Iraq has made us less safe, end of story - 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 09-29-2006, 05:47 PM   #136
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


No, it comes from an understanding of longterm US foreign policy interest, needs, and goals, as well as what is needed to protect such interest or effectively achieve its goals. Its only been since the 1980s that the Republican party began to predominately have the best policies when it came to national security. My support for the present policies is not based on some total devotion to the Republican Party or George Bush. But you do often find that situation in both parties, and its more evident in forums where one group heavily outnumbers the other.


you overestimate the unbiased nature of your own understanding. it's hugely pro-military, almost naively so at points with a consistent overestimation of the abilities of the US army as well as the motivations of those who use the army to further their political goals.

it's clear you know a great deal about the US military and military history, but it isn't at all clear that this understanding is at all unbiased or ideologically based. and your often inaccurate, dismissive, condescending accusations about what "liberals" want or "Democrats" think undercuts your above paragraph.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 05:51 PM   #137
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


That is a matter of speculation and would have been directly related to the level of support the North would have continued to receive from the Soviets...whose government didn't have to deal with bad PR and elections...

The US wasn't willing to directly confront the North and there was no more political will to prop up the South indefinitely. It was a no win situation from the beginning.
The evidence from 1968 through 1972 shows that was not the case. The policy was working. The insurgency in South Vietnam, the initial reason for the war in the begining had been defeated. The United States in 1972 did not not need to confront the North directly as all of the Norths offensive were being defeated as they went south. The South Vietnamese military was rising in capability, this is something that has been and can be measured based on the results of the years through 1968 through 1972.

The Soviets had already maximized their support to the north which was reliant on shipping materials through the port in Hanoi which was often blocked by US forces. The United States had the advantage and money and equipment it could arm the South with and was better positioned do to its naval military power projection capabilities to supply the South than the Soviets were able to supply the North.

By 1972 Vietnam was no longer the front page issue it had been in 1968. Nixon won re-election in 1972 by the biggest landslide in US history. The US involvement in the war on the ground was low, only 250 deaths in 1972 compared to 16,000 in 1968. The South was winning battles on its own. It was growing stronger and if the North could not defeat the South in 1972 with such limited support from the United States, it would never be able to defeat the South, unless of course the United States pulled the plug on everything which the US congress did in late 1973.

In contrast, there is no metric that shows that the North Vietnamese would have been able to overrun South Vietnam if the United States had kept supplying it and was ready to use its superior airpower to always tip the balance in favor of the South. Casualties to the US would remain tiny and were politically sustainable.

The Economics and resources were on the side of the United States and South Vietnam, not the Soviet Union and North Vietnam.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 06:06 PM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511






good points. i love the assumption of victory, "if only we hadn't ..." in fact, much of what is presented as fact is mere speculation, or, less charitably, wishful thinking.

by 1973, the US realized the war wasn't winnable, in any sort of meaningful sense, and the Paris Peace Accords were an attempt to both save US face as well as scale down the mass death in Vietnam.
Really? If the North Vietnamese could not overrun South Vietnam in 1972 with their massive Easter offensive given the limited amount of US troops in the country, what makes you think they would be able to do it three years later if the United States had continued its limited efforts in the country and continued to supply the South Vietnamese military. The North Vietnamese counter to US airpower was not any better in 1975 than it was in 1972.

The 1975 offensive Armored/Mechanized offensive by the North was the same one they launched in 1972, the only difference this time was that the South Vietnamese had been without supplies from the USA for two years and much of their equipment was inoperable because of that, plus there had been no US advisors to help advance and improve the training of the force in the intervening time, and just as importantly, there was no US airpower.

Add in the missing advantages that the South had in 1972, and its a repeat of the 1972 Easter offensive all over again with defeat for the North. The United States had severed much of the large cost of the war to itself by 1972 and it was now out a level it could maintain indefintely if need be. On the other hand, the cost to North Vietnam were increasing. The North was failing to accomplish their goals, while the cost to them was increasing while the cost to the United States had fallen to a tiny amount relative to what it was in 1968.

There has never been any metric that showed that the war was unwinnable and all the metrics by 1972 show that it was indeed being won.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 06:07 PM   #139
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In contrast, there is no metric that shows that the North Vietnamese would have been able to overrun South Vietnam if the United States had kept supplying it and was ready to use its superior airpower to always tip the balance in favor of the South.
Exactly, there's no metric, just speculation that US airpower would have held off the North's Soviet supplies.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 06:12 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you overestimate the unbiased nature of your own understanding. it's hugely pro-military, almost naively so at points with a consistent overestimation of the abilities of the US army as well as the motivations of those who use the army to further their political goals.

it's clear you know a great deal about the US military and military history, but it isn't at all clear that this understanding is at all unbiased or ideologically based. and your often inaccurate, dismissive, condescending accusations about what "liberals" want or "Democrats" think undercuts your above paragraph.
I made a general reference about bias in the forum, not a personal one directed at any one individual. I also mentioned that it indeed goes both ways, and you would see more on the Republican side in Republican dominated forum.

It never fails that you will eventually make some inaccurate personal statement about an individual you don't even know.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 06:16 PM   #141
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq has made us less safe, end of story

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
What is not debatable is that the crumbling of sanctions and the embargo, WMD capability or at least to the capacity to produce again, plus the enevitable re-equiping of the Iraqi military with more modern weapons as the embargo crumbled, would indeed create a serious unstable situation given the size of Kuwaits and Saudi Arabia's military forces and the tiny number of US forces supporting them relative to the size of Saddam's military which in 2002 had a total of 420,000 troops.
Then what was needed was new and better sanctions and embargos to cut off his military growth?

I'm not feeling it yet, Ken.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 06:18 PM   #142
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


Exactly, there's no metric, just speculation that US airpower would have held off the North's Soviet supplies.
I think you mean the Norths military. It is not speculation because it indeed happened while US airpower was still involved. The North launched the same type of offensive that had failed in 1972 in 1975. This time though, the South had been without supplies from the United States for 2 years, as well as the training advisors it had 3 years earlier. But most important, US airpower was not in the skies to decisively tip the scales in favor of the South at any point that the North was making in sort of progress in 1975. Add back in the things the South was missing from 1972 and its repeat of the Norths Easter offensive campaign that year that was defeated.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 07:54 PM   #143
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

It never fails that you will eventually make some inaccurate personal statement about an individual you don't even know.


you've indicted yourself, STING:



[q]I think part of the opposition to many of these policies in here tends to be more political and ideological sometimes rather than being balanced and unbiased. [/q]

[q]No, it comes from an understanding of longterm US foreign policy interest, needs, and goals, as well as what is needed to protect such interest or effectively achieve its goals. Its only been since the 1980s that the Republican party began to predominately have the best policies when it came to national security. [/q]

and that's just in this thread. if you're going to present yourself as clear thinking and unbiased, you'd better watch the comments you make about "liberals" in other threads so the above self-descriptions have any sort of credibility.

it would take hours for me to go through and pick apart your arguments, but it can and has been done -- one example is how your understanding of Resolution 1441 is incorrect, and this has been demonostrated over and over -- and this is because you're every bit as biased as anyone else and the information you select to present your case is every bit as cherry-picked as anyone else's.

and that's fine. just don't present yourself as above and beyond the "bias" of the forum, when you're as much a part of it as anyone else.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 08:54 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you've indicted yourself, STING:

and that's just in this thread. if you're going to present yourself as clear thinking and unbiased, you'd better watch the comments you make about "liberals" in other threads so the above self-descriptions have any sort of credibility.

it would take hours for me to go through and pick apart your arguments, but it can and has been done -- one example is how your understanding of Resolution 1441 is incorrect, and this has been demonostrated over and over -- and this is because you're every bit as biased as anyone else and the information you select to present your case is every bit as cherry-picked as anyone else's.

and that's fine. just don't present yourself as above and beyond the "bias" of the forum, when you're as much a part of it as anyone else.
Thats real fascinating, and I know how much you love to talk about me, but I think it would be a good idea to get back to the topic of your thread since this is obviously not it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 11:23 PM   #145
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq has made us less safe, end of story

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




Saddam was set up.

he could never comply to the satisfaction of the US interpretation of UN Resolutions, and there was never an expectation that he would have, or could ever, have complied.
Saddam set himself up, it was his policy of maintaining the illusion of stockpiles to keep Iran at bay that kept the world assuming that he had them, given the events in Iran over the last 3 years a Baathist Iraq would probably have ramped up it's programs.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-30-2006, 01:57 AM   #146
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 07:37 PM
Over 800 attacks every week in Iraq

· Woodward and Pentagon clash over war toll
· Colonel says only pullout will end insurgency

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday September 30, 2006
The Guardian




The Bush administration has misled the American people about the level of violence in Iraq, where there is an attack by insurgent forces every 15 minutes, Bob Woodward, the investigative journalist, said yesterday.

In a new book, State of Denial, Woodward argues that the White House disregarded warnings from advisers in the autumn of 2003 that it needed thousands more troops to put down the insurgency. He says the administration continues to deny the gravity of the situation in Iraq because of Mr Bush's conviction that it was right to go to war.

"It's getting to the point now where there are 800-900 attacks a week. That's more than a hundred a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces," Woodward told CBS television in an interview to be aired tomorrow night.

The Pentagon's latest quarterly report on Iraq, presented to Congress and posted on the defence department website on September 1, shows the number of attacks rising to 792 a week in August. However, that figure includes attacks on Iraqi civilians, infrastructure and Iraqi police as well as US and coalition troops. Iraqi civilians suffered the majority of casualties.

Woodward argues the administration routinely glosses over such news from the ground, as well as intelligence predicting further deterioration in Iraq, because they collide with Mr Bush's convictions.

The White House failed to act on a memo from Robert Blackwill, then the senior Iraqi adviser on the National Security Council, calling for 40,000 additional troops in Iraq, he writes. It is equally resistant to intelligence forecasts of worsening violence in the year ahead.

The National Intelligence Estimate, parts of which were released this week by Mr Bush, predicted rising violence in Iraq as the conflict there becomes a "cause célèbre" for the global jihad.

"The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better'," Woodward told CBS.

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, remained similarly unswayed by mounting evidence that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction, phoning weapons inspectors at 3am to advise on possible locations of chemical warfare sites.

Such criticism is unlikely to dent Mr Bush's confidence in his decision to go to war. In a speech in Washington yesterday, he criticised those who say the war exposed Americans to greater risk of an attack by al-Qaida. "This argument buys into the enemy's propaganda that the terrorists attack us because we're provoking them," he said.

But as he tried again to rally Americans, the commander of US forces in the volatile Anbar province was predicting that the insurgency would not end until US forces were gone. "The insurgency's days will eventually come to an end. And they will come to an end at the hands of the Iraqis, who, by definition, will always be perceived as more legitimate than an external force like our own," said Colonel Sean MacFarland.

In this, his third book on the administration, Woodward relies on the off-the-record interviews with US officials that have become his trademark. But unlike his earlier chronicles of the White House, Woodward did not have access to Mr Bush or Mr Cheney.


Wow, this should be an interesting book. The US government has a madman driving the country off a cliff.

And the reason many people here disagree with the positions of the Bush supporters is not politics. It's called evidence and the facts on the ground. More and more people are realizing that this administration has mislead and betrayed it's own citizens and sent it's sons to an unnecessary war. A blithering idiot who is stubborn beyond belief with an issue he has no stake in. His children and familiy aren't at risk, his standard of living isn't at risk, the only thing at risk is his legacy. Big F'n Deal! This administration's response to criticism is like that of an insolent child. They pay no heed to any advice no matter the source nor how experienced. The good will and empathy after 9/11 has been squandered, the respect of the world for the values of the US is shrinking with each new power given to this excuse for a president, diplomacy is a four-letter word for this government and yet some people think the sun shines out of his ass. No offence, but those people are fools! The reason so many people around the world "hate America" now is not because of the people or your society it's because of one thing, George W. Bush. That's his legacy, destroying the reputation of America. And it's not because he is a Republican, there have been other President's who were Republican but were accepted and not vilified.

Quote me all you want and condemn my remarks, if you wish Bushites. I don't read your stuff anyway, the only reason I see your Bush-coloured view of the world is through the quotes of others. I stopped wasting my time a long time ago.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 09-30-2006, 12:43 PM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


The ambiguities of the Cold War containment policy included not doing anything to provoke direct confrontation with the Soviets and China...so it was truly an unavoidable rock and hard place between military leaders telling the politicians what needs to be done to win and everyone in Washington jockeying for position.
I wish every war COULD be fought the way the Cold War was - antimidation through space programs and such. The enemy was real, and we had communist subversion even in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. Unfortunately, I don't think it would be enough to combat Islamic Jihad if we intercepted Al-Jazeera and showed Al Qaida what our space programs are capable of. The fact that Al Qaida had planned two additional MAJOR attacks that would make 9/11 look like nothing, doesn't leave me a whole lot of comfort that they are pursuing nuclear weapons.

Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
Ohhhh I loooove death tolls

Does the 300,000 include those who died after the US purposely baited Japan to attack Pearl Harbour?
Pearl Harbor was the 9/11 of the New Dealer generation. No reasonable American asked for the attack. I cannot possibly say that the entire country baited Japan - although FDR did provoke the Japanese to a fair degree, and he did want war with Hitler before the vast majority of Americans had considered the option reasonable. In reality, FDR was right on the money, we couldn't afford not to get involved. By the time we were attacked, it was much harder to get involved and fight an effective war. Because we knew we had to unite, there was an unmatched loyalty in the US - nobody put politics before survival.

One thing is for sure - the Democratic Party of today hates the idea of George W. Bush or any sitting Republican president taking credit for fighting an effective war on terrorism. That's why they're playing politics against a sitting president in a time of war - putting politics before national security. There are few exceptions - Ed Koch, Zell Miller, Dick Morris, Joe Leiberman, etc. But other than that, what have they proposed that will lead to a US victory, other than fantasizing about peace?
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-30-2006, 01:13 PM   #148
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Pearl Harbor was the 9/11 of the New Dealer generation. No reasonable American asked for the attack. I cannot possibly say that the entire country baited Japan - although FDR did provoke the Japanese to a fair degree, and he did want war with Hitler before the vast majority of Americans had considered the option reasonable. In reality, FDR was right on the money, we couldn't afford not to get involved.
Since you've made the comparison, are you willing to accept that the Bush administration allowed 911 to happen because they felt they needed to rally American support to remove Saddam?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 10-02-2006, 09:57 AM   #149
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Everybody should be supporting Iraqi democrats and the Iraqi people against the religious nihilists and the fascists who are murdering them daily. These groups will be defeated by the Iraqi's -doing this and keeping the country a democracy should be a framework for this goal.
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

from The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 10-02-2006, 11:20 AM   #150
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
Since you've made the comparison, are you willing to accept that the Bush administration allowed 911 to happen because they felt they needed to rally American support to remove Saddam?
The whole argument is grainy from top to bottom. It would be as if you were arguing that Clinton wanted 9/11 to happen by letting Mohamed Atta in the country while he was in office (January 10, 2001).

Clinton did not ignore of the US embassy bombings because he had an agenda, either. He was however warned, and obviously wasn't able to stop the attacks.

Quote:
Paragraph #623 on page 130
Final Report of the 9/11 Commission

On December 17, the day after the United States and Britain began their Desert Fox bombing campaign against Iraq, the Small Group convened to discuss intelligence suggesting imminent Bin Ladin attacks on the U.S. embassies in Qatar and Ethiopia.The next day, Director Tenet sent a memo to the President, the cabinet, and senior officials throughout the government describing reports that Bin Ladin planned to attack U.S. targets very soon, possibly over the next few days, before Ramadan celebrations began. Tenet said he was “greatly concerned.”114 With alarms sounding, members of the Small Group considered ideas about how to respond to or prevent such attacks. Generals Shelton and Zinni came up with military options. Special Operations Forces were later told that they might be ordered to attempt very high-risk in-and-out raids either in Khartoum, to capture a senior Bin Ladin operative known as Abu Hafs the Mauritanian—who appeared to be engineering some of the plots—or in Kandahar, to capture Bin Ladin himself. Shelton told us that such operations are not risk free, invoking the memory of the 1993 “Black Hawk down” fiasco in Mogadishu.
Nobody wanted it to happen - yet nobody took terrorism seriously enough until 9/11 happened. I can't flat out say that FDR wanted Pearl Harbor to happen, nor did Winston Churchill, but both of them saw it coming.

Churchill Knew of Pearl Harbour Attack

There is also evidence that indicates that Roosevelt had inside information on the first attack on Pearl Harbor (there were actually two - one in 1941, the other in 1945 - for those of you who don't watch The History Channel).

Pre-9/11 - The Bush Administration was spending too much time playing watchdog to Iraq and ignoring Al Qaida - when in reality they should have been watchdogs to both. The Clinton-era Republican Party was wasting its time attacking Clinton for going after Bin Laden as to somehow shift public interests away from the Lewinsky scandal.

Here are some of the findings behind what allowed 9/11 to happen:

Quote:
from THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT

After releasing the report, Commission Chair Thomas Kean declared that both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had been "not well served" by the FBI and CIA [2].

In addition to identifying intelligence failures occurring before the attacks, the report claimed to provide evidence of the following:

* Airport security footage of the hijackers as they passed through airport security
* Cockpit voice recordings of the terrorists as they hijacked and sabotaged the airliners
* Eyewitness testimony of passengers as they described their own final moments to family members and authorities on airphones and cellphones from the cabins of doomed airliners
There is valid counter-criticism for the 9/11 attacks - whereas the bureaucracy for the CIA, the FBI, the NYPD, and the Air Force that stumbled the ability for them to communicate with each other. Bush was forewarned, yes, but the targets were not disclosed in the threat, nor was the date or time of the attack.

Bush & Co. learned a valuable lesson on 9/11 however, and completely revised counter-terrorism in order to pluck out the root of Islamic Jihad, by going after both Osama bin Laden and those who have funded unrelated attacks against democratic societies.

I do have to wonder why Clinton waited until 1998 to go after Al Qaida - they have an extensive history of killing innocent people. Clinton made little effort to secure the borders, the airports, or any other way to prevent Jihadists from committing more ruthless acts of violence after the first WTC bombing.

Even as early as 1997, Dick Morris - who was key to Clinton's the presidential electoral victory in 1996 - spoke out against Clinton's inability to fight terrorism in his book, Behind the Oval Office: Winning the Presidency in the Nineties. He is NOT a conservative, especially on domestic issues. He is however disassociated with Clinton & Co. when it comes to terrorism.

Today, he is outspoken about what could have been done in order to prevent further terrorist attacks. He even co-wrote FahrenHype 9/11 with actor Ron Silver to defend such policies as The Patriot Act and to debunk falsehoods of Michael Moore.

We now know of many terror cells exposed inside the United States, thanks to Steven Emerson, who was given a death threat from a South African Muslim group in response of his expose of Jihad in America, which he received from the FBI. He now lives undercover.

Even under such a death threat, he went on to appear in Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, and is a contributor for the Counterterrorism Blog, which provides information to policymakers.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe 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 06:07 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