Facts better for GOP in O8 than 06: by Michael Barone - 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 06-24-2008, 09:36 PM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Disagreeing with going into Iraq is not, in any way shape or form, the same as mourning his removal.
But I got an email saying that was true.
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 10:19 PM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Why not stick to the topic or issues as opposed to discussing and making up things about other people in the forum? Its the grown up thing to do.

Saddam's past behavior, violations of international law, war, and threat to Persian Gulf Oil was anything but non-existent.

Congress's ratings have only dropped since the Democrats took over.


congress's ratings have dropped due to the democratic failure to end the war in Iraq.

Saddam's behavior was effectively contained and the sense of crisis was fabricated due to the administration's decision to hype the non-existent threat of WMDs in order to use the fear and pain from 9-11 to win support from the American public to invade Iraq. evidence of Saddam's purported threat to the region, especially given his 11 year containment, would never have convinced the American public, nor the rest of the world.

you consistently cite what you think others are "saying" about this, that, and the other. and then you rebut the arguments you imagine are out there without ever addressing what's actually happening in the forum.

example: [q]Its only Barack Obama and the Democrats that have decided to repeatedly mourn his removal from power on the campain trail[/q]

mourn his removal from power? are you hoping that someone is going to take that statement seriously? you'll notice that very few people actually engage you on these topics -- especially when compared to other posters -- because you post as if no one else is in the room and you consistently sidestep their arguments in favor of ones you've already fabricated.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 10:20 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions which was more than enough to justify military action and both Bill Clinton and his wife agreed. Yep, plenty of people in the international community stated that Saddam posed no imminent threat to Kuwait in July 1990. The international community learned an important lesson the hard way in 1990-1991 which is why the red line for further military action against Saddam would be based on compliance with UN resolutions not an actual attack on one of his neighbors. The international community had already gone through that and was not about to go through it again, which is why the resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN allowing for the use of military force to bring about the enforcement of the resolutions. The world is a safer place with Saddam out of power in Iraq. Its only Barack Obama and the Democrats that have decided to repeatedly mourn his removal from power on the campain trail.


if this is so compelling, why did the administration hype the WMD information and then blame the CIA for misleading them?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 10:22 PM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
You continue to evade this by throwing up UN resolutions, but it doesn't change the facts.


there's also the little known fact that it is the UN and specifically the UN Security Council that decides exactly how it will enforce it's own resolutions, and not the United States.

but, hey, why let details like that stop us when were droning into a bullhorn?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 10:29 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Effective counterinsurgency and nationbuilding strategies are yielding success in Iraq and will continue to do so provided the mission is not abandoned. The same efforts are under way in Afghanistan. No one is suggesting that the United States withdraw from Afghanistan before its ready to handle its problems on its own, nor should anyone be suggesting the United States should withdraw from Iraq before it is ready to stand on its own.


so, aside from the "hire and hide" techniques that you call "counterinsurgency" and the consistent moving of the goalposts to measure the political progress that was always the stated goal of The Surge (still today just a tactic, not a strategy), i do wonder, is the building of 50-60 large, permanent bases in Iraq part of getting that country to stand on it's own?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 10:46 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 06:08 AM
I the idea that if you disapprove of Saddam ruling Iraq, that means you automatically need to support several hundred thousand troops invading and occupying Iraq for the next 5-10 years. There are no other alternatives, there were no other alternatives.
mobvok is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 10:55 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
I the idea that if you disapprove of Saddam ruling Iraq, that means you automatically need to support several hundred thousand troops invading and occupying Iraq for the next 5-10 years. There are no other alternatives, there were no other alternatives.


this is the false choice that STING -- and George Bush -- have been presenting the world for the past 4-5 years.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 07:49 AM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Its only Barack Obama and the Democrats that have decided to repeatedly mourn his removal from power on the campain trail.
Complete and utter shit, it's nothing but trolling really...

It's crap like this and what Irvine explained earlier about how you only responsd to the opposition you make up, make your posts hardly worth the glance anymore.
BVS is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 09:05 AM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:08 AM
so, coming at this in the morning with a night's sleep and a workout behind me, i suppose i really have to say that i am genuinely puzzled and a little sad.

this is post 14,427 and i think i can count on one hand the number of posters -- 3, to be exact -- that i've been unable to have a productive exchange with. and #1 on that list is, obviously, STING. the other two were little spats in LS (not worth mentioning) and EYKIW (when someone refused to consider that, shock, Boy is loaded with sexual ambiguity and that "twilight" is about being approached by a guy).

so i really don't think i'm the problem here. or not the only problem. i think all anyone really wants is interesting, productive dialog, and, yes, possibly to score some points for their "team," but it amazes me how in every single thread on this topic things go instantly downhill in civility, tone, and quality the moment certain posts are re-posted.

just an observation.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:04 AM   #30
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
OMG, please repeat the UN resolutions again! We here at FYM have never heard of those before, and we'd love it if you could repeat them at every possible opportunity! Say, do you think you could just put those in your signature?



You really are something else, Sting. Disagreeing with going into Iraq is not, in any way shape or form, the same as mourning his removal.

The fact remains, as was made perfectly clear to everyone without blinders on once we had invaded and removed Saddam, he was not an imminent threat and had no WMDs. The Bush administration's major reason it sold the American people for this war was false. You continue to evade this by throwing up UN resolutions, but it doesn't change the facts.

The UN resolutions were both the Clinton administrations and Bush administrations central case for military action against Iraq. They explain the threat Saddam posed to the region and why military action was a necessity to bring about compliance.

Its funny, but on your part you keep on repeating the same old rubbish that Saddam was not a threat and "had no WMD"s. But the fact of the matter is that the Saddam NEVER verifiably disarmed of thousands of stocks of WMD, and never had any intention of fully complying with the United Nations on the issue of WMD and continued to claim Kuwait as being part of Iraq. Its only correct to say that the coalition did not find WMD's not that Saddam did not have any, especially when thousands of stocks of WMD remain missing to this day according to UN weapons inspectors.

More important is the fact that whether Saddam was a threat or not was defined by his behavior and his compliance with the UN resolutions and Gulf War Ceacefire agreement, not his mere technical capabilities at one time or another which could change on a dime. Even if it were indeed true that Saddam did not have actual WMD in March of 2003, the UN inspectors did find multiple programs related to the production of WMD that Saddam hid from inspectors in 2002 and 2003, which he could have shown them if he were serious about disarmament. Its rather naive to believe that if Saddam had been left in power as Barack Obama wished, that he would never have developed significant WMD capabilties again since all the evidence in the aftermath shows that he maintain the capabilities to produce such weapons in addition to having thousands of unaccounted for stocks of WMD.


After the 1991 Gulf War, the threat from Saddam was defined by his compliance or lack of compliance with the UN resolutions. Saddam never complied and never had any intention of complying and given the threat that posed to the region especially Kuwait, he had to be removed and the only way to do that given the failure of sanctions and other means of containment as well as covert military action, was through a full scale invasion.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:19 AM   #31
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
there's also the little known fact that it is the UN and specifically the UN Security Council that decides exactly how it will enforce it's own resolutions, and not the United States.

but, hey, why let details like that stop us when were droning into a bullhorn?
ahem
Diemen is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:20 AM   #32
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
congress's ratings have dropped due to the democratic failure to end the war in Iraq.

Saddam's behavior was effectively contained and the sense of crisis was fabricated due to the administration's decision to hype the non-existent threat of WMDs in order to use the fear and pain from 9-11 to win support from the American public to invade Iraq. evidence of Saddam's purported threat to the region, especially given his 11 year containment, would never have convinced the American public, nor the rest of the world.

you consistently cite what you think others are "saying" about this, that, and the other. and then you rebut the arguments you imagine are out there without ever addressing what's actually happening in the forum.

example: [q]Its only Barack Obama and the Democrats that have decided to repeatedly mourn his removal from power on the campain trail[/q]

mourn his removal from power? are you hoping that someone is going to take that statement seriously? you'll notice that very few people actually engage you on these topics -- especially when compared to other posters -- because you post as if no one else is in the room and you consistently sidestep their arguments in favor of ones you've already fabricated.

If Saddam was effective contained in 2002 why was there absolutely no sanctions or weapons embargo along the entire Syrian Iraqi border? Why were countries around the world routinely breaking the sanctions and embargo rules imposed on Iraq by the UN? How was Saddam able to sell Billions of dollars worth of oil on the black market? The fact is, most of the sanctions and weapons embargo put in place on Iraq in 1991 largely ceaced to exist by 2002. The entire containment regime had started to crumble in the late 1990s and efforts to continue it had failed. Thousands of stocks of WMD remained unaccounted for, UN inspectors were not allowed in the country, and Saddam was maintaining and hiding several programs key to the production of WMD which he never showed UN inspectors who came into Iraq in 2002 and 2003. The only way to insure that Saddam was disarmed and not a threat to the region was to remove him from power. Everything short of a full scale military invasion had been tried and failed to bring about compliance with the UN resolutions in the previous 12 years. The invasion was the only option left, and the invasion succeeded in accomplishing what every other option had failed to do in the previous 12 years.

The majority of Americans according to the Gallup poll already supported Saddam's removal from power even prior to 9/11. The administration did its best with the intelligence it had and the central case for military action was always what was laid down in the UN resolutions and not the cherry picked qoutes that Democrats like to trot out as claims of the administration "hyping" or "lying" about the need for military action.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:25 AM   #33
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
if this is so compelling, why did the administration hype the WMD information and then blame the CIA for misleading them?
They didn't hype the information, they did the best they could with the intelligence that was available. But its just intelligence. After the first Gulf War, it was found that Saddam was not 10 years away from getting a nuclear weapon, but was only 6 months away from getting a nuclear weapon. Intelligence is often incorrect, but must be mentioned and apart of any decision to go to war. But the chief reason for war was Saddam's behavior and non compliance with the UN resolutions. The only way the international community could know for sure that Saddam was disarmed and no longer a threat was by removing him given his behavior and failure to comply with the UN and future goals for the region learned through investigations with him after his capture. Removing Saddam was a necessity for the security of the region and the world.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:28 AM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
If Saddam was effective contained in 2002 why was there absolutely no sanctions or weapons embargo along the entire Syrian Iraqi border? Why were countries around the world routinely breaking the sanctions and embargo rules imposed on Iraq by the UN? How was Saddam able to sell Billions of dollars worth of oil on the black market? The fact is, most of the sanctions and weapons embargo put in place on Iraq in 1991 largely ceaced to exist by 2002. The entire containment regime had started to crumble in the late 1990s and efforts to continue it had failed. Thousands of stocks of WMD remained unaccounted for, UN inspectors were not allowed in the country, and Saddam was maintaining and hiding several programs key to the production of WMD which he never showed UN inspectors who came into Iraq in 2002 and 2003. The only way to insure that Saddam was disarmed and not a threat to the region was to remove him from power. Everything short of a full scale military invasion had been tried and failed to bring about compliance with the UN resolutions in the previous 12 years. The invasion was the only option left, and the invasion succeeded in accomplishing what every other option had failed to do in the previous 12 years.

The majority of Americans according to the Gallup poll already supported Saddam's removal from power even prior to 9/11. The administration did its best with the intelligence it had and the central case for military action was always what was laid down in the UN resolutions and not the cherry picked qoutes that Democrats like to trot out as claims of the administration "hyping" or "lying" about the need for military action.



it's astonishing that you'd call the WMD fiasco "cherry picking" when it was, without question, the central case for war as laid out by Bush, Cheney, Condi, and Rumsfeld. for anyone to claim otherwise is simply false. the UN resolutions were brought up when pleading their case to the UN itself and to the international community in order to universalize the perceived problem as well as to make the case that there was more to the motivation than just WMDs or twisted revenge fantasies in the mind of GWB. i don't think you can call an entire hour on Meet the Press where Cheney lays out the danger posed by Saddam's WMDs to the American people, or the discussion of the "grave and gathering danger" or the "form of a mushroom cloud" or the continuous debates on the legality or not of a pre-emptive war.

ultimately, you can't get past the fact that all that you've written above wasn't considered a strong enough case for war by the administration themselves. so the fabricated, hyped, amplified, and Team B'd the weapons intel in order to make a case for war, and they only did so *after* 9-11 because they knew a shell-shocked American population would be easy to mislead.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:29 AM   #35
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
there's also the little known fact that it is the UN and specifically the UN Security Council that decides exactly how it will enforce it's own resolutions, and not the United States.

but, hey, why let details like that stop us when were droning into a bullhorn?

The UN Security Council gave authorization for military action against Saddam if he failed to comply with the UN resolutions in resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. The UN then authorized the occupation brought about by the invasion of 2003 in resolution 1483 and has done so every summer since then. The UN would never authorize and occupation brought about through illegal means. It would condemn such an invasion as it condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Yet, there was not even a single attempt, not even one attempt by one country to get a UN resolution condemning the invasion in 2003, despite the fact that multiple UN members draft resolutions against Israel knowing full well that they will be vetoed.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:30 AM   #36
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The administration did its best with the intelligence it had and the central case for military action was always what was laid down in the UN resolutions and not the cherry picked qoutes that Democrats like to trot out as claims of the administration "hyping" or "lying" about the need for military action.
That's really funny, Sting. First.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511
there's also the little known fact that it is the UN and specifically the UN Security Council that decides exactly how it will enforce it's own resolutions, and not the United States.
Second, it is hugely obvious that the administration was guilty of cherry picking it's public reasons for going to war. Scott McClellan admits to it in his new book, Richard Clarke admitted to it long ago, but I'm sure we can all dismiss them both since they're, you know, no longer following the administration's hook, line and sinker.

You simply cannot look back on the way the administration sold this war and tell us with a straight face that they presented the evidence in a balanced way without leaning too heavily on any one angle. Your continued insistence that that is indeed the case only further highlights your willfull ignorance of reality.
Diemen is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:40 AM   #37
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
so, aside from the "hire and hide" techniques that you call "counterinsurgency" and the consistent moving of the goalposts to measure the political progress that was always the stated goal of The Surge (still today just a tactic, not a strategy), i do wonder, is the building of 50-60 large, permanent bases in Iraq part of getting that country to stand on it's own?
Counterinsurgency involves many political, economic and military tactics of which hiring locals to help with the security is but one. I don't know who your talking about as far as "hiding", but US and coalition forces have been more exposed over the past 18 months than they have been ever in the war or for that matter in any past conflict. Small teams of US troops base themselves in various Iraqi communities all across the country as well as imbedding themselves with Iraqi Security forces to improve their training and effectiveness. Despite the increase exposure, the result has been greater security because Iraqi civilians feel more secure with US troops imbedded with their communties. They more willing to give valuable intelligence to US forces as well as fight against the insurgency. By also providing economic aid and help with political development, the US has been able to win over much of the Sunni Arab population and this has helped to turn the tide against the insurgency as dramatically shown by the decrease in casualties and number of attacks.

The United States has never built any bases that can't be torn down or eventually transfered to the Iraqi military for its needs. I wonder when Democrats will actually begin to acknowledge the progress that has been made and also learn a little history about nationbuilding and counterinsurgency so that don't continue to remain ignorant and in the dark on such issues.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:45 AM   #38
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it's astonishing that you'd call the WMD fiasco "cherry picking" when it was, without question, the central case for war as laid out by Bush, Cheney, Condi, and Rumsfeld. for anyone to claim otherwise is simply false. the UN resolutions were brought up when pleading their case to the UN itself and to the international community in order to universalize the perceived problem as well as to make the case that there was more to the motivation than just WMDs or twisted revenge fantasies in the mind of GWB. i don't think you can call an entire hour on Meet the Press where Cheney lays out the danger posed by Saddam's WMDs to the American people, or the discussion of the "grave and gathering danger" or the "form of a mushroom cloud" or the continuous debates on the legality or not of a pre-emptive war.

ultimately, you can't get past the fact that all that you've written above wasn't considered a strong enough case for war by the administration themselves. so the fabricated, hyped, amplified, and Team B'd the weapons intel in order to make a case for war, and they only did so *after* 9-11 because they knew a shell-shocked American population would be easy to mislead.
What you don't understand is that the administration already won the case for war with the congressional approval that they won in October 2002 just one month after they started making their case. The majority of the speaches qoutes you like to talk about occured after the vote in congress when the President already had the authorization he needed to go to war. In addition, all the polling that gallup did both prior to 9/11 and after shows that a majority of the US public already supported invading Iraq and removing the regime!
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:47 AM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
I wonder when Democrats will actually begin to acknowledge the progress that has been made and also learn a little history about nationbuilding and counterinsurgency so that don't continue to remain ignorant and in the dark on such issues.
These sweeping generalities are what make it easy for many to tune you out. If you haven't picked up on it, the most reasonable people in the forum are usually the most respected (see: Yolland). All you do is try to infuriate the left.

Your posts are very predictable: you will be very long winded, so as to scare off the simple reader who wants a summary. And you will act as if you have many facts, to scare off the reader who doesn't regularly research the topic. That leaves you to challenging a select few, who you can sweep up into a category of "Democrats with their fingers in their ears." It's a formula that is effective in your eyes, despite the fact that you lack any ounce of respect from anyone on this forum besides the occasional conservative who will drink the Kool-Aid right along side of you.

If I were you, I'd start trying to have discourse based more around comparing sources and being willing to concede certain arguments as opposed to making generalities and re-hashing arguments that were already debunked.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:53 AM   #40
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
That's really funny, Sting. First.



Second, it is hugely obvious that the administration was guilty of cherry picking it's public reasons for going to war. Scott McClellan admits to it in his new book, Richard Clarke admitted to it long ago, but I'm sure we can all dismiss them both since they're, you know, no longer following the administration's hook, line and sinker.

You simply cannot look back on the way the administration sold this war and tell us with a straight face that they presented the evidence in a balanced way without leaning too heavily on any one angle. Your continued insistence that that is indeed the case only further highlights your willfull ignorance of reality.
Scott's a spokeperson for the administration and nothing more. Richard Clarke just appears to be a person with an axe to grind and has way to narrow a view of national security. There are plenty of people who claimed the Bush Sr. administration hyped the threat from Iraq in order to go to war in 1991. Colin Powell does not think the administration hyped or was intentionally dishonest about anything. To this day he continues to support the administration decision to remove Saddam from power as does the majority of the US military.
__________________

Strongbow 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 09:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×