This poll should warm the hearts of many here. - Page 3 - 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, 08:35 PM   #31
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 09:43 AM
Yeah, I know there's a difference there. Outside the US there was a very very different reaction to the Monica thing then within the US.

I was interested 'cos there is a fair bit in our media about this US Presidential race. Normally it wouldn't really get any coverage at all until it was down to 2 people, certainly not at this early stage. However you can't underestimate how much the rest of the world is praying it's anyone but Bush, so it's getting a fair bit of attention. But it's hard from a distance to seperate them (because obviously not living in the US, no-one cares about tax cuts and healthcare etc) so when one stands up and says he's gonna kick Bush in the arse, and then you find out he's supported by Clinton and suddenly he looks alot better then the rest. So yeah, 'Endorsed by Clinton' has alot of pull outside the US.

But, not that any of that matters, cos we don't vote!

I want to see what their 'bigger picture' ideas are in regards to US foreign policy, how they think the world should work. Not just an argument centered on what they would have/could do with Iraq.
__________________

__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 08:47 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:43 AM
Womenfish,

"Clark was opposed to the way in which Bush handled the Iraq situation. He never said that NOTHING should be done. Just done differently. And I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. He's a 4 star general. Sorry Sting2, but I'm gonna take his word over yours."

General Clark is not the only one that has been a 4 star general. There are multiple 4 star generals, military experts, National Security experts and diplomats that have different view on the Iraq situation than General Clark.

Its easy for General Clark or anyone to criticize, but if your going to be President your going to have to map out your alternative plan and General Clark has yet to do that. What would General Clark have done differently and would Saddam still be in power right now?

"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."

While those are unpleasent situations, 87 Billion Dollars is not necessarily a solution for them. The USA already spends more on education than Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland, just to name a few European countries. Better management of the education system, not money, is what is needed.

Iraq has to be rebuilt because of the countries proximity to the worlds energy supply, and the effect politically and security wise Iraq is going to play in that region. Saddam had to go because of the threat to that energy supply and Iraq must be rebuilt so that there is not a Saddam II.

The take over, disruption or destruction, of the supply of energy in the Persian Gulf region could create a worldwide economic depression worse than the one suffered in the 1930s. Speaking in economic terms, unemployment of 6.1% is not high and in fact many economist believe 6% is the natural rate of Unemployment. Imagine a situation where unemployment was as high as 30% or 40%, because of a worldwide economic depression caused by some destruction or disruption of most of the supply of energy coming from the Persian Gulf region. Thats not something anyone wants to experience. Every US President since World War II has been prepared to go to war to defend the vital energy supply coming from the Persian Gulf Region. Jimmy Carter even said after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, that he was ready to use nuclear weapons if necessary, to prevent any power from completely disrupting the flow of energy supply in the Persian Gulf region.


"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 :rolleyes"

The idea that Saddam was behind 9/11 or that Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11 is something that has been created by the Democrats. Are there indications that Al Qauda may have had ties to Saddam, yes. Are they proven, NO. Do the American people have a right to know about this, YES.


"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."

UN inspectors reported in 1998 that Saddam had 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, and other related WMD material. Fast-foward to November 2002 and inspectors are let back into Iraq. Saddam claims he destroyed the above WMD but provides no evidence to verify this. A total violation of multiple UN resolutions and the UN 1991 Ceacefire Agreement for the Gulf War.

It is Saddam's responsiblity per the Ceacefire agreement to prove that he no longer has WMD. It is the coalitions responsiblity to verify that is in fact so. Saddam's refusal to account for the WMD he had back in 1998 is a material breach of the Ceacefire Agreement under which member states of the UN are authorized to use all means necessary in order to achieve full compliance.


"3. We know where the WMD's are.
Now that's one we know for sure is false."


Intelligence may have indicated where some WMD were, which later turned out not to be the case. This happens all the time with intelligence and is not a sign of some fundamental failure by the Administration. The fact remains that its Saddam responsibility to show where the WMD is, not the coalition. Its Saddam that is in violation of 17 UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules. It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove where or what he did with his WMD, not the coalition.

"4. Iraq is an imminent threat.
I really don't think anyone truly believed this, even many in the administration."

As I have said before, anything that threatens countries in the region is an imminent threat to the USA. Saddam was required to disarm of his WMD in the 1991 Ceacefire agreement BECAUSE his WMD stocks were viewed as an imminent threat to countries in the region and there for an inimment threat to the USA. Until Saddam was removed or verifiably and reliably disarmed, that threat was always there. Based on Saddams past behavior, the unprovoked invasions and attacks of four countries in the region and the murder of 1.7 million people, its easy to see that Saddam + WMD was indeed an imminent threat to the vital energy resource region and there for the USA and the rest of the World.



"5. Iraq was purchasing Uranium for nuclear weapons.
False "

This is actually incorrect. Saddam did buy Uranium from Africa back in the 1980s.

If Saddam no longer had WMD, he had all means to prove it. If Saddam had complied with the 17 UN resolutions, sanctions on Iraq would have been lifted, and Saddam would be collecting over 20 Billion dollars in revenue rather than 4 Billion dollars he gets illegally. The only reason Saddam would not comply with UN resolutions fully is if he desperately wanted to hold onto his WMD stocks and programs. No other country on the planet has spent more money as a percentage of GDP on WMD development. Its not surprising that he would not want to let go of it all.

The idea that Saddam destroyed his WMD but kept the idea out there that he had it to deter attack is not a good one. First, it would not deter an attack from the USA, but would in fact increase its likely hood. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia do not have the capability to attack Iraq. Iraq's military was to large. Even in Iraq's weakened state, Iran would be unable to successfully launch an invasion. Jordan's military is to small. Syria would never send so much of its military strenth against Iraq because of Israel to its Southwest. Only Turkey might be technically able to threaten Iraq independently, but has never shown any desire to do so, except in regards to the Kurds. So the idea that he wanted to the world to think he had WMD while destroying all of it and being unable to enjoy the benefits of having done that, holds little water in my view.

Saddam never complied with the UN resolutions that required him to disarm. The US and other member states took the action that were authorized to take if Saddam failed to what he was required to do.

"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."

You could attack the US efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo in the same way. Efforts General Clark I think supported. I disagree with that though because Bosnia and Kosovo had both a security and humanitarian reason for action. But the reasons for action in Iraq with the security case were 10 times greater than the case made in Bosnia and Kosovo. The humanitarian situation in Iraq while not exactly like Bosnia and Kosovo and over a longer period of time was just as dire for those that lived in the North and South of Iraq or happened to find themselves on the wrong side of Saddam.

While the loss of life from Aids in Africa is a mass tragedy, destruction and disruption of the worlds energy supply would only make the situation in Africa worse and dry up any funds that are going there already.


"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:"

I don't think a country has ever had more information when it came to the actions of a particular dictator than the USA had for Saddam. The Bush Administration had a very good plan and took out a miltary of half a million men in under 3 weeks. The Bush Administration have dispersed the Baath party and captured or killed 42 of the 55 most wanted in Iraq. The USA is now involved in the rebuilding of the country and already over 60,000 new Iraqi Policeman are on the streets. In the town of Karbala, the US Marines have built 9 schools for childern. Good things are happening, but good things don't sale newspapers so its difficult to hear about them.

Over 29 countries are currently helping out in Iraq. A Real Supportive ally should not be defined as France or Germany. Those are two countries who were on the wrong side of history when it came to deciding how to deal with Saddam, but they have an opportunity to help the Iraqi's build a better future, hopefully that will decide to be on the right side of history in this case. If they don't, it is not the administrations fault they decided not to help people in need.


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

Should Iraq fail as a State, the security implications will prevent even less money to go to these area's.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 09:32 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:43 AM
Verte76,

The only book I remember on Kosovo specifically was one that came out not to long after the war by the Cato Institute. I believe it was by Ted Alan Carpenter but I'm not sure. The book was against US policy in Kosovo and the war. Now that its been four years since the war I am sure there are more. Most of my information since 1999 on Kosovo has come from Foreign Affairs Journal and the Army times in regards to the military operation.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 11:03 PM   #34
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Sting--fair enough. From everything I've heard, Clark is an utterly brilliant strategist. Based on that, it doesn't sound like he'd make simply mistakes like that. But it doesn't seem like we really can know who made what decisions, you're right. Thus I'm certainly not ruling him out based on that, and am ruling him in based on the fact that it seems he might have a chance of beating Bush. As for what he would have done instead, I remember him in an interview that I sadly missed most of saying he would have presented it more multilaterally to our allies, tried to involve NATO, that he would have had a governing coucil ready to go when Saddam fell, and that (this one was so DUH it killed me) he would have brought lots of translators. I take serious issue with your claim that Saddam "had to go" because of a threat to the world's oil supply--but I imagine your as sick of repeating yourself on that score as I am, so I'll just say goodnite.


Womanfish--no kidding. I can't wait to see Bush try to debate a Rhodes scholar.


sd

PS the poll warms my heart too
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 09-17-2003, 11:45 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Hello....

Al Gore when to Harvard....and Bush did fiine in the debates. Why would General Clark make him any more nervous?

How many debates has Bush been in? How many has Clark been in?

How many offices has Clark run for successfully?

It is too earlyy to annoint him the man when he has not won the nomination.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 01:22 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:43 AM
Sherry Darling,

I have a little bit of an update on Clark and the Kosovo war. As I said before I do not know what role Clark had in the overall policy. Now I believe I know a little more. A two star General on Fox News and another report I just saw on CNN, both say that Clark tried very hard to get Clinton, Albright and Cohen to put in large numbers of US ground troops prior to the air war in Kosovo so NATO would have a ground option. But they decided against his strong advice. It is reported that the strong disagreements between several Clinton administration officials led to Clark being relieved of his European Command after the war and his early retirement in 2000. It is strange now that Clark seems to be so aligned with former Clinton campaign officials considering the disputes that seem to have led to is early retirement.

It seems that my criticisms of the Kosovo Campaign had nothing to do with Clark and everything to do with Clinton. Clark tried to lead Clinton down the best path but Clinton did not take it. In any event, despite the increased risk, the goal was still accomplished.

As to Clarks opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom, I've started to hear conflicting things. Clark stated in January of 2003 that Saddam had WMD. In April of 2003 after the fall of Baghdad, Clark wrote, I believe in the London times, an article supportive of Bush and Blairs policy in Iraq.

But then now we have Clark saying that the war was a war of Choice. Ultimately, Clark is going to have to speak up and clarify what he was for and not for. Is he like Dean that was totally against the War or is he like Lieberman and Kerry who supported and voted for war but have problems over procedure? Was Clark for regime change through military force, or the prior policies of containment which proved to be failures?


"I take serious issue with your claim that Saddam "had to go" because of a threat to the world's oil supply"

40% of the worlds oil supply is located in area extending from the Southwest corner of Iran near the Iraq border, their province Kuzustan, through southern Iraq, Kuwait and the north eastern area of Saudi Arabia just south of the border with Iraq and Kuwait. Other area's of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran would push that total well above 50%. Saddam has invaded and attacked all of these area's before and successful ocupation of them would have a potentially devastating effect on the global economy. It has been the policy of the United States to defend this area for several decades from the control or cut off of supply by any country that tried to do so.

Saddam's prior behavior combined with his WMD programs and material were viewed by the international community as a threat to the region, and therefore, the worlds oil supply. That is why Saddam was required to completely disarm all of his WMD in the UN Ceacefire Agreement of March 1991 following the first Gulf War. Although Saddam did not use WMD during the Gulf War, his possession of such weapons were viewed as a threat to the region and the worlds oil supply which is why he was forced by the Ceacefire Agreement and resolutions to give them up. The Failure of Saddam to disarm was seen as a threat to the region and there for, a threat to the worlds energy supply because the region has so much of it. Fastfoward 12 years later, and the USA finally took action to remove Saddam because of his failure to fully, verifiably disarm. The UN resolutions have finally been enforced.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 07:23 AM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
It is strange now that Clark seems to be so aligned with former Clinton campaign officials considering the disputes that seem to have led to is early retirement.
I do not find it strange.

I believe that the Clinton's do not want a Democrat to win this time around. The Clinton's are out for themselves, and the Polls have indicated up until recently that she did not stand a chance against this sitting President.

When is Hillary's best chance? If a democrat wins next year she is now looking at another 8 years before she could run. Her best chance is for Bush to be re-elected and run against a non-encumbent republican, or to run NOW. Eight years from now is a long time to wait. The problem is, Bush looks much weaker now that sic months ago so maybe she should run now.

So why support Clark? Which candidate(s) does it hurt the most? Does it hurt Dean? Not particularly. Kerry and Leiberman?

It brings another War Hero into the race taking from Kerry. It gives a credible challenge to Lieberman. Clark, may very well take enough from these two people, that Dean is nominated and loses to Bush.

Just my humble opinion. Yes, I believe the Clinton's are that self-serving.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 09:33 AM   #38
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Sting,

Thanks for the update. Most presidents hold back on ground troops if possible, yeah. I'm not sure what you've heard and not heard, but what I've read was that Clark was always against it? You say he wrote an article supporting it? I don't suppose you can track it down?

As for the oil supply thing, yes, I'm very aware that much of the world's oil is under ME sand. LOL. We all know that. What gives us the right to control it? (And how did our oil get under their sand anyway? ) But like I said, I'm repeating myself.

Cheers,
SD
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 11:52 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 09:43 AM
Sorry Sting. Your answers are lengthy but not convincing to me. We all know what Saddam should have done. He should have come clean that the weapons were destroyed. He's not the most rational guy though if you haven't noticed. He wanted to use them to avoid an invasion, even Blix came out yesterday and stated this. Blix is doubtful that any weapons actually exist.

And you know what I meant about the timeframe of the purchase of Uranium, and you know that we were mislead about knowing where the WMD's were, and you know that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. A threat that needed to be dealt with over a period of time with the help of the international commuinity and systematically deconstructed yes, but not one that had to be bombed immediately. You also know that better management of schools is NOT the only thing that needs to improve. Is it one of them yes. But there is more funding needed when kids need to share books and supplies, programs like music and sports and art are being cut and they are having to have classes in mobile trailors that are rolled onto the school lawns.

And the idea that Democrats are behind the idea that Saddam was behind 9/11 and linked with Bin Laden???!!!??? Now you have really stepped into Sean Hannity territory. I personally believed it because Colin Powell, Rice, Bush, and that horrible little man Rumsfield said it was true. If they didn't come right out and say it, they eluded to it, talked just around it enough to make sure people drew the conclusion they were looking for.

We will have to agree to disagree I suppose. I just can't stand up for a President or administration that either was so incompetent that they got into a war for a reason that didn't exist, or that they bent the truth in order to get into a war for reasons that didn't exist.

_______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 12:43 PM   #40
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 03:43 AM
Quote:
Al Gore when to Harvard....and Bush did fiine in the debates.
Really? He did fine? I thought he looked like a bumbling fool, but of course Gore looked like a non charismatic stiff so it just ended up being good entertainment.

By the way Dread, interesting theory about the Clintons.

Speaking of conspiracy theories...this one's great.

Quote:
The idea that Saddam was behind 9/11 or that Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11 is something that has been created by the Democrats.
LOL
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 12:51 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:43 AM
I really did not like the pro-war rally at Ground Zero. I thought that was an attempt to link 9/11 with Saddam, and I don't think any Democrats were involved in its organization. While I thought that pro-war rallies per se were fine--although I didn't agree with them personally, they were just an exercise in free speech--the Ground Zero rally just rubbed me the wrong way.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 02:10 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:43 AM
There was a pro-war rally at Ground Zero?

That's great. This is a site where three thousand people were murdered so we're going to campaign to go murder ten times that many people to get our revenge.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 02:44 PM   #43
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The idea that Saddam was behind 9/11 or that Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11 is something that has been created by the Democrats.
This is just too much. I can't stop laughing.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." President Bush, Oct. 7.

I didn't know Tenet and Dubyah were closet Democrats.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 03:07 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:43 AM
Neither of your "Lies" address a connection between Saddam and 9/11.

The "Lies" address, and the evidence supports, a connection between Iraq and terrorists.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 03:29 PM   #45
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:43 AM
I disagree since Osama is a part of Al-Queda, then there's Cheney's latest.

But that's not the worst of it. Now Vice President Cheney is continuing to tell the same lies about Iraq. Let's count the lies he made in a Meet the Press interview yesterday (all quotes from the Washington Post):

[Cheney] then revived the possibility that Mohamed Atta, who led the Sept. 11 attacks, allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Baghdad five months before the attack. It is a story Cheney had repeated during a March 16 appearance on "Meet the Press" and one that his aides tried to have added to Powell's presentation in February at the United Nations.

"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it," Cheney said yesterday. "We just don't know."

An FBI investigation concluded that Atta was apparently in Florida at the time of the alleged meeting, and the CIA has always doubted it took place.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine 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 04:43 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