in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ... - Page 16 - 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 09-16-2007, 01:08 PM   #301
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Well - they actually supported the invasion but lets say you're right - they would only bomb Iraq.

What would we bomb? Saddam? WMD sites? Infrastructure?

If we killed Saddam - it is now obvious civil war would have broken out and the resulting slaughter would be on a scale of Rwanda or worse (not to mention a Taliban-like regime probably eventually taking control). Essentially, the bomb-supporting Dems would then be responsible for unleashing unbelievable sectarian bloodhsed.

If you are going to bomb a country and leave it without leadership, protection, and resources - the humane thing to do is send in troops to help the civilians get back on their feet.

Oh no, i'm not saying that I would have supported an invasion had there even been WMD's. I would have definitely supported tougher sanctions, and would have definitely supported any other means besides war. And I didn't even mean that if we found WMD's the Democrats would have automatically supported the war. But the point I was trying to make is that yes, both Bush and Congress were pro-war. But Congress thought they were voting for the war based on the (now untrue) fact provided by the Bush administration that Iraq has WMD's. Bush on the other hand wanted to take out Saddam no matter what. That is the difference between the Democrats and Bush.
__________________

Infinity is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 01:09 PM   #302
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:21 PM
From these posts of hawks happily apportioning blame equally among the parties for this calamity in Iraq, one can only conclude that in fact, it is the far left, that has been the most correct on all of this from the beginning. I mean, the people who said Bush was an idiot and wouldn't be able to lead the nation into a reasonable war and had no plan and fudged the facts and manipulated the people into voting for him...well if you are apportioning blame to the Dems in Congress, I can only assume then that you would step up and accept that this faction is, in fact either blameless or the most blameless in the whole mess.
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 01:16 PM   #303
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Sorry, I was just confused by all those years where they were supporting air strikes, sanctions and thousands of sorties based on the facts that Iraq had failed to disarm and it had made links with Al Qaeda. Those policies were justified then on the basis of what they intelligence community was saying; I don't see how that line of thinking within a Gore administration would have changed after September 11.
Okay. Had Al Gore sent in weapons inspectors in late 2002 like Bush did, he first of all wouldn't have had them leave before their search was done. And he never would have gone to war with the no evidence of WMD's provided by the weapons inspectors. After that he probably would have looked for a connection with al-Qaeda or 9/11 and found none. And then he definitely wouldn't have supported a war with Iraq. ESPECIALLY since there were and still are bigger threats out there than Saddam's unpowerful regime.
Infinity is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 01:20 PM   #304
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama both opposed the war from the beginning. As in 2002.

There were 23 senators and 133 represenatives who opposed the war from the beginning.

Most of that oppositition was from the democratic side.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 01:25 PM   #305
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Okay. Had Al Gore sent in weapons inspectors in late 2002 like Bush did, he first of all wouldn't have had them leave before their search was done. And he never would have gone to war with the no evidence of WMD's provided by the weapons inspectors. After that he probably would have looked for a connection with al-Qaeda or 9/11 and found none. And then he definitely wouldn't have supported a war with Iraq. ESPECIALLY since there were and still are bigger threats out there than Saddam's unpowerful regime.
I don't think that either scenario can be stated with that level of certainty, but one may look at the actions of the previous administration to show that they were not afraid of justifying actions against Iraq on the basis of WMD and terrorism links. I suppose it is a moot point given that the world may get to see how that group would have reacted when presented with a Hillary Clinton presidency, I very much doubt she will be a dove.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 01:26 PM   #306
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,760
Local Time: 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Sorry, I think your thinking of the number that supports congress.



The dems are not advocating an immediate withdrawl and when it is handballed to the next administration they won't be able to do it, which is just chalking up one more aweful piece of politics for which the US only pays a fraction of the price for.
Draw Carey was on Real Time With Bill Maher, and he said that in an upcoming episode of The Power Of 10(which is a game show based on extensive polls taken of the American people), the question was asked, 'what percentage of Americans still support this war?', and the answer was 12%. Take it for what you will.

And as for the Dems not advocating an immediate withdrawl...that's just not true. It's just that Bush would veto any bill with anything of the sort in it, and the Dems don't have enough of Congress to override the veto, so it is an exercise in fruitility. If the Dems suddenly had enough Republicans in Congress willing to go along with it tomorrow, they'd have the bill written, they'd wait for Bush to veto, and then they'd override the veto with glee.
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 01:30 PM   #307
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR


Draw Carey was on Real Time With Bill Maher, and he said that in an upcoming episode of The Power Of 10(which is a game show based on extensive polls taken of the American people), the question was asked, 'what percentage of Americans still support this war?', and the answer was 12%. Take it for what you will.

And as for the Dems not advocating an immediate withdrawl...that's just not true. It's just that Bush would veto any bill with anything of the sort in it, and the Dems don't have enough of Congress to override the veto, so it is an exercise in fruitility. If the Dems suddenly had enough Republicans in Congress willing to go along with it tomorrow, they'd have the bill written, they'd wait for Bush to veto, and then they'd override the veto with glee.
They won't because it would give credence to the narrative of betrayal that has been crafted over the last year.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 02:01 PM   #308
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I don't think that either scenario can be stated with that level of certainty, but one may look at the actions of the previous administration to show that they were not afraid of justifying actions against Iraq on the basis of WMD and terrorism links. I suppose it is a moot point given that the world may get to see how that group would have reacted when presented with a Hillary Clinton presidency, I very much doubt she will be a dove.
Yes on the basis of WMD and terrorism links, I can see Al Gore going into Iraq. But not without those links. As far as Hillary goes, she won't be too dovish because she would go after terrorism if elected. But she won't be too hawkish because she won't go as far as invading non-democratic nations just to build a democracy. We have far too many other problems in the world to be worrying about spreading democracy. Neo-cons and their followers seem to think that with democracy comes an end to terrorism. But the two are not that correlated. There are terrorists in every single country, democracy or non-democracy. These are the people who are the real threat to America, not a nation such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

And how do we stop them? We need to get much tougher with illegal immigration. Right now, people don't seem to mind illegals from coming to the U.S. over the Mexican border. But has anyone ever thought that a terrorist can fly to Mexico and illegaly cross the border over the U.S.? Then we would really be screwed. We need to inspect ALL airplane cargo, ALL hand held luggage and ALL shipments coming into any U.S. port. These inspections must be done with the best explosive, bilogical agent, chemical agent, and nuclear weapon sensing devices. I know this seems unpractical, but we will need to spend hundreds of billions in order for this to happen. We would have gotten an enormously better Return on Investment had we spent the $500,000,000,000 on these tough homeland security measures rather then on building a nation in Iraq.
Infinity is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 02:10 PM   #309
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Quote:
Yes on the basis of WMD and terrorism links, I can see Al Gore going into Iraq. But not without those links.
The point is that the last administration was making those links then as justification for bombing and crushing Iraq. Where do you think that VP Lieberman would have stood on the issue?
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 02:17 PM   #310
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Where do you think that VP Lieberman would have stood on the issue?
On the wrong side, just like he's stood on the wrong side of everything else.
anitram is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 02:42 PM   #311
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,380
Local Time: 10:21 PM
I don't see a President Al Gore pre-emptively striking Iraq. It probably would have been the same saber-rattling, and wrangling over UN inspectors' access to the country.

A President Lieberman? Maybe.
Bluer White is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 03:30 PM   #312
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama both opposed the war from the beginning. As in 2002.

And I respect them for that. I certainly don't agree with them on most issues - but at least they didn't vote to send troops in Iraq then leave try and leave them hanging once the popularity waned.
AEON is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 03:40 PM   #313
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


but at least they didn't vote to send troops in Iraq then leave try and leave them hanging once the popularity waned.


You keep saying this, but you haven't shown any evidence that this has occurred.
BVS is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 03:52 PM   #314
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,380
Local Time: 10:21 PM
I can't think of a congressperson that would "leave the troops hanging." I'm sure plenty would vote for funding to bring the troops home, or to conduct a rapid redeployment.....but not for funding to further entrench us in Iraq.

The fact is that a vote against more funding is a statement about the war effort itself, not the soldiers fighting it. It may represent a change in position for some senators, particularly Democrats, but it's unfair to frame it as if they don't care about the troops.
Bluer White is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 06:32 PM   #315
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The point is that the last administration was making those links then as justification for bombing and crushing Iraq. Where do you think that VP Lieberman would have stood on the issue?
But that is what i'm saying. Al Gore using those links as a justification for bombing Iraq is different then George Bush bombing Iraq without any links and simply to "spread democracy." Al Gore would NEVER have done that.

President Lieberman? Yes I can see neo-con written all over him.



Bombing to "spread democracy."
Infinity is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 07:12 PM   #316
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Sorry, I was just confused by all those years where they were supporting air strikes, sanctions and thousands of sorties based on the facts that Iraq had failed to disarm and it had made links with Al Qaeda. Those policies were justified then on the basis of what they intelligence community was saying; I don't see how that line of thinking within a Gore administration would have changed after September 11.



doesn't the very fact that there was all this anti-Saddam rhetoric, and actions, all of which fell short of a war, from 1991-2003 essentially prove that no one thought the war launched by Bush was a good idea?

there's more than one way to "deal with" or "disarm" or support "regime change" short of invading with 150,000 troops?

there were rumors all through the Clinton years of the US having agents on the ground in Baghdad and working with anti-Saddam revolutionary forces. the policy then was regime change, only it was getting the Iraqis to do it for themselves with support from the US.

the difference is that Bush chose to change the regime using the US Army. and that's a big, big, big difference.

also, just how many Democrats have apologized for authorizing Bush to use force since 2002? all of the presidential candidates, except for HRC who has deftly avoided this.

also, just how many Democrats can reasonably say that authorizing Bush to use force, if necessary, was tantamount to giving him a carte blanche to march in whenever he wanted?

also, is it not reasonable to look at the Democrats in 2002 and say that they supported a policy that might have worked had we not had what is, hands down, the most incompetent administration, president, and sec of def in the history of the United States?

i find it very interesting how Bush-like this conversation has become. it's all very, "i believe on Wednesday what i believed on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday."

and you'll all notice that AEON is doing what the Republicans are trying to do -- wash their hands and avoid any responsibility for this failure.

and it is a failure. a REPUBLICAN failure. the REPUBLICANS have lost ANOTHER war. and it is the REPUBLCIANS fault.

never forget that. hold their feet to the fire.

they held the presidency and both houses of congress from 2001-2006. iraq is your fault.

so fucking man up and take responsiblity for it and admit that you've failed and stop being like a man without a map who can't admit he's lost. all this talk about supporting the troops and, again, they are just political pawns being used to create another natioanl security narrative, like they did post-Vietnam, to get the armchair generals and angry white men to foist all of their "we didn't lose 'Nam it was a TIE" shame onto Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 07:16 PM   #317
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White
I can't think of a congressperson that would "leave the troops hanging." I'm sure plenty would vote for funding to bring the troops home, or to conduct a rapid redeployment.....but not for funding to further entrench us in Iraq.

The fact is that a vote against more funding is a statement about the war effort itself, not the soldiers fighting it. It may represent a change in position for some senators, particularly Democrats, but it's unfair to frame it as if they don't care about the troops.




traitor. why don't you just come out and say you hate the troops and have your picture taken with OBL.



(see, i went past the protests in DC this weekend, and this was essentially the position of the anti-protest protestors, the "gathering of eagles," position -- if you don't think the troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely then you hate them and hate american and should just go back to Russia with Jane Fonda)
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 07:41 PM   #318
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



and it is a failure. a REPUBLICAN failure. the REPUBLICANS have lost ANOTHER war. and it is the REPUBLCIANS fault.


How exactly is this war ONLY the Republicans fault? You said the current Dem candidates that voted for the war have apologized - is that all you need? They vote to send 150,000 troops into a country smack dab in the heart of the Middle East and put the lives of millions of Iraqi civilians at risk, and all they have to say is "I'm sorry" and you are fine with that?

I am sure you are a forgiving person. That's a good thing. I would hope that same sense forgiveness and understanding would extend to the Republicans that were also deceived by the faulty intelligence Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have handed them.
AEON is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 07:47 PM   #319
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:21 PM
The only deception was assuming that the signals sent by Iraq to prevent neighbours from threatening them actually had weight. Saddam maintained some elements from weapons programs, had to make Iran think that he was armed and had the intention of rearming when sanctions where inevitably lifted - dealing with that would have demanded coopting him, allow Iraqi oil to flow freely provided that the slaughter by the regime was done on the down-low and Iraqi weapons weren't used against western interests; but that is speculation based on policy towards other rogue allies and the inevitability of sanctions being lifted.

The actions under the CPA, the strategic decisions during the first two years that enabled insurgency and sectarianism to take root and the politically motivated decisions that squandered opportunity are where real accountability should be held; and it doesn't fall at the feet of the dems.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 07:47 PM   #320
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:21 PM
AEON, would you honestly sit there and apportion "guilt" (for lack of a better word) at 50/50?
__________________

anitram 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 09:21 PM.


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