"Regrets, I've had a few; But then again, too few to mention" - Page 2 - 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 10-07-2004, 06:03 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:09 AM
Re: "Regrets, I've had a few; But then again, too few to mention"

Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
If this administration had known what it knows now in terms of the CIA report and the present situation on the ground in Iraq, would they still have gone to war?
Of course! Because the fact remains that Saddam as of today has still failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. The report stated there were no WMD only because they were unable to find any. They did indicate in the report that WMD could have been smuggled out of the country before the war. A more likely possiblity is that WMD was hidden in the vast deserts of Iraq. The possibilities to hide such items which are tiny is practically infinite. VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is only possible with the cooperation of those being disarmed.

As of today, according to United Nations Weapons inspectors,(as they said back in November of 1998 and November of 2002) Saddam still has not accounted for 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, hundreds of pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.

Some "theorize" that such weapons were destroyed years ago by Saddam, but there is still no evidence that proves that. Why would Saddam dismantle such weapons in secret thus denying himself and the regime the opportunity to get out from under Sanctions?

Saddam was given a process to follow for Verifiable disarmament in 1991 that could have easily been completed by 1993. Instead, Saddam complied, then cheated, then complied, then cheated and blocked inspections, then began harrassment of inspectors and almost always blocking inspections by 1996/1997. The process became futile in 1998 and the inspectors were withdrawn and not allowed to return in November of 1998. Coalition forces launched the largest bombing campaign of Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War. Inspectors in November of 1998 listed all of the WMD Saddam had failed to account for and considered Saddam dangerous in regards to WMD. In November of 2002, Saddam let inspectors back in and claimed that the WMD, which he had admitted to having in 1998 had been destroyed, but refused to show any evidence of that destruction. Saddam was given one last chance to resolve the issue and he chose not too. As long as Saddam failed to comply with the UN resolutions and account for the WMD, the use of military force was a necessity. The CIA's report has not changed this fact.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 07:05 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 08:09 PM
I believe this administration would have gone to this war no matter what.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-08-2004, 12:41 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I believe this administration would have gone to this war no matter what.
Yup. Exactly.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 12:44 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:09 AM
They would not have gone to war if Saddam had nuclear weapons. If he had achieved that goal then he would be untouchable. Which is what the entire point of preemption is, to prevent that sort of situation ever arising and ensuring that American power can be preserved across the region with little threat to its interests.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 01:35 AM   #20
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by starsforu2
I found Klaus' rebuttal interesting, in part because there are some things I am not familiar with I.E.
They are various groups who called themself "Iraqi opposition" and spent lots of money to come to power.
See Iraq is a verry rich country and some of these groups give a *** about the Iraqi people, they want the money (oil).
One of these groups were here at our university shortly after the first iraq war and they allready announced that they lobby in Washington to get in power in iraq. They were absolutely sure that it works, we told them "no way you can't buy US politics". Well shame on me, i was young and naive


Quote:
I don't think that Al-quaida is hurting for recruitment reasons. They sent 19 people to their death on 9/11/01 and we weren't in Iraq then. I don't think that you can say that 3000 innocent people dying was justified because we have bases in Saudi Arabia or because we support Israel. That's all it took in 2001. But I don't think either of those things were wrong for us to do.


I don't think that violence against unarmed civilians can ever be justified!

I think supporting israel is a good thing but we have to take care what they do with our help. I don't think it's a good idea to support sharon in all of his actions. When i see Mr. Sharon i see a man who comited war crimes (killing unarmed women and children).

Quote:
I don't think that Iraq is a diversion, because I think a US soldier has a much better chance defending himself in Iraq than my grandmother has in NY.


You're right, the ones who can't defend themself are the iraqi civilists.
They are - like every civilian - dependend on police and military who protects them. Since the beginning of this Iraq war it seemed that there were other priorities than civilians (remember there was a US tank in front of the oil-ministerium but noone stoped the looters of Hospitals.

Quote:
All of the other problem countries that you mention do not have the history that Iraq has.


Right, Iraq has - like most countries - a verry genuine history. It was a colony and then after WWII the west and east supported dictators to "stabilize" the country and bring it closer to the western/eastern block.
I'm personally convinced that Saddam wouldn't exist if our politics didn't fu**k up Iran with the support of the Shah, a dictator not less cruel than Saddam.

Quote:
If your position is that we needed to invade someone else before Iraq, then I ask who and why and why not diplomacy first?


No, not invading! i don't think i wrote that the US should invade any of the above countries.
I think diplomacy (yes this one has to do with talking - difficult negitiations) is the key.
Even saddam was willing to let the weapon inspectors in - and even rockets were destroyed by unmovic before the US invaded Iraq because the imminent threat didn't allow any more negotiations.

Quote:
Iraq was the one country that has continued to defy the UN Security Council, and the World. There are many people smarter than me, who believe that Iran will throw off it's current leadership without us invading.


I wouldn't call myself smarter than you but i agree that Iran will throw off it's current regime.
In iran lots of things changed in the last 15 years and i think a revolution has to start inside the country. We can't decide for other countries "It's time for democracy - now!" and be suprised that they simply don't agree that our ideas for their country differs from their plans.

Quote:
There is also a belief that we can still negotiate with North Korea primarily with China's aid. (After all, it's their neighborhood and they are a world Power).


Right and there would be more chances for diplomacy if the US didn't start Iraq war and pissed off lots of country - not with the war itself but with the arogant way it hapened.
(like "We know it better than you, everyone not with us is against us, everyone with criticizm is "Irrelevant", "Freedom Fries" etc.


Quote:
Palestine is primarily Israel's problem,


No it's not! The world decided to build a country Israel down there and people who lived in that country are now forced to live in gethos. European and US politics lead to this situation and it's our duty now to clean up some of that mess what hapens to the palestine citizens.
This dosn't mean that we should support Arafat or any radical group who supports terrorism or even accomplishes terrorstrikes. But it's our job to relieve some of the inhumane cruelties which hapens to simple citizens there.

Quote:
although we do step in from time to time to say stuff. Pakistan is worrisome, but at the moment seems to at least have a leader we can work with.


Why do you think we can work with him? Just because he says he supports us? I wouldn't trust that guy, chances aren't bad that this leader also supports al-quaida and uses the coalition with the US to survive.

Quote:
So, you and I both agree that the world is messed up, and we disagree about whether we are doing the right things to fix it. I would be curious about how we should proceed, because I have too often heard critique without solutions. I think we both want solutions and not just finger-pointing.
Thanks!
There is no global easy solution - i think we can both agree with that statement. Give me specific questions and i'll try to answer them (i mentioned some things above).

We need smart leaders who can accomplish a lot with diplomacy.
Politics isn't an easy game, it's about talking to others who have different lifestyles and different ideas about human values and how society should look like. There are two ways to resolve this. Either you nuke everyone who dosn't agree with you or you try to convince people that your way is the better way.
I think we can convince people that our way is the more desirable one. If we want to do this we have to behave like a lighttower of our ideas, that means no dirty tricks, no cheating etc.

A_Wanderer
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
They would not have gone to war if Saddam had nuclear weapons. If he had achieved that goal then he would be untouchable. Which is what the entire point of preemption is, to prevent that sort of situation ever arising and ensuring that American power can be preserved across the region with little threat to its interests.
This sends a clear message to all criminal regimes of the world "Develop Nuclear weapons or youre Fu**ed.
Not the best message from my point of view
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 09:26 AM   #21
Refugee
 
starsforu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA (and permanently residing in u2bonogirls head!)
Posts: 2,070
Local Time: 09:09 PM
I started down the path of point by point rebuttal, and sometimes even agreeing, but then I got tired.

I truly think that one of the primary differences in our view of the world is that I don't believe that Diplomacy always works. I think as rational human beings we propose, we argue, we find a place of agreement. When one party breaks a promise repeatedly, we can continue diplomacy, but eventually we end up at an or else scenario.

The UN, and the US passed that last resolution which said "Disarm, or else". He chose not to. If we had let him continue on his merry way, the message sent is to just ignore the UN, eventually they'll get bored or give up. So we had to move.

You also assume that he is a rational man. Or a truthful man. When playing any game, you go by a set of rules. The game plays well, until someone decides to cheat, or throw out the rules, or uses things that aren't even in the box. People need to realize that some people just won't play by the rules and to hamstring ourselves simply puts us in greater danger.

If you want an example look no further than Bill Clinton's attempts to employ diplomacy with Arafat and Kim Jong Il.

He assumed that if Israel was willing to put enough on the table Arafat would take it. It wasn't enough and never would be enough for him, because the terrorist groups who work in that region have one stated goal. The ELIMINATION of Israel. Not the establishment of a Palestinian country, or the pre-1967 borders. They want Israel dead. Since Oslo fell apart, the bombings have escalated far greater than in other times during Israel's existence.

In 1995 Bill Clinton agreed to give NK a Nuclear Plant in exchange for a promise to not pursue nuclear weapons. Well, we know how that is going today. You can't assume that everyone is going to play by your rules or your morality. You can give them the benefit of the doubt, but I think that if you see that they are willing to starve their people in order to attain power, they aren't worth brokering with.

Bill Clinton went into Bosnia unilaterally during his presidency, and we're still cleaning up there. The UN is still very much involved. I wonder if your problem isn't the action as it is the man who led it.
__________________
starsforu2 is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 09:32 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:09 AM

> Very good point on the PA and its consistent use of "bomber" diplomacy.
> Jimmy Carter needs reciognition for his part in the N-Korean Nuclear Crisis.
- I love this, new album and a whole lot of new people coming into FYM, really livens things up.

I say again; No War - Unless a Democrat is President.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-11-2004, 05:47 AM   #23
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by starsforu2
I started down the path of point by point rebuttal, and sometimes even agreeing, but then I got tired.




Quote:
I truly think that one of the primary differences in our view of the world is that I don't believe that Diplomacy always works. I think as rational human beings we propose, we argue, we find a place of agreement. When one party breaks a promise repeatedly, we can continue diplomacy, but eventually we end up at an or else scenario.


Right, Diplomacy dosn't allways work. Good presidents are able to get more with diplomacy than stupid presidents but there is allways a point were diplomacy simply dosn't work anymore. (For example another country declaring war on you)

Quote:
The UN, and the US passed that last resolution which said "Disarm, or else". He chose not to. If we had let him continue on his merry way, the message sent is to just ignore the UN, eventually they'll get bored or give up. So we had to move.


Well he siad he had dissarmed and UNMOVIC was there to find out if he dissarmed or not.
Finally the US-led colaition "of the willing" decided that the threat was to imminent and Unmovic couldn't finish their job.

Quote:
You also assume that he is a rational man. Or a truthful man. When playing any game, you go by a set of rules. The game plays well, until someone decides to cheat, or throw out the rules, or uses things that aren't even in the box. People need to realize that some people just won't play by the rules and to hamstring ourselves simply puts us in greater danger.


Rational - yes. Truthful - no

Most countries in the world play diplomatic games, including the US and the countries of Europe.

I didn't trust Mr. Hussein and i was suprised that he didn't have any serious amount of WMDs left. Seems he bluffed with the WMDs - maybee to be not invaded by his neighbours?

Quote:
If you want an example look no further than Bill Clinton's attempts to employ diplomacy with Arafat and Kim Jong Il.


I have no problem admiting that Mr. Clinton didn't allways do his job perfect.
His worst decisions to me were bombings of mid-east to get medias attention away from Mrs Levinsky

Quote:
He assumed that if Israel was willing to put enough on the table Arafat would take it. It wasn't enough and never would be enough for him, because the terrorist groups who work in that region have one stated goal. The ELIMINATION of Israel. Not the establishment of a Palestinian country, or the pre-1967 borders. They want Israel dead. Since Oslo fell apart, the bombings have escalated far greater than in other times during Israel's existence.


It wasn't enough and won't be enough for Arafat because he's useless once there is peace between Israel and Palestine. Same for Mr. Sharon.
So i think the peace-process can't be done by mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat that's why US and European diplomacy is neccessary.
Israel and palestine are dependent on external help so the EU and the US should work together to raise presure on both parties.
You can disslike it but you can't ignore that Mr. Arafat was the only democratic elected leader of palestine. Most palestines don't like him because they know he's a corrupt man. the main reasons that he is still in power is Sharon and Bush.
If another country attacks you (war or just verbal) people tend to rally behind their leaders and that's exactly what hapens if Mr. Sharon and Mr. Bush call Arafat "irrelevant".

Solutions? Well maybe UN controlled Palestine terretories. UN controlled borderline between Israel and palestine, No Israeli army there - then democratic elections etc.

Quote:
In 1995 Bill Clinton agreed to give NK a Nuclear Plant in exchange for a promise to not pursue nuclear weapons. Well, we know how that is going today. You can't assume that everyone is going to play by your rules or your morality. You can give them the benefit of the doubt, but I think that if you see that they are willing to starve their people in order to attain power, they aren't worth brokering with.


You're right and i never said that you can solve all problems by diplomacy. You couldn't stop men like Stalin with diplomacy. You need the balance of power and diplomacy to archive something.
Because of the Iraq war north korea was sure they have some time to go on with their A-Bomb plans. Why? Chances are low that US won't wage a war in Iraq and North Korea at the same time. That's why i'm sure North Korea has no interest in a stabile Iraq.

Quote:
Bill Clinton went into Bosnia unilaterally during his presidency, and we're still cleaning up there. The UN is still very much involved. I wonder if your problem isn't the action as it is the man who led it.
I thought Bosnia was a Nato operation but i have to reread that.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-12-2004, 02:41 PM   #24
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 08:09 PM
This is a direct lie Bush told in the debate. This military officer is asking for more troops.
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/baltsun.htm
...
Requests and questions

Since May, Brig. Gen. Oscar B. Hilman, commander of the 81st Brigade Combat Team, a National Guard unit from Washington state that operates the base, has requested 500 to 700 more soldiers. But he said the request has been denied.

"Because the enemy is persistent, we need additional forces. We asked twice," said Hilman, who arrived here in April for a yearlong stint. But Hilman said he was told that "there are no additional forces," and that U.S. soldiers are needed elsewhere, particularly to battle insurgents and cover a large area to the north that includes the rebellious cities of Tikrit and Samarra.

The 81st Brigade's top enlisted man, Sgt. Maj. Robert Barr, said the soldiers here are frustrated, and that he often hears the same question: "Why aren't we stopping it or killing their guys who are doing it?"

Their complaints contrast sharply with statements by President Bush and top Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who say U.S. troop strength is sufficient but that more soldiers will be sent if senior commanders ask.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine 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 08:09 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