MERGED --> Impeachment Tour + Mother of US Soldier Vows To Follow Bush Around - 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 08-24-2005, 07:49 PM   #181
Refugee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,178
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Its 14 of Iraq's provinces that are peaceful not just 4. It does make a difference that 14 are peaceful and this fact is rarely reported by the media! Plus there is not an overwhelming sense of crises all across Iraq. Most people in the other 14 provinces site things other than the insurgency as their biggest concerns.

The primary rational for the war was Saddam's Failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD. That rational still stands today because Saddam never verifiably disarmed of over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of nerve gas and over 20,000 Bio Chem capable shells. The Saddam failed to disarm of these items is fact reported by the UN weapons inspectors. The fact that the coalition has not found such materials since invading Iraq is not evidence that there were none. The evidence from years of UN inspections shows that Saddam had this material, in addition Saddam even admitted they he had it. The fact that this material exist is not in doubt, the only questions are, is it still intact or was it dismantled without UN supervision, If it was dismantled when and where was it dismantled.

The United States was not the only country that knew Saddam had WMD, the whole world new. In addition the UNITED NATIONS passed 3 different resolutions authorizing the use of military force if Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. These resolutions were resolution 678 (1990), 687 (1991), and 1441 (2002). The United States help to assembled a coalition that consisted of over 50 nations that provided resources for the invasion. The United Nations has since passed 3 different resolutions approving the occupation!

No one lied and the threat Saddam posed to this country and the world was extremely serious. Any serious and objective study of the importance of the Persian Gulf to the planet in terms of energy supply and what a sudden cut off from such supplies would do to the planet will show that.


Once again the November 2004 election was the best indicator of support in the country for the war. It clearly showed that the American people despite all the rantings of the left as well as hollywood still support the war as well as the Presidents policies in winning it.

Also the carnage from the war has received tremondous coverage every night on the major news networks as well as cable news and local media. So this idea that this is all hidden is completely false.

The cost of the war in terms of money is not a surprise, the level of casualties to certain degree, at least from the way things were in the begining is a surprise. The Sunni population and the remainder of Saddam's regime have built a strong insurgency in 4 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Still it should be mentioned that casualties compared in the current war are only a fraction of what they were in Vietnam. The year my father was in Vietnam, 1968, over 16,500 US troops were killed and another 80,000 were wounded. Of course the loss or injury to just one life is a tragedy, but if one is going to use the current numbers of the Iraq war in a way to emphasise the cost to the nation as whole, then one needs to compare the cost of previous conflicts is one is going to be objective about what the cost to the nation as whole really is.

The lowest opinion poll for the war that I have seen recently is 42% still in favor. Back in February it was above 50% which was actually above what it was back in October. Still these opinion polls go up and down and are nothing compared to the accuracy of the Presidential Election in November 2004.


-The first failure you site, was not a failure at all. The Presumption is that if there were twice as many Brigades on the ground at the end of the war that there would be no violence no insurgency, no problems, which is complete rubbish. Violence in Iraq following the toppling of Saddam was actually VERY low. Certainly there was looting and disturbances through out the country, but much of this was temporary, unavoidable and enevitable. The insurgency that is on going now, was partly planned by Saddam long before the first shot was fired based on documents that have been recovered.

- your second claim of failure is also wrong. This idea that there was not even elementary post war planning and that there was no exit strategy is simply a political catch phrase of the left. The United States and its coalition allies have been involved in an extensive reconstruction effort in a country that has been ruled by one of the most brutal dictators in history for the past 25 years as well as being involved in many wars. The United States and its allies are spending Billions of dollars to help rebuild the country and defeat the Sunni insurgency. There have been multiple accomplishments and things are moving foward, not backward.

For your information, most Iraqi's actually support the occupation and do not want US forces to pull out. Only Saddam's former regime elements which make up the corp of the insurgency as well as Al Quada want the USA and the coalition to leave. Once again, look back to the 8 million people who voted in the elections in January!

Your accusations about the mistreatment of prisoners is just pure rubbish. There has been isolated abuse, but nothing on the level you talk about. Once again, my friends who have served multiple tours in the Marines in Iraq can attest to this fact. My best friend flew a Combat Helicopter escort mission for a prisoner in Abu Graib who needed an organ transplant. Here he was risking his life to insure this terrorist could get the best medical treatment in the world!

Whats more, you simply ignore the tens of thousands of Iraqi insurgents and Saddam military troops who were wounded and their lives were saved by US troops!

Iraq is not Afghanistan. The Shia in the South are not members of the Taliban, nor are they Iranians, they Arabs that have grown up with Iraq as their history, and its totally inaccurate to make some sudden gross generalization about them because of their religion. To equate everyone in the Shia part of Iraq with Bin Ladin and Al Quada is just absurd.

The Iraqi military today has 10 Battalions that function interchangably with US army and Marine Battalions, as well as 90 Battalions that are currently training to get to that level. Things are improving, but building a new army takes years! If one considers this a failure then one may not understand the reality of building a new military from scratch.

Its a bit naive to declare that Iraqi's line up every day to risk life and limb just because they were unable to find a labor job in downtown Baghdad. Once again, look at the January election and all the people who risked life and limb for NO monetary gain at all. The terrorist are attacking and killing Iraqi civilians and attempting to prevent the development of the country both politically and economically. It is not surprising that people are angry and want to strike back at the terrorist who are trying to prevent the development of their country.

Are you for real? Or are you a machine created by the Pentagon to constantly spit out useless information? Whatever the case, you're just looking at the facts with a deluded neo-con lens, and you're going to interpret everything in Iraq as progess, even if people are dying every day. You can justify the invasion of Iraq all you want, but your logic is circular, and sooner than later it will come around and bite you in the ass. Only a fool would think that the invasion of Iraq was just, and that progress is being made. Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War, and things are not going to get better any time soon.
__________________

__________________
starvinmarvin is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:51 PM   #182
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by starvinmarvin
Are you for real? Or are you a machine created by the Pentagon to constantly spit out useless information? Whatever the case, you're just looking at the facts with a deluded neo-con lense, and you're going to see anything in Iraq as progess. You can justify the invasion of Iraq all you want, but your logic is circular, and sooner than later it will come around and bite you in the ass. Only a fool would think that the invasion of Iraq was just, and that progress is being made. Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War, and things are not going to get better any time soon.
Please realize that your own vision may be blurred by your worldview. Stick to the substance of the issues and skip the personal attacks.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:53 PM   #183
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by starvinmarvin



Are you for real? Or are you a machine created by the Pentagon to constantly spit out useless information? Whatever the case, you're just looking at the facts with a deluded neo-con lens, and you're going to interpret everything in Iraq as progess, even if people are dying every day. You can justify the invasion of Iraq all you want, but your logic is circular, and sooner than later it will come around and bite you in the ass. Only a fool would think that the invasion of Iraq was just, and that progress is being made. Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War, and things are not going to get better any time soon.
Just like the people on the left will see every death in Iraq as proof that we don't belong there, that the war is illegal, etc... You look at the facts with hippy love and peace lenses. Neither side is willing to meet on middle ground and only name calling will result.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:57 PM   #184
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
this is pointless.

you've addressed virtually none of my questions, and merely reiterated for the millionth time the same pieces of information. and if you have to justify the "success" of iraq in comparison to the abject failure of Vietnam, then i guess the bar for success isn't set too high.

you're also lying to yourself about torture. what isn't done by US troops is outsourced to places like Egypt.

you have your information and you choose to read it in only a single way. i don't see any evidence of a give-and-take, just a constant monologue on your part and a refusal to countenance any questions. you assert things like "Saddam was a great danger to the world" when the man had been effectivley contained for 12 years, had a skeleton army, no WMDs, and nothing to do with global terrorism. also, the case you present for the removal of Saddam was not the case presented by the administration to the American people. the fact that this makes no difference to you is extremely telling.

how does that Kool-Aid taste?

i'm happy to continue discussing with Dread or other supporters of the war who are willing to engage, not monologue.

other than that, i'm out.
Sometimes I wonder if you have even bother to read anything that I wrote. I've responded to every single one of your questions and comments.

For your information, Vietnam was not an abject failure and it certainly was the only thing comparison or piece of information that I used to explain why the operation has been a success.

Your lying to yourself if you believe the liberal crap that the US military is running Gulags like what the Soviets had in Siberia.

Saddam did not have a Skeleton Army! I have given you the the numbers on Saddam's military strength prior to the war. Saddam's military was larger than Iran's, Saudi Arabia's, Kuwaits, Jordans, or any of the other smaller countries that are in the Persian Gulf. Thats a fact!

If Saddam had been effectively contained for 12 years, how is it that he had succeeded in getting out from the largest sanctions and weapons embargo regime every placed on a country? If Saddam was contained, why were there no UN inspectors in Iraq and why had Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of Nerve Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells?

Successful containment of Saddam depended on enforcement of the UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement. That is why the resolutions and Ceacefire agreement were passed! As of March 2003, the sanctions regime on Saddam had nearly ceaced to exist and the weapons embargo was also nearly gone, Saddam had not fully complied with any of the 17 UN resolutions passed against him under Chapter VII rules and the ceacefire agreement.

The fact that you ignore the central case the United States made for war against Saddam in UN Resolution 1441 is very telling. The case that critics of the President claimed he made to the American public is simply the cherry picked sentences used to attempt to demonstrate that the president lied to the people. President Bush never stated that the central case for war against Saddam was because he attempted to buy Uranium from Niger or that the central case for war was because he has WMD processing plant in building x in Tikrit, or that he had a mobile weapons lab. Some of these pieces of intelligence did come up and were presented to the public, but they were NEVER the central case for war. The central case for war, presented to the American public as well as the international community, is found in UN Resolution 1441, just the central case for the 1991 Gulf War is found in UN resolution 678.

I've attempted to engage and respond to every question and comment you offered. I've given my honest, informed opinion on every question and comment, and I could go into more detail on some of the issues. I can't possibly see how you could say I did not address any of the questions.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:59 PM   #185
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail

hippy love and peace lenses.
people still use the word hippy? Why not just pink-commie?

And love and peace...that's suppose to be some type of insult?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-24-2005, 08:02 PM   #186
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by starvinmarvin



Are you for real? Or are you a machine created by the Pentagon to constantly spit out useless information? Whatever the case, you're just looking at the facts with a deluded neo-con lens, and you're going to interpret everything in Iraq as progess, even if people are dying every day. You can justify the invasion of Iraq all you want, but your logic is circular, and sooner than later it will come around and bite you in the ass. Only a fool would think that the invasion of Iraq was just, and that progress is being made. Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War, and things are not going to get better any time soon.
There is no Civil War in Iraq at this time. There is a strong insurgency in 4 of Iraq's 18 provinces, led by the remainder of Saddam's regime and foreign terrorist.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 08:02 PM   #187
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:07 PM
The biggest single issue I have with STING2's posts in relation to this issue is his constant references to 'leftist critics' of the war, implying that the only people who opposed this war were far out leftists, and I see Randhail is doing the exact same thing above.

Randhail, frankly how the hell do YOU know what political opinions the likes of Starvinmarvin holds? Have you questioned him on his opinions, in order to provide some back up for your claim that he is looking at the facts through rose tinted 'hippy' lenses, as you call them?

I have said TIME and TIME on here again that it was not just leftwingers who thought this war was was a bad idea, and I have cited examples to prove my point, and frankly I am FED UP of having to point this out for the benefit of the slow learners amongst us.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 08:06 PM   #188
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
people still use the word hippy? Why not just pink-commie?

And love and peace...that's suppose to be some type of insult?

You're not really getting it, are you?

If you dissent from Bushco in any way, you are a hippy liberal far leftist commie, etc.

I must remember to inform Pat Buchanan of this, I am sure he will be mightily amused.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 08:58 PM   #189
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 11:07 AM
Sting, I appreciate the time you took to answer my questions.

We'll talk again in five years when we see what the situation has actually become and the speculations of both of us are moot.

I accept that you believe the invasion served the interest of the United States and Iraq. I differ on its helping US and we will see what happens in Iraq.

PS. The 2004 election also showed the largest number of people in the country in its history voting in opposition to a President.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 09:15 PM   #190
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:07 AM
I think this is so far off topic it should be closed..
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 12:41 AM   #191
Refugee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,178
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


There is no Civil War in Iraq at this time. There is a strong insurgency in 4 of Iraq's 18 provinces, led by the remainder of Saddam's regime and foreign terrorist.
There are reports out of Iraq that Saddam loyalists have been involved in increasing numbers of skirmishes with the Islamic terrorist groups. That, my friend, is the beginnings of a Civil War.

Besides, there is no evidence to suggest that the Baathists and terrorists are/were working together. Since they are fighting for two entirely different reasons, and stand for 2 diametrically opposed views (secular v. religious), it is almost inevitable that they will clash. When you throw the Kurds and the Shiites into the mix, you have even more potential for trouble.

P.S. What's wrong with love and peace?
__________________
starvinmarvin is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 01:45 AM   #192
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
The biggest single issue I have with STING2's posts in relation to this issue is his constant references to 'leftist critics' of the war, implying that the only people who opposed this war were far out leftists, and I see Randhail is doing the exact same thing above.

Randhail, frankly how the hell do YOU know what political opinions the likes of Starvinmarvin holds? Have you questioned him on his opinions, in order to provide some back up for your claim that he is looking at the facts through rose tinted 'hippy' lenses, as you call them?

I have said TIME and TIME on here again that it was not just leftwingers who thought this war was was a bad idea, and I have cited examples to prove my point, and frankly I am FED UP of having to point this out for the benefit of the slow learners amongst us.
Amen
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 06:42 AM   #193
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 10:07 AM
some interesting thoughts..

Sunday, Aug. 21, 2005

The Danger of Yellow Ribbon Patriotism
Why Cindy Sheehan's Crawford war vigil spurred a long-awaited dialogue on Iraq

By JOE KLEIN

Around the time that the forlorn gold star mother Cindy Sheehan began her vigil outside the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas, I had dinner with a military officer who had commanded a battalion in Iraq.

"I lost five lieutenants in a year," he told me. "I collected body parts. I don't know how I'll ever get over that. And you just get the feeling that the rest of the country doesn't understand. They're not part of this. It's peacetime in America, and a few of us are at war."

We have had a long season of sunshine patriotism in the U.S. since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. We love our troops without qualification, and rightly so. They have fought with courage and restraint in a horrifying chaos of battle. The yellow ribbons and support our troops signs are heartfelt. But there is a growing sense this summer that mere patriotic displays just won't cut it anymore.

The military is frustrated by both the mission and the sense that the war isn't front and center for the rest of the country. There is a fair amount of anger among the returning troops, especially the noncareer soldiers, the National Guard and reservists whose tours were extended and then extended again. In a harrowing and exquisite new book, The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell (Penguin; 240 pages), a Florida National Guardsman named John Crawford writes about coming home from Iraq, "Every time I saw someone sitting contentedly inside a coffee shop or restaurant, I wanted to yell at them to wake them up."

The U.S. Army Europe last week invited me to attend a conference for senior officers in Stuttgart, Germany. Many of the officers had recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan; others were about to be deployed. As always, I was struck by how the core values of the military—service and discipline, both physical and intellectual—are so different from the perpetual American Mardi Gras. More than a few officers told me they were concerned by what was happening back home.

They sensed that public support for the war was waning and feared that once again they had been sent into a difficult situation with less than a total commitment from the country's political leaders, including the Commander in Chief. They echoed a question that the battalion commander who had lost five of his lieutenants had asked me. "Why hasn't the President issued a national call to service? I don't mean a draft," he said. "But if the President called on people to serve, they would. And not just in the military. My mother mentioned this the other day: 'Why aren't there the war-bond drives we had in World War II? Why aren't we being asked to collect clothing for the children of Iraq?'"

Other officers wondered why the American public was never asked to share in their grief, why the President never attended the funerals of the fallen. One general, who had presided over 162 memorial services in Iraq, told me how it worked: "There's no coffin, just the inverted rifle, boots and helmet of the fallen. We call the roll, up to the name of the missing trooper. We call his name: Specialist Doe.

Then a second time: Specialist John Doe. A third time: Specialist John R. Doe. And then taps is played. It really gets to you. It's an important emotional experience for the troops. It closes the door and enables you to move on."

We are told that George W. Bush often cries in private meetings with the families of the fallen. No doubt the President feels the intense pain and responsibility of having sent young people off to war.

Perhaps he feels the pain more intensely than other Presidents, knowing that the real war in Iraq, the one that began after he proclaimed that "major combat operations are over," was not anticipated by his Administration, a colossal failure of planning and execution. It is also possible that there is more than crude political calculation to the President's failure to attend funerals; his refusal to intrude upon the private grief of the families has presidential precedent. But the inability to acknowledge these terrible losses leaves an aching void in the rest of us. It isolates the general public from the suffering that is a dominant reality of life in military communities.

And that is why the awkward anguish of Cindy Sheehan has struck a chord, despite her naive politics and the ideology of some of her supporters. She represents all the tears not shed when the coffins came home without public notice. She is pain made manifest. It is only with a public acknowledgment of the unutterable agony this war has caused that we can begin a serious and long overdue conversation about Iraq, about why this war—which, unlike Vietnam, cannot be abandoned without serious consequences—is still worth fighting and why we should recommit the entire nation to the struggle. This is a failure of leadership, perhaps the signal failure of the Bush presidency.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 07:01 AM   #194
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

I've attempted to engage and respond to every question and comment you offered. I've given my honest, informed opinion on every question and comment, and I could go into more detail on some of the issues. I can't possibly see how you could say I did not address any of the questions.


sorry, STING, but each and everyone one of your posts are interchangeable. one says the same thing as the next, and you don't answer or engage a question but rather repeat the information that originally prompted my question (perfect example is your view of the 2004 election). i read each and every word, and i see virtually nothing new, and what disappoints me is that you assail my points with Coulter-isms -- i.e., they're "liberal."

i think it's a case of missing the forest for the trees.

thus, i don't see anything productive coming out of engaging you.

hence, i'm out.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-25-2005, 08:23 AM   #195
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I think this is so far off topic it should be closed..
This thread has indeed ventured way off-topic but it seems there is still some chance for meaningful discussion, particularly of the article Mrs Springsteen has just posted, so I don't want to close the thread just yet. However, if the thread fails to get back on topic and the personal insults continue it will be closed.

Can I please remind people that phrases like "only a fool would believe that" or references to people being deceived by "leftist crap" (to paraphrase some of the contributions to this thread) aren't acceptable. We all see politics from our own particular perspective and I very much doubt anyone is in the position to claim that their view of politics is unbiased. With that in mind, please try to discuss the issues without calling into question other posters ability to see the situation clearly. It's perfectly possible to express disagreement with someone's opinion without calling into question their ability to form an intelligent opinion on the subject.

If you'd like this thread to stay open then please try to keep the above in mind when continuing this discussion. Thank-you.

*Fizz.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees 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 10:07 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