This poll should warm the hearts of many here. - 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 09-17-2003, 01:34 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 06:13 PM
So far there is no one running for President who I would vote for.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 02:01 PM   #17
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,419
Local Time: 08:13 PM
i have a friend of mine, a former college basketball teammate, who despises both bill clinton and wesley clark. he's not a republican though... not even an american citizen. born and raised in belgrade.

but seriously though, i really do hope the general who led a non UN-sanctioned attack against a nation tries to declare bush's war in iraq an illegal one. would make for some debate.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 09-17-2003, 04:52 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:13 AM
There will be some interesting debates and controversies in here over all of this stuff.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 05:20 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Sherry Darling,

The problems with the Kosovo campaign were brought up by a large number of former Military Generals, Military Experts, National Security and Foreign Policy Analyst. Its a fact that the Serbian military that entered Kosovo to conduct ethnic cleansing withdrew from Kosovo largely unscathed. Its a fact that NATO did not have ground forces in place in sufficiant numbers to invade Serbia if the Air War had failed in its goals. Its a fact that US pilots were not allowed to fly lower than 15,000 feet, making the targeting of military targets more difficult. Its a fact that prior to the crises, nearly all the humanitarian supplies ready in the region for a refugee crises was stored in Kosovo itself, and out of reach of the Kosovo refugee's when they were forced to flee into Albania. The Attacks done on military targets were slowed and often stopped, by the voting process that took place within NATO for each of the strikes.

To what degree General Clark would be responsible for any of the above I am not entirely sure as I have said before.

The article you posted does not deal with any of the problems I listed about the Kosovo Campaign, the opinion of many in the military at the time had differences with him, or his opposition to the Iraq War.(Correct me if I'm wrong about General Clark's support for the war, the media are saying he is opposed to it) It is a nice summery of his credentials and does give good comparisons to the other democratic candidates.

I just like to say I understand others have different views, but I was just stating why I would vote for particular candidates or not.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 06:11 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,185
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
i have a friend of mine, a former college basketball teammate, who despises both bill clinton and wesley clark. he's not a republican though... not even an american citizen. born and raised in belgrade.

but seriously though, i really do hope the general who led a non UN-sanctioned attack against a nation tries to declare bush's war in iraq an illegal one. would make for some debate.
Again, General Clark has never said it was illegal. Just that more time and consideration should have been given. Other countries concerns should have been taken more seriously, etc... And that so far the bulk of the destruction of WMD's had come from inpectors being in Iraq, far more than from the first Gulf War.

He was also very skeptical of the fact that the Bush administration kept linking Iraq to Bin Laden and his terrorist networks. Which we all now know is false. He was also privy to information concerning the discussions that the military and the Bush administration had before going into Iraq and he was aware that they were grasping for "reasons" to go in.

But yes, it would still make for an interesting debate. Although, I doubt Bush would last the first round against Clark in a head to head debate.

A great quote I remember from a journalist back when Clinton and Bush debated said that after he was soundly beaten in the debate that he was so angry that he had the look of a rabid possum that was being cornered (or something to that effect).

______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 06:19 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish
He was also very skeptical of the fact that the Bush administration kept linking Iraq to Bin Laden and his terrorist networks. Which we all now know is false.
There was no connection between Saddam's regime and the 9/11 attacks. There are plenty of connections between Saddam's regime and terrorism.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 06:22 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Sting, can you recommend any books about the Kosovo campaign? I just want to read up on the topic. I remember during that war I was an emotional wreck. I felt horrible about all of the ethnic killings, etc, etc, and Slobodan Milosevic made me sick. What a . I wonder what we did to deserve all of these evil 's who've plagued the globe recently. BTW Kosovo is how I got into NGO fundraising.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 06:27 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:13 AM
BonoVoxSupastar,

"Best foreign policy in US history? Laughable at best. But let's not forget he has close to no domestic policy."

I understand thats your opinion. But Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Condelezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld, I feel form the best Foreign Policy team this country has ever had. Take time to read into each of their backgrounds before coming to this administration. The results I feel speak for itself. One of this countries most important foreign policy objectives for decades has been the security of Persian Gulf energy supply and this administration with removal of Saddam Hussein has met that goal better than any administration in history. The United States has not removed a dictator with this many human rights abuses since World War II. The 50 million people of Iraq and Afghanistan have the greatest chance for a bright future that they have ever had, do to the actions of the Bush Administration.

"And I love how those opposed to a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq means one would just sit back and do nothing."

1. The Strike was not Unilateral
2. The Strike was approved by multiple UN resolutions
3. The Strike was not pre-emptive but simply the long over due enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. The most serious resolutions the UN can pass.

I never said people would sit back and do nothing, just that the course of action would not have been one that removed Saddam, something I feel was required.

"How can you be suspicious about those who commit to an operation now but opposed the war?"

In terms of choosing who I vote for, I'm more likely to believe that one who chose to remove Saddam and plans to rebuild Iraq fully, than someone who would not have removed Saddam and is critical of the current reconstruction plans for Iraq.
General Clark stated today in an interview that he is concerned about the 60 Billion dollars going to Iraq when the money here could be used for childerns playgrounds. I have nothing against Childerns playgrounds, but I set a higher priority on making sure those childern in 20 years don't have to go into Iraq because it has failed as a State.

"The war has already happened, there's nothing one can do about that, you expect us to sit back and watch this nation suffer out of principle."

Iraq was already suffering massively under Saddam, nearly 1 million Iraqi's died because of his actions and policy's of the past 24 years. The Bush Administration in addition to addressing the important security concerns, has removed the enormous source of suffering for Iraq over the past 24 years. While I respect other's opinions on their policy for Iraq, it is the Bush Administration that has removed the source of most Iraqi suffering from the past and today, and is devoting the resources needed to rebuild the country. Because the Bush administration took "successful" action in this area, I feel they are better prepared and dedicated to rebuilding Iraq than those who would not have created this option for the Iraqi people to begin with. I respect those that wanted to continue the policy of containment. But I think that strategy had failed and the fact is, we would not be able to have a dicussion about rebuilding Iraq if Saddam were still in power.

"Just because one didn't support the means by which it happened doen't mean they don't support the goal. In fact it would be quite the opposite. There are many more colors in this world than black and white."

I understand that, but I also understand that in order to achieve that goal, Saddam had to be removed. The only way to remove Saddam was through a military invasion. Everything that had been tried before that had failed. The Bush administration recognized this and got the Job done, when others had not. Thats something that those planning not to vote for Bush in 04' should recognize.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 06:31 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,185
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


There was no connection between Saddam's regime and the 9/11 attacks. There are plenty of connections between Saddam's regime and terrorism.
terrorism yes, Bin Laden no. But that is what the Bush administration led the American public to believe. In fact two-thirds still believe it even though the CIA has come out and said there is NO concrete evidence linking Saddam with Bin Laden or Al-qaida.

_______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 06:54 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish
terrorism yes, Bin Laden no. But that is what the Bush administration led the American public to believe. In fact two-thirds still believe it even though the CIA has come out and said there is NO concrete evidence linking Saddam with Bin Laden or Al-qaida.
Did the Bush administration lead people to believe there was a connection, or did people want to make a connection between two evil men? Based on your comments, it sounds as if the administration was trying to show no concrete connection.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 06:58 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,185
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
BonoVoxSupastar,

"Best foreign policy in US history? Laughable at best. But let's not forget he has close to no domestic policy."

I understand thats your opinion. But Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Condelezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld, I feel form the best Foreign Policy team this country has ever had. Take time to read into each of their backgrounds before coming to this administration. The results I feel speak for itself. One of this countries most important foreign policy objectives for decades has been the security of Persian Gulf energy supply and this administration with removal of Saddam Hussein has met that goal better than any administration in history. The United States has not removed a dictator with this many human rights abuses since World War II. The 50 million people of Iraq and Afghanistan have the greatest chance for a bright future that they have ever had, do to the actions of the Bush Administration.

"And I love how those opposed to a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq means one would just sit back and do nothing."

1. The Strike was not Unilateral
2. The Strike was approved by multiple UN resolutions
3. The Strike was not pre-emptive but simply the long over due enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. The most serious resolutions the UN can pass.

I never said people would sit back and do nothing, just that the course of action would not have been one that removed Saddam, something I feel was required.

"How can you be suspicious about those who commit to an operation now but opposed the war?"

In terms of choosing who I vote for, I'm more likely to believe that one who chose to remove Saddam and plans to rebuild Iraq fully, than someone who would not have removed Saddam and is critical of the current reconstruction plans for Iraq.
General Clark stated today in an interview that he is concerned about the 60 Billion dollars going to Iraq when the money here could be used for childerns playgrounds. I have nothing against Childerns playgrounds, but I set a higher priority on making sure those childern in 20 years don't have to go into Iraq because it has failed as a State.

"The war has already happened, there's nothing one can do about that, you expect us to sit back and watch this nation suffer out of principle."

Iraq was already suffering massively under Saddam, nearly 1 million Iraqi's died because of his actions and policy's of the past 24 years. The Bush Administration in addition to addressing the important security concerns, has removed the enormous source of suffering for Iraq over the past 24 years. While I respect other's opinions on their policy for Iraq, it is the Bush Administration that has removed the source of most Iraqi suffering from the past and today, and is devoting the resources needed to rebuild the country. Because the Bush administration took "successful" action in this area, I feel they are better prepared and dedicated to rebuilding Iraq than those who would not have created this option for the Iraqi people to begin with. I respect those that wanted to continue the policy of containment. But I think that strategy had failed and the fact is, we would not be able to have a dicussion about rebuilding Iraq if Saddam were still in power.

"Just because one didn't support the means by which it happened doen't mean they don't support the goal. In fact it would be quite the opposite. There are many more colors in this world than black and white."

I understand that, but I also understand that in order to achieve that goal, Saddam had to be removed. The only way to remove Saddam was through a military invasion. Everything that had been tried before that had failed. The Bush administration recognized this and got the Job done, when others had not. Thats something that those planning not to vote for Bush in 04' should recognize.

Sting -
I appreciate your stance, and am glad that you at least educate yourself on these issues. And I am very glad that you see and understand the other point of view. I used to hold many of the same views at pre-war time. But I feel completely mislead and disenchanted by what we were told and what has come to pass.

While I learned today that I am being laid off from my job, that my nephew will have 40 kids in his gradeschool classroom this year, that one of my good friends who isn't wealthy by any means wasn't able to get any grants for college, I learned that Bush is sending his 87 billion dollar Iraq package to Congress. It turns my stomach.

What we were told before the war and what we now know:

1. Iraq has ties with Bin Laden and Al-qaida (thus in theory linking him to 9/11).
The CIA has since stated that there is no concrete evidence linking the two. Bush himself has now stated there is no link between Saddam and 9/11. (And he's puzzled where people got that idea )
2. Iraq has WMD's. -
We don't know this for sure, but nothing has been found yet and the theory that Saddam lied about having them as a "power play" seems more likely every day.
3. We know where the WMD's are.
Now that's one we know for sure is false.
4. Iraq is an imminent threat.
I really don't think anyone truly believed this, even many in the administration.
5. Iraq was purchasing Uranium for nuclear weapons.
False

If the above things were true and we were truly in danger (not just made to feel scared) I would applaud Bush for going in. But these things were not true. Yes millions died under Saddam, and that is a heartbreaking thing. But this wasn't the reason Bush went in (until after the war was over - then it seemed to be the only reason we heard)

But guess what??? Millions more die in Africa from AIDS then died under Saddam's rule. So don't you have to ask yourself - why 157 billion dollars to go to war with a country and risk innocent lives and the hatred of the world, and only 15 billion (maybe) to Africa?? This wasn't a humanitarian effort and those who justify it as such are Bush apologists.

We didn't go in with enough information, we didn't go in with a plan, we didn't go in with hardly any REAL, SUPPORTIVE allies. And now we are paying for it with A LOT of money that:

should be going to schools, bankrupted states, electrical grids, crumbling infrastructure, police/fire/medical supplies and training, boarder security, ect...

_______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 07:06 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Of course Saddam used terrorists, if not specifically Al-Qaeda. He tolerated Wahhabist Moslems in Iraq but told them not to get political. Well the dictator was removed, and presto, the Wahhabists got political, and started a campaign against the Shia Moslems, who were marginalized under Saddam. The Wahhabists are Sunnis. The hell of the situation is that Iraq has been either under a dictatorship (the Ottoman Empire, the monarchy, various "presidents", uh, dictators) or in a state of chaos for centuries. Now no one's "in charge" and while the Shia are greater numerically in Iraq, the Sunnis are used to running the show. The mosque bombing was a monstrosity that makes me a bit skeptical as to whether or not the Wahhabists are going to let the Shia live in peace. These people could inflict more bloodshed and wreak more havoc yet. What can *anyone* do to clean up this mess of Wahhabists vs. Shias?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 07:35 PM   #28
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 01:13 AM
I cannot describe how shocked and surprised I am to come into this thread and find it's turned to an Iraq debate....

Question: How popular is Bill Clinton in the US these days? Just the fact that Clark has announced he's running made it onto the front page of our newspaper here, and the article is very very positive, like he is the second coming or something. What the article and other news reports in the last 24hrs here about Clark are heavy on is how Clinton is supporting him, how alot of the people behind him are from the old Clinton team, and how he, policy wise, is virtually Clinton II. If voting for a US President was done only by everyone in the world except for US citizens, anyone described as 'Clinton II' would win in an absolute landslide. Bush would be voted out of the White House so fast he wouldn't have time to grab a change of underwear. So does Billy still have that kind of pull in the US?
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 07:38 PM   #29
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 01:13 AM
.... and the poll does truly warm my heart.
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 07:45 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Tyler, that's because we're debating Gen. Clark's position on Iraq and related stuff like Bush's request for $87 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's tough to keep Iraq out of any discussion of American politics!! How popular is Clinton? I'd answer that question "I don't think he's popular, he's controversial". That's partially due to his character as well as his policies. Even supporters (like yours truly) admit that character-wise he left a hell of alot to be desired. The press is going to play up the fact that Clinton and Clark are both from Arkansas, but their backgrounds, characters, and most importantly their careers are very different.
__________________

__________________
verte76 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 08:13 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