McCain: a Maverick no longer - Page 5 - 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 01-22-2007, 08:06 PM   #61
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Irvine, I don't know how you can even find the energy anymore.

I'm willing to concede every point to STING just so I don't have to read these rosy dissertations anymore.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-22-2007, 08:07 PM   #62
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:25 AM
Giving it a rest might be a good idea...
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 08:15 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


sorry, but the UN decides how it enforces it's resolutions, not you.



[q]Dismissal of the dead?, I leave that one for those that opposed the removal of a man that murdered 1.7 million people.[/q]

so you're happy to add 600,000 more? and the hundres of thousands more to come? and the nearly 2 million refugees? and the wider Shia/Sunni war? do you ignore US support for Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war that you use to get your 1.7 million number?



[q]90% of the sectarian violence in Iraq happens within 30 miles of Baghdad. Thats a fact, reported by the US military that is dealing with the situation on a daily basis.[/q]

Baghdad is a city of 6 MILLION people. you cannot have a country if you cannot have a capital city. Anbar is in chaos as well. violence happens all over the country -- Basra, Mosul -- of COURSE the violence is concentrated around Baghdad, that's where a HUGE percentage of the Iraqi population lives.


[q]So what do you think constitutes a real coalition? Do you have to have France and Germany in the coalition for it to be a real coalition? Honestly, just look at the forces in the 1991 Gulf War that did the actual fighting, and it is essentially the same coalition that is in Iraq today.[/q]

show me all the Muslim troops that were on the ground in 2005. show me all the countries that are still in Iraq 4 years later. show me the worldwide support for the invasion. show me the countries that didn't have their support bought off -- remember our coalition of the Billing.

where is Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Qatar, the UAE, France, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Turkey? come on, they had such a good time in 1991, surely they were fully convinced of the right for the US to enforce UN Resolutions and supported the US to protect the "global energy supply" from Saddam Hussein!

and, yes, France is a big deal. Germany is a big deal.






because they are shattered by the failures, violence, and instability that is spreading throughout the region. because the United States has destroyed it's international reputation.

this is quite funny coming from you, someone who's even more blinkered and self-deluded than even Bush himself and all his yes-men.

not a single accomplishment you've offered comes close to justifying what's happened.
Sorry, but the UN decided in both resolution 678 and resolution 1441 to use military force to bring about enforcement of the resolution.

Leaving Saddam in power would be a good way to add 600,000 more dead or another 1.7 million for that matter. Under 60,000 have died since Saddam was removed from power which is a major improvement over the average per year when Saddam was in power. There is NO wider Sunni/Shia war, 90% of the sectarian violence takes place within 90 miles of Baghdad.

The United States did not send any weapon systems to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war, although it did send weapons to Iran. It provided Iraq with food, Trucks, Transport Helicopters, and intelligence on Iranian military positions. If anything, this small amount of support helped to prevent an Iranian victory, helped end the war sooner, and there for saved lives.

Iraq has 18 provinces, only 5 of them have any major level of violence. In the other 13 provinces, most citizens site the lack of services as opposed to security as being their chief problems.

Iraq has an ethnically mixed society all the up to the North in Mosel down along the Saudi/Iraqi border to Kuwait in the south. BUT, 90% of the sectarian violence occurs in one area, the Baghdad metro area. Nearly 80% of Iraqi's live outside the Baghdad metro area, but that is where 90% of the sectarian violence occurs.


Do you realize that the Muslim countries did little if any fighting in Desert Storm. Syrian forces ground to a halt after about 10 miles of crossing the border into Kuwait do to large numbers of breakdowns in the armor force. Not that it mattered, they did not have any serious role to play, just there for show. The Egyptions helped collect prisoners but did not serious fighting. Saudi Arabia and Qatar only engaged in fighting in the Saudi border town of Kafgi, they did not do any fighting in Kuwait or Iraq in 1991. The United States Marines and Special Forces made sure southern Kuwait and Kuwait City was clear of Iraqi forces, before they let the Kuwaiti military force go in.

Oh, US diplomacy on Iraq in 1990/1991 did involve "buying people off" as debts for Egypt and Turkey were forgiven.

Germany did not send any troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990 or to Iraq/Kuwait in 1991 either. Big deal huh? The French sent ONE light infantry division that saw little fighting.

As I said before the country's that did nearly all the fighting in the 1991 war, did nearly all the fighting in 2003 as well.

During the occupation in Iraq though, over 3 dozen different countries have participated at various times.

The following 23 countries still had troops on the ground in Iraq as of November 2006:

1 United Kingdom
2 South Korea
4 Australia
5 Poland
6 Romania
7 Denmark
8 El Salvador
9 Georgia
10 Azerbaijan
11 Bulgaria
12 Latvia
13 Albania
14 Slovakia
15 Czech Republic
16 Mongolia
17 Lithuania
18 Armenia
19 Bosnia & Herzegovina
20 Estonia
21 Macedonia
22 Kazakhstan
23 Moldova*


There are far more countries that actually have troops on the ground in Iraq today than put troops into Iraq or Kuwait in 1991.


Given everything that Saddam had done to the region as well as the constant threat he posed to the planets energy resources and the near total crumbling of the efforts to contain him, more than justifies the cost that has been spent to remove his regime and replace it with a stable government and society. But one won't understand that if their ignorant of Saddam's history, behavior, capabilities, as well as the failures of past policies to remove or contain his regime.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 08:21 PM   #64
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
Giving it a rest might be a good idea...
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 08:23 PM   #65
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Irvine, I don't know how you can even find the energy anymore.

I'm willing to concede every point to STING just so I don't have to read these rosy dissertations anymore.


well, my first job was teaching pre-school.

let's talk about McCain instead.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 08:30 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 08:25 PM
i kinda miss his daily show appearances. not my favorite person in the world, but at least he has a sense of humor.
__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 04:51 AM   #67
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Funny, but thats what some people used to say prior to August 1990. The largest deployment of US forces since World War II followed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

In the fall of 1994, the United States and its allies agreed to the deployment of 140,000 troops to the region two Republican Guard divisions moved within just a few miles of the Kuwaiti/Iraqi border. It took several weeks to deploy the entire force.

Saddam's WMD and the possibility of proliferation was always a problem, but the chief threat from Saddam was always what he was willing to do with HIS capabilities vs. his neighbors and how WMD could enable and support his regional goals which could seriously impact the planet given the proximity of key natural resources in the region. This is what Saddam was after in his invasion of Iran in 1980, with all of his incursion attempts into Iran taking place in Iran's primary oil rich region, Kuzistan. Unlike Iran, Saddam primarily acted against his enemies directly, as opposed to using proxies like Iran, which is part of the reason why he was so dangerous.
Yes, but the factors that led to the invasion of Kuwait included things like the debt incurred in defending the Gulf from Iran, the flooding of the market with oil lowering it's price and the miscommunications between Iraq and the USA - these had all changed in the succeeding 10 years (as had the state of the Iraqi military - and the rise of the Fedayeen Saddam), I think that most of us agree that taking action when Saddam annexed Kuwait was the right thing to do, some of us think that following it to completion and removing Saddam would have been better done then than delayed.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 05:22 AM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Hey Sting2. . .back in 2003, whose approach to Iraq did you support? McCain's or Bush's?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 05:25 AM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:25 PM
And just in case you're tempted to spin that actually Bush and McCain have been on the same page all along. . .

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


McCain has had differences with the Bush administration on Iraq since before the invasion of Iraq itself. Thats a fact!
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 09:50 AM   #70
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,426
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


Just like the GOP should have when they couldn't control Congress in over 40 years?

Right. Let's get some perspective here and fewer histrionic statements. The Democratic Party was dominated by Kennedy/Johnson, and when that fell apart, the Democratic Party went into a tailspin. RFK's assassination certainly contributed to their problems. Then Bill Clinton dominated(/ates) the party, and it's back into that same old identity crisis that they're currently digging out of.

Think the GOP is immune from that? Here's a party that has so closely identified itself with religious fanatics that its presidential choices are limited. McCain is probably their only hope, which means that he's an easy target for the Democrats to rip down over the next two years. Giuliani? Too much baggage to make the religious fanatics support him.

Beyond that, we have the "neo-con" generation, which have, basically, been the same cast of characters since the Nixon era. As formidable of a group as they have been, they're not going to live forever, and a handful of them have already died. The GOP is going to have a rather huge power vacuum once they die, and they're bound to fall into a tailspin for at least a few years.

But let's not underestimate this: McCain is formidable in his own right, and he certainly has a great chance of winning this election. But, compared to the wave of popularity he had a few years ago, McCain is much more vulnerable. His actions since 2000 have seemed much less "maverick" and much more party loyal. His rather unpopular stance on Iraq is also a vulnerability. However, even if he is to win, there's still the issue of who's after him in the party. And currently? There's no one. The GOP is quickly becoming the party of dinosaurs and cavemen.
you are mistaking my comments as a compliment to the GOP... it is very much an insult at both the dems and the repubes, who have fucked things up so nicely that the democrats frankly only need to put forth a candidate with a pulse and they'll win the white house...

... then again that's all they had to do in 2004, and couldn't get that right. so all bets are off.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 02:59 PM   #71
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:25 PM
wow, more agreement from McCain about the grotesque incompetence of the Bush administration, though it's interesting to note that he shifts blame to Cheney and Rumsfeld (who he says is worse than McNamara, thus furthering comparisons between the debacle of Iraq and the quagmire of Vietnam, not in numbers, certainly, but in the misunderstanding of the situation) thus subtly defending Bush, or at least not outright bashing him.

i like it when McCain is honest, and he's going to have to be in order to distance himself from Iraq-the-political-noose. perhaps if he can survive the primaries we can have two legitimate, serious candidates, which HRC and Obama very much are.

[q]McCain Bashes Cheney Over Iraq Policy
By: Roger Simon
January 23, 2007 01:58 PM EST

With his presidential hopes tied to an administration whose Iraq policy he supports but cannot control, John McCain for the first time blamed Vice President Cheney for what McCain calls the "witch's brew" of a "terribly mishandled" war in which U.S. forces are on the verge of defeat.

McCain also for the first time opened the door to the possibility of a U.S. troop pullback to the borders of Iraq should the president's planned troop surge fail.

Although McCain had once lavished praise on the vice president, he said in an interview in his Senate office: "The president listened too much to the Vice President . . . Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense."

McCain added: "Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history." Donald Rumsfeld served as President Bush's secretary of defense from January 2001 to December 2006. Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War.


McCain has long criticized Rumsfeld, but in July 2004 at a campaign rally in Lansing, Mich., McCain said he had "known and admired" Cheney for more than 20 years and described him as "one of the most capable, experienced, intelligent and steady vice presidents this country has ever had.''

But that was then and this is now, and now McCain is making clear his frustrations with the Bush administration, the Iraqi military and "bureaucratic resistance" in the Pentagon to a troop surge.

McCain said in the interview that the success of the American mission in Iraq "will be directly related to the ability of the Iraqi military to take up responsibilities. Their record is terrible." Also, he said, "There is still enormous bureaucratic resistance (to the troop surge) in the Pentagon, and it bothers me a great deal. The bureaucrats in the military are saying this is a terrible strain on the (National) Guard and the active duty forces, and it is. There is only one thing worse than an over-stressed military, and that's a defeated military. And we are on the verge of that."

McCain said that even the planned insertion of 21,500 new U.S. troops into Iraq, which he supports, may not succeed. "I don't know if this is enough troops or not," McCain said. "I can't guarantee success by doing this."

The Arizona Republican, whose 2008 presidential campaign is well under way even though he has not yet officially announced, is keenly aware of how his support for the Iraq war is making him increasingly unpopular.

"The irony of all this for me is that I am the guy that for three years -- more than three years -- has said, 'You don't have enough troops there! And you are not running this war right! And you've (ital) got (unital) to change!' " McCain said. "And now I find myself the object of scorn because I think we can't afford to leave."

But McCain also said a withdrawal of troops to the borders of Iraq could be an option if the troop surge fails.

"If this strategy doesn't succeed, we will have to devise another strategy," McCain said. "But I have to hasten to add there are no good options." One of those options, McCain said "is to withdraw to the borders (of Iraq) to try to keep other countries from interfering. Maintaining our bases in Kuwait and other places. There are a lot of scenarios." But he also said the current troop surge strategy "has to be given time."

McCain's support for the Iraq war is unpopular with Democrats and Independents and is losing support within his own party, including among some of his fellow Republican senators. Sen. Chuck Hagel, Neb., has called the troop surge "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."

Without naming names, McCain said, "It is ironic that many of my colleagues who are now wavering were those who were down the line in support (of the war) and would come back from Iraq saying that everything is fine and the troops are wonderful and it's the media (that is the problem). And I came back from my first trip saying, 'You better get more boots on the ground! You better change this.' Now I am (ital) hung (unital) with it. It's fascinating!"

"Life isn't fair, as Jack Kennedy said," McCain added with his typical mordancy.

McCain will almost certainly announce his presidential candidacy soon, but he said, "This whole Iraq situation has really diverted most of my attention."

In the primaries, McCain is in danger of being whipsawed between Republican conservatives who think he is not really one of them and Republican centrists who are opposed to the war.

"There are still some elements of the party that are very skeptical about me," McCain acknowledged. "I think also, even amongst Republicans, there is a real concern about my position on the war in Iraq."

He did, however, give a peek at his game plan to gain the White House. "Most people in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, people around the country know me rather well," he said. "It's not as if I am a blank slate out there. Most of them, I think, have confidence that I have the experience, knowledge and background that, even though they disagree with me on a specific issue, they think I will do the right thing. Or at least what I believe is right."[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 03:22 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:25 AM
I think that Hillary could well be very hawkish in procecuting a war against Islamism; definitely not a bad choice.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 03:38 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:25 AM
"We may have to accept that the disintegration of Iraq is irreversible and America’s last remaining interest will be to leave. If so, we shouldn’t deepen the insult by pretending that we’re doing the Iraqis a favor."link
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 04:58 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Was this ever about the best interest of the Iraqis? As if Bush's altruism runs that deep.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-23-2007, 06:16 PM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
Hey Sting2. . .back in 2003, whose approach to Iraq did you support? McCain's or Bush's?
While generally supporting Bush's force levels in 2003, I would have prefered a larger force as advocated by McCain and others, but understood the difficulties and problems of having a larger force, and that there were indeed limits to how much you could send to Iraq given the size of the Army, National Guard, and Marine Corp. I could go into more detail, but I'm not certain it would be fully consistent with the topic of the thread.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 08:25 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