Obama General Discussion - Page 63 - 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 06-23-2010, 12:18 PM   #931
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonosSaint View Post
McChrystal needs to go.

The honourable thing to do would be to resign.

Hopefully Obama has the cohones to fire his ass.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 01:03 PM   #932
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
iraq is vastly worse off today than it was in march 2003. how anyone can possibly argue otherwise is beyond me.
Well, what is your assumption based on? Have you accurately considered what life was like for Iraqi Kurds and Shia's under Saddam? Random bombings are one thing, having 5,000 men, women and children in one day experience the deadly effects of Sarin gas is another. Having food and basic medical supplies withheld from your community is a common experience of most Iraqi's who were not apart of certain Sunni tribes while Saddam is in power.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 01:07 PM   #933
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Read the article again.

No one said they were Israeli citizens.

Israel has not annexed the West Bank and Gaza?


Let us know when you find a place called the real world.
In the REAL WORLD, occupation is NOT ANNEXATION. If Israel had annexed the West Bank and Gaza, they would be apart of Israel and Israel would not be discussing returning such area's to anyone.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 01:37 PM   #934
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Sting, Powell was against the invasion, he said so many times in private conversations, resigned in 2005 and then publicly endorsed Obama, an Iraq war opponent.

He opposed the war: Powell tried to talk Bush out of war - Times Online
None of that shows that he was against the removal of Saddam in 2003 with US forces. Powell says SPECIFICALLY in the Barbara Walters show in 2005 that he supported the Presidents decision to remove SADDAM. To qoute Powell, "when the President said it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain in violation of these UN resolutions, I am right there with him on the use of force!"

Powell was the one who got the Bush administration to go back to the United Nations for resolution 1441 that was not technically needed to authorize the invasion. He disputed the contention of others that resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of military force.

Another famous qoute by Powell in 2002:

"It is not incumbent on the United States to prove that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is incumbant on Iraq to prove that they don't."

Powell has also been against any form of pre-mature withdrawal. He stated in the Barbara Walters interview in 2005 that the United States needed to stay the course in Iraq and develop the countries government, military forces and economy.

Quote:
He opposed the surge:

Powell: We Are Losing In Iraq - Face The Nation - CBS News
He never advocated a pre-mature withdrawal, but in any event, history has shown any opponents of the Surge to have been flat out wrong about the impact it would have on the situation in the country.


Quote:
And Bush had nowhere near enough focus and priority on Afghanistan during his Presidency:

War in Afghanistan: US Redirection of Forces to Iraq

The invasion of Iraq was spearheaded by heavy armor units that have not been used in Afghanistan to date. You can't be claiming the President was not focused on Afghanistan because a tank division that would be unlikely to be sent to Afghanistan was used to invade Iraq.

The US used a total of 11 brigades to invade Iraq and a two brigades on the ground in Afghanistan at the time.

But the USA still had a total of 30 Active Army and Marine brigades back in the USA, Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

In addition, there were 38 National Guard Combat Brigades that were not being used at all back in the United States.


So the idea that the President underresourced Afghanistan to invade Iraq in 2003 is flat out FALSE!


Quote:
The resolution said Iraq had WMD, and we would forcibly remove said WMD should he fail to let the inspectors verify everything.

So anyone who voted for the resolution shouldn't even apologize, it was Bush who lied about the weapons and pulled out the inspectors that he promised to let do their work.
Saddam failed to verifiably account for a long list of WMD items while the inspectors were in country. It was also found out after the war that he hid production related WMD facilities that were in violation of multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

At no time in 2003 was Saddam EVER in compliance with ANY of the 17 UN Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

Quote:
Eithe way, Biden admits a small mistake in trusting Bush, Bush can't bring himself to admit a COLOSSAL MISTAKE
The COLOSSAL MISTAKE would have been to leave Saddam in power. But please, if you have logical explanation that leaving someone, with Saddam's behavior and history, in power in Iraq would be best for the security of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the persian gulf region, and the world, lets here it. I don't see too many arguments these days defending Saddam as a source of peace and stability for the Persian Gulf.

Quote:
Don't come back with your Clinton video, that was 1998, before inspectors gave Iraq a clean bill of health in 1999. Clinton wanted to make sure they were verifiably done with the WMD program, and he did. Things changed, the situation was not the same in 1998 as it was in 2003. 1999-2003, Saddam had no weapons and guess what, Sting? The FACTS have proven this to be the case.
INSPECTORS NEVER GAVE IRAQ A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH! THERE WERE NO INSPECTORS EVEN ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ IN 1999!

This is basic factual history.

Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 precisely because Iraq was NOT complying with requirements of the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire.

1. The fact that no WMD weapons were found in Iraq after Saddam was removed does not prove that were NONE in the country before the US invaded.

2. It does not change the fact that WMD production related facilities that were in violation of the UN resolutions were found in the country after Saddam was removed!

3. Saddam remained in violation of 17 UN security council resolutions from 1999 until the US invaded and removed Saddam.

4.Most importantly, the key means of containment, Sanctions and the Weapons embargo, had fallen apart by 2002. Its impossible to contain Saddam without them. Every day that would go by without effective sanctions and weapons embargo regime would allow Saddam to rebuild both his conventional and unconventional military forces. The inability to effectively contain Saddam meant that the only option left was regime change.

5. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam in 2003!

I also do not recall Biden in March 2003 saying that Bush had violated his own resolution on Iraq. There was nothing dissenting from Biden at all in March 2003.



Quote:
Saddam never had a nuclear weapon, and had chemical and biological weapons that were comprehensively destroyed starting in 1991. He never posed an imminent threat, or any kind of threat, to the United States. Also a fact.
No one ever said that Saddam had a nuclear weapon! The whole point of containing Saddam was to prevent from rebuilding his military or obtaining new WMD or even worse a nuclear weapon! Its about PREVENTION and not waiting for a leader to get such weapons that could be used against any invasion force.

But again, without containment which involves an effective Sanctions and Weapons embargo regime, containment cannot work. The only other option besides containment was regime change.



Quote:
chemical and biological weapons that were comprehensively destroyed starting in 1991
If that were clearly the case, the UN inspectors would not have been so extensively involved in Iraq, year after year AFTER 1991. In 2003, Saddam had still failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. IT IS A THEORY, NOT A PROVEN FACT, THAT SOME OF THOSE STOCKS WERE DESTROYED WITHOUT VERIFICATION IN 1991.



Quote:
or any kind of threat, to the United States. Also a fact.
If this had any truth to it at all, the United States would have NEVER gone to WAR with Iraq in 1991, bombed Iraq year after year, or attempt to put Iraq under the most extensive sanctions and weapons embargo regime in history!

Can you name another country on the planet in 2003 that was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 01:46 PM   #935
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: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
if someone decides to reply they'll be writing a novel that i won't bother to read.
:chuckle: Ah, so you DO know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
McChrystal needs to go.

The honourable thing to do would be to resign.

Hopefully Obama has the cohones to fire his ass.
I happened to glance at a TV in the bar of a restuarant I just had lunch at, and I thought the it said that Petraeus would be replacing McChrystal.

During same lunch I read Joe Klein's analysis in Time magazine of the situation in Afghanistan and to be honest it sounds pretty damn near impossible to resolve. I think the most we should be seeking to accomplish there is to make sure that Al-Quaeda won't be able to comfortably organize and train there. I think we're going to have to let the nation-building go, as sad as that is for Afghanistan.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 02:18 PM   #936
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
We did not have that little thing called 9/11 when Clinton was in office. Even the airstrikes and drones and other actions aimed at AQ were ridiculed by the GOP when Clinton employed them.

There would have been no public or political support for an invasion before 9.11.


!
Oh yes, hundreds of people being killed at the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania is no big thing right? Its better to wait until they have killed thousands of American citizens on US soil before you take some sort of effective action?

The idea is to PREVENT such an invent from happening in the first place and means employed by the President at the time were not effective and certainly would not be effective now.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 02:22 PM   #937
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
He tripled counterterrorism funding over the objection of the GOP congress, stopped many plots in their tracks(millenium, bojinka) and put 2 loaded naval aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean aimed at Afghanistan. He then called up the Taliban and told them who would be held responsible for an attack. Then Bush recalled said carriers.


Clinton told the Bush team AQ was threat #1, Condi had never heard of them and Wolfowitz laughed in his face.



DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK ANYONE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE INVADED AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 9/11?

He ignored numerous warnings specific to 9/11 and ignored AQ in general for 8 months.
This all misses the point that simply using Airstrikes, the CIA, and other more limited forms of counterterrorism by Clinton and Bush up through 9/11WAS NOT EFFECTIVE AND WOULD NOT BE TODAY!
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 02:24 PM   #938
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,699
Local Time: 04:36 PM
STRONGBOW, read the title of the thread.

U2387, IGNORE HIM!
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-23-2010, 02:25 PM   #939
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
if someone decides to reply they'll be writing a novel that i won't bother to read.
Why even post here if your unwilling to read other opinions that may disagree with your own?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 02:32 PM   #940
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
:chuckle: Ah, so you DO know.



I happened to glance at a TV in the bar of a restuarant I just had lunch at, and I thought the it said that Petraeus would be replacing McChrystal.

During same lunch I read Joe Klein's analysis in Time magazine of the situation in Afghanistan and to be honest it sounds pretty damn near impossible to resolve. I think the most we should be seeking to accomplish there is to make sure that Al-Quaeda won't be able to comfortably organize and train there. I think we're going to have to let the nation-building go, as sad as that is for Afghanistan.
Joe Klein, LOL, certainly not an unbiased source.

The only way to make sure that Al Quada cannot ever again organize and train in Afghanistan the way they did prior to 2001 is to develop an Afghan government and security forces to a level where they can protect the country and help prevent such a situation without the need of help from large numbers of foreign ground troops.

Abandoning Afghanistan and relying on air-power and other forms of counterterrorism is a return to the policies of the 1990s that got the world into this situation in the first place.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 02:39 PM   #941
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: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Joe Klein, LOL, certainly not an unbiased source.

The only way to make sure that Al Quada cannot ever again organize and train in Afghanistan the way they did prior to 2001 is to develop an Afghan government and security forces to a level where they can protect the country and help prevent such a situation without the need of help from large numbers of foreign ground troops.

Abandoning Afghanistan and relying on air-power and other forms of counterterrorism is a return to the policies of the 1990s that got the world into this situation in the first place.
Well, no one is ever completely unbiased are they? But I've found him to be more or less pretty evenhanded most of the time.

How do you address the blatant corruption of the Karzai's government? This is as much as anything is making it nearly impossible to "develop an Afghan government and security to forces to a level where they can protect the country etc."
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 02:49 PM   #942
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
McChrystal needs to go.

The honourable thing to do would be to resign.

Hopefully Obama has the cohones to fire his ass.
McChrystal is one of this countries most talented soldiers and experts on counterinsurgency. I think it is a gross mistake to remove someone of such importance on basically what is a single comment that should have been off the record.

It was McChrystals experties in counter-terrorism operations that helped catch Al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Quada in Iraq.

Michael Hastings is clearly a novice when it comes to reporting on war and counter-insurgency.

Most of the uncivil comments made were by members on his staff, not McCrystal. There were no uncivil comments about Obama and only one about Biden.

On the bright side, Rolling Stone has succeeded in getting General Patreus into Afghanistan, a general that liberals indeed hate and refered to as General Betrayus during the Surge in Iraq in 2007.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 02:55 PM   #943
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
No, no, no. You must never say that! Don't you know what will happen? And if "someone" decides to argue otherwise with you--trust me, just let it go! Quickest way to derail a thread I'm telling you!


of course, we could expect that "someone" to actually be mature and do the same we ask of of others -- you know, use the Ignore feature, maybe not derail the thread -- but that would be expecting too much apparently.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 02:58 PM   #944
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I think we're going to have to let the nation-building go, as sad as that is for Afghanistan.


really? what kind of non-utopian fabulist world do you live in where the US doesn't have endless amounts of blood-and-treasure to spend fixing all the bad places in the world?

(other than, say, fixing the northern Congo where 5m people have been killed in the past decade ... would love to read a novel about UN resolutions on that one)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 03:00 PM   #945
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Well, no one is ever completely unbiased are they? But I've found him to be more or less pretty evenhanded most of the time.

How do you address the blatant corruption of the Karzai's government? This is as much as anything is making it nearly impossible to "develop an Afghan government and security to forces to a level where they can protect the country etc."
Joe Klein is one of the most biased journalist out there.


You don't address corruption in the Karzai government by pulling out coalition troops from Afghanistan. That would only make things worse. Continued engagement and work to resolve this issues is the only way to manage this. The corruption will never be completed eliminated. There has to be an increase in the ability to detect, disrupt and punish those that engage in this, as well as developing alternative paths to advancement and success for the average citizen, as well as the government official. This will take a long time and there are lessons to be learned from Columbia and the way it has dealt with the drug trade, insurgency, and building a stronger, more stable and less corrupted government. But at least Afghanistan has a government where such issues can be worked on instead the chaos that existed in the 1990s or the rule of the Taliban which harbored and helped Al Quada develop, which led to the deaths of 3,000 US citizens on September 11, 2001.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Democratic National Convention Thread MrsSpringsteen Free Your Mind 504 09-02-2008 03:37 PM
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1001 01-30-2008 02:07 PM
MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount? 2861U2 Free Your Mind Archive 586 01-12-2008 01:50 PM
Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread Varitek Free Your Mind Archive 1003 09-23-2007 03:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 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