The Al Gore Admin's War on Terror - 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 07-28-2005, 04:01 PM   #61
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2




Colin Powell NEVER resigned.


Sting

This may be the silliest thing you ever posted



Quote:
Secretary of State Colin Powell confessed on Meet the Press yesterday (May 16) that he and the CIA had been hoodwinked by sources who provided the United States with inaccurately sourced, incorrect, and "deliberately misleading" information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Powell used that information in his Feb. 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations and expressed his regrets in the interview for using it. From the Meet the Press transcript:

When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:03 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


The majority of your fellow Americans happen to believe that your president has lied to you. If more than half the country thinks their leader is a liar, that's frankly, very disturbing.
If that were really the case, Bush would have lost the election in November 2004. No poll done before or now can give you a more accurate read of what the American people think and feel than the Presidential election of 2004.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:04 PM   #63
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


There's a BIG difference. North Korea currently has nuclear weapons that could blow California off the map.
So we only pick on the ones that can't hurt us???

Actually aren't their claims that they don't have the launching capabilities to reach the US?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:05 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and i believe that one day pigs will fly.

what do you THINK?

we saw what happens when you go to war based upon a belief, that if you close your eyes and wish real hard it will come true.

and only one (maybe two, the UK) thought the intelligence was worth going to war over. they might have agreed that, on balance, it certainly looked like Hussein had a WMD program (though it was in his best security interests to make it appear more dangerous than he actually was), but only the US wanted to go to war over a perception based upon dodgey intelligence.
Its not a perception based on dodgey evidence but a fact reported by UN inspectors that Saddam had failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:09 PM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


If that were really the case, Bush would have lost the election in November 2004. No poll done before or now can give you a more accurate read of what the American people think and feel than the Presidential election of 2004.


do you believe that some of the voters may have been influenced by the battle for Falluhah that began about two weeks before the electioin

that some are inclined to support the administration when we are in a "hot battle"?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:15 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



based upon your line of reasoning we should nuke Japan again.

if it is based on what a country did
in the past and previously had the capability of doing.
#1 In the case of Japan, it was an enemy over 60 years ago. Today the country is one of the biggest ally's of the United States and has over 40,000 US troops stationed on its territory. It is a democracy with a market economy and is heavily engaged in international trade. Japan has not invaded or attacked any countries in over 60 years. The regime that existed in World War II has been gone for decades.

#2 In the Case of Saddam, Saddam was still there in 2003 with a long history of past behavior that was a strong idicator of what he would do in the future. In addition he was in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement, multiple UN resolutions and had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. A dicator in total violation of UN resolutions, smuggling Billions of dollars of goods across his borders in violation of sanctions and a the weapons embargo. Everything that Saddam was doing pointed to a renewed conflict in the future and with potentially new weapons on his terms.

The two cases are not even comparable.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:19 PM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yeah I've heard it all before...No where did I ever claim he never had them, but we went into war based on crap intelligence saying we know he has and claims that we know where they are...remember the whole dog and pony show that Colin Powell put on for the UN.

Shit claims and shit intelligence...
The central case for war was not bits and pieces of intelligence that said a stockpile was here or there, but what the United Nations inspectors had no for years, that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. As of right now, there are thousands of stocks of WMD that remain unaccounted for. The international community decided in 1991 following the Gulf War that all of Saddam's stockpiles had to be verifiably destroyed or dismantled because failure to do so constituted a severe security risk to the region and the world because of his previous behavior.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:19 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
In an effort of consistency how many of you support going into Syria to get that truckload of WMD's?

I'm not saying it wasn't a truckload of WMD's.
I'm asking if you would support going to Syria in an effort to disarm them from the same weapons that we were supposedly going after in Iraq. Is it a matter of quantity or just hostile/docile regimes?
If we had intellignce agencies telling us that Syria had them and Syria consistently refused to abide by UN resolutions, yes, I'd support attacking them.

It was more than one truckload, by the way, whatever it was.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:26 PM   #69
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The central case for war was not bits and pieces of intelligence that said a stockpile was here or there, but what the United Nations inspectors had no for years, that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. As of right now, there are thousands of stocks of WMD that remain unaccounted for. The international community decided in 1991 following the Gulf War that all of Saddam's stockpiles had to be verifiably destroyed or dismantled because failure to do so constituted a severe security risk to the region and the world because of his previous behavior.
Yeah yeah, once again I've heard it all, but that's not how the war was sold to the world. If that's all we needed Powell wouldn't have had to put on that show.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:36 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
In an effort of consistency how many of you support going into Syria to get that truckload of WMD's?

I'm not saying it wasn't a truckload of WMD's.
I'm asking if you would support going to Syria in an effort to disarm them from the same weapons that we were supposedly going after in Iraq. Is it a matter of quantity or just hostile/docile regimes?

The hostile/docile regimes question is always a huge factor. Syria has a history of hostile behavior towards Israel and certain groups in Lebanon but this has been very limited since the mid 1970s. More important has been Syria's support for terrorist involved in attacks against Israel. Outside of this, Syria has cooperated with the global community on a number of issues and has often been careful of avoiding conflict with its Arab or Muslim neighbors in Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordon.

A new problem has come up though in respect to Syria cracking down on Islamic militants crossing the border from Syria into Iraq.

Syria voted for resolution 1441 in the fall of 2002 which was the last resolution to approve the use of military force against Saddam if he failed to comply with other UN resolutions.

I have doubts about the truck loads of material that were supposedly shipped from Iraq into Syria. I think this is unlikely. Independent of that, Syria has no Nuclear or Biological weapons programs. It has had chemical weapons program for decades but has never used chemical weapons on the battlefield.

Syria is not currently in violation of any UN resolutions, but their support or housing for terrorist is a huge concern although most of these terror groups are focused on Israely/Palestinian conflict.

Probably the biggest concern with Syria, is the possiblity that former Saddam regime elements are hiding in Syria, and are helping to fund the insurgency in Iraq from there.

Right now, I would say to the degree that Syria has anything to do with the funding or safe passage of insugents fighting in Iraq is the only thing that would warrent military action from the US/Coalition at the moment.

Syria's behavior, WMD abilities, and potential to cause serious harm to the region or planet, are no where near where Saddam was when he was in power. But this caculation could change if it is found that Syria has been or is becoming a key player in the insurgency in Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:41 PM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Show me where I made such claims, get off it Sting and just admit there are larger threats in this world and there are other opressors out there, yet we aren't going after them, so that can't be used as a reason to go after him. And if definately doesn't justify lumping it in with the war on terror.
You claimed that are lots of bad dictators out there. I asked you a simple question. I'll ask it again:

"How many dictators over the past 20 years have invaded and attacked four different countries, threatened most of the planets energy supply with sabotage or seizure, used WMD more times than any other leader in history, murdered 1.7 million people, held up a UN inspections process for over a decade, been in violation of 17 different UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules, violated a Ceacefire Agreement, been engaged in a multi-Billion dollar smuggling, and failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD as required by UN resolutions?"

Lets see if you can find more than one!

Please name these other "oppressors and threats" that were larger than Saddam and please specifically explain why they were a bigger threat to the planet than Saddam.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:47 PM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep




Sting

This may be the silliest thing you ever posted



Powell had always said he would step down at the end of Bush's first term. He never resigned in the middle of the administration that he served in, that is what I was refering to.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:51 PM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep




do you believe that some of the voters may have been influenced by the battle for Falluhah that began about two weeks before the electioin

that some are inclined to support the administration when we are in a "hot battle"?
The second battle for Fallugah started AFTER the election, not before it.

The criticism back then was the reverse, that Bush waited to start the "hot battle" until after the election so he would not have to deal with the effect increased casualties would have on the election.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:56 PM   #74
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: 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2



The hostile/docile regimes question is always a huge factor. Syria has a history of hostile behavior towards Israel and certain groups in Lebanon but this has been very limited since the mid 1970s. More important has been Syria's support for terrorist involved in attacks against Israel. Outside of this, Syria has cooperated with the global community on a number of issues and has often been careful of avoiding conflict with its Arab or Muslim neighbors in Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordon.

A new problem has come up though in respect to Syria cracking down on Islamic militants crossing the border from Syria into Iraq.

Syria voted for resolution 1441 in the fall of 2002 which was the last resolution to approve the use of military force against Saddam if he failed to comply with other UN resolutions.

I have doubts about the truck loads of material that were supposedly shipped from Iraq into Syria. I think this is unlikely. Independent of that, Syria has no Nuclear or Biological weapons programs. It has had chemical weapons program for decades but has never used chemical weapons on the battlefield.

Syria is not currently in violation of any UN resolutions, but their support or housing for terrorist is a huge concern although most of these terror groups are focused on Israely/Palestinian conflict.

Probably the biggest concern with Syria, is the possiblity that former Saddam regime elements are hiding in Syria, and are helping to fund the insurgency in Iraq from there.

Right now, I would say to the degree that Syria has anything to do with the funding or safe passage of insugents fighting in Iraq is the only thing that would warrent military action from the US/Coalition at the moment.

Syria's behavior, WMD abilities, and potential to cause serious harm to the region or planet, are no where near where Saddam was when he was in power. But this caculation could change if it is found that Syria has been or is becoming a key player in the insurgency in Iraq.
Good answer.

My problem with the Iraq fiasco is the timing and undue stress on our miltary in prosecuting the actual WOT. I felt like this type of fight was neccessary but not in Iraq, any number of places, Iran, Syria, Saudi, maybe even Sudan before Iraq. I just think it was a poor decision as far as timing.

The strategy may well work out, but to win "hearts and minds" in the middle east, as I think is vital to this conflict, the timing and presentation of reasoning for Iraq were a debacle. When Zarqawi or Bin Laden or any other bastard wants to point at the evil US and recruit he has a walking talking example right in the middle east, we have not made it easier to prosecute the WOT, we have made it worse.

So I can make my own list of good reasons for ousting Sadaam and couldnt think of many for the timing and reasoning for the way in which it was done. Perhaps the most aggregious thing the Bush White House did, and I am not sure Gore would have done it, maybe he would have is to piggyback the fear and paranoia of the post 9/11 feelings in America as to build a case in Iraq that was already ready-made. They took the easiest route to public opinion on the backs of the 9/11 victims and those it terrorized, that to me is unforgivable.

Would Al Gore be prosecuting it differently? Yes
How? Well I could do the semantics, I am not an expert but my guess is subtract Iraq from this whole equation and the load on our soldiers is substantially lighter even if it's just until the next fight pops up. But I believe in picking the right fights, I don't think Iraq was vital to anything but a 2nd front and a constnat military prescence in the ME. That I would have bought, but they didn't sell that. They sold the fear, shame on them.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:58 PM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


If that were really the case, Bush would have lost the election in November 2004. No poll done before or now can give you a more accurate read of what the American people think and feel than the Presidential election of 2004.
What do you mean IF that were the case? It IS the case!

In the latest poll, the majority of Americans feel Bush lied to them. I linked you to the article, feel free to read it. I never said anything about what they thought a year ago, for God's sake.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
 

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 03:34 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