Life just gets worse in Iraq - 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 10-10-2006, 05:34 PM   #166
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:27 PM
I don't usually read Max Boot

he seems to just carry the water for this administration


but I did read this

and even he seems concerned that Iraq is going the wrong way

and that W is not a competent Commander In Chief
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 06:35 PM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 10:57 PM
How about someone start a thread called " LIfe is just peachy keen in Iraq" so everyone can post all the progress stories in that thread. That way all the BS is in one spot.
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 08:36 PM   #168
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 09:27 PM
But then we wouldn't see any of your posts anywhere else...

__________________
phanan is online now  
Old 10-10-2006, 08:47 PM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


Please. Your constant comparison of Iraq and WWII is laughable. We certainly weren't the only ones involved in WWII, and I know what you're going to say - that we have allies with this war, but I wouldn't call that the same thing, considering that we made up the bulk of the so-called "Allied" forces in Iraq.

And you can give me the same old story about the use of certain troops in one area in comparison to another. Our military is to be commended for how they have performed, but the fact of the matter is, Iraq has been a major distraction with the leaders who are running things, and there's not one thing you can tell me that will make me think that we wouldn't have taken care of bin Laden by now if we had not dealt with Iraq so hastily.

And note that I am talking about bin Laden, not Al-Quaida as a whole. I am certainly not naive to think that there would be no more Al-Quaida by now either way, but if it wasn't for Iraq, I am certain that their current leadership would have taken a major hit.
Its a rather simple way of explaining the basic fact that the United States or any nation for that matter faces multiple threats and does not have the luxury of only going after one threat and then going after the next one. The threat that you wait to go after, does not simply sit there and wait for you, it gets worse if you do nothing about it. It has nothing to do with the number of allies you have, its all about the necessity of dealing with different threats and that often you will have to deal with these threats simultaneously.



Al-Quada's leadership did take a major hit. The United States military had 88 ground combat brigades right before the start of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Of that total, 2 Brigades were in South Korea, 4 in Okinawa, 3 in Afghanistan, 2 in Bosnia and Kosovo, and 11 in Kuwait ready to invade Iraq. Thats a total of 22 Brigades, leaving 66 Army, Marine, and National Guard brigades back in the United States that could be deployed anywhere in the world if need be.

The fact that 11 brigades were sent to Kuwait to invade Iraq has nothing to do with the hunt for Bin Laden. These Brigades were primarily heavy armor brigades and would not be used in Afghanistan to chase Bin Ladin through the mountains. If more troops were needed in Afghanistan at the time, plenty were available back in the United States. The deployment of less than 20% of the United States total ground combat power to Kuwait in order to invade Iraq has no impact on the hunt for Bin Ladin in Afghanistan which is primarily an intelligence and special forces operation and not something that would be conducted by Armored and Mechanized units which for the majority of US ground combat forces.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 08:58 PM   #170
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:27 PM
There are assessments from the Council on Foreign Relations that indicate the WWII comparison is not necessarily a valid one.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:04 PM   #171
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:27 PM
But Vietnam is at least as equally flawed. What about the Malayan Emergency?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:20 PM   #172
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
There are assessments from the Council on Foreign Relations that indicate the WWII comparison is not necessarily a valid one.
What WWII comparison?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:20 PM   #173
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
But Vietnam is at least as equally flawed.
Maybe it isn't with Kissenger spending his days at the White House.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:40 PM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
http://www.cdi.org/program/document....e=../index.cfm

OCuncil on Foreign Relations.
It should be mentioned that the Center For Defense Information is a liberal think tank with a track record of opposing nearly every US foreign and defense policy over the past 25 years.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:41 PM   #175
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Its a rather simple way of explaining the basic fact that the United States or any nation for that matter faces multiple threats and does not have the luxury of only going after one threat and then going after the next one. The threat that you wait to go after, does not simply sit there and wait for you, it gets worse if you do nothing about it. It has nothing to do with the number of allies you have, its all about the necessity of dealing with different threats and that often you will have to deal with these threats simultaneously.
And it's my opinion that it wasn't necessary at that moment in time.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Al-Quada's leadership did take a major hit. The United States military had 88 ground combat brigades right before the start of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Of that total, 2 Brigades were in South Korea, 4 in Okinawa, 3 in Afghanistan, 2 in Bosnia and Kosovo, and 11 in Kuwait ready to invade Iraq. Thats a total of 22 Brigades, leaving 66 Army, Marine, and National Guard brigades back in the United States that could be deployed anywhere in the world if need be.

The fact that 11 brigades were sent to Kuwait to invade Iraq has nothing to do with the hunt for Bin Laden. These Brigades were primarily heavy armor brigades and would not be used in Afghanistan to chase Bin Ladin through the mountains. If more troops were needed in Afghanistan at the time, plenty were available back in the United States. The deployment of less than 20% of the United States total ground combat power to Kuwait in order to invade Iraq has no impact on the hunt for Bin Ladin in Afghanistan which is primarily an intelligence and special forces operation and not something that would be conducted by Armored and Mechanized units which for the majority of US ground combat forces.
It's not the deployment of which troops go where that bothers me - it's the way our leaders have handled the situation, and I believe that their judgement has been impaired because of trying to focus too much on Iraq. It's not just about the military side of things - we're talking about taking over an entire country, creating a new government, and starting a new democracy there. It doesn't happen overnight, and it takes away our focus on Afghanistan and bin Laden. We're the most powerful country in the world, and there's no excuse for not having made more of an impact against Al-Quaida, and bin Laden in particular, in Afghanistan.
__________________
phanan is online now  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:42 PM   #176
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


It should be mentioned that the Center For Defense Information is a liberal think tank with a track record of opposing nearly every US foreign and defense policy over the past 25 years.
Shudder the thought it must make it invalid. Thank goodness the Council on Foreign Relations linked to it.

I mean the US Foreign Policy is nothing to be ashamed of:

[Q]U.S. Military Assistance to Countries Using Child Soldiers: 1990 – 2006

Released on Feb. 28, 2005, the State Department’s 2004 Human Rights report discusses the “nature and extent of the compulsory recruitment and conscription of individuals under the age of 18” by all armed groups in every country, and what steps have been taken by the governments of the respective countries to eliminate such practices. The State Department report cites 26 countries that have forcefully recruited and/or used child soldiers, including four countries that had no evidence of new child soldier participation in 2004. CDI’s research has revealed that of these 26 countries, the United States has provided 22 with military assistance since 2001.

While the Human Rights Report includes information on the many countries where tangible, positive results have been accomplished in the area of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration, the list also includes gross violators of established international standards such as Sri Lanka and Colombia, where government-backed paramilitary groups and militias, as well as domestic insurgency forces, forcibly recruit and use child soldiers. In these cases, the United States continues to provide millions in Foreign Military Sales (FMS), Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), Excess Defense Articles (EDA), International Military Education and Training (IMET), and Foreign Military Financing (FMF), despite demonstrably poor records. Other notable examples include countries such as Nepal and Yemen, which have seen significantly increased military assistance from the United States since September 2001 as part of the global war on terror.

A link is provided below to a list of countries identified in the State Department Human Rights Report, along with a brief description of the status of child soldiers, and the amount of military assistance provided by the United States. The descriptions of the use of child soldiers are quoted directly from the 2004 U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report.

The Department of State’s 2004 Human Rights Report is available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/. Additional information on child soldiers can be found in the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers’ Global Report 2004, available at http://www.child-soldiers.org/resources/global-reports.


Click here to access the Excel Database of U.S. Military Assistance to Countries Using Child Soldiers: 1990 – 2006.

[/Q]

F'ing liberals....
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:43 PM   #177
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Or we could say, if it wasn't for Bush Sr not having the balls to finish we wouldn't need Gulf War II.
We know Clinton had balls....hehe
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:47 PM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


It doesn't happen overnight, and it takes away our focus on Afghanistan and bin Laden.

How does it do that? Explain with details please.

Does the US government respond to crime in its cities or natural disasters one at a time if they occur simultaneously?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:55 PM   #179
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Shudder the thought it must make it invalid. Thank goodness the Council on Foreign Relations linked to it.
Nothing wrong with pointing to the obvious bias present at CDI in so much of their research and reporting over the past two decades. The Council on Foreign Relations has links to many different articles from various individuals and organizations. I've met several of people on the CFR now and in the past, and several of them had very different view points from one another on America's role in the world as well as how they felt about the major policy problems of the day.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:56 PM   #180
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Nothing wrong with pointing to the obvious bias present at CDI in so much of their research and reporting over the past two decades. The Council on Foreign Relations has links to many different articles from various individuals and organizations. I've met several of people on the CFR now and in the past, and several of them had very different view points from one another on America's role in the world as well as how they felt about the major policy problems of the day.
AS I said, thank goodness they do. They are no more biased than anyone else.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox 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 09:27 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