the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine - Page 2 - 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 07-10-2006, 06:17 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 05:34 PM
I wanna pair of rose-coloured glasses too.
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 06:40 PM   #17
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:04 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Its clear that some on the left want Iraq to be a failure because of the political fortunes it will give them.
Actually it's not what some want, it's just some call a spade a spade. Even many on the Right are admitting the failures of Iraq. Take a look around.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 07:06 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 10:04 PM
It must be cold out there Sting.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 07:13 PM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:04 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Perhaps you forget that Colin Powell is on record as saying that Bush Foreign Policy is simply a restatement of elements that have been present in US Foreign Policy for decades. I'll take Colin Powell's stated view as well as my own any day over some unnamed sources who happen to be apart of the administration.


and most in the administration never thought Powell spoke for the administration.

you need to dig deeper rather than simply rely upon quotes that Powell gave the media after his resignation.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 07:17 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:04 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Its clear that some on the left want Iraq to be a failure because of the political fortunes it will give them.


you mean left-wingers like William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Niall Ferguson, Andrew Sullivan, Mark Derbyshire, and probably Colin Powell?

and the majority of the American people as well.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 07:34 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 03:04 PM
Hey guys (and gals) it's 2006 - they've got more than a full two years to go - THEY AIN'T DONE YET!!! Alot can happen in two years - in fact, alot can happen in a few minutes so quit congratulating yourselves for knowing this was inevitable. It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 07:58 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:04 PM
This isn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last editorial trying to summarize the GWB years. It usually takes years, if not decades, to properly evaluate policy actions. Today, we want the results before our microwave popcorn finishes cooking. How can people accurately make such definitive statements regarding the success or failure of a policy when they haven’t lived to see the policy fully play out? I guess if we are truly to be cautious about making presumptuous statements, this is a good place to start.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 10:14 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
This isn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last editorial trying to summarize the GWB years. It usually takes years, if not decades, to properly evaluate policy actions. Today, we want the results before our microwave popcorn finishes cooking. How can people accurately make such definitive statements regarding the success or failure of a policy when they haven’t lived to see the policy fully play out? I guess if we are truly to be cautious about making presumptuous statements, this is a good place to start.


but there seems to be quite a bit of factual (not anecdotal) evidence behind this hypothesis. of course it's early, but i think it's entirely reasonable for a journalist to notice a trend (the toning down of the administration's rhetoric) and then investigate and analyze that trend. it's very well open for discussion, and it was on the news networks all day.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 12:45 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:04 PM
Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

I'd take issue with a couple of points:

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2



dismantling any of the regimes WMD weapons or WMD related programs thus insuring that key UN Security Council Resolutions vital to the security of the region and the world are enforced, helping set up a new democratic government to replace the brutal and threatening dictatorship of Saddam. These objectives have been accomplished.
This is a serious misstatement because it implies that caches of WMD were found. They were not nor were any programs foudn in place to build such weapons. This statement also implies that the invasion of Iraq took place with support and under the guidance of the UN Security Council. It did not. It also implies that the new democratic government is secure and stable. It is not.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The only thing that remains is the rebuilding of the Iraqi military
You make it sound as if this is just a minor "clean up job" that we can take care of quickly and easily.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
A Key element of Clinton's Foreign Policy was spreading democracy around the world. This is simply not a new or revolutionary policy.
Yes, but not through military means--i.e. moving into a country and trying to remake it from the inside out.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The United States has always had strong elements of pre-emption in its Foreign Policy since World War II. From the 1950s to the mid-1990s, the United States kept B-52's in the air, 24 hours a day; 365 days a year, armed with nuclear weapons ready to strike any target on the planet it deemed necessary to destroy to insure security.
Again this is a far cry from actually invading a country.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The United States has never had a foreign policy where it would wait on other countries to help act when its security was threatened. The United States has never had a foreign policy where it would not act unilaterally to protect its security.
This statement suggests that we invaded Iraq because it posed an threat to our national security, and indeed that was the rationale given when we went to war. However, here's the problem, it wasn't certain that Iraq WAS a threat to national security when we attacked. There was no certaintity that Saddam actually still had any operational WMD program going. The supposed link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was tenuous at best. We have NOT had a policy of going to war based on such a shaky foundation in recent history.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
It is simply a restatement of elements that have been apart of US Foreign Policy since the end of World War II.
There ain't nothing simple about it. I think the best you could argue is that Bush's policies are drastic reinterpretation of U.S. Foreign Policy since the end of World War II.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 01:02 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and most in the administration never thought Powell spoke for the administration.

you need to dig deeper rather than simply rely upon quotes that Powell gave the media after his resignation.
TIME needs to dig deeper if they really are interested in writing and objective article on US Foreign Policy. Colin Powell stated these things while he was in the administration as since he has been outside it. He was the Secretary Of State. He was in charge of the Iraq and Afghanistan policy. He succeeded in getting another UN resolution authorizing the use of force, despite the fact that the many in the administration already felt they had such authorization. When it came to Foreign Policy, Colin Powell was the administration to a degree despite all the myths that have been spun by the media. Can you name one person in the administration who specifically supports the claims of the TIME article?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 01:06 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you mean left-wingers like William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Niall Ferguson, Andrew Sullivan, Mark Derbyshire, and probably Colin Powell?

and the majority of the American people as well.
The majority of the American people supported the invasion of Iraq and re-elected the Bush administration despite one of the strongest attempts to unseat a President in modern times. Colin Powell designed the policy, and still supports the use of force to remove Saddam from power. Pat Buchanan has always been an isolatinist and was against the use of force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991. Sure, you can always get a handful of people that side with the other side of the isle on any issue.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 01:09 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




but there seems to be quite a bit of factual (not anecdotal) evidence behind this hypothesis. of course it's early, but i think it's entirely reasonable for a journalist to notice a trend (the toning down of the administration's rhetoric) and then investigate and analyze that trend. it's very well open for discussion, and it was on the news networks all day.
The trend is the way some in the media attempt to view a policy they don't support. As soon as they think they see some blood, they are going to pounce on it and run with it for all it is worth. To hell with rational and objective analysis.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 01:36 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
I'd take issue with a couple of points:



This is a serious misstatement because it implies that caches of WMD were found. They were not nor were any programs foudn in place to build such weapons. This statement also implies that the invasion of Iraq took place with support and under the guidance of the UN Security Council. It did not. It also implies that the new democratic government is secure and stable. It is not.



You make it sound as if this is just a minor "clean up job" that we can take care of quickly and easily.




Yes, but not through military means--i.e. moving into a country and trying to remake it from the inside out.



Again this is a far cry from actually invading a country.



This statement suggests that we invaded Iraq because it posed an threat to our national security, and indeed that was the rationale given when we went to war. However, here's the problem, it wasn't certain that Iraq WAS a threat to national security when we attacked. There was no certaintity that Saddam actually still had any operational WMD program going. The supposed link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was tenuous at best. We have NOT had a policy of going to war based on such a shaky foundation in recent history.




There ain't nothing simple about it. I think the best you could argue is that Bush's policies are drastic reinterpretation of U.S. Foreign Policy since the end of World War II.

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized the use of military force to bring Saddam into compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions Saddam was in violation of. It was passed in November 2002. The invasion started in March 2003. In June 2003, the UN Security Council passed UN Security Council Resolution 1483 authorizing the occupation.

If the operation was not supported by the UN, where is the UN resolution or attempt at one to condemn the invasion and call for the withdrawal of UN forces? Why would the UN Security Council Resolution approve the occupation as they did with UN Security Council Resolution 1483 if they thought the invasion was illegal?

Remember how the UN responded to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? They passed a resolution condemning the invasion and called for the immediate withdrawal of all Iraqi forces.


As for WMD, it was never incumbent upon any member state of the UN to prove that Saddam had WMD. It was incumbent upon Saddam to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD per the ceacefire agreement he signed onto in March 1991 at the end of the Gulf War. The primary responsiblity of the UN Security Council in regards to Saddam's WMD was to INSURE they Saddam's regime was verifiably disarmed and that has been accomplished. There was no requirement for anyone to find exibit A under Building B, or this piece of equipment or that.

I did not say that the new democratic government was secure and stable. I did say it exist. I then said that the internal security situation in the country needs to be improved. Rebuilding the Iraqi army is going to take some more time, but some of the biggest hurdles are already out of the way.




Ah, but the Clinton administration did use military force to bring about a change in the political situation in Bosnia and Kosovo. Bosnia is still developing toward a democracy and Kosovo will likely become and independent democracy in the near future. It would not have happened though without the use of US military force in the begining though.


The primary reason for the US invasion of Iraq was to remove Saddam's regime because it had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD, it was not to build a democracy although the removal of the regime made it a necessity.

The criteria for whether or not there would be further military action against Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War was whether Saddam would verifiably disarm of all WMD. Saddam's failure to comply with the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement, made the invasion a necessity in order to insure the security of the region and the world. Look at it from the perspective of a country like Kuwait. Look at what happened in the 1980s and early 1990s. There could be no margin of error given what Saddam had done in the past. With a 400,000 man military and crumbling sanctions and embargo, the international community needed to act fast in order to prevent a worse situation than the crises of 1990/1991.

The invasion followed the policy that was outlined by the 1991 Ceacefire agreement under which Saddam was required to verfiably disarm of all WMD or face renewed military action to accomplish that objective.


Colin Powell was at the head of US foreign Policy for four years and has more experience in US foreign policy than most people in the country. He stated that there were no drastic or revolutionary changes to US foreign policy. It was merely a restatement of the policy with most of the elements that had been followed since World War II. The United States has always sought to hit terrorist before they could hit the United States in a multitude of ways. The policy on Iraq followed the strategy that was developed back in 1991. The United States was not going to let Iraq invade another country in the region before it would respond. The criteria for whether or not there would be further military action was Saddam's compliance or lack of compliance with the UN resolutions.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 05:11 AM   #29
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:04 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctr

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The majority of the American people supported the invasion of Iraq and re-elected the Bush administration despite one of the strongest attempts to unseat a President in modern times.
But we're talking about today. The tide of support has turned.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 08:11 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctr

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But we're talking about today. The tide of support has turned.
Even today, around 40% of the population according to most polls still think removing Saddam was the right thing to do. As early as last August, it was above 50%. Once US casualties start to drop significantly, and the situation in Iraq continues to improve, the poll numbers will snap back to where they have been for most of the past three years. Once US troops are able to fully withdraw from Iraq, you'll find fewer and fewer people even admitting that they opposed the operation in the first place, much like we found with the 1991 Gulf War and the Democrats, most of whom opposed removing Saddam's military from Kuwait.


Speaking of today, here are the latest Gallup poll numbers and its not good news from Democrats who stake everything on poll numbers:


"Bush Job Approval Edges Up to 40%
First time since February that Bush approval in the 40% range"

"PRINCETON, NJ -- President George W. Bush's job approval rating has edged up slightly higher in Gallup's latest poll, and is now at 40% for the first since early February. The July 6-9 poll finds 40% of Americans approving and 55% disapproving of the job Bush is doing as president. After averaging 42% approval in January and early February, Bush's ratings began to decline in mid-February, ultimately dropping to his administration's low point of 31% in early May. Since that time, Bush's approval ratings have shown a slow, gradual improvement."



At this rate, Bush will be back up near 50% by the time of the November elections, the democrats last chance to actually win anything before Bush leaves office.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 04:04 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