Iraqi forces failing - Page 2 - 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 01-31-2007, 08:50 PM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
" The desire to export goods and services to the United States has never been higher. US exports worldwide have not suffered any major drop and are starting to rise. All of the United States alliances are still intact and performing important missions for their regions. Dozens of countries around the world have contributed troops to the nationbuilding process in Iraq. The United Nations has authorized and approved just about everything thats been done in Iraq.

But, there are those opinion polls which say everyone hates the United States. But, the actions of countries and people speak louder than such polls."

Yes, trade with the US has not dropped, and will not drop.

Only a few "idiots" are hating the USA.

But.. it is not true that the support of the US intervention in Iraq is supported by the masses.
In every European country, sending troops or not, the numbers of people against the war a way higher than the numper of supporters.
In major European cities like Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid or London hundreds of thousands, up to millions protested against the war, and in nearly every city there have been protest marches.
The majority of people in England, Spain, Denmark or Italy didn't support the war.

Aznar and Berlusconi lost the elections partly because of their decision to send troops and because opposition promised to withdraw their troops.

Germany and France decided not to participate in the war until there was a clear mandate by the UN to send in troops.

The credibility of the US government decreased dramatically, getting worse when we learned about what happened in Abu Ghreib and Guantanamo, or with Khaled el Masri or Murat Kurnaz.

People here clearly differentiate between what is the USA, and what is the US government. Of course there are exceptions, but the majority still likes what America stands for, apart from the current government.


and let's be honest.

London and Madrid were attacked because they were the only other fully credible nations participating in the "coalition."
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-31-2007, 09:02 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Well, Germany got attacked, too. The bombs just didn't work.
And that is because we are present in Afghanistan and in Somalia.

A potential risk is there for every country, any European, the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan. That is what we have to deal with.
But therfore we shouldn't allow our politicians to drop any (data) privacy, or make ridicuous laws.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 11:58 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
" The desire to export goods and services to the United States has never been higher. US exports worldwide have not suffered any major drop and are starting to rise. All of the United States alliances are still intact and performing important missions for their regions. Dozens of countries around the world have contributed troops to the nationbuilding process in Iraq. The United Nations has authorized and approved just about everything thats been done in Iraq.

But, there are those opinion polls which say everyone hates the United States. But, the actions of countries and people speak louder than such polls."

Yes, trade with the US has not dropped, and will not drop.

Only a few "idiots" are hating the USA.

But.. it is not true that the support of the US intervention in Iraq is supported by the masses.
In every European country, sending troops or not, the numbers of people against the war a way higher than the numper of supporters.
In major European cities like Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid or London hundreds of thousands, up to millions protested against the war, and in nearly every city there have been protest marches.
The majority of people in England, Spain, Denmark or Italy didn't support the war.

Aznar and Berlusconi lost the elections partly because of their decision to send troops and because opposition promised to withdraw their troops.

Germany and France decided not to participate in the war until there was a clear mandate by the UN to send in troops.

The credibility of the US government decreased dramatically, getting worse when we learned about what happened in Abu Ghreib and Guantanamo, or with Khaled el Masri or Murat Kurnaz.

People here clearly differentiate between what is the USA, and what is the US government. Of course there are exceptions, but the majority still likes what America stands for, apart from the current government.
aside from Polls, and rally's, what other evidence is there of mass opposition to the United States government? Aznar was leading in the elections until Al Quada bombed Madrid and Spanish people promptly did what Al Quada wanted them to do and threw out the Aznar government.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 12:01 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and let's be honest.

London and Madrid were attacked because they were the only other fully credible nations participating in the "coalition."
Wow, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, South Korea are not "credible nations"? Your essentially claiming that if the French are not apart of the coalition, then it can't be a coalition which is just absurd.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 12:09 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 06:14 PM
STING, where do you live?
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 07:01 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


aside from Polls, and rally's, what other evidence is there of mass opposition to the United States government? Aznar was leading in the elections until Al Quada bombed Madrid and Spanish people promptly did what Al Quada wanted them to do and threw out the Aznar government.
Well, I live in such a region, I have much contact to people from these countries and so I know a bit of what people here are thinking.

Aznar's re-election wasn't that sure, and it got devastated when al-Quaeda bombed the train.
The reason why he lost so dramatically was because people found out that h lied to them. He said it was the ETA even though he knew it was the al-Quaeda.

Of course there is support of the US government, as well.
But opposition to the war in Iraq was far greater all the time.
Like I wrote, in European cities millions of people went on marches against the war. Every discussion was like one is in favor of the war, and ten are against it.
Bush and Rumsfeld represented the picture of the arrogant Americans that don't care what is going on in the world, and the common picture of Bush is that he don't understand what he's talking about, at all.

Sadly, some people look at Bush, and think all of the USA is like him. But most people gladly see the difference.

You remember when Rumsfeld called France and Germany the "Old Europe"?
Or Bush said "Either you are for us, or you are against us."? He put us on one level with countries like Lybia and Cuba one time.

Reasons for Schroeder's re-election were how he handled the flood in East Germany, and his opposition to the war in Iraq.

I don't really know what the polls say, but I do know what I'm experiencing.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 07:15 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and let's stop lying to ourselvs that this is some sort of Republican vs. Democrat issue, or Left vs. Right issue.

the country is remarkably united, as is more and more and more of Congress. and united against the Bush, and united against the idea that there's a military solution to Iraq:
When you say that there isn't a military solution to Iraq I don't think you mean that there is no army that can be defeated and it's all over - I think that you mean that because there will be a continuous baseline level of violence as long as foreign forces remain in the country that those troops should be removed - I don't disagree entirely, there will be violence as long as foreign troops are on Iraqi soil; there will never be a point where the entire country is free of sectarianism and then we leave.

Where I strongly diverge is that I don't think that the complete removal of foreign forces in the absence of power to stem Islamists; I reject the enabling of theocracy - even if it comes to power by the ballot box as it is inherently undemocratic as it places the authority and rules of God above those of man; I don't think that Bush is capable of strongly opposing religion in politics on the basis of his own convictions. Is this a slight against democracy - no, consensual government is a good thing - but if you elect a clerical class there won't be an election to remove them.

I also think people are either stupid or willfully ignorant if they think that you can walk away from Iraq and continue to fight the war on terror (a stupid title; it is a war on Islamism), there would be at least a decade or two of solid isolationism and malaise - certainly enough time for some state actor to make the challenge of Islamism much more tangiable and conventional to us. Offsetting this would be that the war for Iraq would draw the resources of regional powers diverting what may otherwise be directed outwards, high oil prices would force the hand of both industry and government to focus on alternative to fossil fuels - but such speculation is both moot and would never weigh up against the cost in lives.

At the very least shouldn't some solidarity with the more secular elements be displayed; when Bush is coopting Sistani and the Badr Brigades then your not supporting or endorsing him by standing alongside Iraqi Trade Unions which are opposed to both the war and occupation, they are the secular forces that the CPA sought to dismantle and are being fucked by the religious parties today; the fundamental principles of a free society cannot survive religious government and allies who disagree about the nature of how a civil society should function can stand united against against barbarism.

I feel that the push for full withdrawl and leaving Iraq to the devices of it's people and regional powers will allow blame to be put solely on Bush for troops lost already (and which would forever be for nothing) as well as future violence in the country - it would really be a genocide that people can feel good about, the one that the Iraqis had to have.

If you want to talk about objectives then reducing Iranian influence, training of indigenous forces, supporting and protecting secular groups (if basic serives could be delivered by said groups it could certainly help) should be pursued - regain the momentum as it were.

And your right; opposition isn't a left-right issue, since it seems to have injected so many liberals (a non-derrogatory term) with the very calculating Kissengerian realism that they otherwise claim to oppose.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 07:55 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Wow, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, South Korea are not "credible nations"? Your essentially claiming that if the French are not apart of the coalition, then it can't be a coalition which is just absurd.


the wild conclusions you draw never cease to amaze me.

never.

like, this might be the silliest post yet.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-01-2007, 12:07 PM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Brzezinski states the obvious:

[q]Mr. Chairman:

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran -- though gaining in regional influence -- is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about "a new strategic context" which is based on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles's attitude of the early 1950's toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-01-2007, 12:47 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:14 PM
What really scares me is the growing influence of companies such as Blackwater and other Military Private Companies, that only can survive when there is a war to fight.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 03:18 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




the wild conclusions you draw never cease to amaze me.

never.

like, this might be the silliest post yet.



"and let's be honest."

"London and Madrid were attacked because they were the only other fully CREDIBLE NATIONS participating in the "coalition.""


Your words, not mine! Either your ignorant on who the members of the coalition are, or you don't consider Italy, Japan, South Korea and the Netherlands to be "CREDIBLE NATIONS".
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 03:35 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2





"and let's be honest."

"London and Madrid were attacked because they were the only other fully CREDIBLE NATIONS participating in the "coalition.""


Your words, not mine! Either your ignorant on who the members of the coalition are, or you don't consider Italy, Japan, South Korea and the Netherlands to be "CREDIBLE NATIONS".

and just what the fuck does this have to do with france?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-02-2007, 01:42 PM   #28
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,412
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Partition is the way to Civil War that so many mistakenly claim has started.
you're right. it's not a civil war. it's simply a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

my bad.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 02-02-2007, 02:34 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,061
Local Time: 12:14 PM
__________________
phanan is online now  
Old 02-02-2007, 03:03 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 12:14 PM
[q]Iraq at Risk of Further Strife, Intelligence Report Warns
By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 2, 2007; A01

A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document.

In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the 90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of improvement. But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption.

The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus.

Completion of the estimate, which projects events in Iraq over the next 18 months, comes amid intensifying debate and skepticism on Capitol Hill about the administration's war policy. In a series of contentious hearings over the past two weeks, legislators have sharply questioned Bush's new plan for the deployment of 21,500 additional U.S. troops and the administration's dependence on the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

In acid remarks yesterday to Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the departing U.S. commander in Iraq, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) noted that "things have gotten markedly and progressively worse" during Casey's 2 1/2 -year tenure, "and the situation in Iraq can now best be described as dire and deteriorating. I regret that our window of opportunity to reverse momentum may be closing." Casey was appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on his nomination to be Army chief of staff.

Although McCain supports the additional troop deployments, he has proposed a Senate resolution including stringent benchmarks to gauge the progress of the Iraqi government and military. McCain's resolution and other nonbinding, bipartisan proposals that would express varying degrees of disapproval of Bush's plan will be debated on the Senate floor next week.

Legislators have been equally critical of the intelligence community, repeatedly recalling that most of the key judgments in the October 2002 NIE on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were wrong. That assessment concluded that Saddam Hussein had amassed chemical and biological weapons and was "reconstituting" his nuclear weapons program. It became the foundation of the Bush administration's case -- and congressional authorization -- for invading Iraq.

"One of the sort of deeply held rumors around here is that the intelligence community gives an administration or a president what he wants by way of intelligence," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told Navy Vice Adm. John M. McConnell, Bush's nominee to be director of national intelligence, during McConnell's confirmation hearing yesterday.

Without directly accepting Feinstein's premise, McConnell replied that the intelligence community had learned "meaningful" lessons over the past several years and that "there's very intense focus on independence." McConnell and others made clear that the new NIE on Iraq had been subjected to extensive competitive analysis to test its conclusions.

One senior congressional aide said the NIE had been described to him as "unpleasant but very detailed." A source familiar with its language said it contained several dissents that are prominently displayed so that policymakers understand any disagreements within the intelligence community -- a significant change from the 2002 document, which listed most key dissents in small-type footnotes.[/q]
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 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