The British Are Leaving. - 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 02-22-2007, 06:28 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Not manipulated, just some very important facts were ignored as they didn't fit the goal:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...462782,00.html

And it was so naive to think that one could enter a city such as Baghdad with a small force and everyone would be happy.

This kind of guerilla warfare is not new, and still some people think they can manage everything by conventional warfare.
Furthermore, it was crystal clear that an American army that enters and stays in Iraq won't be welcomed not only by the Iraqi, but by the Muslim world in Arab.
The central case for war had already been made long before Powell's speech.

The United States military has not been engaging in conventional war for the past few years. Its engaged in a nation building and counterinsurgency task, just like it is in Afghanistan.

In terms of not being welcomed by the muslim world, Afghanistan is no different.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 06:38 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 03:00 PM
Attacking Afghanistan is a whole different case. It was the country that openly provided the terrorists shelter, and really was a threat for the USA that time.

The central case presented the public was Powell's speech.
Another point were the UN weapons inspections that clearly stated that there are no weapons to be found, and that the Iraqi government was cooperating. They just needed more time that they didn't get.
After the war then it showed the the UN weapon inspectors weren't that stupid or naive as many accused them of being before.

The way the USA entered into Iraq was conventional, but the conventional Iraqi army immediately disappeared to prepare for a guerilla warfare and they waite until the US armed forces got trapped in Baghdad, because any fight in a city is much harder to win, and will cost many more lives.
Major adjustments by the US weren't carried out. Instead, there was still this dream of the welcoming Iraqi public waving with flowers at every corner of the street.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 07:03 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Attacking Afghanistan is a whole different case. It was the country that openly provided the terrorists shelter, and really was a threat for the USA that time.

The central case presented the public was Powell's speech.
Another point were the UN weapons inspections that clearly stated that there are no weapons to be found, and that the Iraqi government was cooperating. They just needed more time that they didn't get.
After the war then it showed the the UN weapon inspectors weren't that stupid or naive as many accused them of being before.

The way the USA entered into Iraq was conventional, but the conventional Iraqi army immediately disappeared to prepare for a guerilla warfare and they waite until the US armed forces got trapped in Baghdad, because any fight in a city is much harder to win, and will cost many more lives.
Major adjustments by the US weren't carried out. Instead, there was still this dream of the welcoming Iraqi public waving with flowers at every corner of the street.
The damage and number of people killed by Saddam is far greater than anything Al Quada in Afghanistan did as well as the damage he could to the planet by cutting off persian gulf energy supply.

The central case presented to the public was the fact that Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by the UN Gulf War Ceacefire agreement in 1991. Bush presented the case to the UN on September 12, 2002. In early October the US congress voted and approved a resolution authorizing Bush to take military action based on the case presented. The United Nations then authorized the military invasion of Iraq through resolution 1441, just as it had authorized the use of military force against Iraq in 1990 in resolution 678.

Powell's speech and the attempt at a possible 2nd, unecessary and redundent UN resolution, was done simply to bolster more support for the war, and primarily to help Tony Blair who was running into difficulties politically.

To this day, Saddam never complied with the UN resolutions regarding verifiable disarmament. The UN inspectors were unable to solve a SINGLE outstanding issue from the last time they were in Iraq at the end of 1998. Saddam NEVER complied with any of the 17 UN Security council resolutions passed against him. Over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 bio/chem capable shells remain unaccounted for! The rather predictable results of the UN inspectors in late 2002 and early 2003 were only more proof that the invasion was necessary. It was never incumbent upon the international community to find WMD or prove that there was WMD, it was incumbent upon Saddam to Verifiably disarm of all of his stockpiles, programs and WMD related material. That never happened. The only way to bring about compliance was through regime change.

The Iraqi military did not immediately disappear. Heavy fighting continued for 3 weeks. There was virtually no fighting at all for two months after Baghdad fell to coalition forces. The insurgency gradually started in the summer of 2003, but did not reach peak levels until early 2004.

The US military has been moving forces in and out of Baghdad every day for four years. They are not trapped there. Much of the Iraqi population outside of Baghdad and the provinces directly north and west of Baghdad did welcome the invasion. The United States military is only deployed in the part of the country that is causing the most problems for the new Iraqi government that was elected by the majority of the Iraqi people.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 08:32 PM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:00 PM
I'm sure alot of British people are happy at the news. They've never been behind the war.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 01:56 AM   #65
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2



Yes, context. Where are the British troops stationed in Iraq, what is the security environment like there? Where are US troops stationed in Iraq, what is the security environment like there?
One more question:

Where is the COALITION?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:18 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


One more question:

Where is the COALITION?
Non-US foreign coalition forces currently stationed in Iraq.

1 United Kingdom 7,200
2 South Korea 2,300
3 Australia 850
4 Poland 900
5 Romania 865
6 Denmark 460
7 El Salvador 380
8 Georgia 300
9 Azerbaijan 150
10 Bulgaria 150
11 Latvia 136
12 Albania 120
13 Czech Republic 100
14 Mongolia 100
15 Lithuania ~50
16 Armenia 46
17 Bosnia & Herzegovina 37
18 Estonia 34
19 Macedonia 33
20 Kazakhstan 29
21 Moldova 12
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:44 PM   #67
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 09:00 AM
^ wrong, again.

[q]Number of coalition troops remaining in Iraq after Britain and Denmark complete pullouts announced yesterday.
Country Troops
United States 140,000
Britain 5,500
South Korea* 2,300
Georgia 900
Poland 900
Romania 600
Australia 550
El Salvador 380
Mongolia 160
Bulgaria 155
Azerbaijan 150
Latvia 125
Albania 120
Czech Republic 99
Lithuania 53
Armenia 46
Macedonia 40
Bosnia 36
Estonia 35
Kazakhstan 27
Netherlands 15
Slovenia 4
SOURCE: Associated Press
*South Korea plans to halve its deployment by April.[/q]

and Denmark will be out very soon as well.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-23-2007, 01:25 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
^ wrong, again.

[q]Number of coalition troops remaining in Iraq after Britain and Denmark complete pullouts announced yesterday.
Country Troops
United States 140,000
Britain 5,500
South Korea* 2,300
Georgia 900
Poland 900
Romania 600
Australia 550
El Salvador 380
Mongolia 160
Bulgaria 155
Azerbaijan 150
Latvia 125
Albania 120
Czech Republic 99
Lithuania 53
Armenia 46
Macedonia 40
Bosnia 36
Estonia 35
Kazakhstan 27
Netherlands 15
Slovenia 4
SOURCE: Associated Press
*South Korea plans to halve its deployment by April.[/q]

and Denmark will be out very soon as well.
If your talking about troops that are currently stationed in Iraq, the list I posted above is the correct one.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 01:28 PM   #69
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 09:00 AM
'fraid not.

and BVS's point stands: the coalition above is in name only -- are we to see 99 troops as anything other than political -- and it's crumbling.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-23-2007, 02:19 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
'fraid not.

and BVS's point stands: the coalition above is in name only -- are we to see 99 troops as anything other than political -- and it's crumbling.
Are you celebrating this?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 02:23 PM   #71
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Non-US foreign coalition forces currently stationed in Iraq.

1 United Kingdom 7,200
2 South Korea 2,300
3 Australia 850
4 Poland 900
5 Romania 865
6 Denmark 460
7 El Salvador 380
8 Georgia 300
9 Azerbaijan 150
10 Bulgaria 150
11 Latvia 136
12 Albania 120
13 Czech Republic 100
14 Mongolia 100
15 Lithuania ~50
16 Armenia 46
17 Bosnia & Herzegovina 37
18 Estonia 34
19 Macedonia 33
20 Kazakhstan 29
21 Moldova 12
Exactly my point, there isn't one.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-23-2007, 02:26 PM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Exactly my point, there isn't one.
Then what is a coalition to you?
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 02:27 PM   #73
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Are you celebrating this?


yes. i think it's AWESOME. anyone who points out the bad things the US does is really cheering for the other side. remember, if you're not with us, you're against us!






more importantly, are you so ashamed that you'll distort facts in order to explain it all away (like, you know, the whole "WE DIDN'T LOSE VIETNAM, DAMMIT" that we hear so often from the right).
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-23-2007, 02:28 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The damage and number of people killed by Saddam is far greater than anything Al Quada in Afghanistan did as well as the damage he could to the planet by cutting off persian gulf energy supply.
And instead of searching for alternatives to oil to make you less dependent of the Arab region you attack Iraq.

How should Saddam have attacked any other country again? I don't think he had the power to block the oil supplies of Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Besides the incidents of the mass killing after the US pulled out and Saddam took revenge on the Kurds and Shiits most of the deaths occurred due to the sanctions against Iraq.

Quote:
The central case presented to the public was the fact that Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by the UN Gulf War Ceacefire agreement in 1991. Bush presented the case to the UN on September 12, 2002. In early October the US congress voted and approved a resolution authorizing Bush to take military action based on the case presented. The United Nations then authorized the military invasion of Iraq through resolution 1441, just as it had authorized the use of military force against Iraq in 1990 in resolution 678.
The interpretation of Resolution 1441 was very different in Germany, France and Russia, furthermore the majority of people all over Europe, in Australia and most over countries read it differently.

It didn't say "Go in and beat the crap out of 'em!", it rather said "Do what you can, and only when there is no other alternative start a war."

Quote:
Powell's speech and the attempt at a possible 2nd, unecessary and redundent UN resolution, was done simply to bolster more support for the war, and primarily to help Tony Blair who was running into difficulties politically.
Aha, so it's justified again that the public and the UN was told a lie, so that America can go in?
Great

Quote:
To this day, Saddam never complied with the UN resolutions regarding verifiable disarmament. The UN inspectors were unable to solve a SINGLE outstanding issue from the last time they were in Iraq at the end of 1998. Saddam NEVER complied with any of the 17 UN Security council resolutions passed against him. Over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 bio/chem capable shells remain unaccounted for! The rather predictable results of the UN inspectors in late 2002 and early 2003 were only more proof that the invasion was necessary. It was never incumbent upon the international community to find WMD or prove that there was WMD, it was incumbent upon Saddam to Verifiably disarm of all of his stockpiles, programs and WMD related material. That never happened. The only way to bring about compliance was through regime change.
And everybody knows why the guesses about the amounts of WMDs still missing are so accurate.

And again, the UN weapon inspectors said that Saddam was cooperating and said they just needed more time. Of course they knew that Saddam might hide some weapon bunkers, but stll they said that it's is unlikely that there are huge amounts, or even factories.
Why didn't they get the time?

Quote:
The Iraqi military did not immediately disappear. Heavy fighting continued for 3 weeks. There was virtually no fighting at all for two months after Baghdad fell to coalition forces. The insurgency gradually started in the summer of 2003, but did not reach peak levels until early 2004.
You call that heavy fighting? Everybody was saying that the resistance and the number of Iraqi soldiers was tremendously low.


Quote:
The US military has been moving forces in and out of Baghdad every day for four years. They are not trapped there. Much of the Iraqi population outside of Baghdad and the provinces directly north and west of Baghdad did welcome the invasion. The United States military is only deployed in the part of the country that is causing the most problems for the new Iraqi government that was elected by the majority of the Iraqi people. [/B]
Don't take "trapped" literally. More of, they can't abandon Baghdad, and the fight is in city areas where it's much harder to fight an enemy, especially an enemy you can't see.

Nobody said that no one would welcome the US, of course.

The strategy how they tried to bring peace to Iraq and establish a stable government failed, and the government didn't make any reasonable attempts to adjust to the new situation. Only some half-hearted steps.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 02:42 PM   #75
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 09:00 AM


it looks like someone else is going to take over for me!

(hint: Resolution 1441 did not authorize war, and only the UN Security Council gets to decide exactly how it enforces it's own resolutions, not the United States)
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 09:00 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