in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ... - Page 22 - 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 09-16-2007, 08:12 PM   #316
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Sorry, I was just confused by all those years where they were supporting air strikes, sanctions and thousands of sorties based on the facts that Iraq had failed to disarm and it had made links with Al Qaeda. Those policies were justified then on the basis of what they intelligence community was saying; I don't see how that line of thinking within a Gore administration would have changed after September 11.



doesn't the very fact that there was all this anti-Saddam rhetoric, and actions, all of which fell short of a war, from 1991-2003 essentially prove that no one thought the war launched by Bush was a good idea?

there's more than one way to "deal with" or "disarm" or support "regime change" short of invading with 150,000 troops?

there were rumors all through the Clinton years of the US having agents on the ground in Baghdad and working with anti-Saddam revolutionary forces. the policy then was regime change, only it was getting the Iraqis to do it for themselves with support from the US.

the difference is that Bush chose to change the regime using the US Army. and that's a big, big, big difference.

also, just how many Democrats have apologized for authorizing Bush to use force since 2002? all of the presidential candidates, except for HRC who has deftly avoided this.

also, just how many Democrats can reasonably say that authorizing Bush to use force, if necessary, was tantamount to giving him a carte blanche to march in whenever he wanted?

also, is it not reasonable to look at the Democrats in 2002 and say that they supported a policy that might have worked had we not had what is, hands down, the most incompetent administration, president, and sec of def in the history of the United States?

i find it very interesting how Bush-like this conversation has become. it's all very, "i believe on Wednesday what i believed on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday."

and you'll all notice that AEON is doing what the Republicans are trying to do -- wash their hands and avoid any responsibility for this failure.

and it is a failure. a REPUBLICAN failure. the REPUBLICANS have lost ANOTHER war. and it is the REPUBLCIANS fault.

never forget that. hold their feet to the fire.

they held the presidency and both houses of congress from 2001-2006. iraq is your fault.

so fucking man up and take responsiblity for it and admit that you've failed and stop being like a man without a map who can't admit he's lost. all this talk about supporting the troops and, again, they are just political pawns being used to create another natioanl security narrative, like they did post-Vietnam, to get the armchair generals and angry white men to foist all of their "we didn't lose 'Nam it was a TIE" shame onto Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-16-2007, 08:16 PM   #317
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White
I can't think of a congressperson that would "leave the troops hanging." I'm sure plenty would vote for funding to bring the troops home, or to conduct a rapid redeployment.....but not for funding to further entrench us in Iraq.

The fact is that a vote against more funding is a statement about the war effort itself, not the soldiers fighting it. It may represent a change in position for some senators, particularly Democrats, but it's unfair to frame it as if they don't care about the troops.




traitor. why don't you just come out and say you hate the troops and have your picture taken with OBL.



(see, i went past the protests in DC this weekend, and this was essentially the position of the anti-protest protestors, the "gathering of eagles," position -- if you don't think the troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely then you hate them and hate american and should just go back to Russia with Jane Fonda)
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-16-2007, 08:41 PM   #318
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



and it is a failure. a REPUBLICAN failure. the REPUBLICANS have lost ANOTHER war. and it is the REPUBLCIANS fault.


How exactly is this war ONLY the Republicans fault? You said the current Dem candidates that voted for the war have apologized - is that all you need? They vote to send 150,000 troops into a country smack dab in the heart of the Middle East and put the lives of millions of Iraqi civilians at risk, and all they have to say is "I'm sorry" and you are fine with that?

I am sure you are a forgiving person. That's a good thing. I would hope that same sense forgiveness and understanding would extend to the Republicans that were also deceived by the faulty intelligence Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have handed them.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 08:47 PM   #319
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:02 AM
The only deception was assuming that the signals sent by Iraq to prevent neighbours from threatening them actually had weight. Saddam maintained some elements from weapons programs, had to make Iran think that he was armed and had the intention of rearming when sanctions where inevitably lifted - dealing with that would have demanded coopting him, allow Iraqi oil to flow freely provided that the slaughter by the regime was done on the down-low and Iraqi weapons weren't used against western interests; but that is speculation based on policy towards other rogue allies and the inevitability of sanctions being lifted.

The actions under the CPA, the strategic decisions during the first two years that enabled insurgency and sectarianism to take root and the politically motivated decisions that squandered opportunity are where real accountability should be held; and it doesn't fall at the feet of the dems.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 08:47 PM   #320
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:02 AM
AEON, would you honestly sit there and apportion "guilt" (for lack of a better word) at 50/50?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-16-2007, 08:52 PM   #321
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
Al Gore using those links as a justification for bombing Iraq is different then George Bush bombing Iraq without any links and simply to "spread democracy."
Spreading democracy didn't really come to forefront until we came up empty on the WMD search. WMD was the main sales pitch leading up to the invasion. That was the thrust of the argument Powell presented to the UN.

And as Saddam had clearly used chemical weapons, and not verifiably disarmed, it was a legitimate argument. It also turned out to be tragically tragically wrong.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 08:57 PM   #322
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
How exactly is this war ONLY the Republicans fault? You said the current Dem candidates that voted for the war have apologized - is that all you need? They vote to send 150,000 troops into a country smack dab in the heart of the Middle East and put the lives of millions of Iraqi civilians at risk, and all they have to say is "I'm sorry" and you are fine with that?

I am sure you are a forgiving person. That's a good thing. I would hope that same sense forgiveness and understanding would extend to the Republicans that were also deceived by the faulty intelligence Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have handed them.
You seem to have missed most of his post. He clearly stated more than just an apology as his reasons.

And how is Clinton involved in this, other than him saying Saddam's probably a threat?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 09:01 PM   #323
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


Spreading democracy didn't really come to forefront until we came up empty on the WMD search. WMD was the main sales pitch leading up to the invasion.
Wolfowitz's exact quote on the matter:

Quote:
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason. There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually, I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one, which is the connection between the first two."
So, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-16-2007, 10:53 PM   #324
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


How exactly is this war ONLY the Republicans fault? You said the current Dem candidates that voted for the war have apologized - is that all you need? They vote to send 150,000 troops into a country smack dab in the heart of the Middle East and put the lives of millions of Iraqi civilians at risk, and all they have to say is "I'm sorry" and you are fine with that?

I am sure you are a forgiving person. That's a good thing. I would hope that same sense forgiveness and understanding would extend to the Republicans that were also deceived by the faulty intelligence Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have handed them.


it's like with an alcoholic.

sure, there are enablers, but someone's drinking the whiskey and hitting his wife and driving drunk.

do you like this better: it's the REPUBLICANS who have LOST this war.

and, yes, i am fine with politicians saying, yes, i made a mistake. yes, i thought the people in this administration had more than three collective brain cells. no, i could never, ever have imagined it has been this mismanaged.

what matters is what's happened since then.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-17-2007, 07:03 AM   #325
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White
particularly Democrats, but it's unfair to frame it as if they don't care about the troops.
Thanks for that. I find the kind of "the Democrats hate the troops, the Democrats want us to lose" type of argument just the worst kind of dishonesty and cynical rabble rousing.

It's just naked propaganda.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 07:13 AM   #326
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Using the Democrat's concerns about Saddam, pre-9/11 against them is just wrong. Saddam was a concern--he DID have WMD at one time and he used them. He's the sort who might not have minded giving some friendly shelter to a terrorist group, but the war was an over-reaction to that concern. It still amazes me how people can't see that 9/11 to war in Iraq was NOT a logical progression. Regime change in Saudia Arabia maybe, but Iraq?

I don't have any objection to anyone suggesting the Dems were cowards. . .they were. I don't buy most of their "apologies." That's how they get around admitting they didn't have the guts to do the right thing.

But bottom line, it was the Bush administration that led the way, it was the Bush administration that bungled the execution, and it was Republicans and conservative-talk-show-listening America that both bought and sold the jingoistic bs that got us into this mess.

The Democrats need to apologize, not for being "wrong" but for being cowardly.

The Republicans need to apologize for being wrong.

And the American people who supported this fiasco need to turn Rush OFF and start thinking with their heads instead of responding to emotional manipulation.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 10:41 AM   #327
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
AEON, would you honestly sit there and apportion "guilt" (for lack of a better word) at 50/50?
I think anyone who voted for the war is 100% "guilty" for starting the war.

However, I certainly blame Bush, Rumsfeld, and Bremer for poorly executing Phase II (after the initial toppling of the government). The only honorable thing left to do is to fix that mess. I think it is worth a shot for the sake of millions of lives.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 10:55 AM   #328
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Quote:
The only honorable thing left to do is to fix that mess. I think it is worth a shot for the sake of millions of lives. [/B]


how do we fix it?

how long do we give something a "shot" before we determine that it's a bad policy?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-17-2007, 12:07 PM   #329
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




how do we fix it?

how long do we give something a "shot" before we determine that it's a bad policy?
That what is a bad policy? The war or the way we are fighting it?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 01:06 PM   #330
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


That what is a bad policy? The war or the way we are fighting it?


i'd argue both. and i'd argue it became policy the minute these fools in the White House thought that war was good policy.

it was screwed from the beginning. as the Far Left has said from the beginning, and i've agreed, and we've been right all along, it doesn't matter whether the war was a good idea implemented badly. it became a bad idea the minute Bush and Cheney and Co. cooked it up because these were precisely the wrong people to go about doing this.

it's all ultimately irrelevant. Bush, Gore, even Bush 1, would never have thought this war was a policy worth pusuing, whether it would have been good or not. because Bush 2 thought it worth pursuing, it became, by definition, a bad idea.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

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 09:02 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