US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III - Page 12 - 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 12-15-2007, 01:26 AM   #166
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Since the necessary war to remove Saddam
A man who was our pal when I was in high school.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 12-15-2007, 01:35 AM   #167
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Of course, but you are clouding issues.

There is a difference between supporting this war and realizing what we have to do now.

But once again, you missed my point.

The definition of "premature withdrawal" is up in the air. Your definition of a ready army is different from many.

And don't even get me started, the Republicans have served the interest of Al Quada for years, their numbers are quite fine due to Bush...
Well, I agree that whether or not you supported the removal of Saddam is not very relevant to what needs to be done now which is what the next President will be looking at on January 20, 2009.

As far as what constitutes a pre-mature withdrawal, I think everyone can agree that it means leaving Iraq before it has the means to survive on its own as a relatively stable country. The same goes for Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

Al Quada would have a new base inside of Iraq in 2008 if the administration had followed most Democrats plans to withdraw all US combat troops by March 31, 2008. The surge has crushed Al Quada's area of greatest activity in Iraq and Al Quada attacks are almost non-existent in Afghanistan unless you include the local Taliban fighters with Al Quada. Most importantly, the United States has been free of any Al Quada attacks in the USA since 9/11. The administration has done a great job at combating Al Quada given the necessary invasion of Iraq and the restrictions on military operations in Pakistan.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-15-2007, 01:39 AM   #168
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


A man who was our pal when I was in high school.
The Soviets Unions pal actually, but a leader we did not want to see the Iranian revolution overrun, given the weakness of the persian gulf countries just to the south of Iraq. A different time, and far different circumstances and a situation that the United States had only limited involvement in compared to the Soviet Union, China, France, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni Arab states. Certainly nothing like the relationship the United States had with Joseph Stalin during World War II.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-15-2007, 01:42 AM   #169
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I'm glad you admit it's about oil.

But once again you don't answer my question. Try just answering my question and not dealing with the "pre mature withdrawal". Just tell me how your scenario guanatees us something.
Which scenario and what guarantee?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-15-2007, 01:54 AM   #170
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Which scenario and what guarantee?
Well what do you suggest we need, and how will it GUARANTEE anything?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-15-2007, 01:59 AM   #171
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


As far as what constitutes a pre-mature withdrawal, I think everyone can agree that it means leaving Iraq before it has the means to survive on its own as a relatively stable country. The same goes for Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
So how is that defined? It's changed defintions with this administration.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Al Quada would have a new base inside of Iraq in 2008 if the administration had followed most Democrats plans to withdraw all US combat troops by March 31, 2008. The surge has crushed Al Quada's area of greatest activity in Iraq and Al Quada attacks are almost non-existent in Afghanistan unless you include the local Taliban fighters with Al Quada. Most importantly, the United States has been free of any Al Quada attacks in the USA since 9/11. The administration has done a great job at combating Al Quada given the necessary invasion of Iraq and the restrictions on military operations in Pakistan.
And what about all the other recruits? Do you think they will all be disticnt by the time we leave? You think they are ALL in Iraq?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-15-2007, 02:04 AM   #172
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well what do you suggest we need, and how will it GUARANTEE anything?
Need for what? You need to explain in a little more detail about what your talking about.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-15-2007, 02:05 AM   #173
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


It would be a mistake to leave Iraq pre-maturely for four reasons 1. the potential for Al Quada to take advantage of the chaos it could create and finally replace the base they lost in Afghanistan from which they could launch new operations against Europe and the United States. 2. the regional instability it would create among countries that border Iraq, and the dangers of a regional war among these countries in area vital to global security because of the large oil reserves. 3. the humanitarian disaster it could create in Iraq for the people. 4. the potential for the return of another dictator out of such chaos many years later who may threaten Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oil reserves vital to the planets economy.

The American tax payer values security, safety, and the economic well being of the country which is tied to Persian Gulf security. That is why the American tax payer overwhelmingly supported the 1991 Gulf War, the efforts after that to disarm Saddam peacefully, as well as the military intervention to overthrow him once those efforts had obviously failed. Abandoning Iraq and the Persian Gulf region is not the way to insure a safe and prosperous United States or World.
Okay. Here are my responses to your 4 reasons:

1) There is al-Qaeda in every country of the world, including the U.S. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? Us being in Iraq is not going to stop al-Qaeda in Germany, Indonesia, Pakistan, or Lebanon from planning an attack on the U.S. So the ONLY way to prevent an attack on the U.S. is through stronger security measures within our country.

2, 3) It is NOT our job to spend trillions of dollars, have our soldiers killed every single day for years and years and play referee in a region where the people have been fighting for thousands and thousands of years. Our presence will not make the Shiites and Sunnis get along.

4) If Kuwait and Saudi Arabia want to protect their oil reserves, they can. Iraq currently does not have a military, let alone weapons or WMDs. So your reason that we need to "protect" Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's oil reserves is just typical neo-con bullshit. IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT TO ANYONE.

And finally, the American taxpayer backed the efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein because they were mislead by their government into thinking that Iraq had WMD's and connections with 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, not for any other reason you've gave.

Everything you said is wrong.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 12-15-2007, 02:16 AM   #174
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Need for what? You need to explain in a little more detail about what your talking about.
I love how you now play the questioner. We've been asking you this for years, and you always had absolutes.

I'm glad you've grown out of absulutes. It's a good start.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-15-2007, 02:27 AM   #175
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So how is that defined? It's changed defintions with this administration.



And what about all the other recruits? Do you think they will all be disticnt by the time we leave? You think they are ALL in Iraq?
It involves having a military and police force that can operate independently of the coalition and contain any sort of internal violence. The current military and police force in Iraq although much improved is at least 3 to 4 years away from being able to do that, if not more. I could go into more detail about where the Iraqi military and police force is at the moment and where they need to be, if that is what your asking.

Politically, there needs to be local elections and disbanding of regional militias and the incorporation of some their members into the security forces, but not in a way that could create sectarian problems. At the national level the Shia party's must get over their insecurity about giving the Sunni's several of the things they want, and the Sunni's have to realize that the days of Saddam are over and that as a minority, they will be stronger if they can forge alliances with like minded Kurds and Shia groups.

As Iraq gets on its feet, politically as well as from the security standpoint, the economic capacity of the country should start to rise significantly. Unlike Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, Iraq has great potential for huge increases in wealth because of the country's natural oil and water resources.

What precisely will be the tipping point where the United States and Iraq will fill comfortable withdrawing all foreign troops from Iraq no one knows, but it will involve a combination of the above factors. US troops are still in Bosnia today after deploying there 12 years ago. US troops are still in Kosovo after deploying there 8 years ago. But the number of troops is far less than it was in 1996 for Bosnia or 1999 for Kosovo.

Gradually over time as the situation becomes more stable, more troops will be withdrawn. The British Army deployed to Northern Ireland at the end of the 1960s, and just recently completely withdrew from Northern Ireland in 2007, nearly 40 years after they first went in.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-15-2007, 02:28 AM   #176
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I love how you now play the questioner. We've been asking you this for years, and you always had absolutes.

I'm glad you've grown out of absulutes. It's a good start.
Thats great, but I have no idea what your talking about, and I'm beginning to wonder if you do yourself.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-15-2007, 02:52 AM   #177
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Okay. Here are my responses to your 4 reasons:

1) There is al-Qaeda in every country of the world, including the U.S. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? Us being in Iraq is not going to stop al-Qaeda in Germany, Indonesia, Pakistan, or Lebanon from planning an attack on the U.S. So the ONLY way to prevent an attack on the U.S. is through stronger security measures within our country.

2, 3) It is NOT our job to spend trillions of dollars, have our soldiers killed every single day for years and years and play referee in a region where the people have been fighting for thousands and thousands of years. Our presence will not make the Shiites and Sunnis get along.

4) If Kuwait and Saudi Arabia want to protect their oil reserves, they can. Iraq currently does not have a military, let alone weapons or WMDs. So your reason that we need to "protect" Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's oil reserves is just typical neo-con bullshit. IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT TO ANYONE.

And finally, the American taxpayer backed the efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein because they were mislead by their government into thinking that Iraq had WMD's and connections with 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, not for any other reason you've gave.

Everything you said is wrong.

1. There could be Al Quada in most countries around the world, but most of these countries are politically stable enough and have security services that can work with the United States to hunt and detain Al Quada members. At this time though, Afghanistan and Iraq are currently not in a position to do that on their own, and need the assitance of the United States in developing security forces, a politically stable government, and growing economy in order to effectively combat Al Quada without the presence of the US military.

2) 3. Since the end of World War II, the United States has become heavily involved in various regions of the world that are vital to its economy and the economy of the world. This has created significant stability around the world that major wars on the scale of the two World Wars earlier in the 20th century have been prevented. The whole attitude that x groups have been fighting for thousands of years and will continue to fight is simply not true as Europe can attest to now.

Your beloved U2 rejected that arguement when they supported US military intervention in both Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid and late 1990s. The fighting between Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia was far worse than anything that has been seen in Iraq, yet after US military intervention the ethnic groups in those countries have been at peace. These conflicts are not impossible to end, and it is often in the security interest of the United States to bring them to an end.

4. I was not discussing the current situation in Iraq with this point. While no entity currently inside Iraq actually threatens Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, that may not be the case 10 years from now if the United States withdraws pre-maturely. Iraq was a threat to the region when Saddam was in power and proved this through its unprovoked invasion and attacks on four different countries, the largest WMD use by any single leader in history, as well as the violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions and the failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

The United States has bombed Iraq every year since the 1991 Gulf War and finally had to invade with other countries because the peaceful and military methods tried in the previous 12 years had failed to bring about the necessary changes in Saddam's behavior and verifiable disarment. The majority of Americans have supported such policies. If Americans really felt they had been misled, they would never have re-elected George Bush nearly 2 years after the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-15-2007, 04:25 AM   #178
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 01:42 PM
Well they reelected him cause they are slow and stupid. Just one year after the 04 elections polls were showing that Kerry would have won if the vote was taken again.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 12-15-2007, 05:15 AM   #179
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

At the national level the Shia party's must get over their insecurity about giving the Sunni's several of the things they want, and the Sunni's have to realize that the days of Saddam are over and that as a minority, they will be stronger if they can forge alliances with like minded Kurds and Shia groups.

phew! i'm glad someone had the insight and tenacity to just come out and say that these people simply need to get over hundreds of years of sectarian hatred and nearly a century of cohabitating a completely fabricated country called "Iraq."

it really is this easy, folks! Iraq is Europe, you know, because both regions are economically and politically and culturally comparable. everything's comparable so long as you place the two nouns in the same sentence!
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-15-2007, 05:20 AM   #180
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow



Your beloved U2 rejected that arguement when they supported US military intervention in both Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid and late 1990s. The fighting between Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia was far worse than anything that has been seen in Iraq, yet after US military intervention the ethnic groups in those countries have been at peace. These conflicts are not impossible to end, and it is often in the security interest of the United States to bring them to an end.


this couldn't be a better example of how you cite facts that don't ever support your conclusions.

both bono and the edge are on the record as being against the invasion and occupation of iraq. they are against it. they were against it in 2003. they dedicated a huge portion of the Vertigo concert to criticizing Abu Ghraib and US excesses of power. but because they supported a DIFFERENT situation in a DIFFERENT country in a DIFFERENT time (yes, i know you're going to say that Iraq and Bosnia are exactly the same thing, but that doesn't meant that they are in any way, shape, or form), you're implying that they somehow support Iraq. they don't. they've said they don't. you're implying they've said things that they've actually said the opposite of. your inferences are fabrications, and your conclusions are wrong. and they have been since 2004.

so stop it. don't make shit up.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

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 03:42 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