Iraq has made us less safe, end of story - Page 4 - 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 09-28-2006, 12:07 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland


As for people who sincerely believe invading Iraq was the wrong "cause celebre" venture to prioritize, but feel we're morally obligated to stay and prevent the country from descending into chaos nonetheless, what would you prefer them to say?
How about recognizing how important the region just to the south of Iraq is to the economic survival of the planet and making the connection that instability in Iraq and the return of a threatening regime to power there is obviously not in the best interest of the United States or the rest of the world.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 12:15 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 11:25 AM
You're going to be fighting wars in the Middle East (and elsewhere) for a long, long time then.
__________________

__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 02:30 AM   #48
Refugee
 
jacobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 1,601
Local Time: 11:25 AM
the war in iraq was just for oil and for the beneficiaries of war like halliburton etc...thats the truth!
all the other outcomes was just an alibi for the ignoramus. the acting of devil bush and his criminals is hypocritical and bigoted.
no power for the misguided religious fanatics over the whole planet.
__________________
jacobus is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 09:26 AM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:25 AM
(AP)Former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday major policy changes are needed because the Iraq war has divided the nation "almost as much as Vietnam."

"So there's no doubt that our country is in much more danger now from terrorism than it would have been if we would have done what we should have done and stayed in Afghanistan," he said on the campaign trail with his son, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Jack Carter.

The former president said the Bush administration made a "terrible mistake" by invading Iraq and diverting troops from Afghanistan.

Jack Carter criticized his opponent, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., for supporting the Iraq war. Both Carters also said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should go.

"I think he's one of the worst secretaries of defense we've ever had," the former president said of Rumsfeld. "Almost every decision he has made has aggravated his military subordinates and has also proved to be a mistake."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 09:33 AM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LPU2
The bombings certainly weren't thwarted by the US occupation of Iraq. Republicans need to stop kissing Bush's ass long enough to wake up and realize how dangerous terrorism really is, and that every minute, dollar and life we waste in Iraq is a minute, dollar and life we should be using to fight terrorism.
Do you support the Patriot Act?
If so, I don't see what your problem with Bush is.
If not, what is a more effective way to legislate policies for counter-terrorism?
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 09:35 AM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by jacobus
the war in iraq was just for oil and for the beneficiaries of war like halliburton etc...thats the truth!
all the other outcomes was just an alibi for the ignoramus. the acting of devil bush and his criminals is hypocritical and bigoted.
no power for the misguided religious fanatics over the whole planet.


Gas prices went UP as a result of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But go on, spew out everything you learned from Hugo Chavez.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 09:47 AM   #52
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
How about recognizing how important the region just to the south of Iraq is to the economic survival of the planet and making the connection that instability in Iraq and the return of a threatening regime to power there is obviously not in the best interest of the United States or the rest of the world.
Ah now we're getting somewhere real. Please expand on this with your usual level of analysis and detail so that people CAN recognize this importance so we can transcend the ideological and religious BS smokescreen.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 10:05 AM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
wake up: we are less safe because of Bush. and what, pray tell, did Bush do in his 8 months in office? nothing. nada. and his response to 9-11 has been the biggest American foreign policy since Vietnam.
And what did Clinton do his EIGHT YEARS in office to prevent further terrorist attacks after the '93 WTC attack?

He talked.
Obviously, it didn't enlighten our enemies.

And we can talk about Vietnam all we want. Not because we lost, but how we lost it. If you can't explain how we lost it, than it's fair to say that you learned nothing from it.

Lyndon Johnson - a man who put more dollars into his "War on Poverty" than the Vietnam War - thought it was a more righteous policy to fill the jungles with US troops in guerilla warfare than to withdrawl 80% of the troops and bomb military targets, as Nixon effectively did. That's why 49 states out of 50 re-elected him. He was well on his way to winning the war in honor, as he promised. Of course, Watergate was a curse like no other, but the Democrats saw it as golden. They used it to hammer Nixon's reputation - to some degree justified, if used properly, but it was wrongfully misused to dishonor the war in Vietnam by putting MILLIONS of lives at risk.

Under a Democratic Congress, they used Watergate as an excuse to turn their backs on a faithful ally - South Vietnam. The Democratic Congress demanded that the president had their approval before the bombings were resumed in Vietnam. After the North Vietnamese invaded the South, the Democrats refused to provide humanitarian aid for the South Vietnamese. The Democrats ignored Gerald Ford when he pled for more aid. Thanks to them, we had the worst military defeat in American History, the Fall of Saigon.

For the first time in American History, a war was not lost on the battlefied, but on Capitol Hill. The Peace Movement turned out to be a complete fraud, as it produced death camps, slaughter, and political prisoners. The Communists flooded Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in one of the greatest massacres in history - Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his followers were estimated murdering 1 million to 4 million in Cambodia - out of a population of 7 million.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 10:15 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


There's quite a bit of info out there, plus how many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq and how many from SA?
ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Was 9/11 funded by the Saudi government?

If so, can you back it up?
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 10:18 AM   #55
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:25 AM
Re: Re: Iraq has made us less safe, end of story

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Its a bit curious to see you bringing up the NIE report when you totally ignore what the NIE said about Iraq in 2002.



yes, because nothing has changed in 4 years? so you believe it in 2002, but ignore it in 2006 because you don't want to fess up to a massive failure?


[q]That shows that Democratic party plans to abandon Iraq are indeed a step in the direction that would help the Jihad movement as opposed to hindering it. [/q]

you're taking a step here that i'm not taking. i haven't advocated a withdrawal from Iraq. i think there are several options to consider, from the "three state" solution to the moving of all American troops to the Kurdish north where they can make tactical strikes akin to how they got Zarqawi. and only some Democrats are advocating full withdrawal. what everyone IS advocating is that the present strategy, or, more accurately, non-strategy, is clearly not working. that going into Iraq in the way that we did, and with the lack of postwar plan, has spurred the cause of Jihadism and given us very little in return. very little.


[q]The report does NOT say that invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power has made the United States "less safe". It says the that the Jihad movement has spread and Iraq is one of the underlining factors, but it cannot measure that this is the case with precision.[/q]

wow, you're really splitting hairs here. what more do you need for the report to say? does it say that the removal of Saddam Hussein has made us more safe? does it say that the removal of SH has lessened the Jihadist movement (the only true threat to the US mainland, as SH was NEVER a threat to new yorkers or washingtonians going to work on a Tuesday morning)?


[q]But Afghanistan, is just as much a rallying point for extremist Muslims as Iraq is, and if the United States were not in Iraq at the moment, you can be sure that these extremist elements would be focused on Afghanistan just as they did in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was there.[/q]

and? so give them TWO rallying points? give them TWO muslim countries under American/Western occupation? why didn't we actually stop and deal with Afghanistan and get the job done there?


[q]Saddam and the Taliban were both threats that had to be removed despite the obvious recruitment advertisment it would give the extremist elements in the region.[/q]

and around and around and around we go. i'm so sick of hashing out the same arguments and you giving off the same lines with the obligatory exclamation points.

Saddam is gone, but violence and, more importantly, TORTURE in Iraq is as bad as it ever was under SH and Iran wields far more influence than it did, and it is in the process of becoming nuclearized. the Taliban is not gone, in fact, it is resurgant.

so until we actually deal with these problems, you should stop listing them as accomplishments.


Quote:
The United States today and through out its history has often faced a multitude of simultaneous threats and it does not have the luxury of simply ignoring all of them so it can just focus in on one threat. Its as absurd as those who only wanted to go to war with Japan and not Germany back in World War II.
almost as absurd as the gratiutious World War 2 comparisons.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 10:20 AM   #56
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
And we can talk about Vietnam all we want. Not because we lost, but how we lost it. If you can't explain how we lost it, than it's fair to say that you learned nothing from it.
It was lost because the rationale for war and objectives were not clear and there was no clear exit strategy before military action was initiated. Pretty basic stuff.

Sound familiar?

The political manoeuvering and finger-pointing in Washington only served to drag out the process for many years while American troops died in the thousands, carried out atrocities on civilians because they were almost indistinguishable from the enemy and anti-war sentiment grew steadily in the US and the west.

Sound familiar?

What have you learned?

How can you possibly win?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 10:23 AM   #57
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Building the Iraqi military, continuing the political process that has been started, and funding reconstruction and economic efforts through out the country is the solution, but its going to take years to succeed. Division and withdrawal of the coalition will only push the country toward a real Civil War with casaulty levels similar to the war in Bosnia, about 40 times greater than what is being seen in Iraq at the moment.


and if you sincerely believed this, i'd expect to hear you chanting for Rumsfeld's resignation and Bush's impeachment. even if you think Bush got the big thing right (remove Saddam) how can you stand there and think that the "big thing" has even been executed with any sort of competence?

nothing the administration has done is going to lead you to your goal.

you have a choice: send 500,000 troops and raise taxes to pay for the war, or retreat.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 10:30 AM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Our biggest obstacle in Iraq isn’t the Iraqi insurgents or the imported terrorists. Our biggest obstacles are the defeatists here in America. I cannot believe there are politicians who are openly asking American men and women to die for a mistake. They say “the war was a mistake” in the very same sentence that they say “but we must keep the troops in Iraq.” What a horrible way to try and win a war.


defeatist? people who demand competence from their leaders are defeatists? people who don't think that American troops should be used to make a point or send a message -- George Bush has a really big dick and we can knock out any leader on earth if we want and only use a few troops to do so and then we'll get out and install someone we little a little bit better who'll sell us cheaper oil -- are defeatists?

let's get this clear: we are losing the war on terror. this is what the NIE says. no, it doesn't say, as STING would like, "Iraq has made the Jihadists movement worse." it does say that Iraq is one of many factors that has made the Jihadists movement into a vastly greater threat than it was a short while ago.

under Bush and Rumsfeld, we've lost ground strategically, ideologically and politically. much of this is because the war in Iraq has been badly, badly mismanaged by people who were never serious about following through (on STING's prediction of 8 years of occupation!) to begin with. an ineffective occupation that doesn't bring democracy. the Rumsfeld-led military that promotes torture and utilizes interrogation techniques made popular by the USSR, the Strasi, and the Viet Cong has turned the image of the American military into Abu Ghraib, and all this has in turn inspired Jihadists across the globe.

we agree on the lethality of the individual Jihadist. we do. i live directly in the line of fire (though i'm still at far more danger from, say, 2nd hand cigarette smoke than i am from any Jihadist).

so why would we support a foreign policy that creates, incubates, nutures, and inspires precisely the kind of enemy you've said you've enlisted in the National Guard to combat?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 11:24 AM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
It was lost because the rationale for war and objectives were not clear and there was no clear exit strategy before military action was initiated. Pretty basic stuff.
Okay, you ignored pretty much every point I made.

Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
The political manoeuvering and finger-pointing in Washington only served to drag out the process for many years while American troops died in the thousands, carried out atrocities on civilians because they were almost indistinguishable from the enemy and anti-war sentiment grew steadily in the US and the west.
The anti-war sentiment was bred in media, academia, and eventually Capitol Hill. Unless you can prove otherwise, the "peace" movement has NEVER resulted in peace.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 11:27 AM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
The anti-war sentiment was bred in media, academia, and eventually Capitol Hill. Unless you can prove otherwise, the "peace" movement has NEVER resulted in peace.

and the "war" movement has never resulted in peace either.

war is good for business.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 05:25 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