting.
Why don't you read what they have to say and then decide? If by "not objective" you mean they see things that don't jive with what the administration feeds us so therefore they're critical of the administration, you're right. If you mean they're paid to put a certain slant on things, you're wrong.

What do you consider objective reporting?
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 01:52 PM   #170
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 12:30 AM
This entire discussion is pointless in a sense because everyone who has even two brain cells to rub together knows that this war is over in the most important way - it's just a matter of time before you start drawing back your troops. It's over. It's no longer politically viable, the public support is gone, and the political process (yes, the election) will be the final nail in the coffin. That is what makes this all the more tragic: the fact is many people have foreseen this ending for a long time, the surge accomplished nothing politically, and what it achieved militarily is temporary because you can't and won't maintain this troop level in Iraq.

It's amounting to a lot of theoretical arguing, because really, intellectually speaking, this war is over. The physical presence on the ground has a definite, if undefined, end in sight.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 02:18 PM   #171
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 10:30 PM
AEON, I see you haven't replied to my post yet, so let me repost it here for you.


Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


I'm guessing you didn't notice the sarcasm when I asked that.

But I forgot some countries. What about Cuba and Venezuela. And how can I forget Iran??

What about Saudi Arabia? Here is a quote from wikipedia:

"The Basic Law of Government adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the sons and grandsons of the first king, Abd Al Aziz Al Saud. It also claims that the Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Sharia)"

And weren't most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudi?

So we have to invade them too! I know it sounds silly right? Saudi Arabia are our friends so how can we invade them? But that is exactly the reason we should, because they are our friends and they need our "help" in installing a democracy.

EDIT: And I also forgot Sudan.

Okay AEON, here is our list of countries to invade:

-Pakistan
-North Korea
-Iran
-Cuba
-Venezuela
-Saudi Arabia
-Sudan
-China?: You say they are making progress so bombing them is not necessary. Why do you think they are making progress? Just because they have a booming economy and are our biggest trading partner doesn't mean they are making progress on the democracy front.

How great would it be if we lent a helping hand to all of these nations by destroying them and rebuilding them?

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 02:29 PM   #172
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 12:30 AM
There are probably at least a half a dozen more African countries you could add to that.

And Burma.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 02:38 PM   #173
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:30 PM
America wasn't destroying the rubble of all those countries for over a decade beforehand.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 02:40 PM   #174
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
There are probably at least a half a dozen more African countries you could add to that.

And Burma.
Yea you are right. But I thought I'd just start with those to see what the neo-cons have to say about that.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 03:15 PM   #175
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 12:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
1. I know of a few Southerners circa 1861 that would answer "yes"

2. By somehow thinking that the Middle East is incapable of democracy.

3) The entire Global War on Terror is about the safety of our country and democracies around the world. Petraeus is in one theater out of many.

4) In Iraq we are indeed fighting al-Queda, GWOT, and preserving US safety. The president and the congress are the right people to speak about the overall success GWOT, not Petraeus. I don't see why this is so difficult for people to understand.
A civil war is a long way from invading another country.

Democracy isn't the perfect system, and most people agree that it's not. There has never been. There are differing thoughts on what is. Just because democracy has worked doesn't mean it's the and all be all of government. Personally, you and I think it's the best yet. But that's not how it works.

And how does Iraq relate to the War on Terror and al-Qaeda?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 03:20 PM   #176
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 12:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
C'mon - even Democrats agree the Surge has worked militarily, even in some small degree. They seem to be arguing that this has not translated into political gains.
It's all about the political goals, Bush has stated this.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 03:22 PM   #177
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 12:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Isn't that what Bush just announced?
Bush is merely taking out the EXTRA troops that he added for the surge.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 03:27 PM   #178
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


A civil war is a long way from invading another country.

Democracy isn't the perfect system, and most people agree that it's not. There has never been. There are differing thoughts on what is. Just because democracy has worked doesn't mean it's the and all be all of government. Personally, you and I think it's the best yet. But that's not how it works.

And how does Iraq relate to the War on Terror and al-Qaeda?
Firstly I do not think that you can point to Baathist Iraq as a model of consensual government, Hussein was long way from being a benign dictator (the opinion polls from Iraqis show that the majority approve that Saddam is removed and that life in Iraq is better without him in power - while at the same time disaproving of US presence in the country and terrorism). The situation that Iraq was in through the 1990's where it was boxed in militarily to enforce a regime of sanctions was bad; it cannot be matched to countries such as Pakistan or China where that program of destruction had been pursued.

As Sting2 would point out the violence in Iraq is concentrated around Baghdad, in the absence of foreign forces most of the country (at least the ethnically seperate parts) can be peaceful). Any policy for withdrawing troops should be matched with one that can achieve a stability in Iraq without a bloodbath - now if that is a referendum on partition, installing a dictator (which wouldn't surprise given the langauge coming from both US parties ) or leaving the Iraqi government to seek regional partners in Iran and Syria that should be the focus of the discussion. But it isn't because Iraqs long term situation is in nobodies political interest because as soon as foreign forces leave it's not their problem or responsibility for what happens.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 03:27 PM   #179
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 12:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
The best question of the night. And I admit - other than resources, and I can't think of a good reason. (with the exception of China - which is showing progress)
That's the single stupidest thing I've ever read in this forum. I recognize that this might be stepping too far, and I apologize if it is, but really, to suggest that we should bomb every nation that you don't like the politics of because it's not a democracy is the single most absurd statement I've heard here in FYM.

I mean, do you realize the consequences of that? Do you realize how many would die? How many would hate America? How dangerous this would be for our country? How many countries would turn on us? How many would refuse to accept democracy? How totalitarian (i.e.: undemocratic) it is?

I could go on and on.

America is not safer because of Iraq. We are not making progress in Iraq. We are not combating terrorists because, and read this carefully, do not affiliate themselves with a country. This isn't like WWII, with the Japanese being the enemy. This isn't one country. These are sects. Often religious sects. Iraq doesn't make sense in this way. You can't fight countries to fight terrorism. It doesn't work.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 03:32 PM   #180
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:30 PM
States sponser terrorists all the time; USA in Latin America, Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan, Iran in Lebanon. Saddam Hussein had no problem keeping Abu Nidal in Iraq (of course having him killed when he could prove a liability).
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer 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 12:30 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