Togo Wants Bush to Overthrow Their Leader... - Page 4 - 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 03-09-2005, 01:03 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Yeah but it would have had advantages against the Rouge State threat ~ overlooking of course the ease at which one could just smuggle a weapon into the country not needing to put it onto a bloody ICBM.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 01:03 PM   #47
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,340
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America


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.
Lol, like your arguement's dont! Seems to me your first sentence contradicticts your second one!
__________________

__________________
ImOuttaControl is online now  
Old 03-09-2005, 01:42 PM   #48
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ImOuttaControl


Lol, like your arguement's dont! Seems to me your first sentence contradicticts your second one!
Why, because I said one administration created a front for war? I've seen many Republicans claim the same thing proudly. If that seems partisan then call me partisan, but it just seems like a fact.

But if you can explain to me otherwise I'd be glad to listen.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 04:24 PM   #49
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 04:38 AM
I think most of us here are partisan and most arguments presented drip with partisan bias. Nothing wrong with partisan bias except when one denies it (Bye bye Dan Rather)
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 04:41 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Bye, Dan.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 08:46 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America


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.
Your arguements like this one are simply accusations with no facts.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 08:59 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.
It is precisely the reason that no one can predict the new threat or enemy which makes it a necessity to have strong defense spending during peace time.

If military spending was properly funding, weapons would not become outdated. They would be improved and updated until a new model to replace the older one was developed. If one cuts or interferes with this development process, one winds up years later with outdated weapons or no weapons for certain situations.

Being prepared for every contingency is not a waste! It saves lives when war becomes a necessity and prevents many conflicts from happening in the first place.

It is a fact that the Democrats have been the prime source of opposition to military spending since 1980. The Republicans have primarily only made cuts to overall force structure when it was ok to do so, for example with the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union, but at the same time did their best to give the current force structure the latest weapon systems and money for training and pay.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 10:33 PM   #53
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Your arguements like this one are simply accusations with no facts.
Well like I said, this is rhetoric which I borrowed from Republicans. If you don't agree with it then tell me why? Do you honestly think the war on terror actually lied in Iraq before this war?
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 03-10-2005, 06:17 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America


Well like I said, this is rhetoric which I borrowed from Republicans. If you don't agree with it then tell me why? Do you honestly think the war on terror actually lied in Iraq before this war?
I've extensively explained my positions using facts and have had them greeted with a couple of sentences filled with accusations, but nothing else.

No one lied in regards to Iraq. Anyone that takes the time to examine the inspections process which had been going off and on for nearly 12 years will realize how futile it had become to get Saddam to verifiably disarm, something that should only take a year at most, just as it did in Ukraine, Kazaksthan, Belarus, and South Africa.

The Coalition went to war out of necessity because Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD and was not in compliance with 17 different UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

What many people fail to understand is that this whole process was started back in March of 1991, NOT January 2001! This was a major national security issue for the region, the United States, and the whole world. Few people realize the extent to which full scale military intervention in Iraq almost happened before Bush ever got elected into office. This was a huge problem that had been getting worse with Saddam collecting nearly 4 Billion dollars a year on the blackmarket despite sanctions that were getting weaker every day.

The threat was real and military action was a necessity. Democrats love to point out intelligence information that turned out not to be accurate, but that does not change the central case for military action which was Saddam's failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-10-2005, 06:42 PM   #55
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I've extensively explained my positions using facts and have had them greeted with a couple of sentences filled with accusations, but nothing else.

No one lied in regards to Iraq. Anyone that takes the time to examine the inspections process which had been going off and on for nearly 12 years will realize how futile it had become to get Saddam to verifiably disarm, something that should only take a year at most, just as it did in Ukraine, Kazaksthan, Belarus, and South Africa.

The Coalition went to war out of necessity because Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD and was not in compliance with 17 different UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

What many people fail to understand is that this whole process was started back in March of 1991, NOT January 2001! This was a major national security issue for the region, the United States, and the whole world. Few people realize the extent to which full scale military intervention in Iraq almost happened before Bush ever got elected into office. This was a huge problem that had been getting worse with Saddam collecting nearly 4 Billion dollars a year on the blackmarket despite sanctions that were getting weaker every day.

The threat was real and military action was a necessity. Democrats love to point out intelligence information that turned out not to be accurate, but that does not change the central case for military action which was Saddam's failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with my question.

You charged me with making accusations. What accusations?

I told you I was using verbage that I've heard many Republicans proudly use.

I didn't say anyone lied, didn't say anything about the war in Iraq really.

I don't know what your problem is.

I don't appreciate your charging me "making accusations with no facts".
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 03-10-2005, 07:46 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America


What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with my question.

You charged me with making accusations. What accusations?

I told you I was using verbage that I've heard many Republicans proudly use.

I didn't say anyone lied, didn't say anything about the war in Iraq really.

I don't know what your problem is.

I don't appreciate your charging me "making accusations with no facts".
Really, and what do you think of this statement made towards me by yourself:

"Your argument's lack logic and are dripping with partisan bias."

That is indeed an accusation with no facts to support it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-10-2005, 08:20 PM   #57
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Really, and what do you think of this statement made towards me by yourself:

"Your argument's lack logic and are dripping with partisan bias."

That is indeed an accusation with no facts to support it.
Well that's not the one you quoted.

You were very contradicting with your logic. You admit that both sides make cuts during peace time. You bring up examples from the 80's to which you admit failed. You make no comment about Bush pre 9/11 and how his spending was going down the wrong path in reference to this war. Yet you still blame Democrats for not having the right equipment. It's extremely bias. Cover it up anyway you want it, but your bias is visible from a mile away.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 03-10-2005, 09:38 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America


Well that's not the one you quoted.

You were very contradicting with your logic. You admit that both sides make cuts during peace time. You bring up examples from the 80's to which you admit failed. You make no comment about Bush pre 9/11 and how his spending was going down the wrong path in reference to this war. Yet you still blame Democrats for not having the right equipment. It's extremely bias. Cover it up anyway you want it, but your bias is visible from a mile away.
It is not a contradiction, but a fact, that since 1980, Republicans have been far more active than the Democrats in giving more money to the military. I'm sorry you do not understand the difference between what the Republicans have done in regards to defense spending vs. the Democrats. The difference between a cut in overall force structure after the Soviet Union Collapsed vs. hords of Democrats that tried to cut defense spending without any regards to national security or its effects on the military regardless of whether it was peacetime or war time. Its one thing to draw down the overall size of the military after a threat is gone and not able to return to that degree, its another thing to raid the standing military, what ever the size, of funds that are needed for the development and procurment of new weapons, training, and increased pay.

Bush's Pre-9-11 spending was in the process of increasing spending beyond anything Clinton had spent in his first 8 years. The largest pay increase for military members since the Reagan years was being voted on at that time. Guess who members of the US military voted for by more than a 4 to 1 margin this past November based on polling data conducted by the Armytimes?

Various members of the Democratic party including John Kerry have fought at one time or another to have nearly every weapon system the military currently uses, canceled! This is not bias, this a fact!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-10-2005, 09:49 PM   #59
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
tried to cut defense spending
Tried? That doesn't explain how it's their fault now. You've admited they failed.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Bush's Pre-9-11 spending was in the process of increasing spending beyond anything Clinton had spent in his first 8 years.
But none of his actions aided in giving this paticular war the proper equipment. And that's what this was all about.

If you are going to start a war, make sure you have the right equipment. That's all I'm saying.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 03-11-2005, 03:01 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America

Tried? That doesn't explain how it's their fault now. You've admited they failed.



But none of his actions aided in giving this paticular war the proper equipment. And that's what this was all about.

If you are going to start a war, make sure you have the right equipment. That's all I'm saying.
Through out the 1990s, the democrats succeeded in making deep cuts in defense spending which meant there was not money for many types of weapon systems or improvements, training, as well as other important equipment. They failed in the 1980s in making deep cuts, but were more successful in the 1990s. They constantly place pressure on cutting or keeping defense spending down, so even in years where defense spending is successfully increased by a large margin, its a smaller margin than it would be, because of liberal democrats efforts to cut the defense budget.


US forces in Iraq have had the proper equipment! There have only been shortages in certain area's. Trucks and Humvees have never been armored up until now, partly because of the forces in congress which drive to keep the defense budget down. This effort to keep spending down by many democrats forces the military to only spend on the most important items and needs.
__________________

__________________
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 11:38 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