Iraq has made us less safe, end of story - 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 10-02-2006, 06:31 PM   #166
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




7,000 dead over two months. has the process failed? by what measure? is the process working? most assuredly not.

i also find it ironic that you'd point to Bosnia as a comparable situation, at least as the death toll is concerned, when it was because of such a death toll (among other factors) that foreign intervention was widely supported, not least by the members of U2, as a way of stopping the bloodshed, so it's ironic that you'd point to Bosnia when it is the presence of American troops and the toppling of Saddam without any semblance of a postwar plan that has created a Civil War in Iraq (remember, even Colin Powell thinks it's a civil war) that is giving us numbers comparable to Bosnia. so ... perhaps you'd support the deployment of NATO troops to Iraq to stop the violence created by the invasion of American troops?

anyway ... back to the topic at hand, which is the NIE statement that Iraq has given the jihadist a "cause celebre." this seems quite undeniable, and just as ironic as the above point since the invasion of Iraq was presented to the American public as a way to prevent a psychopath like Saddam from giving WMDs to jihadists so that a nuke might never float it's way up the East River and flatten part of Manhattan.

but why has this happened? manifest incompetence. so what amazes me is why people who supported the war in the first place -- perhaps for reasons independent from the reasons given to the American public over the course of 2002 and early 2003 and exemplified with Colin Powell's hugely embarassing presentation to the UN -- aren't asking for the heads of people like Rumsfeld and Cheney. the absence of a call for accountability and competence, and blind assertions that things will get better if we just continue doing the same thing, speaks to me of an unwillingness to look back, take responsiblity, address what went wrong, fire the guilty, and try to make it work. continually defending what is clearly a failing policy doesn't seem to be doing anyone much good,
[/q]
Foreign intervention in Bosnia was NOT widely supported! In fact, a majority of public opinion in the United States was against US involvement in the conflict. The Europeans stalled for years to do anything and the Clinton Administration was not very forceful in making an effort to do something at first. The United States did plenty of arm twisting to get NATO to agree to engage in the military operation. There were no NATO losses in the operation, but had Serb forces continued to resist, and if NATO forces started to take casualties, which was indeed a possiblity, all the same crticisms and accusations that we see in on the domestic front in regards to Iraq war would have appeared. The presence of American troops in the Serb dominated parts of Bosnia had the potential to be a big flashpoint just as their presence has been in Afghanistan and the several area's of Iraq.

The United States has been following a postwar plan in Iraq although it has made many mistakes in a number of choices it has made, especially early on. But, once again, there are dozens of plans for these types of operations that are made by the State Department and the Pentagon for nearly every region of the world. The idea that there was no plan was simply false, as retired 4 star General Anthony Zinni, himself a critic of the war, has said. The problem has been mistakes and unwise choices that were made in the plans.

There are troops from just as many NATO countries on the ground in Iraq as there are currently in Afghanistan or Bosnia.


If the United States was not currently in Iraq, the report would be talking about Afghanistan as the "cause celebre" for foriegn Jihadist, just as it was in the 1980s with the Soviet Union there. So then, your logic would suggest that the United States should withdraw from Afghanistan immediately. Carry the logic further and the United States should have not responded to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, because US deployment to Saudi Arabia and and re-taken Kuwait from Saddam were events that angered and emboldened these Jihad elements.

But the fact is, all of these military operations, the 1991 Gulf War, the 2001 invasion of Afghansitan, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, were necessary regardless of the fact that they could be used by Jihadist as a way to recruit new followers.

What the NIE says is rather obvious, but it also admits it has no way to precisely measure this, making it more of an estimate, than an accurate counting of people who were apart of the movement prior to March 2003 or earlier and who are part of the movement now.

The arguements used against Iraq based on what is presented in the NIE could be used against Afghanistan as well, or for that matter, any US military operation in the region past or present.


It would be nice if the Democrats actually could come up with a plan for Iraq that did not involve BS domestic politics back home. Instead, the only talk is of how fast to withdraw troops, who to fire, or who needs to be defeated in November in the USA. Thats great, but it does little if nothing to help Iraqi's risking their lives and working to unite and stabilize their country which in the long run is in everyone's interest.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-02-2006, 06:37 PM   #167
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Defeating insurgencies and building nations are projects that are not accomplished in 3 years. They normally take 10 to 20 years provided that the commitment to them never wavers. You can't claim that the process is a total failure when its impossible for such a process to work in the time span since everything started.



but this was never, ever the case made to the American public, and if it were, there would never have been the political support for the invasion that there was in 2002/3.

many would argue that the money could be better spent on myrid other projects and that containment as it was understood in the late 1990s was a preferable situation than what is currently going on.

the reason support has fallen is that this was not what the US public signed on for. and it has nothing to do with terrorism. it has nothing to do with 9-11. it has nothing to do with a potential threat of WMDs to New York, DC, or LA.

all the rationale you've given for the ouster of Saddam and a 20 year nation building process are all fine and good, but the majority of the American public are not receptive to the idea that their tax dollars and the blood of their sons and daughters should be spent and shed for a war that never had to happen and to fix a country that never posed a threat to the United States. you can point all you want to the oil in the Gulf Region, but that becomes a global problem requiring a global response, not something that should fall directly on the backs of American soldiers who are doing the majority of the dying.

[q]But once an Iraqi security force is created that can do the job of the coalition, the insurgents days are numbered, for while it was certainly possible to force the coalition to give up the enterprise and leave the country, a large well trained Iraqi military force has no where else to go.[/q]

but this isn't what's happening. there are 300,000 Iraqi army and police members and the violence is significantly worse, the government is weak, and Shiite militias have infilatrated at all levels of society. with 300,000 Iraqis effective at doing their jobs you might not see a total end of violence, but you would never have a situation where over 3,000 Iraqis are dying a month, and in horrible, horrible fashion.


Quote:
If there is a better plan for Iraq out there than the current one, it must be a plan that is actually for Iraq, and not a plan to simply withdraw ones military and satisfy the domestic political situation at home.
it would have been nice if the initial invasion was actually for the well being of the Iraqi people and not a plan to satisfy a politcal agenda at home and to bolster the idea of Bush as a "war president," but what has passed has passed.

i have no idea what to do. but it's clear that what's going on now isn't working.

the only suggestion i can give would be to fire Rumsfeld.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-02-2006, 06:41 PM   #168
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

So then, your logic would suggest that the United States should withdraw from Afghanistan immediately.


i have to go home so i have no time for this -- but, please, read my posts: NOWHERE have i said that immediate withdrawal is a good idea.

i know this fits into the idea of what all "liberals" are like, and it helps to create a straw man, but that's not the case at all.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-02-2006, 07:31 PM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



but this was never, ever the case made to the American public, and if it were, there would never have been the political support for the invasion that there was in 2002/3.

many would argue that the money could be better spent on myrid other projects and that containment as it was understood in the late 1990s was a preferable situation than what is currently going on.

the reason support has fallen is that this was not what the US public signed on for. and it has nothing to do with terrorism. it has nothing to do with 9-11. it has nothing to do with a potential threat of WMDs to New York, DC, or LA.

all the rationale you've given for the ouster of Saddam and a 20 year nation building process are all fine and good, but the majority of the American public are not receptive to the idea that their tax dollars and the blood of their sons and daughters should be spent and shed for a war that never had to happen and to fix a country that never posed a threat to the United States. you can point all you want to the oil in the Gulf Region, but that becomes a global problem requiring a global response, not something that should fall directly on the backs of American soldiers who are doing the majority of the dying.


but this isn't what's happening. there are 300,000 Iraqi army and police members and the violence is significantly worse, the government is weak, and Shiite militias have infilatrated at all levels of society. with 300,000 Iraqis effective at doing their jobs you might not see a total end of violence, but you would never have a situation where over 3,000 Iraqis are dying a month, and in horrible, horrible fashion.




it would have been nice if the initial invasion was actually for the well being of the Iraqi people and not a plan to satisfy a politcal agenda at home and to bolster the idea of Bush as a "war president," but what has passed has passed.

i have no idea what to do. but it's clear that what's going on now isn't working.

the only suggestion i can give would be to fire Rumsfeld.
Discussing the case made to the American public in September/October 2002 when the decision to go was made is a different issue. It was made based on the fact that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm and containment had fallen apart. The administration never put a time limit on how long US troops would be in Iraq once they went, just as they did with Afghanistan, because one can't predict how everything will turn out before hand with that level of precision.

Containment and the peaceful disarmament of Saddam would indeed have been preferable, but those options were tried and failed. Saddam was to be verifiably disarmed within two years of the end of the Gulf War, but it did not happen. Whats more, by 2000, there were no restrictions or anything stopping trade and arms going over the Syria, Iraq border. Containment is impossible when there is whole that big in it. Saddam was profiting from the sanctions to the to of Billions of dollars a year. Thats not containment!


The United States people supported the largest immediate deployment of US troops in 1990-1991 to protect and secure the vital oil supplies of the Persian Gulf. Sorry, but middle America realized even back then how much their lives are impacted by Persian Gulf energy supply. The response to that crises, and the current one are little different in terms of the percentage of US troops making up the entire coalition force. In fact, non-US and British troops have seen more fighting in the current war than in the 1990-1991 War when most of those elements had no real military role at all to play and were there for political reasons rather than military necessity.

A majority of Americans in polls continued to support the war in Iraq until after the President was re-elected. Even today, despite the Democrats best efforts to attack the war, around 40%, depending on the poll, still support the war. Nearly all of the criticisms being leveled against the administration and the war came during the 2004 Presidential election, yet the American people chose Bush. Try to explain that away all you want, but that was the result despite the Dems and holywoods best efforts.

Insurgencies take a long time to defeat, and the enemy chooses to fight in such a way because its the best way to pro-long the fight and get the domestic population in the foreign country against the effort. As domestic opposition rises, eventually a premature withdrawal happens, and the insurgents rush in to knock down all the structures that had been built but were not ready to stand on their own with out the aid of the coalition. Thats the insurgents plan for victory. I don't think the opposition has reached those levels yet, but obviously you do, which is good news for the insurgents in Iraq.




Once again, as I stated before, its not simply a matter of numbers which you would have seen if you had read my entire post. Getting to the 400,000 or 500,000 number of police/military forces in the country is only small part of what has to be done. Such forces have to be trained to a level that they can perform the task at hand with a level of skill compared to coalition forces. That takes years to develop. Its happening, but its happening very slowly. Only a small part of the force have capabilities comparable to coalition forces in performing specific tasks, and these units are typically ones that have been in development for two years now. Its not enough to simply have the people enlisted, it takes time, mistakes, setbacks, more training based on those things, weeding out those who are there for the wrong reasons etc. This is a process that is happening, and will take another 4 to 5 years to complete before you can really seriously consider withdrawing any troops.


The initial invasion of Iraq was done to solve a huge security threat to the region that other methods short of invasion had failed to effectively deal with. This is not a conflict that started with the Bush 43 administration.


If the current process was not working as you claim, it would have been impossible to hold two elections, and pass a constitution and have the current government take office. The Iraqi military would not exist. There are several other metrics to consider when looking at whether the process is working or not, and you simply ignore them and site casaulty figures which may have increased do to better tracking and recording of them, rather than being the level of increase that is suggested by them. Even if it is, you can't take a two month period of casualties 3 years into what is at a minimum a 10 year process and claim that its not working or a failure.

Since civilian casualties is your only metric for failure or success, at least in the above post, what level of casualties would you site as being one that would not be an indication of failure.

All the while, everyone continues to ignore that the overall number of US killed and wounded in Iraq, the only fully accurate metric when it comes to casualties inside the country, continues to drop.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-02-2006, 07:33 PM   #170
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i have to go home so i have no time for this -- but, please, read my posts: NOWHERE have i said that immediate withdrawal is a good idea.

i know this fits into the idea of what all "liberals" are like, and it helps to create a straw man, but that's not the case at all.
I never said that you did, but your logic seems to be suggesting thats the best course of action.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-03-2006, 10:56 AM   #171
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



you know, i typed a response, but i don't think this posts even deserves one.
LOL

So from now on, NOBODY is allowed to copy and paste any facts!
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 10-03-2006, 12:15 PM   #172
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
LOL

So from now on, NOBODY is allowed to copy and paste any facts!


?

your facts had nothing to do with anything, not least of which any sort of context to make them comprehensible.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-03-2006, 12:32 PM   #173
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
?your facts had nothing to do with anything, not least of which any sort of context to make them comprehensible.
Again, the context was that you claimed "the NYT, if anything, is implicated in the selling of the war and the furthering of Bush propaganda."

This is the third time I quote that bizarre statement. But you're not alone. Michael Moore has also accused the press of being cheerleaders for Bush.

Quote:
Entertainment Weekly interviews Michael Moore

EW: You were one of the first Americans to see the sexual-abuse images.

MM: My first thought was, Why haven't I seen this? The networks are over there every day. Think about this! They've got millions of dollars, they have tons of reporters and cameras, and are you telling me that one of my little freelancers just happened to stumble on, not in the prison, but out in the field, four or five soldiers taking turns touching the erection of this Iraqi under this blanket? That they see this erection under a blanket and they take turns humiliating him? Now, if we caught that randomly, you know it's going on all the time.

EW: Did you get the footage of the sexual abuse before or after the prison scandal broke?

MM: Before.

EW: Why didn't you make it public? Or at least give it to the government?

MM: I thought, What should we do? We don't have a show, we're not going to give it to these networks. They're all cheerleaders for Bush.

EW: Do you really believe that?

MM: There's not a single network I would give this footage to and expect them to handle it properly.

"I don't know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightning than die from an act of terror."

- Michael Moore

(Another argument you've attempted.)

"The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."

- Michael Moore

(Another argument you've attempted.)
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 10-03-2006, 12:39 PM   #174
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Again, the context was that you claimed "the NYT, if anything, is implicated in the selling of the war and the furthering of Bush propaganda."

i'll respond to this, since the rest of the post isn't worth responding to.

leading up to the invasion of Iraq, there were many, many articles on the front page of the NYT written by Judy Miller about Iraq's supposed WMDs, when most of the information given to her was from Ahmed Chalabi.

without these articles, and the working assumption that, yes, Iraq did have weapons, there would have been far less support for the war amongst the political middle and political left.

the NYT deserves blame for this because they did a poor job vetting Ms. Miller's articles.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-04-2006, 09:57 AM   #175
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



i'll respond to this, since the rest of the post isn't worth responding to.

leading up to the invasion of Iraq, there were many, many articles on the front page of the NYT written by Judy Miller about Iraq's supposed WMDs, when most of the information given to her was from Ahmed Chalabi.

without these articles, and the working assumption that, yes, Iraq did have weapons, there would have been far less support for the war amongst the political middle and political left.

the NYT deserves blame for this because they did a poor job vetting Ms. Miller's articles.
If she had faulty information to begin with, then yes, that hurts her credibility, and the Times for backing her up. If she indeed had bad information to begin with, and a good reputation with her employer, then it explains why they came to her defense. It has nothing to do with the Times' apparent support for Bush or the War in Iraq, as you asserted. It is perhaps the largest newspaper I've ever seen, and it would be a grueling process to research every source for every story. That's why Jayson Blair got away with his fabrications for as long as he did, as did Walter Duranty.

We found 500 hidden sarin, nerve, and VX weapons in Iraq. Sarin and nerve gas are both classified as WMDs by the UN. VX is known as "the deadliest nerve agent created to date", according to Wikipedia and its sources. Were there specific WMDs that we claimed Saddam had, and weren't found? If so, which ones were they?

To insinuate that the New York Times is a cheerleader for Bush on any level whatsoever is laughably dishonest. Pinch Sulzberger & Co. have been extremely critical on the War in Iraq. This is a paper that hasn't endorsed a Republican presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower, not to mention, yet again, they ran 32 consecutive Abu Ghraib stories on the front page.

At a State University of New York at New Paltz commencement speech, Sulzberger was upfront about his left-wing political affilliations:

Quote:
http://www.newpaltz.edu/commencement/sulzberger.html

"You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life; the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drives policy and environmentalists have to relentlessly fight for every gain. You weren't. But you are. And for that I'm sorry."
In bed with Bush, isn't he?

Quote:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/slipsky/?id=95000407

In "The Trust," authors Susan Tifft and Alex S. Jones tell of a confrontation over the war that took place between its young publisher to be, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., and his father, Arthur "Punch" Sulzberger.

The father had rushed up to Boston after his son, then a student, had gotten arrested in an antiwar demonstration. The authors recount how the two had dinner at Locke-Ober and then, "slightly tipsy," took a stroll around Boston Common. There, say Ms. Tifft and Mr. Jones, Punch asked his son this question: "If a young American soldier comes upon a North Vietnamese soldier, which do you want to see get shot?"

"I would want to see the American get shot," the young publisher-to-be replied defiantly, according to Ms. Tifft and Mr. Jones.

"It's the other guy's country;
we shouldn't be there," the younger Mr. Sulzberger had said by way of explanation. The authors describe Arthur Jr.'s answer as "calculatedly provocative." "To Punch," write Ms. Tifft and Mr. Jones, "such sentiments bordered on treason, and he exploded in anger." They say that the younger Mr. Sulzberger would later characterize his father's query as "the dumbest question I've ever heard in my life" and his own reply as "the dumbest answer."
For all I know, he still believes that.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 07:11 PM   #176
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:22 AM
oh for goodness sake.

here's the point: the NYT functioned as an administration mouthpiece first through Judy Miller's faulty reporting, as well as through Tom Friedman's Op-Ed pieces that were, initially, supportive of the invasion (he has since been shocked by the ineptitude of the Bush administration and their utter failure to have anything resmbling a post-war plan).

when you get the NYT on your side -- and the administration did, though Judy Miller -- then you're going to have a much, much easier time selling the war to what's known as the "cultural elite" (aka, people who read newspapers).

lastly, it's important to note the distinction between reporting and analysis and opinion-editorial. the NYT reporting has no liberal bias or slant or agenda. neither does the analysis. the op-ed part of the paper has been consistently anti-Bush, as is their right, as is their job -- the press has always had an adversarial role with whomever is in power, left or right.

and, yes, reporters vent all their sources, even in a paper as big as the NYT. those who do not usually get found out, like Jayson Blair.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-05-2006, 09:32 AM   #177
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:22 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...3fHNg&refer=us

Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) -- A majority of U.S. adults say President George W. Bush has deliberately misled the public about progress in Iraq and opposition to the war matches an all- time high, according to a poll conducted for CNN.

The poll, released today, coincided with publication of the book ``State of Denial'' by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, which says Bush ignored warnings from military officials about the growing Iraq insurgency and made claims of success that conflicted with intelligence assessments.

In the Sept. 29-Oct. 2 poll, 58 percent said the administration misled the public about how the war is going. In addition, 57 percent said the conflict has made the U.S. less safe from terrorism, indicating that Bush's central argument in defense of his policy isn't gaining traction with voters.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 09:48 AM   #178
War Child
 
Nube Gris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lima Peru
Posts: 759
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Bush's the problem....you should get him out of power
__________________

__________________
Nube Gris 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 10:22 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