Togo Wants Bush to Overthrow Their Leader... - 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 02-14-2005, 07:00 PM   #31
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
How poorly executed was this war? I mean in comparison to oter millitary actions over the centuries the Iraq was was very sucessful even by todays standards. The regime and army was toppled in under a month, civilian casualties were low for an operation of this size, the scenarios of massive humanitarian disasters involving hundreds of thousands of refugees didn't eventuate, the Republican Guard was unable to mount any proper operations against coalition forces and a counter-insurgeny campaign has been waged for two years with under 1500 KIA. Not to mention the work that has been done fixing up the country - building schools, infrastructure and the like as well as the elections which saw a decent turnout.

Things have gone wrong in this war, in retrospect some decisions created problems now (such as disbanding the Iraqi army ~ but if it had been kept then we would have entirely different problems at this point) but things like this happen in every war. The Greeks at Thermopylae suffered a millitary disaster, the Battle of Trafalgar was a disaster for the Spanish and French, Napoleons retreat from Russia was a disaster, the Battle of the Bulge was a big blunder by the allies ~ shit happens and it is annoying when people act like Iraq has been a series of huge millitary blunders because in the scheme of things it has been a very sucessful operation that reflects extremely well on the men and women that serve there and the millitary leadership that drafted the plans for the war.
Maybe you can tell that to my friend who's going back for the third time. We have men without the proper armor, we're asking retired 50 somethings to re-enlist and sending them over there, and we have no set plan on how to pull out.

Yes the toppling of the regime was quick, but honestly how hard did we think that was going to be, it's the aftermath that's been a joke.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-14-2005, 07:25 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Maybe you can tell that to my friend who's going back for the third time. We have men without the proper armor, we're asking retired 50 somethings to re-enlist and sending them over there, and we have no set plan on how to pull out.

Yes the toppling of the regime was quick, but honestly how hard did we think that was going to be, it's the aftermath that's been a joke.
The efforts of the US military, US diplomats, aid works, Coalition troops, and Iraqi's has NOT been a joke! It took years longer to have free elections in both Germany and Japan after their dictatorships were overthrown.

What has been accomplished in Iraq is amazing! Unfortunately, one can only see that when one fully examines the whole picture instead of just focusing on one chief aspect in 4 of Iraq's 18 provinces.

Most of the United States military is not deployed in Iraq. There are some shortages in some high skill or experience area's from time to time though.

Any equipment shortages are the fault of a government and in particular liberal movements that have always worked against increasing defense spending, forcing those in the military to only spend the little money they have on the most immediate requirements. If more money had been spent on defense in the years prior, the military would have more funds for all kinds of potential situations including the type of environment faced by our troops in Iraq with its unique requirements and needs. By liberals and unfortunately even moderates and both parties would vote for that level of defense funding, hence the reason there have been some shortages in various area's.


There is a set plan on how to pull out. It involves training the Iraqi military into a large and capable force ready to defend the country and successfully combat any insurgent movement in the country. Once that has been accomplished, Coalition forces can start to withdraw.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 03:47 PM   #33
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 05:57 AM
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 03-02-2005, 09:40 AM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 12:57 AM
So, being the only person on this entire forum that actually lives in Africa, near Togo and is directly affected by the events in that country, can I please bring the thread to the original point???

To sum up, after the death of the strongman president of Togo, the military decided to install his son, compelling the parliament to change the constitution in order to effect this. The union of West African states condemned the act as a coup d'etat and moved to put sanctions on Togo as did the African Union. And a few days ago, he stepped down as acting president in order to spare his country the effects of sanctions. Of course, no one is naive enough to think that this is the end...he is running for president and will most likely find a way to "win."

All this to say that it has been interesting to follow because the African organizations have really seemed to be able to effect change and make things happen. And that is a positive step. For my own part, we in Mali would definitely be affected if any long-term sanctions were put on Togo or if fighting broke out. It is our main port to the sea and being a landlocked country is very very important in keeping prices stable.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 03-08-2005, 11:11 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 12:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Any equipment shortages are the fault of a government and in particular liberal movements that have always worked against increasing defense spending, forcing those in the military to only spend the little money they have on the most immediate requirements.
you do know that bush 1 and cheney were advocates of cutting military spending in the 90s right?
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 03-08-2005, 04:11 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en


you do know that bush 1 and cheney were advocates of cutting military spending in the 90s right?
They were advocates of reducing the size of the overall force structure with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The only things that were cut, were weapons that would not be needed, because the units they were to go to, were not going to exist anymore. It would have been a waste of money to buy these weapon systems when the Units they would be purchased for, were no longer in existence.

This is often sited by Democrats as an example of Bush Sr. recklessly cutting defense which is totally false. The Democrats neglect to explain the context of the time and the fact that all active and reserve military units received every piece of equipment they needed during that time.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-08-2005, 04:21 PM   #37
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


They were advocates of reducing the size of the overall force structure with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The only things that were cut, were weapons that would not be needed, because the units they were to go to, were not going to exist anymore. It would have been a waste of money to buy these weapon systems when the Units they would be purchased for, were no longer in existence.

This is often sited by Democrats as an example of Bush Sr. recklessly cutting defense which is totally false. The Democrats neglect to explain the context of the time and the fact that all active and reserve military units received every piece of equipment they needed during that time.
So when is it good to cut back and when is it not? Oh I see when Republicans want to it's ok but when Democrats want to it's not.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 03-08-2005, 04:47 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:57 PM
Um, no - when the major threat is diminished it is common sense to cut back but then when a new threat arises it is the right thing to build up.

Cold War --> Post Cold War --> Global War on Terror.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-08-2005, 05:29 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America


So when is it good to cut back and when is it not? Oh I see when Republicans want to it's ok but when Democrats want to it's not.
The point here is that force structure was cut not the weapons and needs of the troops, the forces that remained continued to receive the latest technology and weapons under Bush 1.

The Soviet Union along with the Warsaw Pact could potentially put over 6 million troops immediately into the field if a war broke out in Europe. With this threat gone, the Bush Sr. administration cut the total number of troops on active duty, but not the weapons or technology that the remaining troops would recieve. Democrats on the other hand had always been pushing for cuts even with the Soviet threat, including cuts to a wide range of vital weapon systems, many of which John Kerry wanted to cancel in 1984 when he first ran for the senate. Thankfully, he failed and the US military today is the best equipped military on the planet, with most of its weapon systems coming from the Reagan build up of the 1980s, a build up that John Kerry tried to stop, which would have robbed are troops of the weapons they need to win on the battlefield with the smallest loss of life(US, Civilian or enemy) possible.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-08-2005, 05:34 PM   #40
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Um, no - when the major threat is diminished it is common sense to cut back but then when a new threat arises it is the right thing to build up.

Cold War --> Post Cold War --> Global War on Terror.
Um yes but take a look at Sting's post.

He had to point out that liberal movements made these cuts, and it's simply not true.

When Clinton was making cuts it was during peace time, just as Bush Sr.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 03-08-2005, 05:39 PM   #41
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Democrats on the other hand had always been pushing for cuts even with the Soviet threat, including cuts to a wide range of vital weapon systems, many of which John Kerry wanted to cancel in 1984 when he first ran for the senate. Thankfully, he failed and the US military today is the best equipped military on the planet, with most of its weapon systems coming from the Reagan build up of the 1980s, a build up that John Kerry tried to stop, which would have robbed are troops of the weapons they need to win on the battlefield with the smallest loss of life(US, Civilian or enemy) possible.
This still doesn't prove how 'liberal movements' are at fault for any shortages in equipment today. You are bringing up examples in 84 which you admit failed.

Honestly man you aren't making any sense. Any cuts that have gone through were during peace times and for weapons that wouldn't be used in this war. I find your blame game to be partisan BS.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 03-08-2005, 07:54 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America


This still doesn't prove how 'liberal movements' are at fault for any shortages in equipment today. You are bringing up examples in 84 which you admit failed.

Honestly man you aren't making any sense. Any cuts that have gone through were during peace times and for weapons that wouldn't be used in this war. I find your blame game to be partisan BS.
The majority of those that advocate and support cutting defense spending, whether it be in a time of war or peace are democrats or liberals. Its been that way since the 1980s.

This helps to create an environment where even when defense spending is increased, it is often not enough. The blame for shortages in equipment today can fall on both parties, but clearly the Democrats share far more of the blame. The example from 1984 is just an example to show the constant pressure that exist in certain parts of congress to cut or hold defense spending down. Even when defense spending is increased, this pressure holds back increases from being the levels of what they should be.

The M1 Tank, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Patriot Missile, Apache Attack Helicopter were all weapon systems built and designed during the 1980s and are currently the main weapon systems USED by the United States Army in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

Cuts to defense budget in the 1990s prevented certain improvements and upgrades on a number of these weapon systems. They also effected the ability to maintain and repair the equipment during the 1990s. Cuts and cancelizations from the 1990s do impact the military today, because the current budgets during the Bush administration, although they have been increased, have not been increased to the degree necessary to offset the 8 year defense spending holiday seen during the Clinton years.

Procurement and Moderanization take time(often several years) and when programs get canceled or are not funded, work can't be done in that area until the investment returns and then it takes time to meet the sudden demands of the military.

This is precisely why in Peace Time, you need to be spending and prepared for every contingency should war break out. Its way to late to start up an old program that was canceled or never funded once a war breaks out and find that you need that program. It could take months or even years to fully develop and equip a military with a new weapon system or an upgrade to certain equipment.

The Bush administration has done a good job at addressing the needs of the military but it can't make up a decade of no funding and development in certain areas in such a small amount of time. The Bush administration has tried to get some of the largest increases in defense spending ever and has succeeded to some extent, but the large new expenditures from fighting a war compete with money used to update, pay, train and equip the military as the war continues. This is why it is necessary that in peace time, the military needs to be properly funded so it is fully ready once war begins.

Its not to say the Bush administration has been perfect, but they have done a lot more for the military in 4 years than the previous administration did in 8 years.


It is not partison BS, but a fact that the largest resistence to military spending and the largest calls for defense cuts have come from the Democrats since the 1980s.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-08-2005, 09:20 PM   #43
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Its not to say the Bush administration has been perfect, but they have done a lot more for the military in 4 years than the previous administration did in 8 years.


It is not partison BS, but a fact that the largest resistence to military spending and the largest calls for defense cuts have come from the Democrats since the 1980s.
No one can predict when a "new enemy" is going to come about. The Bush administration didn't do much pre 9/11, just like Clinton.

What if we always continued to increase military spending and this war never came about for another 10 years? Then we'd have a lot of outdated weapons that never got used and would have already had to been replaced during peace time? Then people, including conservatives, would bitch about wasted tax money. You can't have it both ways. Your logic is far too simplified and convienent.

Both make cuts during peace time. I see a lot of partisan hypocricy to blame Democrats for our troops not having the proper equipment.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 06:35 AM   #44
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Its not to say the Bush administration has been perfect, but they have done a lot more for the military in 4 years than the previous administration did in 8 years.
Well let's see one was in peace time and one created a front for war. Your argument's lack logic and are dripping with partisan bias.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 08:32 AM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Um, no - when the major threat is diminished it is common sense to cut back but then when a new threat arises it is the right thing to build up.

Cold War --> Post Cold War --> Global War on Terror.
Except, of course, that until 9/11 hit, they were solely focused on an expensive "missile shield" that would have done nothing to prevent 9/11.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon 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 12:57 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