The British Are Leaving. - Page 8 - 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 02-23-2007, 07:56 PM   #106
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Abandoning Iraq pre-maturely would risk turning it into a failed state, and more effective base for Al Quada than Afghanistan ever was. Nearly everyone does not want to withdraw from Afghanistan despite the fact that Al Quada attacks there are almost non-existent and only the Taliban is the threat. No one wants to see Afghanistan turn into a failed state, yet a failed state in Iraq would be more of a threat to US and global security than a failed state in Afghanistan. If you believe that US troops can safely withdraw from Iraq without there being severe consequences, then you should be supporting a withdrawal from Afghanistan as well.
Was this still a response to me?

Sorry, but I'm not in favor of a withdraw yet. It's too late.

And everybody knows that this kind of war isn't aimed at being large scale, or planned on being a short thing.
It's more like Gerry Adams's "Long War"- strategy.

I don't call it a total failure. But blatant mistakes were done, and in deny of any facts Rumsfeld and Bush went on and changed more or less nothing.

For the rest... well, leave it. It's always the same. I think this has been argued over the past five years. It's moving in circles.

I'm amazed at Irvine's perseverance, but can spend my time different. I don't buy into this "Saddam was such a risk we had to kill him better yesterday than today.", and it won't change.

And yes, history has happened, and now you have to lie in the bed you made.

Another question is regarding democracy (Oh, what a success!): Can we really be that arrogant to believe that everyone welcomes democracy as we do and hence we can just go into a country and change a culture so different by means we have seen in Iraq?
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 08:04 PM   #107
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


If the UN was not in favor of the war, why did the UN not issue a protest and pass a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition troops? Even if it was not possible to pass a resolution, they could have at least attempted one, like they always do against Israel.

Then, why on earth would they approve an occupation every year for the past four years that they were so against it?
Maybe because of the fact, that the US is such a big power in the UN, and many countries don't dare to oppose to the US, and because many of the countries feel the need to support the USA officially thanks to what the USA have done for them in the past (the former Polnish President Alexander Kwasniewski said in an interview that Poland couldn't say no to the war in Iraq), and maybe because Bush threatened those countries to cut trade with them if they are not with him?
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 08:33 PM   #108
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Maybe because of the fact, that the US is such a big power in the UN, and many countries don't dare to oppose to the US, and because many of the countries feel the need to support the USA officially thanks to what the USA have done for them in the past (the former Polnish President Alexander Kwasniewski said in an interview that Poland couldn't say no to the war in Iraq), and maybe because Bush threatened those countries to cut trade with them if they are not with him?
Its never stopped them from opposing US policy on Israel.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 08:43 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Was this still a response to me?

Sorry, but I'm not in favor of a withdraw yet. It's too late.

And everybody knows that this kind of war isn't aimed at being large scale, or planned on being a short thing.
It's more like Gerry Adams's "Long War"- strategy.

I don't call it a total failure. But blatant mistakes were done, and in deny of any facts Rumsfeld and Bush went on and changed more or less nothing.

For the rest... well, leave it. It's always the same. I think this has been argued over the past five years. It's moving in circles.

I'm amazed at Irvine's perseverance, but can spend my time different. I don't buy into this "Saddam was such a risk we had to kill him better yesterday than today.", and it won't change.

And yes, history has happened, and now you have to lie in the bed you made.

Another question is regarding democracy (Oh, what a success!): Can we really be that arrogant to believe that everyone welcomes democracy as we do and hence we can just go into a country and change a culture so different by means we have seen in Iraq?
Mistakes have definitely been made in the occupation of Iraq, very serious ones in 2003. But that in no way changes the fact that Saddam had to be removed and replaced with a stable government not hostile to its neighbors to the south.

These are not issues that Germany and France should be ignoring as they like everyone else are heavily impacted by energy from the Gulf and global terrorist groups like Al Quada. Helping to stabilize both Iraq and Afghanistan is in everyones interest.

The coalition did not want to install simply another dictatorship in both Iraq and Afghanistan and I don't think France and Germany would have liked that either.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 09:03 PM   #110
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:32 PM
No, we didn't like that.
But we simply don't agree by trying to solve every problem by just going into the country.

The opposition to US's policy regarding it's Israel policy didn't carry the risk of these heavy economical disadvantages, and also this "Friend or Enemy" mentality wasn't existing.

Regarding the oil, at least Germany installed huge depositories for oil (don't know how to call them ) after the oil crisises of the 1970's, so a cut off of Arabian oil wouldn't have such a dramatic impact in short-term.

It might not have that back. A new "oil crisis" might have pushed a support of alternatives much more as the latest findings about climatic change.

Mind the word "might" as my government sucks, and the governments prior to this one haven't been that great either. Especially Kohl in the 1990's
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 11:26 PM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
No, we didn't like that.
But we simply don't agree by trying to solve every problem by just going into the country.

The opposition to US's policy regarding it's Israel policy didn't carry the risk of these heavy economical disadvantages, and also this "Friend or Enemy" mentality wasn't existing.

Regarding the oil, at least Germany installed huge depositories for oil (don't know how to call them ) after the oil crisises of the 1970's, so a cut off of Arabian oil wouldn't have such a dramatic impact in short-term.

It might not have that back. A new "oil crisis" might have pushed a support of alternatives much more as the latest findings about climatic change.

Mind the word "might" as my government sucks, and the governments prior to this one haven't been that great either. Especially Kohl in the 1990's
The shock from the cut off from energy supply in Saudi Arabia would impact the global economy which would then impact every economy in the world. As long as the country in question did any trade outside its borders, it would be impacted, even if it did not use one drop of oil for its energy. Oh were not talking about an oil crises simply like the 1970s, were talking about a worldwide economic depression worse than the 1930s. That is how dependent the global economy is on Persian Gulf Oil.

The coalition tried multiple options short of regime change to bring about enforcement of the UN resolutions but all of these efforts failed. The coalition tried for 12 years!

If France and Germany really felt the coalition invasion was such a terrible breech of international law, they would have certainly at least tried to get a UN resolution passed and they certainly would not have authorized the occupation 3 months later.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 11:49 PM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Regarding the oil, at least Germany installed huge depositories for oil (don't know how to call them ) after the oil crisises of the 1970's, so a cut off of Arabian oil wouldn't have such a dramatic impact in short-term.
The US has the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the same purpose - about two months worth of oil, with plans to double it. That is in addition to existing oil inventories (by oil companies).
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 11:51 PM   #113
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


The US has the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the same purpose - about two months worth of oil, with plans to double it. That is in addition to existing oil inventories (by oil companies).
Not to mention you'd probably just invade us in Canada and take what we've got.

I joke, except only sort of.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-24-2007, 12:07 AM   #114
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Not to mention you'd probably just invade us in Canada and take what we've got.

I joke, except only sort of.
As long as Canada remains the largest oil supplier to the US, no worries .
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 02-24-2007, 09:21 AM   #115
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Saddam had a military force of 2,700 tanks, over 2,000 armored personal carrier's, over 2,000 artillery pieces, 300 combat aircraft, and 430,000 men. Kuwait had a military of 10,000, a few hundred US troops, and some pre-positioned equipment. It only took Saddam 12 hours in August of 1990 to overrun Kuwait and because of political constraints, the US was never allowed to have more than a few hundred troops on the ground in Kuwait during most of the containment period after the first Gulf War. In 1994, Saddam sent two Republican Guard Divisions towards the border, and the United States was forced to deploy over 140,000 troops to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but this took several months to complete the deployment. Saddam's divisions were only hours away from going into Kuwait if they had chosen. CIA analysis had shown that if Saddam was determined he could have at least overrun Kuwait, an event that the United States and its allies did not want to repeat because of the damage and greater risk to the region it would cause.

This is one of the difficult situations caused by the fact that it was not politically possible during this time to have large numbers of US troops stationed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the numbers needed to repel the largest most determined attack that Saddam could send into the south.

Much of Saudi Arabia's oil fields are very close to the border area with Kuwait and Iran's are also nearby in their southwestern province of Kuzistan.

Saddam only needed a few dozen miles to do massive damage to the global economy as so much of the planets oil located in this small area of southwestern Iran, Southern Iraq, Kuwait and Northeastern Saudi Arabia.

It was indeed a major concern that only worsened when one took into account the possible use of WMD by Saddam. Verifiable disarmament of WMD was a key requirement for security in the Persian Gulf as it removed that threat as well as would show a change in behavior by Saddam given his past actions.

Most deaths in Iraq were because of Saddam. If Iraq had distributed the humanitarian supplies he was given and allow to buy during sanctions, most of these deaths could have been prevented. Instead, Saddam used it as a way threaten and punish various tribes and communities as well as make money on the Black Market. Humanitarian supplies meant for Iraqi people would often show up on the market in Syria and Jordan.

Interpret resolution 1441 how you like, but its just as much an authorization of the use of military force as resolution 678 was for the first Gulf War in 1991. In fact, the Soviet Union even protested and had the USA remove the words "military force" from resolution 678, so they could make the same arguement that French, Germans and others make about 1441 not being an authorization of the use of military force.

It only took Ukraine, Kazakstan, Belarus, and South Africa a couple of years to verifiably disarm large stockpiles of WMD and thousands of nuclear weapons. In March 2003, it had been 12 years since Saddam had agreed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. It simply does not take 12 years to do that provided those disarming are actually serious about doing so.

The Weapons inspectors failed to resolve ANY of the outstanding issues from November 1998 when they had to leave the country and were unable to return for four years. At no point in late 2002 or early 2003 were they able to make any headway on the issue. Cooperation is turning over or accounting for ALL WMD, and Iraq did not resolve any of the issues from November of 1998 the whole time the inspectors were in Iraq. There are many theories about what happened to the missing stocks of WMD, but that is all they are, theories. Verifiable disarmament does not involve theories. Saddam NEVER complied with the UN resolutions or the requirement to verifiably disarm of all WMD. He had plenty of time to have complied, and it was unwise to wait any longer considering how sanctions, the weapons embargo and other compenents of containment has essentially crumbled.

Again, its not just a matter of what Saddam did or did not have in March 2003 as far as WMD, but also what his behavior was showing(as far as compliance) as well as the fact that even if there was no WMD as many claim, Saddam was never more than three years from having large stockpiles because he still had the infrustructure and the know how to build more WMD, just as he did when he first became the leader of Iraq in 1979. After the war, while inspectors did not find the weapons they were looking for, they did find programs under way that were in clear violation of the UN resolutions and could have easily been shown to UN weapons inspectors in late 2002 if Saddam was really serious about verifiable disarmament.


The US military fired off more conventional rounds from every type of weapons system in the 3 week race to Baghdad than they have done in any other 3 week period since then. There were thousands of coalition airstrikes, multiple tank battles, and all of the Republican Guards tanks, armored vehicles and artillery pieces were destroyed. Just because US casaulties were light does not mean there was not heavy fighting. The United States and it allies killed more enemy combatents during this time period than at any point since then. Operations in Fallujah in April and November 2004, the largest scale US of American combat power since the fall of Baghdad, can come close to comparing to the three week drive towards Baghdad.


Building a new government and society is not something that takes a few weeks or months. Its something that takes well over a decade. Building a new Iraqi military is also something that will take nearly as long. Much progress has been made in both area's. You can't be declaring failure or success 3 years into something that is such a long process.


Abandoning Iraq pre-maturely would risk turning it into a failed state, and more effective base for Al Quada than Afghanistan ever was. Nearly everyone does not want to withdraw from Afghanistan despite the fact that Al Quada attacks there are almost non-existent and only the Taliban is the threat. No one wants to see Afghanistan turn into a failed state, yet a failed state in Iraq would be more of a threat to US and global security than a failed state in Afghanistan. If you believe that US troops can safely withdraw from Iraq without there being severe consequences, then you should be supporting a withdrawal from Afghanistan as well.



so many posts, so many words, so many poorly understood facts ... and you've yet to convince a single person of, well, anything, really. and if your reasoning were as blindingly obvious to everyone else as it seems to you, then, goodness, you should have no problems convincing peole in FYM, let alone the far less discerning American public at large. but they think you're full of shit, STING. why do they think that? where do you think you're falling short?

why, then, if you're so certain and smug, is Iraq widely considered a failure by everybody -- including the president. why does Congress not agree, why do the american people not agree, why does the military not agree? how long are you going to continue to lie to yourself? will it be for the next 30 years so you can continue to blame "liberals" -- like, you know, McCain who has said that if the "surge" doesn't work, he's for redeployment, and he says this when he's not bashing Cheney and Rumsfeld -- for undermining Iraq? are you going to be hanging Cindy Sheehan in effigy the same way the military likes to mock Jane Fonda? what scapegoats and boogey men are you going to have to creat ein order to excuse yourself of responsibility for this catastrophe?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-24-2007, 01:29 PM   #116
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Its never stopped them from opposing US policy on Israel.

and why do you think that is?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-24-2007, 01:32 PM   #117
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The shock from the cut off from energy supply in Saudi Arabia would impact the global economy which would then impact every economy in the world.




and we all know that if oil is controlled by an anti-American regime they will do this?


just look at Chavez in Venezuela
no one is more anti-American government than he
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-24-2007, 02:42 PM   #118
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,699
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





so many posts, so many words, so many poorly understood facts ... and you've yet to convince a single person of, well, anything, really. and if your reasoning were as blindingly obvious to everyone else as it seems to you, then, goodness, you should have no problems convincing peole in FYM, let alone the far less discerning American public at large. but they think you're full of shit, STING. why do they think that? where do you think you're falling short?

why, then, if you're so certain and smug, is Iraq widely considered a failure by everybody -- including the president. why does Congress not agree, why do the american people not agree, why does the military not agree? how long are you going to continue to lie to yourself? will it be for the next 30 years so you can continue to blame "liberals" -- like, you know, McCain who has said that if the "surge" doesn't work, he's for redeployment, and he says this when he's not bashing Cheney and Rumsfeld -- for undermining Iraq? are you going to be hanging Cindy Sheehan in effigy the same way the military likes to mock Jane Fonda? what scapegoats and boogey men are you going to have to creat ein order to excuse yourself of responsibility for this catastrophe?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-24-2007, 04:17 PM   #119
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





so many posts, so many words, so many poorly understood facts ... and you've yet to convince a single person of, well, anything, really. and if your reasoning were as blindingly obvious to everyone else as it seems to you, then, goodness, you should have no problems convincing peole in FYM, let alone the far less discerning American public at large. but they think you're full of s***, STING. why do they think that? where do you think you're falling short?

why, then, if you're so certain and smug, is Iraq widely considered a failure by everybody -- including the president. why does Congress not agree, why do the american people not agree, why does the military not agree? how long are you going to continue to lie to yourself? will it be for the next 30 years so you can continue to blame "liberals" -- like, you know, McCain who has said that if the "surge" doesn't work, he's for redeployment, and he says this when he's not bashing Cheney and Rumsfeld -- for undermining Iraq? are you going to be hanging Cindy Sheehan in effigy the same way the military likes to mock Jane Fonda? what scapegoats and boogey men are you going to have to creat ein order to excuse yourself of responsibility for this catastrophe?
Actually - STING is always able to back up what he says. I almost always agree with what he posts. It's more objective than the emotional tirades I usually see.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-24-2007, 04:32 PM   #120
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

Actually - STING is always able to back up what he says. I almost always agree with what he posts. It's more objective than the emotional tirades I usually see.
Well I guess he's objective the same way Cheney is. That doesn't mean it's correct. Most of the Bush/Cheney arguments have been proven incorrect.
__________________

__________________
ntalwar 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 05:32 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