Iraq has made us less safe, end of story - Page 7 - 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, 02:55 PM   #91
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,978
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Bob Woodward has a new book coming out on Bush and Iraq, he'll be on 60 Minutes Sunday

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2047607.shtml

"President Bush is absolutely certain that he has the U.S. and Iraq on the right course, says Woodward. So certain is the president on this matter, Woodward says, that when Mr. Bush had key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, he told them, "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."

Barney? I bet even Barney can see what a messy mistake Iraq has become.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 03:00 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
no one is saying it's new, we're saying it's getting worse because of American policies in the Middle East.
And I disagree that it's getting worse because of our policies. Which ones - I assume you mean Iraq here. I disagree because Islamic Jihad was inevitable, and we all knew that on 9/11.


Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]However, when Al Qaida declared a Jihad - translated "struggle" in Arabic (ahem, Mein Kampf, anyone?) against the United States, the warriors packed up from both sides. Americans joined the military with a boost of patriotism that motivated them to fight for their nation's survival. Jihadists spewed out anti-Western hatred in order to recruit more terrorists.[/q]

is this a novel you're writing? i don't understand what you're talking about here at all.
Mein Kampf - translation is "My Struggle."
Jihad - translation is "Struggle."

Hatemongers attract an audience as long as they play the victim.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]...we disagree on how to ADDRESS this threat...
Apparently the Democratic Party disagrees with itself too. They haven't made it clear on what needs to be done in order to win. All they've done is bash the president and use death tolls to their advantage. They've proposed immediate withdrawl/surrender. For this, they deserve to be criticized.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[firstly, you are probably 40,000x more likely to die in a car accident than be killed by a terrorist, so let's not go around overestimating our own importance.
Tell that to those who you knew that died on 9/11.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
the REAL threat we face is not the jihadist, but WHAT THE JIHADIST CAN FORCE US TO DO UNTO OURSELVES THROUGH THE PERCEPTION OF THREAT AND THE FEAR IT CAUSES.
How can you say this!? How can you go on believing that we're taking Islamic Jihad too seriously?
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 03:02 PM   #93
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 07:24 PM
i think i'm going to stop wasting my time.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-28-2006, 03:08 PM   #94
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:24 AM


I'd like to think we can get beyond these nonstarter, "terrorist-loving librul/dick-swinging warmonger" jabs, but if not, this discussion can't continue.

Personally, I'd like to see an explanation of how the war in Iraq has made us safer, and also what some better strategies for fighting terrorism (both domestically and internationally) than the Bush Administration's might look like. Something other than soundbites and finger-pointing.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 03:21 PM   #95
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 07:24 PM
i think great starting off point would be for posters to directly connect their points using logic and reasoning to the quotations they are responding to.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-28-2006, 03:30 PM   #96
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,664
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Seems to be a lost art in here these days...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-28-2006, 03:44 PM   #97
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
It influenced Capitol Hill Democrats to turn against Hubert Humphrey - who also pledged to win the war honorably, and it gave Lyndon Johnson all the more reason to keep the troops in guerilla warfare rather than bombing military targets. Once the Watergate Scandal broke out, the Democrats used it as an excuse to surrender in Vietnam and turn their backs on a faithful Ally - South Vietnam. As a result, we got Khmer Rogue.

So really, it depends on whether or not Pol Pot's massive slayings would be considered "wrong."
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.

Sound familiar?

Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
History is repeating itself in the sense that we don't have the balls to defend ourselves. What history could tell you from WWI (Vote for Woodrow Wilson, he kept us out of war!) and WWII (the naive public who believed that WWI was a hoax) is that we should have stopped the Nazis in the 1930s, rather than waiting until 1941 to get involved. Nearly 300,000 US soldiers lost their lives in that war, in case you like death tolls.
Ohhhh I loooove death tolls

Does the 300,000 include those who died after the US purposely baited Japan to attack Pearl Harbour?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 04:26 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:24 PM
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 05:30 PM   #99
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 07:24 PM
[q]Military Officials Add to U.S. Criticism of Iraq’s Government
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 — Senior American military officials are warning that time is growing short for Iraq to root out militias inside and outside the government and purge ministries of corrupt officials who are diverting large sums of money to their own political parties.

“We are now at a time when we have a little bit of influence there,” a senior military official said. Referring to the problem of militias, he added, “There is going to come a time when I would argue we are going to have to force this issue.”

The official said political parties who were plundering ministries were squandering chances to make progress that could reduce sectarian violence.

“I can tell you in every single ministry how they are using that ministry to fill the coffers of the political parties,” the official said. “They are doing that because that is exactly what Saddam Hussein did.”

Another sign of how acute Iraq’s security woes have become emerged Wednesday: the past week saw the highest number of suicide bomb attacks of any week since the American-led invasion in 2003, according to the chief United States military spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV.

“This has been a tough week,” General Caldwell said. “This week’s suicide attacks were at their highest level in any given week.” But such attacks, he said, are still not the No. 1 killer of Baghdad civilians. “Murders and executions are,” he said.

In recent weeks American and Iraqi officials have privately voiced concerns that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki might not have the will or the political dexterity to bring the country together and avoid a full-scale civil war. Mr. Maliki, they say, is hamstrung and beholden to rival political parties with their own large militias.

Comments offered by senior United States military officials in the last few days have been even more pointed and take in not only the Maliki administration but also the whole of the Iraqi government bureaucracy. The senior military officials agreed to speak only without being identified, because of the delicate nature of the issue.

Another senior military official said Mr. Maliki needed to move quickly to rid ministries of death squads and militiamen. “I think the time is short for them to deal with that over time, ’cause this can’t go on like that,” the official said. Speaking about the militias and other problems, he added that “people will get tired if they don’t see any action on this.”

The Iraqi national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, said Mr. Maliki had little support within his own government to take action.

“The situation is really serious,” Mr. Rubaie said. “There is no cohesion in the government to help him. There are so many circles he needs to take into consideration when he wants to make a decision. There is a lack of will to stop the violence among the politicians.”
[/q]



so let's get this straight: suicide bombing -- an act so heinous and unthinkable to the Western mind that is used to justify any steps Israel takes to defend itself -- is at an all-time high, but this isn't the biggest problem!?!?!?!?

stay the course.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-28-2006, 05:53 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
[i]Originally posted by Irvine511 [



so let's get this straight: suicide bombing -- an act so heinous and unthinkable to the Western mind that is used to justify any steps Israel takes to defend itself -- is at an all-time high, but this isn't the biggest problem!?!?!?!?

stay the course. [/B]
Remarkable ain't it? Iraq has now become a hotbed of terrorism when it wasn't before and is a great recruitment tool for extremists to appeal to the moderates in society. AND scariest of all, the sectarian violence is growing day by day reaching deaths in the thousands each month. And the Kurds have yet to declare their autonomy which we all know is comng soon. Stay the course, Georgie ? Yeah, good luck with that!
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 05:54 PM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i think great starting off point would be for posters to directly connect their points using logic and reasoning to the quotations they are responding to.
I think I am going to run out of space on my Ignore list!!
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 01:13 AM   #102
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,664
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
The sad fact is that baby will be asking his father when he's 18 why is there still terrorism? We stayed the course?!
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-29-2006, 03:58 AM   #103
Blue Crack Overdose
Get me off the internetz!
 
Carek1230's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: wishing I was somewhere else....
Posts: 114,531
Local Time: 04:24 PM
How about somebody knock Bush off his course? It's not working, we need change and NOW.
__________________
Carek1230 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 05:18 AM   #104
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:24 AM
Re: Re: Re: Iraq has made us less safe, end of story

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



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.




almost as absurd as the gratiutious World War 2 comparisons.
I did not ignore either the 2002 NIE or the 2006 one. No where in the 2006 NIE does it say that Iraq is "a massive failure" or that the "United States is less safe because of Iraq". It only says that the Jihad movement has grown and spread based on the information it has, although they cannot state this with any sort of precision.

Anytime the United States acts in the middle east, it becomes an advertisement for the radical Jihad movement. Based on your logic, the United States would have been safer if it had not deployed troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991 and removed Saddam's military from Kuwait. What do you think the Cause Celebre was for Bin Ladin and Al Quada back then?

If the United States were not in Iraq at the moment, the NIE report would be talking about Afghanistan.



I've never suggested abandoning Iraq, thats what Democrats and as well as yourself are suggesting. What is often refered to is the "Kurdish North", is only a small 50 mile area along the Turkish and Iranian border. The big cities, Mosul and Kirkuk are not in that zone and are nearly 50% Sunni Arab. The United States already had troops in the "Kurdish North" prior the the March 2003 invasion. So pulling back to the "Kurdish North" is essentially abandoning the entire country to Sunni insurgents and radical Shia militia's. If you think things are unstable and bloody now, put that plan into action and see what happens.

The tatical strike that took out Zarqawi came from combat aircraft operating out of Kuwait. Most US aircraft in the air over Iraq every day fly out of bases in Kuwait or Carrier's in the Gulf. But what really got Zarqawi was on the ground intelligence, the type of intelligence that will dry up if the United States pulls all of its troops out except for a the small "Kurdish North" that only extends 50 miles into the country.

At this point, without US forces in the country, it would fall apart. Attempting to set up states that have never existed, like Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Shiastan will not make the fundamental problems go away. Its recipe for creating more conflict and makes Iraq overall weaker and ripe for foreign intervention by neighbors with self serving intentions.

Far better to continue the current plan which builds an Iraqi military that will one day be able to handle the insurgency on its own and unites the various political parties and interest of the entire country. Its better to have these leaders talking and negotiating rather than isolated in new states preparing for an endless war. In addition, a united Iraq will be in a better position to protect against the unwanted intervention or influence of neighbors like Iran and Syria. Cut the country up into little pieces and you do the same to its ability to withstand such intervention and influence.



As for workers in New York and Washington going to work on a Tuesday morning, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would be more impacted by a global economic depression brought on through the seizure or sabotage of Persian Gulf Oil supply. Hell, those commuters would not be able to afford the the price of Gas to get them to work, that is if they still had a job in such an environment.

Whats more and unlike Al Quada, Saddam did have WMD and knew how to make it. No other country on the planet has used WMD more times than Iraq. In terms of money, and the ability to produce and use WMD, Saddam's abilities vastly exceeded anything that Al Quada has had in their department to date. Saddam's on record of using WMD thousands of times as well as killing thousands of people with it. How many times has Al Quada used WMD and how many people did they kill with it?


As far as Afghanistan, the United States does not have the luxury to simply ignore all the threats to it except one, so it can concentrate on that one and get the job done before going on to the next threat. In a disneyland setting, I suppose that would be possible, but in the real world, no country has the luxury to simply deal with one threat while the others grow and materialize.

Iran started trying to develop nuclear weapons back in the 1980s because of Saddam's program and use of WMD's. If you want to thank someone for Iran's push for a nuclear weapon, thank Saddam. Leaving Saddam in power would not slow Iran's push and desire to have nuclear weapons, it would have only increased it, especially after the massive casualties it suffered in the 1980s.

The Taliban is gone from power in Afghanistan and is no more in power there than elements of Saddam's regime are in power in Baghdad.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 12:46 PM   #105
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 12:24 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq has made us less safe, end of story

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
As for workers in New York and Washington going to work on a Tuesday morning, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would be more impacted by a global economic depression brought on through the seizure or sabotage of Persian Gulf Oil supply. Hell, those commuters would not be able to afford the the price of Gas to get them to work, that is if they still had a job in such an environment.
Well said - and certainly if that threat was a clear and present danger then it would warrant SIGNIFICANT action.

In what way exactly would you say that Saddam posed an immediate and significant threat to the Persian Gulf Oil supply in 2003 that the US didn't prove being able to handle effectively in 1991?


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Whats more and unlike Al Quada, Saddam did have WMD and knew how to make it. No other country on the planet has used WMD more times than Iraq. In terms of money, and the ability to produce and use WMD, Saddam's abilities vastly exceeded anything that Al Quada has had in their department to date. Saddam's on record of using WMD thousands of times as well as killing thousands of people with it. How many times has Al Quada used WMD and how many people did they kill with it?
Yes indeed, Saddam killed thousands mercilessly with chemical weapons which, in light of 911, made it the obvious selling point for the removal of Saddam.

As it turns out, he posed no real WMD threat to Americans.

Iraq, prior to the invasion had no real connection to al Qaeda.

Yet, a few years ago Iraq somehow posed a significant, immediate threat to Americans that outweighed the potential significant rise of Islamofacsim and jihadism throughout the whole region that has now come to pass.

If the Persion Gulf Oil supply was under seizure or sabbatoge threat, people all ove the world could relate to and support effort to protect it. In fact they did in 1990-91 so there would have been no need for all the WMD, War on Terror bullshit.

What else could change in oil markets that could potentially trigger a global economic depression that made it necessary to occupy Iraq...
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy 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 07:24 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