Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating - Page 6 - 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 11-07-2006, 11:01 AM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,061
Local Time: 03:29 AM
I love how people who defend Bush and the way the war is going automatically assume that if the Democrats gain control, they would blindly just bring all the troops home. Not all Democrats feel this way - in fact, most of them just want a better policy there because the one now is just not working.

But hey, they're Democrats. They're evil. If you vote for them, you're anti-American.

It's all quite humorous.
__________________

__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 11:07 AM   #77
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,061
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

Of all the things that went wrong, or are going wrong, Bush and the administration never once prior to invasion said this would be a short term deal. He repeatedly told the American people that this was going to be a long protracted fight with no end in sight. EVERYONE knew, that cared to know, and that includes the democratic leadership who approved the action in Congress that this was going to be a long term struggle.
But hey, that didn't stop Bush from dressing up as a fighter pilot onto the deck of an air craft carrier and proclaiming "Mission Accomplished!"
__________________

__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 11:39 AM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





you're so transparant. you've offered nothing again. and you've offered nothing to make up for the lies and deception that have gotten us into this situation into the first place, and you're offering up the classic republican strategy of "either you're with us or you love brutal dictators." talk about lacking an original thought. STING, all, yes ALL, your posts on this subject are interchangeable. they all contain the same language and have been posted with little modification over the past 3 years.

simply pointing out that Iraq is indeed in a Civil War, as pro-war conservatives like Colin Powell and Fareed Zakaria admit, and that the occupation has failed at many of the most basic goals (stability, electricity) and that the Iraqi army and government are deeply distrusted by the Iraqi people, that the army and police have been deeply infiltrated by Shiite death squads who kill Sunnis by the dozens every night in Baghdad, none of this is a wish for Saddam to come back into power.

it's a wish for events to have unfolded in a far, far different fashion in 2002/3. it was a wish to have effectively dealt with Afghanistan, first, and then dealt with Iraq. don't stand there and tell me that there was only one option in 2002/3, that it was either act then in March 2003 or else the world would have fallen apart and the Upper East Side would have been light up by Iraqi WMDs used by Al-Qaeda. that's complete and total garbage. the containment policy, combined with inspections, were effective as a matter of course, but not a means to an end, but a unilateral invasion has certainly proved to be exaclty the wrong answer to the Saddam situation.

given the current situation across the Middle East and given the fact that Iraq has proved a convenient point of radicalization for Muslim youth across the Middle East and Europe, and according to the NIE, the world would have been a safer place without this tragicomedic invasion and occupation. that's not a wish for Saddam to stay in power -- though i imagine you'll construct a false choice in response, as you do -- but a wish for something different to have happened over the past 3 and a half years.
Well, if I've offered "nothing", why even respond? I've offered what my own assesment of the situation and what I think needs to be done. I don't see your post as being any less interchangable over the past three years either or new. So What? If something has happened or caused you to change your opinion on a particular issue, fine. If not, thats ok as well. This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. If you want to talk specifically about other people, why don't you start a new thread. This thread is about IRAQ, not the posting habits of any particular poster in the forum.


The Police force has been infilltrated by Shia Militia's, but that is not the same as the Iraqi Military. But, you go ahead and lump the two together as if the problems are the same, and they are not at all. Electricity is being provided across a wider area of Iraq, and Shia area's that never had electricity under Saddam now have it greater amounts in their provinces. That of course has meant that Sunni's no longer enjoy all of the benefits, this being one of them, that they once had under Saddam. Resources are being more evenly distributed. There are problems with the Police forming death squads and murdering Sunni's, but that is not a large problem in the Iraqi military. There is distrust of the Iraqi military in Sunni Provinces, but not in the rest of Iraq relative to the Sunni Provinces. You can't take the problems in 4 Sunni Provinces and extrapolate them over all of Iraq and make them out to be representive of Iraq.

Dealing with Afghanistan is something that will take years, if not decades. The idea that the United States could simply wait that long to deal with other pressing national security issues like Iraq is simply laughably absurd.

Its not about the Upper East Side, but what would happen to a country like Kuwait or Eastern Saudi Arabia in the near future which is the concern. Repeating the situation that happened in 1990 is simply unacceptable. The line that would be crossed this time is Saddam's cooperation with the Ceacefire Agreement, specifically designed to prevent a repeat of August 1990. The world luckily avoided a total disaster in 1990 because of Saddam's mis-caculations and the largest deployment of US troops since World War II.

The containment policy which involved sanctions and the weapons embargo had completely fallen apart by the Summer of 2000. How can you have effective sanctions and a weapons embargo when anything can cross the Syrian/Iraqi border? How can you have an effective containment policy when Saddam is in fact profiting from the policy to the tune of 3 Billion dollars a year through business on the black market? Inspections were supposed of verifiably disarmed Saddam within 2 years of the end of the 1991 War, 12 years later Saddam had still not verifiably disarmed of all WMD and was still in violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions. Inspections only WORK when Saddam cooperates fully, and he NEVER did! It would be simply pathetic to continue down the same road of hide and seek inspections and watch the remaining remnents of the sanctions and embargo finally crumble allowing Saddam time and money to rearm in ways that would pose new threats and unacceptable challenges to security in the Gulf.

There were many mistakes early during the occupation phase that might have dramitically changed the circumstances on the ground today. But its impossible to see how leaving Saddam in power with virtually no sanctions or embargo in place, little possiblity of achieving the UN disarmament goals unless Saddam changed his tune, would benefit security anywhere.

Today, oil supplies in Kuwait and Eastern Saudi Arabia is safer than it has ever been in decades thanks to removal of Saddam's regime. You can never ignore the fundemental facts of this region in which an Iraq that is strong enough to defend itself from Iran will always be capable of overruning a country like Kuwait in hours. That situation is ok when you have a relatively benign dictator in power there, but is a grave threat when you have a regime as unpredictable and aggressive as Saddams. The inspections and resolutions were an opportunity for Saddam to change his tune and for the world to judge if it could live with Saddam. Saddam's failure to cooperate at every level, combined with the crumbling of the containment regime, made regime change a necessity.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 11:44 AM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i don't know of anyone who takes words so literally, and with any lack of nuance. i find your logical deductions in regards to vocabular hilarious, where you

What does this have to do with Iraq? If you want to discuss STING2, start a thread with that title.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 11:51 AM   #80
New Yorker
 
The Disciple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,587
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


Oh. My. God. Yes, Clinton, that military mastermind; it's too bad he couldn't come back to save the world.

You probably don't know about/remember Haiti and Somalia; The attack on the pharmaceutical plant, the missles in the dirt at Bin Laden's terror camp when we KNEW he was there, the first attack on the WTC, the OKC bombing, the buying off of N. Korea which got us in the mess with them that we are now, The USS Cole, among the other disasters, scadals, and national embarassments.

Yeah, he was BRILLIANT. Bush may've mess this up, and if we leave now it'd be a disaster for the Iraqi's, but wishing for clinton is like getting kicked in the nuts and wishing for your hand to get chopped off to take your mind off it.
LOL... that's gr8.
__________________
The Disciple is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 11:51 AM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,061
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


What does this have to do with Iraq? If you want to discuss STING2, start a thread with that title.
It has to do with how you discuss Iraq, and therefore is a valid statement for this thread.

Irvine can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he would like to see you post something, just for once, without consorting to numbers, statistics, resolutions, news articles, etc.

In other words, what does STING2 feel about the war? How does STING2 personally feel things have gone? What has been done well? What could be done better?

We never get that from you. We only get the same old rhetoric, which gets very tiring.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 11:54 AM   #82
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



no. you go back and listen to every single Cheney appearance on Meet the Press in 2002/3. go look at some of Richard Pearl's interviews. Wolfowitz too. it was all made very clear: we'd be greeted like liberators and the oil would pay for all of it. the rationale for the war has shifted dramatically. it was first that Saddam would put WMDs in the hands of terrorists. then it was that we had to bring democracy to the Arab world. then it was a big battle against evil. now, it's that Iraq's oil could fall into the hands of terrorists.

if they were prepared and expecting an occupation that was going to last as long as WW2 and were fully prepared for difficulty, then why only 140,000+ troops? why the disbanding of the Iraqi army? why the lack of electricity? where is the oil to pay for it all?

i haven't lied a single bit whereas you've offered nothing than an "you're lying" argument.
Flat out wrong. Go back and listen to Bush himself. He repeatedly warned the american people in multiple prime time appearances that the iraq war wouldn't be quick.

Now, if you mincing words, I'll take back the lying part. Bush did say the "war" would be quick; and in that I guess you're right. But he ALSO said the occupation would take a long time; and said so right from the start, and so did Cheney, and did Rumsfeld. And you know what? They were right. The invasion was quick. And it was successful. Few allied lives were lost, Sadam was captured, his sons killed and a new government was installed. Those were the large points of the invasion and they were accomplished. Now the is the hard part and we were told that ahead of time.

Oh and as to why disband the iraqi army? Um, so they won't shoot at us anymore?
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 11:56 AM   #83
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


WOW; just wow. That is so patently false that I hope you are like 12 years old or something so I can excuse your ignorance on the matter. Honestly, and that isn't a dig or a shot or anything; and if you take it that way I apologize in advance. I'm seriously and sincerely just hoping you're not old enough know better and that's allowed you to have been under informed so badly on this issue.

Of all the things that went wrong, or are going wrong, Bush and the administration never once prior to invasion said this would be a short term deal. He repeatedly told the American people that this was going to be a long protracted fight with no end in sight. EVERYONE knew, that cared to know, and that includes the democratic leadership who approved the action in Congress that this was going to be a long term struggle.
Um, I'm going to call BS right back at you. The Bush Administration never said Operation Iraqi Freedom (or whatever it was first called) was going to be a long protracted fight. The only thing they ever called a long protracted fight was the overall war on terror. And there were plenty of soundbites and one liners from the administration that gave the impression Iraq would be an easy win. The whole "Mission Accomplished" pr fiasco being the most notable, I'd say. And quotes such as these:

Cheney: We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

Richard Perle: A year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 11:58 AM   #84
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


But hey, that didn't stop Bush from dressing up as a fighter pilot onto the deck of an air craft carrier and proclaiming "Mission Accomplished!"
A stupid stunt on his part, agreed. But the mission was accomplished; Saddam was thrown out of power.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:00 PM   #85
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


Flat out wrong. Go back and listen to Bush himself. He repeatedly warned the american people in multiple prime time appearances that the iraq war wouldn't be quick.

Now, if you mincing words, I'll take back the lying part. Bush did say the "war" would be quick; and in that I guess you're right. But he ALSO said the occupation would take a long time; and said so right from the start, and so did Cheney, and did Rumsfeld. And you know what? They were right. The invasion was quick. And it was successful. Few allied lives were lost, Sadam was captured, his sons killed and a new government was installed. Those were the large points of the invasion and they were accomplished. Now the is the hard part and we were told that ahead of time.
Do you have some quotes to back that statement up? I can't recall any mention of a long protracted struggle in Iraq made prior to our invasion, but I'll admit I'm wrong if provided with the quotes.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:02 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,061
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

Flat out wrong. Go back and listen to Bush himself. He repeatedly warned the american people in multiple prime time appearances that the iraq war wouldn't be quick.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
Bush did say the "war" would be quick; and in that I guess you're right.
So would you agree that there have been times when Bush has misled the American people?

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

But he ALSO said the occupation would take a long time; and said so right from the start, and so did Cheney, and did Rumsfeld. And you know what? They were right. The invasion was quick. And it was successful. Few allied lives were lost, Sadam was captured, his sons killed and a new government was installed. Those were the large points of the invasion and they were accomplished. Now the is the hard part and we were told that ahead of time.
So do you not consider the occupation to be part of the war? Are we no longer at war in Iraq? Is that what you are saying?
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:02 PM   #87
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Um, I'm going to call BS right back at you. The Bush Administration never said Operation Iraqi Freedom (or whatever it was first called) was going to be a long protracted fight. The only thing they ever called a long protracted fight was the overall war on terror. And there were plenty of soundbites and one liners from the administration that gave the impression Iraq would be an easy win. The whole "Mission Accomplished" pr fiasco being the most notable, I'd say. And quotes such as these:

Cheney: We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

Richard Perle: A year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.
You can call BS right back if you want to. But your own impressions do not change the facts no matter how bad you want them too. We were never ever told that this was going to be a quick deal. Congress and the President were discussing troop levels from the get go. Congress wanted to know before even the real showdown with the UN happened what the time frame was and Bush came on TV and said, he couldn't give a time frame for the occupation because he was expecting foreign insurgents and didn't want to give them a red letter day to hold out for.

Don't let your ideology distort history. I'd never ever say that things were going smoothely; I particularily hate the fact that we're pouring National Guardsmen into the fight instead of using properly trained troops and I think that's just wrong.

But claiming Bush lied about the timetable or even was disengenuous is just flat wrong.

Don't let your ideology distort history.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:05 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,061
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


A stupid stunt on his part, agreed. But the mission was accomplished; Saddam was thrown out of power.
If that's all the mission was, then why are we still there?

There's a lot more to it than just removing Saddam.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:05 PM   #89
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


Flat out wrong. Go back and listen to Bush himself. He repeatedly warned the american people in multiple prime time appearances that the iraq war wouldn't be quick.

Now, if you mincing words, I'll take back the lying part. Bush did say the "war" would be quick; and in that I guess you're right. But he ALSO said the occupation would take a long time; and said so right from the start, and so did Cheney, and did Rumsfeld. And you know what? They were right. The invasion was quick. And it was successful. Few allied lives were lost, Sadam was captured, his sons killed and a new government was installed. Those were the large points of the invasion and they were accomplished. Now the is the hard part and we were told that ahead of time.
Please show us anywhere where this was said prior to the war...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:10 PM   #90
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan




So would you agree that there have been times when Bush has misled the American people?



So do you not consider the occupation to be part of the war? Are we no longer at war in Iraq? Is that what you are saying?
What politician at times had not misled the American people? They're all scumbags; some worse than others. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that bush told us the occupation would be a long term thing prior to the invasion.

An Occupation can be considered separate from a war. After WWII we occupied Japan well into the 1950's. Are you prepared to say that WWII in fact went out into the next decade from 1945? The war with Iraq ended when Saddam's government fell. We're now in a police action against insurgents, post-war.
__________________

__________________
Snowlock 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 03:29 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