Life just gets worse in Iraq - Page 13 - 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, 10:05 PM   #181
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,065
Local Time: 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
How does it do that? Explain with details please.
I believe President Bush's obsession with Iraq and its ongoing issues have curtailed his attention away from Afghanistan and bin Laden. I'm sure he believed he could handle both at the same time, but tearing a country apart and trying to put it back together has consumed him much more than he was prepared for, and I think he knows more than anyone that it hasn't gone the way he wanted it to. There have been many missteps along the way, from the unfounded intelligence regarding WMDs to the rise of a major Al-Quaida insurgency, and how Rumsfeld has handled everything in between. To me, it's really wearing him down.

And then having to deal with the backlash it has caused. A lot of his time recently has been used trying to build up Republican support for the mid-term elections. I think he's had to work harder at that than he would have wanted to. By overexerting himself with that, it takes time away from handling foreign policy in a more efficient and effective manner.

If he had stayed the course and concentrated on bin Laden and the current leadership of Al-Quaida first, I believe he would be enjoying much more support than he is now.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Does the US government respond to crime in its cities or natural disasters one at a time if they occur simultaneously?
Considering that crime in cities is not of the same scale as a full-blown war, and that also is handled at the state level, I don't find this to be a valid comparison.

But the fact that the government couldn't even handle one natural disaster is telling...
__________________

__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 10:34 PM   #182
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


AS I said, thank goodness they do. They are no more biased than anyone else.
I would say they are far more biased than most of the other major think tanks with the exception of maybe the Cato institute.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 10:50 PM   #183
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


I believe President Bush's obsession with Iraq and its ongoing issues have curtailed his attention away from Afghanistan and bin Laden. I'm sure he believed he could handle both at the same time, but tearing a country apart and trying to put it back together has consumed him much more than he was prepared for, and I think he knows more than anyone that it hasn't gone the way he wanted it to. There have been many missteps along the way, from the unfounded intelligence regarding WMDs to the rise of a major Al-Quaida insurgency, and how Rumsfeld has handled everything in between. To me, it's really wearing him down.

And then having to deal with the backlash it has caused. A lot of his time recently has been used trying to build up Republican support for the mid-term elections. I think he's had to work harder at that than he would have wanted to. By overexerting himself with that, it takes time away from handling foreign policy in a more efficient and effective manner.

If he had stayed the course and concentrated on bin Laden and the current leadership of Al-Quaida first, I believe he would be enjoying much more support than he is now.



Considering that crime in cities is not of the same scale as a full-blown war, and that also is handled at the state level, I don't find this to be a valid comparison.

But the fact that the government couldn't even handle one natural disaster is telling...
Great, but you really don't provide any specific details. Again, I'm looking for evidence that Iraq has taken the focus away from Afghanistan. US troop levels rose in Afghanistan as the Iraq war began, they did not decrease. Where is the cut in funding or effort that you claim happened? You only offer an assumption about what the President is or is not focused on.

Once again, what does the President do when confronted with multiple security threats that require that he take action? How can you advocate a policy where the President only goes after one thing that threatens the country at a time, while neglecting everything else until that threat is no more? What happens to the threats that are not being dealt with while we go after a single threat until it is eliminated?

On Afghanistan, your going to have to prove that the US military was not capable of engaging in both and funding both at the same time. The United States has an 89 Brigade ground combat force. Its never had more than 4 Brigades in Afghanistan, even when the administration had not started to position forces to invade Iraq. Clearly, there are more than enough military forces for both operations and there is also more than enough funds considering that the United States is currently spending less on Defense and Foreign Policy as a percentage of GDP than it spent in the peacetime of the 1980s.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 11:50 PM   #184
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I would say they are far more biased than most of the other major think tanks with the exception of maybe the Cato institute.
Your definition of bias cracks me up...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 11:51 PM   #185
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,065
Local Time: 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Great, but you really don't provide any specific details. Again, I'm looking for evidence that Iraq has taken the focus away from Afghanistan. US troop levels rose in Afghanistan as the Iraq war began, they did not decrease. Where is the cut in funding or effort that you claim happened? You only offer an assumption about what the President is or is not focused on.

Once again, what does the President do when confronted with multiple security threats that require that he take action? How can you advocate a policy where the President only goes after one thing that threatens the country at a time, while neglecting everything else until that threat is no more? What happens to the threats that are not being dealt with while we go after a single threat until it is eliminated?

On Afghanistan, your going to have to prove that the US military was not capable of engaging in both and funding both at the same time. The United States has an 89 Brigade ground combat force. Its never had more than 4 Brigades in Afghanistan, even when the administration had not started to position forces to invade Iraq. Clearly, there are more than enough military forces for both operations and there is also more than enough funds considering that the United States is currently spending less on Defense and Foreign Policy as a percentage of GDP than it spent in the peacetime of the 1980s.

What?

I'm not out to prove anything or provide evidence of my feelings - I'm formulating an opinion that I have of the current situation and my thoughts of what should have been done. That's what this is - a public forum to express our views on different subjects. You can talk about the number of brigades we have, how much the U.S. is spending, and any other statistic you want to throw out there. I'm stating that I don't agree with your point of view on Iraq, plain and simple.

And I'm not the only one who feels this way about it, either...

Oh, and by the way, dealing with multiple security threats is a bit different than dealing with multiple wars.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 12:06 AM   #186
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I would say they are far more biased than most of the other major think tanks with the exception of maybe the Cato institute.
Well, they balance your opinions out.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 12:09 AM   #187
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Well, they balance your opinions out.
Oh yes, because my opinion is an extreme one, right?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 07:03 AM   #188
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Oh yes, because my opinion is an extreme one, right?
Rhetorical question.....Right?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-12-2006, 10:46 PM   #189
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Courtesy of the BBC


Quote:
General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal

The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems".

In an interview in the Daily Mail, Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, is quoted as saying the British should "get out some time soon".

He also said: "Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003, effectively kicked the door in."

There are currently more than 7,000 British soldiers in Iraq, based largely in Basra in the south of the country.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said Britain had "a clear strategy" and worked with international partners "in support of the democratically elected government of Iraq, under a clear UN mandate."

BBC political editor Nick Robinson described Sir Richard's remarks as "quite extraordinary".

He said the new head of British army was "effectively saying we are making the situation worse in Iraq and worse for ourselves around the world by being in Iraq".


"I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them

The comments "directly contradicted so much of what the government had said", our correspondent added.

Sir Richard might be issuing a "very public warning" to the next prime minister, he said.

In his interview, Sir Richard added that any initial tolerance "has largely turned to intolerance. That is a fact."

Sir Richard, who took on his role in August, also said planning for what happened after the initial successful war military offensive was "poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning".

'Not invited in'

He said: "I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."

Sir Richard told the newspaper: "We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear.

"As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time."

He added: "Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance."
Wow, this is a remarkable statement by a high-powered official. Of course, the spin will begin shortly.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 10-12-2006, 10:52 PM   #190
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:59 AM
He wants to cut and run!!!
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-14-2006, 03:05 PM   #191
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 05:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Countless incidents of peace went unreported throughout Iraq yesterday.....

This is the most idiotic thing i've ever read in my life...

Actually, it is the second most idiotic thing, the first is Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 10-14-2006, 03:12 PM   #192
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:59 AM
I'm sure STING will tell us why Bush daddy is wrong but nevertheless, from the NY Sun:

Quote:
WASHINGTON — A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

...

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-14-2006, 05:08 PM   #193
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
This is the most idiotic thing i've ever read in my life...
There's no need to be rude. If you disagree with someone else, perhaps try explaining why, otherwise at least disagree civilly.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-18-2006, 08:45 AM   #194
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 07:59 AM

salon.com

Rick Santorum and the "Eye of Mordor"

In an interview with the editorial board of the Bucks County Courier Times, embattled Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has equated the war in Iraq with J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings." According to the paper, Santorum said that the United States has avoided terrorist attacks at home over the past five years because the "Eye of Mordor" has been focused on Iraq instead.

"As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else," Santorum said. "It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States."

We're sure that we wouldn't either, if only we had the slightest idea of what Santorum was saying. The Courier Times translates for those of us who are not so conversant in spooky Tolkienese: The "Eye of Mordor," it seems, was "the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth."

To be fair, Santorum's interview with the editorial board wasn't all about fantasy. Well, at least not the Dungeons and Dragons kind. Santorum said that he disagreed with the notion that the United States is "bogged down" in Iraq. As for talk of a troop withdrawal? Santorum said: "I don't think you ask that question. I know that's the question everybody wants to ask. But I don't think anyone would ask that question in 1944, 'Gee, how long are we going to be in Europe?' We're going to be in Europe until we win."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now  
Old 10-18-2006, 10:52 AM   #195
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:59 PM
I sure hope Santorum loses. That'll make my night on Election Night.
__________________

__________________
verte76 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 07:59 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