Is Dick Cheney a Terrorist? - Page 6 - 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 09-13-2004, 08:11 AM   #76
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:20 AM
nbc: you could do a poll like the "kerry vs. gore" thing - "bush vs. powell" i'd be curious if anyone prefers mr. bush over mr. powell

ps. i'd support mr. powell if he'd start his race against mr. kerry
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 11:24 AM   #77
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 06:20 AM
A-Wanderer, thanks for that nice, concise summation of the strategy for Iraq. In all the partisan politics discussion, what's being done (or the vision for Iraq) does get lost. (Not that i agree with the approach to Iraq or think that the motivation is completely non-Oil related.)

Even looking at it in its most ideal way (i.e. Iraq could serve as a democracy model for rest of Arab world), the biggest problem, of course, remains a major major mistrust of the west. Unless the new Iraq is seen as a solution by Iraqis for Iraqis, it's not going to sell. Remember, this whole "nation building" or "nation redrawing" has been done many times by the West, the latest in the post-colonialism of the '20th century when the Brits and the French carved up the middle east and the Arab World as they left (and then the Cold War's effects, with various mid-East countries being backed either by the Soviets or the West).

It's not surprising that it's a hard sell...the fact that this latest round of nation building in Iraq is being done by the biggest military power in the world for purely the benefit of Iraqis.

I think most in the West agree Iraq needed to be transformed...the sticking point is in the approach and actions taken so far.
__________________

__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 11:37 AM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
nbc: you could do a poll like the "kerry vs. gore" thing - "bush vs. powell" i'd be curious if anyone prefers mr. bush over mr. powell

ps. i'd support mr. powell if he'd start his race against mr. kerry
Bush wouldn't be eligible in 2008 (two term limit)
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 11:49 AM   #79
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:20 AM
nbcrusader
no i was thinking of a fictive "Powell - 04" campagin
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 11:54 AM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 07:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Bush wouldn't be eligible in 2008 (two term limit)
At least that's something to look forward to.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 12:06 PM   #81
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 06:20 AM
http://www.alternet.org/story/16720

An intriguing essay...taking the position opposite to the Iraq vision A-Wanderer outlined.

[Sorry for making this another one of those Iraq topics!]
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:49 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky


What has bin Laden done since 9/11? Two bombs in Jakarta -- one at an international hotel and one at the Australian embassy. Over 200 people dead in a bombing in Bali. Over 150 dead in Madrid -- the worst terrorist attack in that country's history. And have you not been paying attention to all the warnings from Homeland Security? Everyday I get on the subway and worry it's going to be bombed because we haven't taken the head off the snake.

And if we take it a step further, what did bin Laden do after the first Trade Center bombing? The USS Cole, two embassies in Africa bombed. And yet, when the Bush administration took office, Ashcroft severly cut spending to fight terrorism even though the Clinton administration suggested they increase. Osama bin Laden was never mentioned in public by this administration even though less than a year before they took office, bin Laden had attacked a U.S. target.

Those 1000 troops have made a sacrifice that I would never be able to make, have put their lives on the line in a way that I honestly would never be able to. It was right for us to go into Afghanistan to find a man who killed 3000 people on our soil. It was not right to divert troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, even though Iraq did not pose the direct threat to this country that Afghanistan did. A dovish policy would not have been correct in Afghanistan.

President Bush has said we need to be sensitive to the international community when dealing with these issues. John Kerry has said this as well. But you see Dick Cheney whining that John Kerry would have sat around and done nothing -- would've been reactive even though the president, cheney's boss, has said the same thing. We should have been more thorough in the lead-up to the Iraq War -- getting allies, giving more time to weapons inspectors, having a cohenrent exit strategy. We didn't have that and that was wrong.
So Al Quada has been able to mount a few bombings here and there. Are we to believe that if Kerry or Al Gore had been president that Al Quada would not have been able to launch any bombings?

The Bush administration in the months prior to 9/11 were constructing plans that went well beyond anything the Clinton administration envisioned. Bush accomplished more in his first year in office in fighting terrorism than Clinton had in 8 years.

Once again, the MAJORITY OF US TROOPS in Afghanistan are Heavy Armor troops that would NEVER be used in the mountains of Afghanistan to hunt Bin Ladin. This whole idea that the troops in Iraq were diverted from fighting in Afghanistan is complete BS! In addition, the United States has 7 times as many troops in Afghanistan, than it did right after it kicked the Taliban out of power.

There was no diversion of troops. Saddam was a huge threat independent of any terrorism or Al Quada. Saddam had failed to Verifiably disarm of large stocks of some of the worlds most dangerous weapons. He had attacked and invaded four different countries. He had threatened most of the planets energy supplies with seizure or sabotage. No other leader in history has used WMD more times than Saddam. Saddam's actions over the past 25 years had killed 1.7 millon people! How many people has Bin Ladin killed? This idea that Saddam was not a threat is rubbish as the facts show.

The United States is currently working with over 60 countries in Iraq right now. I dare you to find a larger coalition around the world or at any time over the past 10 years. 16 of the 26 NATO countries have troops on the ground in Iraq. Just because France and Germany are not there does not mean its not a coalition.

Weapons inspectors can't disarm a dictator who will not cooperate. They cannot achieve verifiable disarmament if Saddam does not cooperate and account of for the thousands of WMD stocks that are missing. Inspectors spent off and on 12 years in Iraq attempting to achieve Verifiable disarmament. By contrast it only took a year in countries like Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstan and South Africa. Unless Saddam cooperates by showing where the WMD is or where it was dismantled(if that was the case), verifiable disarmament through peaceful inspections is impossible.

The Exit strategy for Iraq is the development of the Iraqi military and security forces to the point that they can protect the government and the economy independent of coalition forces.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 08:01 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawk269


And isn't it great that we have such a wise leader to tell us when war is necessary? What does it mean when we use these military resources to fight a war that based on false pretenses? And fighting in Iraq is definitely not fighting the war on terror, so let's not go down that road (I already have Fox News for that type of propaganda, thanks). I'm sure that I don't need to remind you that Saddam had no connection to the 9/11 plot.

If you want to argue that the U.S. did the world a big favor by ousting Saddam, who was obviously an atrocious violator of human rights, then wouldn't it have made sense to have the patience to get a coalition together? So, then the rebuttal usually goes that we tried to get the coalition and no other countries were willing to go along (and why would they, with Bush's bogus WMD information). Besides, if we unilaterally went into every country with a horrible human rights violator like Saddam, I think we would need the type of beefed up military spending that you are referring to. The general public only knows about Saddam because our government and media exposes us to their atrocities, with little focus elsewhere. I'm sure Amnesty International can tell us all about the wonderful deeds of other madmen around the world. Let's go get ALL OF THEM!

Sting - I think you need to see the movie Team America - World Police . It should be right up your alley.

AJ
The war to remove Saddam became a necessity because of his failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Thats not a false pretense, but a fact!

The war to remove Saddam was a necessity independent of any of Saddam's alleged or real connections to any sort of terrorism.

The United States did have a coalition together, as large as the one that occupied Germany at the end of the second World War. Now there are dozens of countries from all over the world in Iraq helping to develop the country and protect the people.

The US and coalition forces went into Iraq to disarm Saddam and remove him from power. Saddam had invaded and attacked four different countries, threaten the planets energy supplies with sabotage and seizure, used WMD more times than any leader in history, and over his 25 year reign in power, murdered 1.7 million people. There is not another dictator on the planet that has caused as many security problems as Saddam over the past 25 years. The Global Economy depends on the energy from the Persian Gulf and the failure to keep that secure would have ramifications to great to contemplate.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 06:19 AM   #84
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:20 AM
STING2

Kofi Anan repeated this weekend again that he thinks that the War against Iraq was illegal.
It's interesting that many countries of the security council and many employees of the UN (including "the boss" of the UN).
And please sting, do you remember any country which has bin invaded by Mr.Hussein since the last iraq war?
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 11:52 AM   #85
Acrobat
 
Hawk269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 322
Local Time: 02:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The war to remove Saddam became a necessity because of his failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Thats not a false pretense, but a fact!

The war to remove Saddam was a necessity independent of any of Saddam's alleged or real connections to any sort of terrorism.

The United States did have a coalition together, as large as the one that occupied Germany at the end of the second World War. Now there are dozens of countries from all over the world in Iraq helping to develop the country and protect the people.
If this were a true "coalition" right now, then why have the deaths BY FAR been AMERICAN SOLDIERS?! Here are the stats of your "coalition":

UNITED STATES 1,028 DEAD
ALL OTHER COUNTRIES 134 DEAD

Let's do the math, shall we? That's 88% of the dead! Call it a hunch, but WWII's coalition was not so lop-sided. So, let's not make the mistake of equating the two.
__________________
Hawk269 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 01:54 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawk269


If this were a true "coalition" right now, then why have the deaths BY FAR been AMERICAN SOLDIERS?! Here are the stats of your "coalition":

UNITED STATES 1,028 DEAD
ALL OTHER COUNTRIES 134 DEAD

Let's do the math, shall we? That's 88% of the dead! Call it a hunch, but WWII's coalition was not so lop-sided. So, let's not make the mistake of equating the two.
Yep, do the math, how many countries were occupying Germany at the end of the second World War? How many countries fought Japan and occupied Japan after the Second World War?

If your so convinced this is not a coalition, then please list what "real" coalition is, and provide a historical example. Please list precisely the number of troops involved.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 02:01 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
STING2

Kofi Anan repeated this weekend again that he thinks that the War against Iraq was illegal.
It's interesting that many countries of the security council and many employees of the UN (including "the boss" of the UN).
And please sting, do you remember any country which has bin invaded by Mr.Hussein since the last iraq war?
Kofi Anan is one person with an opinion. He does NOT decide what is legal and not legal. He does not have a vote on the security council. If one believes that operation Iraqi Freedom was illegal, then one would have to believe that operation Desert Storm in 1991 was illegal. The resolutions approving both are essentially the same.

In addition, if the war was illegal, why would the UN approve the occupation in three different resolutions? Where is the condemnation of this "illegal war" from the UN? Where is the resolution calling for the removal of coalition troops from Iraq? Where is the demand that the government of Saddam be restored?

If you want an example of an illegal invasion, I refer you to Saddam's invasion of Iraq in 1990! Examine how the UN reacted to that!

Technically, the first Persian Gulf War NEVER ended! Ask yourself how many people did Saddam kill since 1991, and how many resolutions did he comply with! These resolutions were supposed to be enforced if Saddam did not comply with them! It is unfortunate that it took this long to do so!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 02:09 PM   #88
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Kofi Anan is one person with an opinion.
as are you really

and I'm quite sure Anan could provide about as many reasons as to why he sees this war as being illegal as you can to why it is legal


to regard Kofi Anan as just "one person" in a UN matter is highly illogical to me though
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 02:18 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
as are you really

and I'm quite sure Anan could provide about as many reasons as to why he sees this war as being illegal as you can to why it is legal


to regard Kofi Anan as just "one person" in a UN matter is highly illogical to me though
Did I claim to be more than one person? Kofi Anan is "one person".

Perhaps you or Kofi Anan would like to explain why, if this war is illegal, the UN has not condemned it and called for a withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq and the restoration of Saddam's regime?

Why would the UN approve the occupation from a war it considers to be illegal? Look up how the UN responded to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and then ask yourself if you think this war is really illegal!

Saddam will be having a trial eventually, perhaps Kofi Anan would like to speak in his defense.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 02:23 PM   #90
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Perhaps you or Kofi Anan would like to explain why, if this war is illegal, the UN has not condemned it and called for a withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq and the restoration of Saddam's regime?
How can it do that? This is a resolution for the Security Council. One of the countries that is a permanent member there, the US, is also the country that invaded Iraq. Would it vote against its own actions? Don't think so. So a resolution is useless from the start, because of the US veto.

C ya!

Marty
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn 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 01:20 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