The Al Gore Admin's War on Terror - 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 07-28-2005, 04:59 PM   #76
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 07:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


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.
Apparently you have a problem reading, I never said there were any that I would consider worse, just that there are others out there.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-28-2005, 05:00 PM   #77
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: 07:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


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.
I believe this is correct.
I think Powell stated as far back as '03 that he only intented to serve one term. It may have been later.

That said, there were no doubts he had difficulties with the decision made over Iraq, he himself has stated his own case, I don't need to.
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 05:08 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan


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.
The need to remove Saddam's regime from power in Iraq is something that had to be done, independent of 9/11 the war on terror and anything related to Bin Ladin. The United States and the coalition had inspections and containment strategy that failed in many area's and totally fell apart by the end of the 1990s. It was time for Saddam to turn around and comply with the resolutions or be removed from power. It would have been a serious mistake to allow Saddam the opportunity to re-arm himself which he would have had given the eroded conditions of the sanctions and weapons embargo. Although Saddam's military was much smaller than it was during the 1991 Gulf War, it was still 400,000 strong, and Saddam would only need to drive a military force 20 million across the border into Saudi Arabia and into Kuwait to cause tremondous damage to the global economy becaue of the seizure and sabotage of much of the planets energy supply.

When it comes to timing, I'd say the removal of Saddam came later than it should of. In hindsite, military action should have been taken in 1999 or 2000 once it became obvious that Saddam was never going to comply with the UN resolutions and prior to the serious erosion of sanctions and the embargo.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 05:10 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Apparently you have a problem reading, I never said there were any that I would consider worse, just that there are others out there.
I got you now. Sorry about that.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 05:11 PM   #80
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 07:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I got you now. Sorry about that.
No prob...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-28-2005, 06:06 PM   #81
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 01:49 PM
Sting, your devotion to the Bush administration is admirable in it's totality, and terrifying as well. Is there anything he's done that you don't approve of? I ask because I've read your posts for years, and have never seen you admit that he's not infallible.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 06:11 PM   #82
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:49 AM
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.
That's um...wrong. 50 million or so voted, yes? The election shows what the slim majority of that 50 million or so thought, not all of the US.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 06:19 PM   #83
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The need to remove Saddam's regime from power in Iraq is something that had to be done, independent of 9/11 the war on terror and anything related to Bin Ladin. The United States and the coalition had inspections and containment strategy that failed in many area's and totally fell apart by the end of the 1990s. It was time for Saddam to turn around and comply with the resolutions or be removed from power. It would have been a serious mistake to allow Saddam the opportunity to re-arm himself which he would have had given the eroded conditions of the sanctions and weapons embargo. Although Saddam's military was much smaller than it was during the 1991 Gulf War, it was still 400,000 strong, and Saddam would only need to drive a military force 20 million across the border into Saudi Arabia and into Kuwait to cause tremondous damage to the global economy becaue of the seizure and sabotage of much of the planets energy supply.

When it comes to timing, I'd say the removal of Saddam came later than it should of. In hindsite, military action should have been taken in 1999 or 2000 once it became obvious that Saddam was never going to comply with the UN resolutions and prior to the serious erosion of sanctions and the embargo.


so why has the postwar been such a messy? why wasn't there even elementary post-war planning? why didn't they greet us with roses? why didn't the oil pay for the reconstruction? why did we have too few troops to keep the peace? why have we had hundreds of cases of unspeakably inhumane treatment of detainees, including up to a hundred deaths and the deployment of what must be called torture in Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Basra, and in secret detention centers around the world?


the fact remains: the absence of the primary rationale for the war remains a big deal. and the primary rationale for the war was one that was guaranteed to scare the bejesus out of every American man, woman, and child, and the election results had much to do with that and the constant ratcheting up of Security Alerts that even Tom Ridge has admitted were entirely politically motivated. it's a correlation of utter convenience that you make between the election results and the approval of the invasion of Iraq. election results are far, far more complex than that, and the only time someone boils them down to a monocausal explanation is when he's desperately seeking to buttress support for a rapidly sinking ship.

if you are such a strong supporter of the war, STING2, then why don't you pillory the administration for fucking it up so badly in the post-war instead of droning on and on and on about UN resolutions?

further, on a personal note, why i am angry about is less the actual invasion of Iraq than about how it was conducted, pre and post-war, and about how it was sold.

i don't think that those of us on the anti-war side should delude ourselves that the alternative was that much better: an Iraq pulverized by still more sanctions, poverty and tyranny or one in which Saddam lived to see another day cannot be good for the world.

and yet, the arrogance, the hubris, the bravado, the sheer bloodthirst of this administration had pretty much guaranteed failure before the first bomb had even dropped. some of us saw this way back when, and knew that a war led by W who preferred to feminize our allied detractors and spit in the face of the UN was simply incapable of the deft political and military planning and execution that such an audacious move would have required.

right war? i don't know. i am far more persuaded by the moral argument against Saddam, and an opportunity to reverse our shameful history propping up of any anti-communist tyrant (which has radicalized the Muslim world).

right man? absolutely not.

and while Iraq just might be better off today than 3 years ago, it is rather obvious that the urban dwellers of NYC, London, and DC -- not to mention Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia -- are far less safe.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-28-2005, 06:20 PM   #84
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


That's um...wrong. 50 million or so voted, yes? The election shows what the slim majority of that 50 million or so thought, not all of the US.

no -- 120m voted. roughly 59m for Bush, and 58m for Kerry.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-28-2005, 07:02 PM   #85
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:49 AM
Ah, apologies. That's where I fudged up some figures 50 odd mil (or 59 as you've confirmed) for Bush is not 'Support by the people of the US'.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 07:05 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
Ah, apologies. That's where I fudged up some figures 50 odd mil (or 59 as you've confirmed) for Bush is not 'Support by the people of the US'.

How is it not support of the people of the US?? The MAJORITY of people voted for him. He received the most votes ever in a Presidential election. Things may be different now, but at the time he had the support of the people.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 07:07 PM   #87
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:49 AM
No. The majority of voters voted for him, not the majority of the people.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 07:15 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
No. The majority of voters voted for him, not the majority of the people.
That is a terrible argument because if you did not vote at all, then you have no right to gripe about anything. It's like crying over spilled milk. People had a chance in November to oust him, but that was not done. It's funny how a person could be apathetic about voting and have the nerve to complain about things. People in Iraq lined up for hours to vote, fearing for their life, and yet so many choose not to vote here.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 09:07 PM   #89
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 07:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail


That is a terrible argument because if you did not vote at all, then you have no right to gripe about anything.
I've never bought that argument, what if they equally didn't like both opponents? And don't say vote for an independent, because honestly in America that's really a waste of a trip to stand in line.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-28-2005, 09:43 PM   #90
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail


That is a terrible argument because if you did not vote at all, then you have no right to gripe about anything. It's like crying over spilled milk. People had a chance in November to oust him, but that was not done. It's funny how a person could be apathetic about voting and have the nerve to complain about things. People in Iraq lined up for hours to vote, fearing for their life, and yet so many choose not to vote here.
What is terrible about facts? Bush supporters continually spout how Bush won fair and square and with the support of the majority. The truth is, it's a bogus comfort and small victory under these conditions. 1 in 5/6 (whats your population, again?) felt strongly enough to get off their arses and vote for him. Look at it that way. That's a piss poor effort.

You cannot say the majority of Americans approve.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem 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 08:49 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